Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One reason liberals get so excited about the protests and teacher strikes in Wisconsin is that they see this as a battle to preserve the power of the working man -- a noble cause and one many liberals take very seriously.
If you squint just right, you can see it their way: Republicans are fighting to take away collective bargaining rights from unions, who are responding with protest and solidarity. Of course, this blurs the crucial distinction between private-sector unions and government-sector unions. When it comes to stubbornly blurring economic reality so as to demonize your political rivals, you can often count on Paul Krugman.
In his column today, Krugman describes the unions as a "counterweight to the political power of big money."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Paul Krugman epitomizes the current liberal divorce from reality | Timothy P. Carney | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/paul-krugman-epitomizes-current-liberal-divorce-reality#ixzz1EiwiblHG - broken link)
Don't swallow some other writer's opinion of Krugman's words. Read them for yourself.
Here's an excerpt:
For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.
I'm dying to hear in the op's own words where the separation from reality lies.
The state has a deficit, the union is willing to grant concessions based upon that fiscal reality (the tax cuts we reserve for another discussion), but the governor wants more than that, he wants to permanently curtail the right of public employees to collectively bargain. What am I missing?
1. How about his Keynesian economics
2. Or his thories on the race issue to win political dominance of the South
3. Krugman's "growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush,"
4. Greenspan and Phil Gramm as the two individuals most responsible for causing the subprime crisis
5. He as unabashed defender of the welfare state, which he regards as the most decent social arrangement yet devised."[20]
I'm dying to hear in the op's own words where the separation from reality lies.
The state has a deficit, the union is willing to grant concessions based upon that fiscal reality (the tax cuts we reserve for another discussion), but the governor wants more than that, he wants to permanently curtail the right of public employees to collectively bargain. What am I missing?
How about makingit easier for indiviudal towns to negotiate instead of a collective agreement for all - how can individual towns have hte ability to navigate and protect me the taxpayer?
What about not forcing people to join unions and pay union dues if they disagree. Whay must there be a forced participation?
Don't swallow some other writer's opinion of Krugman's words. Read them for yourself.
Here's an excerpt:
For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.
One reason liberals get so excited about the protests and teacher strikes in Wisconsin is that they see this as a battle to preserve the power of the working man -- a noble cause and one many liberals take very seriously.
If you squint just right, you can see it their way: Republicans are fighting to take away collective bargaining rights from unions, who are responding with protest and solidarity. Of course, this blurs the crucial distinction between private-sector unions and government-sector unions. When it comes to stubbornly blurring economic reality so as to demonize your political rivals, you can often count on Paul Krugman.
In his column today, Krugman describes the unions as a "counterweight to the political power of big money."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Paul Krugman epitomizes the current liberal divorce from reality | Timothy P. Carney | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/paul-krugman-epitomizes-current-liberal-divorce-reality#ixzz1EiwiblHG - broken link)
Don't look now, but Liberals elected a candidate in 2008 to occupy the Oval Office. Liberalism IS reality. Deal with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's what Krugman REALLY said...
