CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The attacks on Scott Walker have been some of the most idiotic ones I've ever seen.
Wisconsin needs to fix their economy and spending quick or else things are going to get much much worse.
Scott Walker is very pro-union, always has been. the only difference is that he's not so pro-union that he's willing to let the State fall into chaos for the sake of making sure that unions maintain the disgusting amount of power they always have (or even worse, like his opponents, give them even more strength).
The people attacking Scott Walker have basically been lying to the public.
Not that Scott Walker is good, per se, but his opponents are liars and have far worse policies. Scott Walker seems to be a lesser of two evils.
It's another case of tranferring power and influence from the many, to the few.
The less power unions have the less power all of those workers within a company have, and the more powerful the very few stockholders have. I'd argue this small group already has more power and decreasing the influence of the many even further is anti-democratic.
The only difference is that Walker is proposing plans to fix the current economic problems in the State, and part of this is to not give the Unions more power.
He's done practically nothing to hurt Unions. he's done some things to allow healthcare associates to compete to provide for Unions, and even if it's unfavorable (which to his opponents trying to take power, they'll convince you it is), it would save millions of dollars for companies and public sector employers, which actually saves the very jobs that Union workers have.
The little amount of arguments directed towards Scott Walker can actually be used to show that the man is helping Unions.
He wants to eliminate collective bargaining and make Wisconsin a "Right to work State" which in effect, is eliminating unions.
Walker is not pro-union, he does not like unions. It would appear his goal is to get rid of them so his donors can pay people less money and fire more people and hence make more themselves and throw Scott Walker a bit of that for re-election. Least that's how it should appear to anyone looking at the situation and listening to the many audio bites of him speaking with different donors.
Wisconsin was not suffering any more than any other State prior to Walker taking office. In fact Wisconsin was doing better than many States. The economic problems which plague Wisconsin are a direct result of joblessness and the continued shift of wealth from the many to the few. Destroying unions would accelerate this flow of wealth from the many to the few and worsen Wisconsin's economy, not help it.
In fact when the last governor took office he was facing a 5.6 billion dollar deficit projection, and this had been on the way down before Walker's election, to a projected 3.6 billion deficit. He got a better economy than the guy before him basically. So why now must these unions be disbanded, when the size of the projected deficit had been, prior to his election, on the way down for years?
Sure, paying people less money and firing more people can help those who own companies and stocks. It does not help an economy though. Higher pay for the middle class and more people working helps an overall economy.
According to your link, the only few amount of unions that will have collective bargaining either limited or removed are a select amount of public sector unions.
Private sector unions are neither limited nor promoted by Walker's plan, so your statements about the economy itself being worsened because some public sector employees will no longer be able to collectively bargain with their boss (government employees as well) is a major exaggeration.
Not to mention that within your link, the source saying that Walker plans to "eliminate" any collective bargaining leads to a Wisconsin gov page that says "search not found."
Also, everything you said about donors wanting to fire people was not in your link... and Collective Bargaining Rights do not include being able to be fired. Public sector union employees are practically impossible to fire, especially within Teachers' unions.
As for your claims on Wisconsin's economy, the only thing I read on Walker doing any bad is that he isn't doing ENOUGH to cut spending, for there is still debt that no one knows how it will be handled, including Walker.
Overall, I liked your link. I'm wondering where your argument came from, though.
You use the word democratic like you don't know what it means. Having the government step in and regulate businesses is anti-democratic. In fact government mandated businesses is text book communism. It's funny how your entire statement is completely contradictory. "It is anti-democratic for the government NOT to step in and regulate businesses." Can't you see the entire statement is completely contradictory? Your argument falls flat on it's face.
Tampering with the free, capitalist system is anti-democratic. If you don't like your pay, go work somewhere else. If you don't like your business' ethics or practices, go work somewhere else. Nobody pointed a gun at your head and said, "Work at this specific place of employment or else I will blow your brains out." You chose to work there so you have nobody to blame but yourself. And what about the American dream? If I go to college and get a Ph.D, and start my own business, why can't I benefit from the profits? I worked my way up to the top, I should enjoy the benefits of the work that I have done.
The only person who has control over your situation is you. It's your choice to make as little or as much as you want. You don't want to go to college? Fine, but then be prepared to deal with having lesser wages than someone who has gone to college. That's your fault, and not anybody else's fault.
And I know people who have said things like, "Oh, but I'm not good at math or science, so I can't get a college degree." First of all, there is no such thing as being "good" or "bad" at Mathematics. True some people can be more efficient than others, but we all have the ability to be good at math. The real issue is whether or not you are too LAZY to learn math. This was proven by Dr. Jaeggi's Dual-N-Back study that shows that fluid intelligence can actually be increased. This means that there is no such thing as a person who is "bad" at math because that same person's fluid intelligence can be increased. So the real issue here is whether you are lazy or not. And most American's are too lazy to go to college or do a decent days work, so they don't get raises.
Like I said, it's your decision to get paid well or not. Just don't be lazy, simple as that. If you work hard enough, in time, you will be rewarded for your hard work. I've never known a rich man who didn't become rich through hard work, whether it was earning that college degree that helped him to become a CEO, or whether it was his determination in starting that business for himself. You lefty liberals should know this, after all one of your own, Kohl, used to own Kohl's clothing department stores. Kinda funny you don't call him a fat cat.
Well, what's worse, a business that allows child labor, or parents that allow their children to work child labor? And by the way, not all child labor is bad. My newspaper delivery boy is 13. Now, are you going to come to my state and picket sign the town hall saying we should make this illegal? Please let me know if you are so I can come and video record this. It would be the funniest video on Youtube.
When child labor was prominent they were forced to work 12-15 hour days, no time for school to ensure their kids in turn would be stuck working for the same company. Parents did not have a choice in the matter because companies were allowed to pay so little that it required all family members to work in order to feed themselves. Unions and laws dictating the amount of power a company has over its workers is the only reason this stopped.
The kid that delivers the paper is not skipping school to do so, and is not forced to do so because his family is starving. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is silly.
So is your lack of knowledge on the subject silly. First of all, the conditions in which companies paid them so little the whole family had to work was only in the instances of minorities, immigrants, or political targets (E.G. Irish, "Coolies"/Asians, or even blacks). When you really study the time period, you would see that there was much better conditions for even the WORST of the "regular people" as compared to the selected targeted minorities. Second of all, even then, this was rare; because, in order for a business to make money, it needed customers (text book capitalism I might say, that is if you have ever studied economics). So the majority of Americans were still paid well. Compared to today, this would be filed under the most extreme "inner city" conditions. And finally, most of America's economy was farming (I believe it was in excess of 60%). And yes, even though the children helped out on the farm, it was never really crushing work. So in conclusion, what you are referring too was something that happened uncommonly, and only to targeted groups or in the worst of the poor sections of cities. And I would call your bringing up of child labor a "straw man", but as you can see, I'm not a Democrat and I don't play games like that. ;)
1. That it was the children of minorities which were most exploited in no way lessens the negative impact and general unfairness of the practice.
2. Since it existed, and since unions are partially responsible for the end of the practice, it is not a strawman, but an example of a positive consequence of workers being allowed to have a say in the conditions in which they work.
I'm not a Democrat
So on average you have an IQ 5-10 points lower than me... That was the relevance of this right?
I don't play games like that. ;)
I wasn't playing a game. I was giving one example of why unions are important.
1. Let me use one of your own arguments against you. "You are putting words in my mouth and completely mis-representing my position." I never said child labor was okay. I said government shouldn't interfere much in corporations or tamper with the free capitalist system. And I didn't say private unions were necessarily bad, or that people shouldn't have a say in the conditions in which they work. And if unions were responsible for the end of this practice, then there is not much need for government intervention anyways. That's why our Founding Fathers went for a limited government. (I forgot who said this but) "There is no need for a government if the people can govern themselves." And don't mis-interpret me. I'm not an anarchist.
2. It is too a straw man. Notice I didn't mention once in my argument anything about unions. I was talking about how government shouldn't interfere with the free capitalist system, and how you can get the capitalist system to work for you (and why people don't want the system to work for them because they hate working in general). I suppose you couldn't come up with anything else so you shouted CHILD LABOR. You replaced my argument with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition. By definition, this was a straw man.
3. This is laughable. And I quote " iamdavidh's profile; About Me: Political party-Democrat" Funny eh?
4. I am going to college for a Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering you twit. That's four years of math! (Yes I'm going to college. Yes I'm just a kid. I joined this forum in order to practice my debate skills so I could be better prepared when I debate my classmates. And yes, I'm on the debate team.) I have really enjoyed debating with you. Your responses have been quite intelligent and I have enjoyed the challenge (and that you actually respond. Not many people keep up with an argument.) So lets not kill each other with ad hominem arguments. ;)
5. All right, I suppose you don't play games like that (sorry). It's just that so many Democrats do. I could post you the links to the forums if you'd like. On this one forum we were discussing clean energy sources (oh, and my apologies for getting off topic for just a little bit but). They had concluded that electricity was a clean energy source. So I said, "But what about coal power plants? They account for over 50% of our electrical power." To which I got replies of "STRAW MAN"! Bringing up coal power plants is just a straw man. Coal power plants ARE a straw man. I can't believe how ignorant you are to use a straw man like that. Stupid Republican, appealing to a straw man like that!" I couldn't believe it. And that was not the first time the Dems accused me of using a straw man for actual valid points. It happened multiple times. That's were I came up with my game playing comment. And see 1-2 for my comment on unions. (Oh and please don't get in an environmental argument with me. This is neither the time, nor the correct forum thread. You can look up the environmental forum thread if you want and then we can go at it. ;)
So yes, overall, I would say that he is not helping Wisconsin. He's really just an extremist Republican, so this debate is no more than a Rep v Dem debate.
I believe he is, but there are many who don't. Is is a pivotal race tomorrow. If Scott Walker wins, then Obama likely loses in November. If Scott Walker loses, then we are all screwed as Obama will likely win in November. It is like waiting to see if the groundhog sees his shadow!
Well, Scott Walker's been recorded in a meeting with one of his billionaire donors that he is taking a divide and conquer approach to getting rid of Wisconsin unions.
Most of his legislation has been aimed at weakening unions.
Nearly all of the donations to his campaign, which buy these commercials, are from out of state and large corporations that think they can make more money by firing more people and paying them less.
So, if you think giving a few people more money (heads of corporations in and out of state) while cutting wages and firing the poor and middle class is a good idea, then he's helping.
If you think people should be paid fairly, and that a strong middle class is essential for a strong economy, his recall is very much justified.
Well, do you really think government unions are good? Do you think that by pouring more money into the educational system, it will get better? It won't! This is proven by the fact that our nation's top schools are all PRIVATE. And how come the worst schools in America are public? (I mention this since the first unions he busted up where public teachers unions.)
And as for private unions, what's the point? Why do you need more money? How much money will make you happy? The answer is simply none. The fact is, the very thing you accuse the rich of doing is the very thing you do. You claim, "Oh the rich are just a bunch of greedy tight wads who can't let go of their money." But the fact still remains that YOU are just as greedy. To claim you are not would be a direct contradiction of what you are saying. People should be content with their wages and not be trying to spend it all on the latest smart phone, or 50" TVs made in China. If you don't want the rich to be rich, QUIT BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS!
And that's another thing. You greedy dummies are so greedy, you can't see your jobs going overseas because of your absolutely outrageous demands for more money, when you should just learn to be content. No you DON'T need a new laptop. No you DON'T need $80 Abercrombie jeans, the $10 ones do the job just fine. But no, you just spend, spend, spend, and on top of that spending, have the audacity to demand more pay. In fact, it's so bad, that almost half of Americans spend MORE that what they bring in.
And the left has this "class war" about how bad the credit companies and banks are treating people, when THE PEOPLE HUNG THEMSELVES. Nobody stuck a gun at your head, said "Go apply for this credit card and buy a 50" TV, a new car, and an unlimited smart phone plan." That was YOUR choice. Now YOU should have to deal with the folly of YOUR decision.
So is Scott Walker REALLY Helping Wisconsin? YES, he is. It's about time people learn to take responsibility for their actions, and STOP relying in the government to bail them out. Oh and I know what you are going to say. But big companies and the rich get bailed out too. Well whose fault is that? Tell me, whose fault it that? YOURS of course! YOU elected in a President that has bailed out every company for any reason from GM to Solyndra. So if you want to find the bad guy in this political mess, GO LOOK IN A MIRROR.
I am proud that Walker is finally cutting taxes and government services. It's about time people learned to provide for themselves and NOT to rely on the government.
Well, do you really think government unions are good? Do you think that by pouring more money into the educational system, it will get better? It won't! This is proven by the fact that our nation's top schools are all PRIVATE. And how come the worst schools in America are public? (I mention this since the first unions he busted up where public teachers unions.)
Private schools have more money. It would stand to reason then from your own example that paying teachers better and providing supplies does indeed improve schools. Why those we trust to teach children should get paid less than those we trust to pick up the garbage once a week is a mystery the right wing I don't believe will ever be able to explain.
And as for private unions, what's the point? Why do you need more money? How much money will make you happy? The answer is simply none. The fact is, the very thing you accuse the rich of doing is the very thing you do. You claim, "Oh the rich are just a bunch of greedy tight wads who can't let go of their money." But the fact still remains that YOU are just as greedy. To claim you are not would be a direct contradiction of what you are saying. People should be content with their wages and not be trying to spend it all on the latest smart phone, or 50" TVs made in China. If you don't want the rich to be rich, QUIT BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS!
You are putting words in my mouth and completely mis-representing my position, I never complained about the rich nor said people should not be able to become rich. I do however think that people should have every right to collectively determine their own worth in the workplace. No one forced unions to form, they formed organically and cooperatively from necessity due to unfair, dangerous, and underpaid working conditions. Fascinating how you immediately attack me because you imagined I was attacking the rich for being rich, but in the same breath complain of the greed of the middle class. Good puppy, go lick your corporate master's heels some more ><
And that's another thing. You greedy dummies are so greedy, you can't see your jobs going overseas because of your absolutely outrageous demands for more money, when you should just learn to be content. No you DON'T need a new laptop. No you DON'T need $80 Abercrombie jeans, the $10 ones do the job just fine. But no, you just spend, spend, spend, and on top of that spending, have the audacity to demand more pay. In fact, it's so bad, that almost half of Americans spend MORE that what they bring in.
And corporate CEOs don't need jets. What's your point? Despite rampant right-wing propoganda debt is not the cause of economic woes. In as much as it is debt is, which is little, it is more the result of a lack of regulation regarding housing and credit cards, but again, not the main problem. The problem is the vast majority of Americans, the lower 80% of us, are working harder for less money, and thus do not have money to spend on these things you mention, the buying of which is what drives job growth.
And the left has this "class war" about how bad the credit companies and banks are treating people, when THE PEOPLE HUNG THEMSELVES. Nobody stuck a gun at your head, said "Go apply for this credit card and buy a 50" TV, a new car, and an unlimited smart phone plan." That was YOUR choice. Now YOU should have to deal with the folly of YOUR decision.
Class war has been waged since the 80's when the top 1 to 10 percent began consolidating wealth as the rest have been making less despite working more. The difference is the left has the audacity to point it out and fight back.
So is Scott Walker REALLY Helping Wisconsin? YES, he is. It's about time people learn to take responsibility for their actions, and STOP relying in the government to bail them out. Oh and I know what you are going to say. But big companies and the rich get bailed out too. Well whose fault is that? Tell me, whose fault it that? YOURS of course! YOU elected in a President that has bailed out every company for any reason from GM to Solyndra. So if you want to find the bad guy in this political mess, GO LOOK IN A MIRROR.
GM is now the most successful car maker in the world and the economy has improved every single month since Obama was elected, this after seven years of destruction thanks to Republican bright ideas. Thanks to Clinton, a democrat, Bush, a republican, was given the best economy in U.S. history. Republicans squandered it, and now after three and a half years of steady growth you want to blame Obama? That's just retarded.
I am proud that Walker is finally cutting taxes and government services. It's about time people learned to provide for themselves and NOT to rely on the government.
You rely on government. Roads, schools, military, water, mail, etc. Many things only government can provide efficiently because for many things a for-profit system is not ideal.
Private schools have more money. It would stand to reason then from your own example that paying teachers better and providing supplies does indeed improve schools. Why those we trust to teach children should get paid less than those we trust to pick up the garbage once a week is a mystery the right wing I don't believe will ever be able to explain.
Wait, are you serious? You really think private schools have more money? Wow, OK, where should I start this. Well first of all, private schools don't have more money. I remember my school saving and scrimping for years just so they could build a new fine arts center (oh and yes I went to a private school). And even then, 75% of the money came from private donations. Second, if you look at how much public school teachers get paid compared to most private schools, well, it would give you a heart attack. In the school I went to, the teachers got paid 10-15 THOUSAND dollars fewer than the public schools in my area. Now I suppose you could argue that they then allocate the money for school supplies that would normally be used to pay the teachers, but they don't. First of all I had to pay for everything, from my pens, pencils, folders, and rulers; to renting out the textbooks themselves. Second, I didn't use any fancy electronics either (if I was even caught possessing a calculator, not even using it, I would get demerits. If I was caught using a calculator, I would get demerits AND a score of zero for the assignment. And the grading was fierce. I had to work hard to repair the damage done with a zero.). Instead we were doing trigonometric functions on graphing paper. In public schools (at least the ones in my area) they use expensive graphing calculators. And to make matters worse they also provide them with student laptops and even ipads. I didn't even own a computer until I went to college. And you have the audacity to claim more money (spent in student laptops/ipads and calculators) actually helps public schools? You are something else.
You are putting words in my mouth and completely mis-representing my position, I never complained about the rich nor said people should not be able to become rich. I do however think that people should have every right to collectively determine their own worth in the workplace. No one forced unions to form, they formed organically and cooperatively from necessity due to unfair, dangerous, and underpaid working conditions. Fascinating how you immediately attack me because you imagined I was attacking the rich for being rich, but in the same breath complain of the greed of the middle class.
All right, fair enough. I suppose nobody forces unions to form, and people wanted to oust the dangerous conditions of factories at the time. But don't forget, when our country first started, agriculture made for over 75% of our economy. It was only during the industrial boom of the early 1900s that factories became a concern. But I suppose I could also say you too are completely mis-representing my position. I never said, private unions are bad, I was just commenting on the greed of the middle class. You don't need a smart phone, and 50" TV, and a new laptop; those are wants. My main point was that government unions are bad. After all, would you want a police strike to happen in your city? Oh wait, that happened in Philly! Disastrous results, eh? Otherwise, good point.
And corporate CEOs don't need jets. What's your point? Despite rampant right-wing propaganda debt is not the cause of economic woes. In as much as it is debt is, which is little, it is more the result of a lack of regulation regarding housing and credit cards, but again, not the main problem. The problem is the vast majority of Americans, the lower 80% of us, are working harder for less money, and thus do not have money to spend on these things you mention, the buying of which is what drives job growth.
True, corporate CEOs don't need jets, but think of the jobs owning one creates. And you think that debt is not the cause of economic woe? Do you realize how scary a statement that is? Here read this and further educate yourself:
Many of the foreign holders of U.S. debt are investing more in their own economies. Over time, diminished demand for U.S. Treasuries could increase interest rates, thus slowing the economy. Furthermore, anticipation of this lower demand puts downward pressure on the dollar. That's because dollars, and dollar-denominated Treasury Securities, may become less desirable, so their value declines. As the dollar declines, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less, which further decreases demand.
The bottom line is that the large Federal debt is like driving with the emergency brake on, further slowing the U.S. economy. (Kimberly Amadeo, U.S. Economy Guide)
By saying debt is not the cause of economic woes proves you know absolutely NOTHING about how the economy works. And just buying doesn't drive job growth, it's buying things made in the USA that drives job growth. Because so many of our products say MADE IN CHINA, buying that isn't going to do jack for the US economy. But you already proved you don't know jack about economics when you said debt doesn't matter.
Class war has been waged since the 80's when the top 1 to 10 percent began consolidating wealth as the rest have been making less despite working more. The difference is the left has the audacity to point it out and fight back.
Don't forget the fact that it's savings that helps bail out economic problems. When the credit goes bad, and middle class starts defaulting on their debt, banks rely on those who saved to help out. Do you know what the savings rate of the middle class is? ZERO! That's right, ZERO! So I'm GLAD the top 1-10% started consolidating wealth so we don't go into another Great Depression. Oh and let me guess, your savings rate is probably zero too. And I don't think you realize how the capitalist system works. If you work hard you get paid more, not less. If it were the other way around, there would be no businesses, right? They need customers to exist. And customers need money to buy their products. So, in conclusion, if the pay was that bad, then logically, these companies wouldn't even exist. Oh, but they do exist, so the pay must not be that bad.
GM is now the most successful car maker in the world and the economy has improved every single month since Obama was elected, this after seven years of destruction thanks to Republican bright ideas. Thanks to Clinton, a democrat, Bush, a republican, was given the best economy in U.S. history. Republicans squandered it, and now after three and a half years of steady growth you want to blame Obama? That's just retarded.
First of all, GM was broken up and was sold to Russia, Canada, South Korea, and a few other willing investors. I hardly call this success on behalf of the government. And second, you call going from a AAA credit rating to AA+ and finally AA three and a half years of steady growth? Wow, if that's success, I would hate to see what you call failure.
You rely on government. Roads, schools, military, water, mail, etc. Many things only government can provide efficiently because for many things a for-profit system is not ideal.
Well, I went to a private school, so I don't rely on the government for that. Both my state's water company and electric company are privately run and owned so I don't rely on the government for that. I haven't used the post office for years (and besides, they close down offices by the hundreds each year) so that isn't very reliable. I just send my packages through private delivery services so I don't rely on the government for that. All you got against me are roads and military, which isn't really a point. Historically, all a government does is protect you from foreign attacks, and enforce it's civil laws. That's it. Everything else is icing on the cake if the government has the money. Our government doesn't have the money so these extra services should be privatized (which is good because I don't use them anyways).