Lucky you!  Can we interest you in a trade?  Quinnoccio for Scott?  We'll even throw in Mike Madigan and his spawn.

Jerry

Quote:


    The people in Wisconsin voted already when they elected Scott to do exactly what he promised to do. And the unions don't vote, but they spend a hell of a lot of money trying to get elected who they want.

Mike

Edit to add

P.S. And the (taxpayer) money paid to public employees that goes to the union's choices, is not always the choice of the employee. They don't get to choose.

deltadarlin wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 7:01pm:

Not anymore.

I'd love to see federal "right to work" legislation.

It has been long traditional that the administration loses seats at mid-term.  Walker rode the flow, and it took many multi-millions for him to get elected 1.1 million to 1 million votes.  That kind of margin is not a mandate to dictate changes off-budget from his campaign.  He has not made the transition from the politics of campaigning to the politics of governance.  Long before 250,000 jobs are created from this upswing he's riding, he'll have created 250,000 dissenters.

It has not been good campaign policy demonizing corporations and mentioning their growing overbearing with political influence while in a lackluster economy, but with things changing on their own and now a degrading economic message to the middle class, there will be vote swings.  By minimizing unions, this will get the spotlight it doesn't want.

The tea party had a spending revolt tour in WI last fall.  Borrowing the patriotic expression of the original tea party and using that event to inspire followers they are doing the noble and brave thing in fighting for a cause worked temporarily before.  In December 1860, when S.C. was first to secede, the Charleston Mercury read this way: "The tea has been thrown overboard.  The revolution of 1860 has been initiated."

The expression can be used in any manner of sway for sectioned nationalistic purposes, but not for long.
 



Quote:


Quote:


I'm not seeing yesterday's action as any overt understandable promise to the people of WI who elected him, unless their was also another underlying agenda unmentioned, not budget related.  Things would have been different election day.  Nuclear?  I'd be watching for the coming fallout.


This is somebody doing as promised:

Quote:

Quote:


They actually haven't started on this one yet.  Still party politics.

Quote:

When the "opposition" is funded by the coerced "contributions" of the people there is no equality of argument.  Allow those same people the choice of contributing or not contributing and you will see a far different volume of contributions.  Then perhaps the unions will have a legitimate voice in this argument. 

I find it interesting that Wisconsin is getting all the press when you look at what other states are doing that are far more draconian to the unions.  Even MI has passed legislation allowing the local governments to void union contracts in order to right their budgets.

Jerry

Sorry, Charlie. Take another drink of kool aid.

Americans are starting to catch on to the 'us vs. them' attitude of the unions. We're tired of it.

Brew wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:11pm:


Sounds more like party politics talk.

Quote:




Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Passed 26 to 12 in the Senate on March 9, 2011, to add to the conditions that can trigger the appointment of an Emergency Financial Manager for fiscally failing municipalities and school districts, and greatly enhance the powers of EFMs. They would have the power to cancel or amend existing government or school employee union collective bargaining agreements and other contracts. School EFMs would have authority over academic matters, and could close schools. An EFM could also order new borrowing, or put a property tax millage increase on the ballot.


    Basically, if the school is failing, rather than just throwing more tax dollars at it, a non-union adult can come in and try to straighten it out. I have a great respect for teachers, but for a long time I have felt that their profession has been hijacked by the unions. It has past time for change.

Mike

Kevin_M wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:02am:

It is. Dems are in bed with union bosses, and they end up negotiating the contracts together, using public monies to fulfill the terms of the contracts. So they both end up singing the same song to keep the gravy train flowing.

What I still can't believe is how many of their members buy into it. Stockholm syndrome, perhaps. I guess we'll see soon since it's now law that membership and contribution of dues are no longer mandatory.

Brew wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 8:52am:


There's also corporate lobbyist sway with legislators, negotiating contracts, in which the return on investment doesn't reach down to many voters.

Corporate general contributions have an unlimited hand in support since last year with Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Motivation for legislation seems to be based on, who has the most money wins.  Anonymous, not specific, but vast.  Five milliion dumped in a race by Republican Governors Association for a state gets the better spin. 

Since about August 2008 that I've known of, simply defunding a party has been the game plan.  With the S.C. decision, unlimited funding available. 

Budgets are an extreme concern. 

Leaving a livelihood in the hands of corporate decisions has not seemed to be trustworthy.  Many people's memory of this lately has been to lose their job.  This is what still affects people at this stage.  Saying you are making a more fertile environment for business can be equated with discontented thoughts of lower wages when many are working very hard now just to pay bills, and for lower costs, business can make it even harder.  All they see is someone makes out, but never them, and this can comprise a large number of people who vote.  Most likely not investors either.

It's not that profit is wrong, it's just that they have no incentive to create jobs, only incentive to come to a state and make profits, foremost of course, the fertile environment.  It has been an employers market, hiring for less, and many see it to be ever moreso, which is what carries this beyond state workers.

There are many who are successful, but there is less room between good pay and minimum wage, the middle ground many are happy to have. 

Getting off the goverment payroll would be a great idea, if corporations had more of that middle ground to offer people.  As they've found, much can be done for less outsourcing jobs elsewhere, a lack of security has permeated thoughts of trusting corporations.  This is what unions opposingly have represented, security.  Too much is bad, I agree, we get into that Peter Principle thing too, but a good worker would like it to be felt a little more than experienced lately, and promoted on merit.  That era may not be coming back.  Meanwhile watching decisions promote the person who shows enough to fool none of the people none of the time except the people upstairs. 

Yeah ok, I'll trust that.