Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/wisconsin-dems-pushing-recalls-of-gop-state-senators.php?ref=fpb Trying to take out the trash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Serious question. Are those Democrat senators conducting any business while they're not in the state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Serious question. Are those Democrat senators conducting any business while they're not in the state? google.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 There we go with that "target" rhetoric that the left wanted an immediate stop of --- except when they use it. Because that's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Serious question. Are those Democrat senators conducting any business while they're not in the state? With technology today, should be no problem for them to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 With technology today, should be no problem for them to work. That wasn't my question. My question was ARE they working. Are they able to vote on other measures or do they need to be present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 That wasn't my question. My question was ARE they working. Are they able to vote on other measures or do they need to be present? They need to be present. And my understanding is that only one of them is required when the vote is related to a fiscal issue. If it's not a fiscal issue, the GOP can have votes all day long without the fleebaggers present. In the end, hundreds of people will be fired this week because of the Dems. Either that, or the purple people beaters will finally lay down a thumping on a GOP official like they almost did yesterday, and put everything in a tailspin for another week. It was pretty scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/wisconsin-dems-pushing-recalls-of-gop-state-senators.php?ref=fpb Trying to take out the trash "Scott Walker's budget proposal and its anti-public employee union provisions" Why isn't it call Scott Walker's attempt a fiscal responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Serious question. Are those Democrat senators conducting any business while they're not in the state? Smaller less active government you should be all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Smaller less active government you should be all for it. You left out one little detail..........THEY'RE STILL GETTING PAID! Smaller doesn't just mean less intrusive. It also means it needs less money to operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Smaller less active government you should be all for it. I know I am. Hell, I'm disappointed that the federal government's not shutting down next Monday. You left out one little detail..........THEY'RE STILL GETTING PAID! Smaller doesn't just mean less intrusive. It also means it needs less money to operate. Yeah...but all money is the government's, and they're part of the government, so really they're just paying themselves, so it's all good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I didn't realize recall elections were for people who decided not to vote but later realized that they didn't like the results. This will be a GREAT way to spend state funds! :wallbash: Serious question. Are those Democrat senators conducting any business while they're not in the state? Yeah, after two weeks they came up with a great counter offer to balance the budget (rough numbers below): 1) Cut funding for some medical stuff for poor people - savings $50M 2) Change the law so WI only needs to have ~$20M in reserve instead of $50M (savings of $30M!) 3) Governor comes up with another $70M in cuts 4) Done! Great plan, no? I especially like #2 and #3. And this only covers the deficit for this year, not the $3B+ deficit going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 I know I am. Hell, I'm disappointed that the federal government's not shutting down next Monday. Wouldn't that be great! No government to bother us. We would be totally free and could just go jump and skip and do whatever we wanted . I know they call you a little dreamer Tom, but you're not the only one. Someday they'll join you and all the world will live as one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Wouldn't that be great! No government to bother us. We would be totally free and could just go jump and skip and do whatever we wanted . I know they call you a little dreamer Tom, but you're not the only one. Someday they'll join you and all the world will live as one Except for vital services(police, fire etc) It wouldn't phase me in the least. Imagine not having the federal government up our ass for a few weeks. That would be terrible. I would only agree to it if all the fed shut down. Meaning no one in Congress, Senate,House etc gets paid. Maybe then they would appreciate money more. Now if we just shut down the state of California for a while that would be double cool. Edited March 3, 2011 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 "Scott Walker's budget proposal and its anti-public employee union provisions" Why isn't it call Scott Walker's attempt a fiscal responsibility? Because it's an attack on unions. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Because it's an attack on unions. Simple as that. You see it as an attack on unions I see it as an opening dialog on pension reform. If you don't think that pensions are part of the state's fiscal problems you need to take your pro union blinders off. I have a very good friend who is living on public pensions and agrees with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) You see it as an attack on unions I see it as an opening dialog on pension reform. If you don't think that pensions are part of the state's fiscal problems you need to take your pro union blinders off. I have a very good friend who is living on public pensions and agrees with me. Opening a door? Please, his agenda is clear. Look like you are helping out the state all the while, busting the unions and hurting the biggest donor to the Democratic Party. I am calling it an attack because that is what it is. Funny how most polls show at least 60% disagree with his attack on Collective Bargaining. My pro-union blinders? I find that funny because the unions already agreed to paying more towards their pension and other benefits... EXACTLY what he asked for. Why can't he agree and be done with this? What is he gaining politically? If he is SOOO worried about being fiscally responsible why did he pass roughly $120 million in corporate tax breaks? I'm also sure your friend would agree that paying more towards their pension is the right way to go and it's done and over. Edited March 4, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Because it's an attack on unions. Simple as that. An attack on unions or the end of a money laundering scheme? It's just this simple: remove the mandatory requirement that state employees join a union and have union dues taken from their pay by the state, who then gives it to the union bosses. Remove that. Start there. How about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) An attack on unions or the end of a money laundering scheme? It's just this simple: remove the mandatory requirement that state employees join a union and have union dues taken from their pay by the state, who then gives it to the union bosses. Remove that. Start there. How about it? You really need to stop with the BS. ALL sides agree to contracts. How about this... if the unions have agreed to concessions why does he need to go further? That's right no need to. I do love stupid comments like "who then gives it to the union bosses". HAHAHAHA. Yes, people in the International offices are becoming SOOO wealthy. Fact of the matter is that membership dues are used in many different ways. They cover staff salaries, daily office costs, organizing campaigns, publications and other membership materials, etc., etc., etc. Political costs are covered by voluntary donations only. Nice article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/04/unions.history/index.html?hpt=C1 Edited March 4, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Opening a door? Please, his agenda is clear. Look like you are helping out the state all the while, busting the unions and hurting the biggest donor to the Democratic Party. I am calling it an attack because that is what it is. Funny how most polls show at least 60% disagree with his attack on Collective Bargaining. My pro-union blinders? I find that funny because the unions already agreed to paying more towards their pension and other benefits... EXACTLY what he asked for. Why can't he agree and be done with this? What is he gaining politically? If he is SOOO worried about being fiscally responsible why did he pass roughly $120 million in corporate tax breaks? I'm also sure your friend would agree that paying more towards their pension is the right way to go and it's done and over. So f'ing what? Of course his agenda is clear. I am sorry but government employees don't deserve special status. And they sure as hell don't deserve to create a situation that amounts to blatant bribery and/or coercion and/or corruption of our political system. Giving up money doesn't address the root cause of the problem. The question is: how did things get so bad, that the entire state is about to go bankrupt? The root cause of this is the shameful contracts that the politicians were coerced into signing. Or, face "100k people in the street". Year after year of that is the root cause of this, period. The collective bargaining changes are how we stop this same problem from happening every time the economy isn't booming. Giving back money doesn't solve that problem, it only exacerbates it, because it puts the unions in control of a process they should be nowhere near: politicians making budget decisions that are the best for ALL people in the state, not just the union people. After all, they are elected to represent EVERYONE. This isn't the USSR, where only members of the party get special treatment. Corporate tax breaks didn't bankrupt the state. The state was already bankrupt, BEFORE the tax breaks. The tax breaks are part of a solution to the problem. The problem that was created specifically by these unions. If you are going to argue cause and effect, it's helpful to actually get the order down properly. Edited March 4, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts