That's not even close to my point. Let's go back to your economic ignorance that I addressed in an earlier post.
The temper tantrum starts getting violent... [video=youtube;9Cx77K8e3WE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cx77K8e3WE&feature=related[/video]
It didn't seem like that was his point at all. It may be what you think, and I think you may have something there, but that article was mainly saying that protesting after the voters have spoken is undemocratic.
Ah, there's nothing quite as objective as our media... http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/opinion-whitewashing-wisconsin-s-protests/
Well, well, well, it looks like some government officials were colluding with unions. Doesn't the idea of bargaining--at it's core--mean that it has to be adversarial? Here, both sides are sitting on the same side of the table. http://powip.com/2011/03/madison-mayor-colluded-with-unions/ Man, if there isn't a better reason to outlaw public unions, I can't think of one.
You're right. There's no reason to outlaw public unions. There's no collusion indicated here. Simply a mayor legally trying to keep his schools running smoothly and his credibility as a politician from being smeared by a governor who steals from teachers to enrich the uber-wealthy donors who own him. Already documented is the fact that Wisconsin's financial woes were caused by massive tax cuts and bloated state contracts gifted by the gov to the gov's donors. The teachers are but strawmen in this melodrama. Anyone truly concerned about financial responsibility in Wisconsin's government would be screaming for his head, rather than assuring their kids grow up even dumber than their parents already have.
The financial impact of the Wisconsin battle from the only perspective the unions and the Democrats care about: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/u...ousands-of-dollars-annually-new-report-shows/ Don't kid yourself that this is a battle for the rank and file. This is a battle for union bosses and political cronies.
Peggy Noonan clarifies the issue http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6175290387698846.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
I think Christie went about this the right way. Fact of the matter is, most of America, as well as Wisconsinites are for letting unions have collective bargaining agreements. Even the conservative pollers at Rasmussen found that out. Apparently, the unions in Wisconsin are for paying more for their benefits. What they drew the line at was when the governor (who seems a tad fascist) wanted to strip their CBA rights. This is simply political. The layoffs, threats, everything is political here. Notice that Walker's approval ratings are ALREADY below 50% and falling. He won't last long, and this is the wrong thing the Pubs should have gone after after their momentum started. Things like this will turn momentum back to the left quickly (and it already is).
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...ryland---for-richer-and-poorer?xrs=share_copy http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...rer---teachers-and-wall-street?xrs=share_copy These two are really good videos from Jon Stewart. I encourage the open minded Republicans (BrianfromWA, DennyCrane, etc...) to watch this. The second one is VERY interesting. A lot of the rhetoric out there reminds me of a word from one of my favorite novels out there... "DoubleThink". Its all political, its not about fairness or anything like that. The same thing happened with banks after we bailed them out, and your answer depends on what side of the spectrum your political views fall on. Its idiotic.
Again, all Gov. Walker wants to do is eliminate collective bargaining agreements for benefits. They can still collectively bargain on salary. He sees the ticking time bomb for pensions and is trying to create a permanent solution.
Why would he need to do this? If it is so unpopular, and the unions said they are already in favor of paying more for their benefits, why not just compromise? Its political, Maxiep. You should know this as well as anyone. This is ideological thinking at its finest.
The unions said they were willing to increase their contribution to their benefits this year to balance the budget. The long term problem still exists. It's taking an aspirin to relieve the pain of cancer. A more drastic approach is required. As for it being political, I disagree. Sure, it hurts the Democrats more than the Republicans, but that's only in the short term. The bigger picture is state survival. Look at these structural payments and tell me how these monies can possibly be paid. The larger problem is that collective bargaining in the public sector isn't adversarial. They're both on the same side. And giving more in benefits is both less visible and more lucrative. Salaries everyone can see. With benefits, you're making promises future lawmakers are going to have to address. It's like me taking out a loan and saying that my son will pay it back after I'm dead. I have no right to make that commitment.
Ok, tried to fix. The second link is linked to the correct video, but there seems to be a problem loading it on my internet. If it doesn't work, it is simply the next part of the episode after the first link. Talking about hypocrisy (mainly at Fox) about bailed out banks and salary limitations. Its genius, and I really enjoyed it. go to www.thedailyshow.com and click on the second video (middle one). It should be 5:12 long.
I'm glad you brought up the Rasmussen polling data. It was interesting. Remember, it's not like Wisconsin is a state split down the middle--it's still a deep blue state which is a real union stronghold. It only elected Republicans a way to stave off financial disaster. Look at the data behind the numbers. Walker won 52%/46%, yet the poll only had 45% of the respondents voting for Walker. In Wisconsin, 26% of households have a union member--one of the highest in the country. Yet in the poll, a full 30% of respondents came from union households. Also, note the difference between those in private and public unions. Frankly, I'm amazed the data wasn't more in favor of the unions. As for favorability numbers, I respect a politician who governs as he campaigns. Favorability numbers go up and they go down. It's temporary. Walker ran on a certain platform. He owes it to the people who voted for him to try to enact that platform. If he's a one-term governor, then that's the price he pays.
Interesting reversal to the way you think of Obama. Is it because his views don't agree with yours? (not being a smartass here, since you are keeping it civil I will do my best as well).
I disagree with almost all of President Obama's policies, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the results of his election. He's my president. A few of the issues I do have with President Obama is that how he ran is not how he has governed. He ran as a moderate who would reach across party lines; he's governed as anything but. Remember his first meeting with the Republicans where he stated, "I won"? I do. Why has President Obama lost the independents? Because they feel like they've been hoodwinked. The person sitting in the Oval Office bears little resemblance to the person for whom they voted. On the flip side, Gov. Walker is identical to the candidate that ran for the seat. The other issue I have is with the Democrats exploiting every possible rule to ram home legislation. From foisting 2,000 page bills in the middle of the night with no time for review before a vote, to using budgetary reconciliation when they didn't have the votes (clearly not intended for something like Obamacare), to not allowing amendments on the floor, to not having an open process to writing legislation, the last Congress ruled like a dictatorship. You'll note that the Boehner-led Congress has been run 180 degrees from the way it was run by Speaker Pelosi. The Wisconsin Democrats don't have the votes, so they're going to lose. That's our system of government. It can be reversed when the Democrats have the control the Republicans have now. The Wisconsin Republicans aren't trying to limit debate; they allowed 58 hours of it in the State Assembly. The anti-democratic forces are on the side of the opposition. They don't like the likely result of the vote, so they're taking the ball and going home.
