The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This thread is ridiculous. How many times are the two different fiscal cycles (with drastically different account balances) going to get conflated and mixed up before it is pounded into the thick skulls of our liberal friends, who are busy trying to pretend as if the progressive lala land of Wisconsin was in perfect condition financially until Scott "Hosni Hitler Mussolini" Walker got his groper nasties on the budget?

A tax credit for employement is an unnecessary tax cut for big business now? I thought unemployment was a big problem that Boehner was ignoring to handle abortion or Healthcare or whatever the latest complaint is from Pelosi? Is unemployment not a big issue now? Didn't Obama pass similar such tax credits in his various "jobs" bills? Measures which he will be damned sure to take credit for helping to turn the economy around.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?



Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.


If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?



Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.


If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

Poor wording on my part.  The budget deficit is going to be higher than thought a few months ago, much of that difference is due to Walker.  Its also not just spending increases, but more tax cuts for wealthy corporations.

I thought you guys considered tax cuts as spending? That is what I was doing here for your sakes.


There are three items that I have seen, totaling about 150 million to 200 million or something like that. How does that double a 2 billion dollar deficit?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

Now I know we have come full circle if liberals are making comparisons to Rome.

Rome had other issues with sovereignty beyond that, ones which I doubt you would want to make a comparison on to today's US.


They also had a flow of wealth out of Gaul, Italy and Iberia towards the Middle East, and the Han Empire of China. Gold for Silk (I realize its oversimplification of the trade system of 250-400 AD ) eventually leads you with a lot of useless fine clothing and no money. Plus the clothes wear out. Kind of like dollars for oil, today. This is why in 1000 AD the two centers of world finance (and ironically two ends of the same trade route) was China and the Middle East.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

Now I know we have come full circle if liberals are making comparisons to Rome.

Rome had other issues with sovereignty beyond that, ones which I doubt you would want to make a comparison on to today's US.

They also had a flow of wealth out of Gaul, Italy and Iberia towards the Middle East, and the Han Empire of China. Gold for Silk (I realize its oversimplification of the trade system of 250-400 AD ) eventually leads you with a lot of useless fine clothing and no money. Plus the clothes wear out. Kind of like dollars for oil, today. This is why in 1000 AD the two centers of world finance (and ironically two ends of the same trade route) was China and the Middle East.

For the first point, I guess a conservative could make an argument against immigration though the US is more structurally equiped to deal with it than Rome. ...and of course, there are slight similarities between terrorist attacks and German, Iranian and Arab raiders...mainly being that they are transient, short-lived and expensive events orchestrated by very desperate people.

Oil Shieks....Chinese silk traders?...Well, I guess this is another comparison with Rome that's in order, then?

Not against immigration but against Balkanization.

Yes the US is structurally equipt to deal with it but we aren't able to for a variety of reasons. One is racial tension, while another is the hightened sensitivity that scares politicians from touching this issue. When we have certain places in the US where the mere presence or sight of the US Flag is feared to risk a riot, I would say that we are far less united then America could be and far more vulnerable then a country founded the way America was should be. We need a non-racial, non-religious, and even for the most part non-cultural assimilation.

Rome was inherently incapable of addressing such a problem of diversity by the very nature of its structure. You had a city dominating the continent and claiming superiority over the continent and all of its people's. Yet as early as 100's AD you had Iberians and other non Roman and even non Italians on the throne. The US can address such a problem because its not founded on the basis of racial/ethnic superiority but on common values and principles that we should hope transcends all such divisions.  This isn't too say the US didn't have flaws (a lot of liberal posters are saying "ah damn, he had to put that in there and prevent my opening for attack" ). Of course the biggest problem is that the flaws clouded the message. And thus we have this potential, for a country that shouldn't ever have had to face such a problem, to potentially have to face it now.

As for the barbarians crossing the border in massed hordes. One must account for technology. A terrorist crossing the border, or coming in on a shipping container with a dirty bomb would be the equivalent of the Huns or Goths coming in the tens of thousands.

Yes, except also that Mercantilism is false so that there is a potential for dealing with such an outflow and that is for internal wealth creation to occur. This is something that an agrarian/merchant/craftsman based society of Ancient times couldn't achieve to a large enough extent, especially when you left vast terrorities empty except for co-opted barbarians (Goths) and you haven't developed any real technological advances that produce gains of efficiency.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You have a very short time to retract your factually incorrect statements and grandstanding before my opinion of you resorts to that of what it was a year ago for the following reasons:

1. WRONG INCIDENT!!!!!!!!!
2. unfair judgement and bias
3. Failling to notice who I actually laid blame for the racial tensions on (it wasn't the immigrant).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And this is why America is screwed people. We can't even discuss the damn issue without immature responses and over hyper-sensitivity based gotcha moments. Part of the problem is the arrogance of some many on this damn forum. And I even mentioned this in the original damn posts. Grow up people, and get this thread back on topic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And this is why America is screwed people. We can't even discuss the damn issue without immature responses and over hyper-sensitivity based gotcha moments. Part of the problem is the arrogance of some many on this damn forum. And I even mentioned this in the original damn posts. Grow up people, and get this thread back on topic.

Nah, I just think you're an idiot for thinking that the amount of racial tension there is, is somehow abnormal. When it comes to anti-immigrant tension, in the modern world this is completely normal. Nearly every western country on Earth besides Canada has or has had a culture of immigrant scapegoating and inflamed tension because of legal and illegal immigration. It's a pretty natural reaction but this time,as long as immigration doesn't stay so politicized which it probably will, the tensions should go away much quicker than historically because of mixed race marriage and rapid cultural diffusion.

When it comes to Blacks, well that takes absolutely no explanation. If anything relations are remarkably good for what has been done to their ethnic group over the centuries, it's only been a decade or two since rampant racist attitudes from whites have died out and yet we have a Black President. Strides are happening there. Black culture might be a little too insular but that's to be expected.

So overall, America is doing pretty average to well for a nation with our myriad cultures. It's still not the optimal situation and in an economic crisis without effective leadership they'd become violent and ultra-politicized very quickly. Oh wait, that situation is probably happening we're all f'ed!

I don't disagree with practically anything in that damn post, yet somehow you managed to squeeze in a personal insult. Just typical. You people need to read, not skim, and think instead of guessing.

I realize I ask far too much for this is a forum and people want to extract discussions where things really don't need to be including even sometimes, false paradigms and disagreements which is what half of these past few posts are. The others just a result of a failure of comprehension. And in the process we have a page and a half of stuff which nothing related to Wisconsin. I shouldn't have responded on all three comparisons about Rome but I felt oblidged to do so in a quick fashion to avoid any confusion about my first response on the matter, ironically to avoid this type of reaction later when some leftist inevitably stumpled acrossed it, read two words and went nuts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You have a very short time to retract your factually incorrect statements and grandstanding before my opinion of you resorts to that of what it was a year ago for the following reasons:

1. WRONG INCIDENT!!!!!!!!!
2. unfair judgement and bias
3. Failling to notice who I actually laid blame for the racial tensions on (it wasn't the immigrant).

1. Ok, fair enough, wrong incident. What are you talking about then and was it more of a big deal than the incident I am referring to? Otherwise I don't see how I was wrong in assuming this is what you were talking about. Maybe I was wrong in assuming at all, but one would have to assume given the lack of information in that post.

2. If you weren't talking about the incident I was referring about, obviously I have no right to call you a dumb (and calling anyone a dumb is well...dumb but if people were still bringing that little incident up....), and thus I unequivocally take it back. Though now I'm curious what you were referring to.....

3. Uh...you said the US has flaws. Is that where you were trying to lay the blame?

Actually one would think you are implying that the fact that there are places in the country where a US flag could cause a riot is symptomatic of  the problem and the people responsible for that situation should be blamed. I am still curious what the hell you are talking about but let me just say that I doubt there is any place in the US where the sight of a US flag will cause a riot. That is a ridiculous statement and I stand behind my words there.

1 Notice I didn't say cause a riot, I said "fear of causing of riot". Meaning nothing actually happen but a response was taken to the presence of a flag based on the fear (and somewhat irrational at that) that something (as in a riot) would happen. Clearly different from the events of the incident which you cited and slow, careful reading should have let you know that.

2. I am glad you recognize what your actions were.


3. No actually, the next part

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If it were a thread about racial tensions, I would have gone into detail, alas this is a thread about Wisconsin, not Rome, racism and rebellion.  Unfortunately that kind of has the effect of the business man "eliminating your position" for those such as yourself who would (and this case did) seek to extract details at any price. Perhaps I should say something controversial about Wisconsin as a sort of make work project for you poor deprived posters.

Your confidence in people is reassuring. If there are places where just looking at someone can cause a riot, I wouldn't say the presence of a flag definately would not in any place at any time in the US. One can never undestand fully what makes another tick.

By the way what was your opinion of me a year ago and why did it change? Have I been pissing you off less lately or something?

Also sorry for the threadsh**t but I wasn't the one talking about Rome and racial tensions in America in a thread about Wisconsin.

You don't want to know. Time and improvement in actions can heal "most" wounds.

Neither was I. I was just engaging in CYA to prevent something like this. I put more effort into wargamming a forum discussion then Walker did into what would happen in Wisconsin.  And I still got the protestors in Madison.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To the point on the ultimate legal issue of whether a supermajority quorum is required for all bills fiscal in nature or just some, there is a 1971 formal opinion from the Wisconsin attorney general stating that a bill altering collective bargaining rights isn't fiscal as it is narrowly defined by the relevant Wisconsin constitutional provision and therefore not subject to the supermajority quorum.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773153

Game.  Set.

Game set??  So its game set that Walker and the Republicans lied the entire time with the comment that this was about anything fiscal or budgetary in nature.  This has nothing to do with the deficit whatsoever.  So thanks for proving Walker and the Republicans lied their asses off.

Not to mention the whole breaking the open meetings law.

The full bill IS fiscal in nature, within the meaning of the constitution's super-majority quorum requirement.  The collective bargaining piece of the bill potentially affects budgets, especially county and local ones, down the road, but isn't swept up by the super-majority requirement.  Wisconsin courts have taken a narrow view on what is fiscal for those purposes.  Even incurring short-term debt isn't.

How is this so difficult to understand?

Thanks again for proving Walker and the Republicans lied their asses off.  They were the ones who claimed it was fiscal in nature.  They were the ones that argued it was a budget issue.  They were the ones that argued it was a deficit issue.  With how it was passed, its obvious that it wasn't.  So that shows that Walker and the GOP were lying their asses off when they suggested this was a deficit or a budget issue.  Its not and never has been, this was about Union busting plain and simple and was from the get go.

So you are saying the final arbiter of what has a budgetary impact and what does not, is the parliamentary rules of the Wisconsin State Senate? Do the procedural rules change the impact of the bill's language? When you consider that this was passed primarily for the benefit of "County and city" budgets, it is perfectly reasonable for a law being passed that could impact those one way or the other and have it not fall under the procedural definitions of a fiscal matter which are only in relation to state gov't budgetary matters.

When one looks at it from a purely factural standpoint, there is no lie in saying you are passing something to fix a fscual issue but address it through the standard process because it s not a direct budget issue under the procedures.

Granted your purpose is to score partisan points and trying to create a public outrage over dishonesty because no one likes dishonest politicians, of course. And on this front you are doing well, I might add.

And one more thing. Shouldn't the language of the bill and its likely effects determine its impact on the fiscal situation? I mean if one were to say something has no fiscal impact based solely on the procedure used to pass it, well one would be foolish to be surprised when they realize it in fact does have an impact.

Take for example a hike in the minimum wage. Common sense tells us that it effects tax revenues  from the income tax. However lets say it doesn't meet the definition of a "fiscal matter" in the State Senate procedures (not sure whether it does or not in WI). Does it thus not have an effect on revenues as I mentioned because it doesn't meet those guidelines?