The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:20:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32
Author Topic: The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown  (Read 58765 times)
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #675 on: March 10, 2011, 02:06:41 AM »

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.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #676 on: March 10, 2011, 02:07:26 AM »

The Republicans have shot themselves in the foot with this. The way they did this shows a total disrespect for democracy and the rule of law, is a textbook example of backroom dealing and forcing bills down the people throat, and the backlash will become even worse now.

Kinda like what happened with healthcare, am I right? Of course I can't be right though, I'm a Republican and the Democrats were just doing what was best for the country and the people!

That bill was up for over a year, and Obama actually campaigned on something very similar, not to mention the GOP proposals.

This wasn't campaigned on, not to mention they sidestepped actual laws, broke the open meetings laws.  Not to mention they flat out LIED about this having anything to do with the budget or the deficit.
You think making sense is going to get through to them? Hah!
Logged
Capitan Zapp Brannigan
Addicted to Politics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #677 on: March 10, 2011, 02:09:55 AM »

Never been on strike before, hope the weathers good. Tongue
What are the chances of a general strike at this point?
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #678 on: March 10, 2011, 02:11:34 AM »

Well, Democrats and unions might not have to wait long for the first fight.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/09/954600/-The-Most-Important-Race-in-Wisconsin-Now

Like the supreme courts in many states, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become highly politicized and is now controlled by the right wing, 4-3.  By happenstance there is a race going on that can change that balance.  A smart highly educated progressive, Joanne Kloppenburg is running against the self proclaimed judicial conservative schmo, David Prosser.  PvtJarhead ran a terrific diary on this last week, but in light of tonight's developments this bears repeating.  Most significantly the election is APRIL 5, just around the corner.  And it's for a TEN YEAR TERM.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #679 on: March 10, 2011, 02:12:38 AM »

Never been on strike before, hope the weathers good. Tongue
What are the chances of a general strike at this point?
Right now their saying to wait for the inevitable court fight so i'll go to work like i always do.
many will get the "blue flu" though.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #680 on: March 10, 2011, 02:13:52 AM »

Then they should do the gerrymander fast. Because if Dems manage the recall thing before that, their agreement might be needed for whatever gerrymander gets adopted.

What is the time line for the recall thing?  The Pubbies are doing the same thing of course. When might the interim election be?
It is about 2 months from the time the recall petition is filed (but that requires 25% of the gubernatorial vote in the district, so it is not easy).  In Wisconsin, they simply hold a new election,  including primaries if more than 2 candidates file within a party.  So it is not like California where it is a combination of referendum and new election without the incumbent.  The incumbent does not have to file, but rather has to actively decline.  Otherwise, it could force the Democrats to come back into the state.

So it is conceivable that the recall elections could be strung out over time as petitions are filed.  In any case you are going to be up against the new fiscal biennium, and Wisconsin doesn't allow deficit spending.  You have three choices: raise taxes, and get vetoed; cut benefits; cut jobs.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #681 on: March 10, 2011, 02:19:09 AM »
« Edited: March 10, 2011, 02:20:53 AM by cinyc »

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?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #682 on: March 10, 2011, 02:22:28 AM »

How is this so difficult to understand?

A little difficult for me to take your word on it being a fair and genuine effort to solve budget issues considering the way they keep talking about it.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #683 on: March 10, 2011, 03:03:45 AM »

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.
Logged
Mississippi Political Freak
ECPolitico
Rookie
**
Posts: 87
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #684 on: March 10, 2011, 03:56:18 AM »
« Edited: March 10, 2011, 04:04:10 AM by Mississippi Political Freak »

Ah, so the Republican power grab is complete. Corporations will now have complete control of the political system. Hooray! What a great day for America! Roll Eyes

For the liberal/left-leaning posters here, I'd like to raise a few questions:

1. Are the Pubbies (especially the tea-party types) yearning for a new, permanent Gilded Age where corporations and other moneyed business interests would run amok in fulfillment of their vision of unbridled free enterprise?

2. Are many Pubbies in these days free-market fundamentalists that believes in absolutely NO government role in promoting economic justice and public well-being (except for providing national security/maintaining local law-and-order)?

3. Why the Pubbies seems to be way more Machiavellian when they take over state legislatures and governorships then the Dems, and bent on promoting polarizing wedge issues instead of serious governance? (I'm not saying Dems are innocent, but they seems to be a tad more interested in real governance)

Hope that someone can give insights on the above issues.  thanks!

(Disclaimer: My questions above are explicitly aimed at the liberal posters.  For conservative/libertarian posters, please ignore this response  or at least provide serious counter-responses.  Thanks!)
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #685 on: March 10, 2011, 03:59:01 AM »

1) Yes.

2) No, they see a very important role for government, as a tool to forcefully transfer wealth from the lower and middle class to the corporate super rich.

3) Dunno.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #686 on: March 10, 2011, 04:28:11 AM »

I'll just answer 1, since I don't think Lief is completely right:

I don't think ALL of them know exactly what they're doing. The tea party types, like you said. I definitely think they're being coordinated by people who know exactly what it is they're trying to do, but they get their power by tricking people into voting against their own economic interests or by making sure people are ill-informed or constantly distracted. Fox News is the best way to do this.

The economic interests and goals these people have inherently represent a smaller number of people than the Democrats represent. The trick is making sure people don't recognize that. It's why people like the Koch brothers spend time and money manufacturing fake grassroots bus tours and corporate sponsored rallies and "movements." They have to maintain the facade that they have large numbers of people on their side. If that facade failed, it becomes clear that what they're doing isn't beneficial to the majority of people. It's essential to keep that with illusion and disinformation.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #687 on: March 10, 2011, 05:54:02 AM »

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.

An AG opinion won't save it from a challenge on state constitutional grounds in the courts, at least not necessarily. I don't see anything suggesting that courts have actually agreed with the AG.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #688 on: March 10, 2011, 08:55:34 AM »

What are you even talking about? They agreed to the cuts. That's all that matters.

It should be only about the budget, not your political wet dreams.

Hardly. Public service unions have spent 50 years establishing themselves as an extension of the Democratic Party. If they want to do that, fine, but don't be shocked when the Republicans don't like you.

Union existence has never been about the budget in the first place.

Ah, so now Krazy even comes clean and admits that this has nothing to do with the budget in the first place. Classic.

Remember kids: Unfettered corporate and millionaire money flowing unchecked into the GOP coffers = good Cheesy. A fraction of that amount flowing from middle class union members to the Democratic Party to counteract corporation and millionaire money = undermining the political system. Angry

Businesses and government having all the chips and power in determining salary and benefits (or lack thereof) = prosperity. Cheesy Allowing employees to organize to try ensuring they can have something approximating a middle class life rather than the profits flowing wholly to a handful of owners = economic stagnation. Angry
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #689 on: March 10, 2011, 08:58:15 AM »

This is a great day.  We need to abolish all public sector labor cartels and replace them with voluntary worker associations.    



Unions ARE "voluntary worker associations", genius. This bill basically guts them in the public sector as you purportedly support.

Go back to reading Ayn Rand and skip posting libertard slogans.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #690 on: March 10, 2011, 09:06:45 AM »

That money is coming from somewhere. Why could it not go into my paycheck instead of some politician's pockets?

Hmm? That's what I've been wondering.

The unions in many states can collect dues from any worker they want, even workers who do not want to be in a union. The unions then funnel that money into politician's pockets. Why could it not go into his paycheck instead of some politician's pockets?

They also enjoy immunity from antitrust. Any corporation other than Major League Baseball would love that kind of power.

You're failing to so the exact same argument applies to corporations. Why not let any money spent on contribution to political candidates be prorated to employees or shareholders and be "voluntary" for the workers or investors decide whether that money will be spent.

For all your bloviating about the evils of "union big money", Krazen, you're amazingly silent on the significantly larger amount of money spent by corporations and extremely wealthy individuals like the Kochs on the GOP. Are you fine with there being no counterbalance to that money.

Gasp! Shocked Wait! Are you saying that you oppose only union campaign spending because it goes to Democratic candidates you disagree with? And that means castrating them furthers your own political ideology? My goodness I'm shocked to find this motivation behind supporting this measure. SHOCKED I tell you!.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #691 on: March 10, 2011, 09:16:23 AM »

Walker and the WI Republicans had the same right to do this that Obama and a Democratic congress had to pass PPACA, and have the potential to face the same consequences.

No, the voters didn't want this when they elected them, but let's face it, many people voting for Dem Senators in '06 weren't thinking too clearly about health care reform. It's how our two-party system works, no actual platform commands 50% of the vote. If union members and their families lost touch with why voting Democratic 100% of the time would have been in their interest, this is the reminder that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We'll see if they can win back anything they've lost in future elections, the same way the tea party is fighting to win back the right to get pre-existing conditions back as a reason to deny coverage, etc. Game on, I guess.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #692 on: March 10, 2011, 12:11:31 PM »

You're failing to so the exact same argument applies to corporations. Why not let any money spent on contribution to political candidates be prorated to employees or shareholders and be "voluntary" for the workers or investors decide whether that money will be spent.

For all your bloviating about the evils of "union big money", Krazen, you're amazingly silent on the significantly larger amount of money spent by corporations and extremely wealthy individuals like the Kochs on the GOP. Are you fine with there being no counterbalance to that money.

No, it doesn't at all.

If I am a shareholder of Microsoft and I don't like it, I can sell my securities and be done with Microsoft for good. If I am a union member and I don't like the union, I can quit the union, but they still have the right to confiscate as much money from my paycheck as they choose to.


The rest of this is the fiction that public sector union pigs counterbalance anything. They don't. All they do is feed at the trough and demand more and more taxes on the working class, which is why Jon Corzine utterly gutted property tax relief throughout NJ even as unemployment was skyrocketing. The NJEA doesn't really care about what Walmart or any company does, one way or another.


The unions had no problem ramming through their own agenda in your own state. But I'm glad to see more crocodile tears from crying Ohio Democrats; it makes me laugh.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #693 on: March 10, 2011, 12:12:52 PM »

Ah, so now Krazy even comes clean and admits that this has nothing to do with the budget in the first place. Classic.

I never claimed otherwise. Don't like it? Tough, Democrats have been doing it for 50 years.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #694 on: March 10, 2011, 12:45:22 PM »

The rest of this is the fiction that public sector union pigs counterbalance anything. They don't. All they do is feed at the trough and demand more and more taxes on the working class, which is why Jon Corzine utterly gutted property tax relief throughout NJ even as unemployment was skyrocketing.

Workers don't have property, krazen.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #695 on: March 10, 2011, 12:58:58 PM »

Walker and the WI Republicans had the same right to do this that Obama and a Democratic congress had to pass PPACA, and have the potential to face the same consequences.

No, the voters didn't want this when they elected them, but let's face it, many people voting for Dem Senators in '06 weren't thinking too clearly about health care reform. It's how our two-party system works, no actual platform commands 50% of the vote. If union members and their families lost touch with why voting Democratic 100% of the time would have been in their interest, this is the reminder that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We'll see if they can win back anything they've lost in future elections, the same way the tea party is fighting to win back the right to get pre-existing conditions back as a reason to deny coverage, etc. Game on, I guess.

It is amusing isn't it? One side wants workers to have the right to organize, while the other side wants to deny the sick health insurance. It's sickeningly funny.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #696 on: March 10, 2011, 01:34:16 PM »

The rest of this is the fiction that public sector union pigs counterbalance anything. They don't. All they do is feed at the trough and demand more and more taxes on the working class, which is why Jon Corzine utterly gutted property tax relief throughout NJ even as unemployment was skyrocketing.

Workers don't have property, krazen.

Really? Then what exactly are people paying ~$10k a year in tax on?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #697 on: March 10, 2011, 02:03:55 PM »

The Dems bolted because Walker and the GOP refused to negotiate or busting unions.  The GOP claimed that this was about the budget, but this proves this was never about the budget or fiscal issues.  On top of that the way they passed it was absolutely nuts and was blatantly illegal.

As Obama himself said, "Elections have consequences".  Why on earth should the one party have to negotiate with the other if they control both houses and the executive other than potential fears of what will happen to them in the next election.  Pouting because the winners weren't willing to agree to do what the losers wanted them to is idiotic whether it happens in Washington or Madison.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #698 on: March 10, 2011, 02:15:08 PM »

The Dems bolted because Walker and the GOP refused to negotiate or busting unions.  The GOP claimed that this was about the budget, but this proves this was never about the budget or fiscal issues.  On top of that the way they passed it was absolutely nuts and was blatantly illegal.

As Obama himself said, "Elections have consequences".  Why on earth should the one party have to negotiate with the other if they control both houses and the executive other than potential fears of what will happen to them in the next election.  Pouting because the winners weren't willing to agree to do what the losers wanted them to is idiotic whether it happens in Washington or Madison.

Plus we didn't expect Republicans to just roll over and let us push through whatever we wanted (which of course they didn't). Why should we have to let Republicans have free reign in Wisconsin or anywhere else, especially considering what Republicans did to health care reform among other things.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #699 on: March 10, 2011, 02:24:39 PM »
« Edited: March 10, 2011, 02:27:21 PM by True Federalist »

Why should we have to let Republicans have free reign in Wisconsin or anywhere else, especially considering what Republicans did to health care reform among other things.

Because the Republicans have control of both houses in the Wisconsin Legislature and the governors mansion, that's why, just as the Democrats had the control of both houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House in 2009-2010.  This debate over how the majority shouldn't do anything without listening to the minority has sadly reminded me of how both parties treat federalism.  Whichever party is not in control of DC is always supportive of giving power to the States up until the moment they take control of DC.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.