The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Napoleon]

In wake of agreeing to the concessions, wouldn't that be unnecessary?

[Napoleon]

Do corporations get to be considered individuals still if the unions get dismantled?
This is rubbish and I don't even prioritize unions. You can't punish people for voting in their self-interest.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

Remember kids: Unfettered corporate and millionaire money flowing unchecked into the GOP coffers = good . 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.

Here's a list of the top 20 political donors from 1989-2010.  10 of them are unions.  But of course, their contributions are just "a fraction"of the amount "flowing" from "middle class union members" who are forced to join or pay the union regardless of whether actually want to do so.

And, of course, we all KNOW that "corporation and millionaire money" flows solely into GOP coffers.  Who cares if, as the chart shows, that's actually not true.  They fund both sides.  You have Soros.

I'm not too big on unions myself, they have only gotten what they brought upon themselves. Look at those donation figures! 98% to Democrats and 0% to Republicans, and then people wonder why the assault on unions is hitting hard right now. Even Goldman Sachs made a point to throw Republicans a bone or two. When you put all your cargo on one boat, you might well end up sinking with the ship.

It is funny that Enron is one of the most Republican leaning donors on the list haha.

[Napoleon]

Remember kids: Unfettered corporate and millionaire money flowing unchecked into the GOP coffers = good . 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.

Here's a list of the top 20 political donors from 1989-2010.  10 of them are unions.  But of course, their contributions are just "a fraction"of the amount "flowing" from "middle class union members" who are forced to join or pay the union regardless of whether actually want to do so.

Does that chart capture all the money that goes into third party advocacy groups, Republican astro-turf groups with big advertising budgets, etc.? How was the ratio after Citizens United blew the doors off any restrictions on corporations financing ads to elect people who will cut checks to them in office?

Good point, I thought it looked heavily skewed towards Democratic funding. I was wondering where all the Republican dollars were at.

[Napoleon]

It's really funny that the libertarians here all happen to be Republican hacks and oblivious to facts. It's as if eight years of George W. Bush wasn't enough government expansion for these kids.

[Napoleon]

If money made elections, Tom Foley and Linda McMahon would be Governor and US Senator right now. Oh, and Jerry Brown wouldn't have won by a huge margin in California.

[Napoleon]

If money made elections, Tom Foley and Linda McMahon would be Governor and US Senator right now. Oh, and Jerry Brown wouldn't have won by a huge margin in California.

It sure doesn't hurt. Otherwise corporations wouldn't be donating those amounts.

It's kinda stupid though. People won elections with less than half the money spent now only a few years ago. I don't get what's changed other than, well, more money. Wouldn't elections be just as competitive with $100,000 vs. $100,000 as they are with $2,500,000 vs. $2,500,000?

[Napoleon]

Caps make sense to me too, my only dilemma is for self-funding candidates.