|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Wisconsin voters in this election were choosing between continuting the failed, irresponsible fiscal policies of the past that have led to bloated state payrolls and pampered, overpaid workers that have been sucking the life out of the economy and bleeding taxpayers dry and a very modest, and not-yet-large-enough reduction in the unearned, and undeserved pelf being stolen from taxpayers and shoveled into the fat gullets of union workers.
Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly increased their support of Walker from the previous match up.
There were no other issues in this Gubernatorial recall beyond the issues of cutting excessive government spending and cutting the excessive pay, benefits and power of unions in the state of Wisconsin.
The voters have announced that they want more cuts of government spending and more cuts in the still excessive pay and benefits of state workers.
State workers still earn more than 20% more than their private sector couterparts, on average, in Wisconsin (unionized workers are more overpaid than the average) and they perform far less work and little of value.
If Walker heeds his newly enhanced mandate, he will make more cuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
On the topic of democracy though, I'm glad that Greece is showing us today the danger of an over-spending welfare state, just as they demonstrated the basic principles of democracy long ago...
|
Yet, many other European welfare states are in better shape that the US.
|
Because they have oil.
northway is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't reference the Times. Our Democrat-loving media will only reticently mention union spending. $30 million vs $25 million is hardly 'obscene'. Walker won because of the "Ron Paul" factor: voters are tired of collectivist waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
On the topic of democracy though, I'm glad that Greece is showing us today the danger of an over-spending welfare state, just as they demonstrated the basic principles of democracy long ago...
|
Yet, many other European welfare states are in better shape that the US.
|
Because they have oil.
northway is right. |
Way to oversimplify. I don't agree with you politically in the least, but it's horribly disingenuous for the left to say that Greece's problems stem primarily from corruption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| He violated his mandate, yet the election had essentially the same results as in the first go around? |
The Republicans collectively violated their mandate. Walker got by largely due to a combination of a weak opponent, a large spending advantage gifted to him by his plutocratic constituents, and a very effective wedge issue (union benefits envy during a depression). In the Senate, we see otherwise. How many times in the history of the United States have the people of a state taken control of a legislative house away from a party in recalls? I believe zero, until now. You may think that meaningless, but I do not; ontheway may think that a party losing control of a legislative house over it's policy choices constitutes a mandate to continue with those choices, but I do not. You may begrudge the citizens of Wisconsin their political voice, but I am glad they have it.
As far as meddling goes, you individually may have had no impact, but outsiders collectively had a lot, both through huge monetary donations, and through deliberately-crafted propaganda.
| northway wrote: |
| I realize the gravity of what Walker did, and I had friends working on the ground in Wisconsin, but I still have to wonder about the precedent. |
No, you do not, because you do not live in Wisconsin. Your state can have its "hard choices," Wisconsin (which has always been a net contributor of federal tax money, not a federal burden) can have its more immediate accountability without affecting you at all, and everyone can be happy. There is no precedent here for you, or comm, or ontheway, or kimbop, or anyone else angrily stomping their feet at Wisconsin's political system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, relax. I made a minor comment that you're blowing out of proportion. Relax. I'm sure you comment on things that don't directly apply to you as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just want to say that Citizens United's influence is way overblown here. There's a certain narrative the Left wants us to accept. Yet, Wisconsin election law allowed Walker's lopsided funding advantage, not the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation's of the First Amendment.
| Quote: |
[A] quirk in Wisconsin law [] lets a governor in Walker's situation bypass limits on political donations.
Wisconsin law says candidates for governor normally may not take donations of more than $10,000 each. That was the limit under which Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democrat, operated in the recall election being decided Tuesday at the polls.
But as governor, Walker had a different set of rules. A somewhat obscure state law passed in 1987 says that when a governor is facing a recall challenge, the normal donation limits are suspended for "the payment of legal fees and other expenses."
"What doesn't qualify for 'other expenses'? Not much," says Bill Lueders, who directs the Money and Politics Project at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.
For months, Lueders has been combing through campaign laws, financial disclosures, expense reports and other primary documents.
"Tom Barrett does have to abide by this $10,000 limit on individual contributions [and] he has gotten, as of today, 26 contributions of $10,000," Lueders says.
But Walker had more than four times the number of $10,000 contributions as Barrett, he says, and because Walker didn't have to abide by that limit at all, he raised 111 contributions of more than $10,000 each � largely from outside of Wisconsin.
"Fifty-nine percent of his overall contributions come from people in other states," Lueders says.
And three-quarters of the largest donations � those of $10,000 or more � came from donors in other states. They include ardent conservatives such as Foster Friess of Wyoming, the best known benefactor of former presidential candidate Rick Santorum; and Bob Perry of Texas, who has given more than $4 million to Mitt Romney's superPAC, and in 2004 sponsored the Swift Boat ads that attacked Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. |
You can see that in a Wisconsin recall, the incumbent governor has a huge fundraising advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
On the topic of democracy though, I'm glad that Greece is showing us today the danger of an over-spending welfare state, just as they demonstrated the basic principles of democracy long ago...
|
Yet, many other European welfare states are in better shape that the US.
|
Because they have oil.
northway is right. |
Only Norway does in abundance.
Why is Canada in better shape than the US? We are more "socialist" than you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Only Norway does in abundance.
Why is Canada in better shape than the US? We are more "socialist" than you are. |
Canada is another poor example:
| Quote: |
| With modern unconventional oil production technology, at least 10% of these deposits, or about 170 billion barrels (27�109�m3) were considered to be economically recoverable at 2006 prices, making Canada's total proven reserves the second largest in the world, after Saudi Arabia's</ | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
