Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I actually think it kind of was something nascent that was hijacked.
I remember it beginning as something small coming more from the Ron Paul supporters. There were organized efforts in protest of the bailouts, executive bonuses, mortgage crisis and such. There was an online campaign encouraging people to mail tea bags to their representatives. That led to a few scattered protests in early 09. Somewhere in there, there was someone (a financial journalist?) on the mic at the New York Stock Exchange, calling for a new national tea party. I think that was the first time anyone used that name for it. It started to get attention in the right-wing media and develop some traction. By tax day that year groups like AFP and FreedomWorks had swooped in to take it national, organizing events/speakers and sponsoring buses to the tax day rallies. It hasn't been around three years yet, but it seems to me that they've been misguided by the corporate influence for upwards of two of those years. I still don't agree that they started the tea party, but they were their sponsors early enough to steer them away from their intended course. Nowadays, they just seem to be indistinguishable with the Republican base to me. I think they're just in some kind of denial over self-identifying as Republicans because they know the party they supported led us into our lost decade here.
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 12, 2011 12:38:09 GMT -5
no kdogg you missed the point but then again i am not surprised. The point being that the union leaders are all making a VERY VERY nice living. You missed the point when you refused to answer my question. Now, are you taking the union leader's compensation package or the corporate executive's compensation package? It's a bit hard to have a discussion with someone who won't answer your question. I am asking you this question again. Answer it. Honestly.
what part of UNION LEADERS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. WE ARE talking about unions and why they are BS right? Union leaders are getting the fat cat benefits...
in your 10 pages of rants you simply ignore over 30 years of union corruption, greed....Union Leaders they are all employed.....this has nothing to do with worker rights..has nothing to do with helping the middle class...it's simply the corrupt unions still trying to call the shots in a modern work force
Nothing like a union job. Dont bother working harder, dont bother trying to improve proceess...WE ALL GET PAID THE SAME based on how long we have been employed. Why do you feel these union members should have benefits that most in the private sector would only dream of
When private sector folks lose a job or their 401K tanks..what do the union members tell us.?? Sorry sir you need a new job..you should have made a better investment
Solidarity? fighting for middle class?? Where are the union leaders to support and fight for the private sector when over the last 4 years have seen their jobs vanish? Unions and their members didnt give a flying shit....NOW it's come home to roost and I dont feel any need to support a group of folks who didnt care about private sector jobs. So why should I now care about their job loss. Sorry guys the state is broke and your being over paid for the job you do that holds ZERO accountability
no kdogg you missed the point but then again i am not surprised. The point being that the union leaders are all making a VERY VERY nice living. You missed the point when you refused to answer my question. Now, are you taking the union leader's compensation package or the corporate executive's compensation package? It's a bit hard to have a discussion with someone who won't answer your question. I am asking you this question again. Answer it. Honestly.
Fine, I'll answer for you. You want the more generous CEO compensation package, but you don't want to admit it because doing so would be an implicit admission that the underlying problem is income inequality in this nation. You blow off my question because your answer doesn't fit with the talking points you've been spewing... and God forbid some damn dirty liberal actually makes you think.
what part of UNION LEADERS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. WE ARE talking about unions and why they are BS right? Union leaders are getting the fat cat benefits...
You're talking about union leaders and why you think they're BS. I think I've shown I'm willing to discuss areas where existing union contracts could/should be changed, but I don't think flaws in those existing contracts justify eliminating them entirely. If you actually read what I've been saying - which I doubt - you'd see that I'm not in total disagreement with what you're saying... if you'd actually make an effort to comprehend what I've been saying, which you don't seem to be.
in your 10 pages of rants you simply ignore over 30 years of union corruption, greed....Union Leaders they are all employed.....this has nothing to do with worker rights..has nothing to do with helping the middle class...it's simply the corrupt unions still trying to call the shots in a modern work force
This has nothing to do with worker rights? You truly haven't been paying attention. You seem to have missed the part where all the union employees were willing to give financial concessions, but not their collective bargaining rights. That right there ought to tell you about their priorities. I also fail to see how minimum wage, worker's compensation, maternity leave and the like haven't helped the middle class. Could you explain to me how zero members of the middle/working class, union members or not, have taken advantage of these things? Corruption and greed exist, yes, but to claim that a majority of them exist or have been perpetrated upon society strictly because of unions is simply absurd.
Nothing like a union job. Dont bother working harder, dont bother trying to improve proceess...WE ALL GET PAID THE SAME based on how long we have been employed. Why do you feel these union members should have benefits that most in the private sector would only dream of
You obviously missed the point where I said union contracts can create inefficiencies working towards a higher-priority goal (such as education.) That's not something you missed from the inception of the thread; this is something you ignored in my responses since you decided to poke your head in here. As I said, I am for greater efficiencies in our civil institutions. As such, yes, I am receptive to changing certain provisions in union contracts.
When private sector folks lose a job or their 401K tanks..what do the union members tell us.?? Sorry sir you need a new job..you should have made a better investment
Explain to me why the unions are responsible for the status of people's stock portfolios... because the last time I checked, this economic crisis was brought about by the supply-siders, Wall Street, corporate executives, banksters... in other words, those groups whose corruption and greed have actually inflicted harm upon society at large. Why do you blame the financial crisis on our civil servants?
Solidarity? fighting for middle class?? Where are the union leaders to support and fight for the private sector when over the last 4 years have seen their jobs vanish? Unions and their members didnt give a flying Leno....NOW it's come home to roost and I dont feel any need to support a group of folks who didnt care about private sector jobs. So why should I now care about their job loss. Sorry guys the state is broke and your being over paid for the job you do that holds ZERO accountability
Private sector workers still have their collective bargaining rights. The private sector is creating jobs; the public sector is losing jobs - largely due to states' budget decisions. I think it's rather callous in these tough economic times to not care about people losing their jobs, whatever those jobs may be and whatever the contract terms under which employment takes place. Why do you get to make it a point of criticism that unions (allegedly, according to your viewpoint) don't care about people losing jobs when you yourself say you don't care about people losing jobs?
Chicago, you're welcome to take part in this thread - as an active participant in an ongoing discussion. I do not think you are interested in discussion. You'll caps-lock your argument at me, but it seems you're putting your hands over your ears and going "lalalalalala" to any point I make contrary to your views. That is not an honest, open debate. There's a fine line between being a participant and being a troll, and I think you may have already crossed it onto the latter side. Opposing views are welcome here - if you'd read the thread, you would know yours are far from the first I've engaged here. However, I think it is only fair that those with views contrary to mine (of which I feel I have been responsive and receptive) also be able to be responsive and receptive to my opposing viewpoints as well. That's how discussion works. It requires reciprocation, but if you're going to ignore my questions and comments in stark contrast to how I've treated your points, we don't have that necessary reciprocation. If you're not here to exchange ideas, you are here to spam my thread - plain and simple. That is not welcome, in this or any other thread here. I'm sure most neutral observers to all this would agree that you're not interested in engaging in a mutual conversation here, but rather in harassing me and spamming this thread.
Now, if we're going to have a conversation, riddle me this (for the third time) or GTFO: Would you rather have the compensation package of a union leader or a corporate executive?
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 12, 2011 16:23:34 GMT -5
Would you rather have the compensation package of a union leader or a corporate executive..What does this have to do with the average union worker..he doesnt get a compensation as a uniopn leader or a corporate executive. I am still very unclear why you compare a union leader to a corp executive. Do union leaders run the business? do union leaders drive profit for a company? do union leaders create jobs?
NO union leaders sponge off the civil servants all the while not having a care in the world if the business can actually make a profit. It's ALL about the union leaders and them keeping thier power. Union memebers vote like sheep. They are afraid to change leaders simply b/c they will lose their jobs or be outed
some corp executives make serious bank..other not so much. So not sure how to answer the question other than I want the best pay and package possible.
I dont need a 3rd party to get involved between me and the company I work for. Sadly Unions have placed themselves in between a business that needs to turn profit and the employee that needs a paycheck. How about take all the union dues people pay and apply that to benefits ect.
My point still stands unions have crippled our nation. Sure back in the day they were needed BUT now with things like FMLA and ALL the work place related rules and regualtions that have been passed on the federal level more than protects workers rights.
Unions only care about being relevant. ever hear of GM chrsyler?? pergect example of how a union basically bankrupts a company. what happen to the workers they lost their job. what happen to the union leaders. NOTHING
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 12, 2011 16:35:59 GMT -5
You seem to have missed the part where all the union employees were willing to give financial concessions, but not their collective bargaining rights. That right there ought to tell you about their priorities. I also fail to see how minimum wage, worker's compensation, maternity leave and the like haven't helped the middle class. Could you explain to me how zero members of the middle/working class, union members or not, have taken advantage of these things?
These are ALL regualtions and rights that have already been passed by the federal gov't most of it under FMLA....union worker or not you can take these benefits..another example why unions are no longer needed
Why do you get to make it a point of criticism that unions (allegedly, according to your viewpoint) don't care about people losing jobs when you yourself say you don't care about people losing jobs?
you are a perfect example. You jumped all over the support unions bandwagon. Where were you when eron collapsed and people got messed over? how about when wal street fell apart and millions and millions in the private sector lost their jobs. I didnt see one single protest in wisconsin for these private sector jobs being lost. Union leaders and people like yourself simply chalked it up to sorry guys wrong company. better luck in the future. NOW that the unions leaders and union memebers jobs are on the line and their $$$ being effected we see mass protests at the state capital. These protests would hold more credibility if they took place a couple years ago when the private sector took a beating. Instead we only see union leaders and members and of course average citizens who have been told by the unions this is class warfare. Wasnt it class warfare in 08,09, earlt 2010 before all this union mess??? i'll answer it for you YES?
I would be happy if u stated I am in favor on the unions and will do anythin in my power to keep unions in place. But that's not how you come across. You state workers rights, class warfare...
I actually think it kind of was something nascent that was hijacked.
I remember it beginning as something small coming more from the Ron Paul supporters. There were organized efforts in protest of the bailouts, executive bonuses, mortgage crisis and such. There was an online campaign encouraging people to mail tea bags to their representatives. That led to a few scattered protests in early 09. Somewhere in there, there was someone (a financial journalist?) on the mic at the New York Stock Exchange, calling for a new national tea party. I think that was the first time anyone used that name for it. It started to get attention in the right-wing media and develop some traction. By tax day that year groups like AFP and FreedomWorks had swooped in to take it national, organizing events/speakers and sponsoring buses to the tax day rallies. It hasn't been around three years yet, but it seems to me that they've been misguided by the corporate influence for upwards of two of those years. I still don't agree that they started the tea party, but they were their sponsors early enough to steer them away from their intended course. Nowadays, they just seem to be indistinguishable with the Republican base to me. I think they're just in some kind of denial over self-identifying as Republicans because they know the party they supported led us into our lost decade here.
I actually consider the Ron Paul movement of 2008 and the Tea Party starting 2009 to be two separate things.
Most of the Paul supporters were younger, more technologically savvy to begin with, and distrusting of the major parties and their establishments. The current Tea Party is older in demographics, was propped up from the beginning by groups like AFP, is predominantly the Republican base to begin with.
The Paul base is also much smarter, yet a bit misguided. The Tea Party typical tends to be dumb as a brick in regards to politics and current affairs and pushes along Fox News talking points.
At the end of the day: July 12 primary election scorecard 7/11/2011
RECALL PRIMARIES
2nd Senate District X Nancy Nusbaum, D-De Pere - 65% Otto Junkermann, D*-Green Bay - 35%
8th Senate District X Rep. Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay - 64% Gladys Huber, D*-Mequon - 36%
10th Senate District X Shelly Moore, D-River Falls - 54% Isaac Weix, D*-Menomonie - 46%
14th Senate District X Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo - 67% Rol Church, D*-Wautoma - 33%
18th Senate District X Jessica King, D-Oshkosh - 69% John Buckstaff, D*-Oshkosh - 31%
32nd Senate District X Rep. Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse - 70% James Smith, D*-La Crosse - 30%
* - GOP "protest" candidate X - winner
We went 6-for-6 in today's primaries. The Republicans recruited and ran candidates from the ranks of their donors, former legislators, and staffers to force Democratic primaries against legitimate candidates. This partisan political stunt bought incumbent Republican senators an extra month in office and with which to campaign, which ultimately has cost Wisconsin taxpayers $425-450K. There were shenanigans afoot, which I'm sure I'll describe in the coming days.
The 10th district is worth pointing out. That is where Shelly Moore will now go on to face incumbent Sheila Harsdorf. I personally think that this is the race that will decide the fate of flipping the state senate to Democratic control. I must not be the only one. While most of the fake Democratic candidates were in the race merely to extend the process, this district was where Republicans went all-out trying to unseat a legitimate Democratic candidate in the primary. They still fell short by eight points.
I am cautiously optimistic after today.
Our office single-day call record was broken today. One of our interns had a 304-call day last week. One of our rock star volunteers, Sue, made 318 Get Out The Vote calls today.
I would love to go on, but sleep is calling and there's still work to be done.
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 13, 2011 13:47:30 GMT -5
Got to admire your conviction However I really hope you fall flat and lose out. It will feel great to have spent that amount of time energy and money to try and toss out the will of the people. I mean really wisconsin just had an election and the GOP won.
Now SOME (mostly union leaders trying to stay relevent) in a state that can't operate under "their" conditions want to backtrack the will of the people.
this is really a sad time for Wisconsin. Piss away all this money on a recall that will most likely fail and if it does whats next....recall the recalled..
I never liked the recall as it simply slaps the face of the people that voted in the elections. if you can't mobilize during the election then just wait until the next election. Seems like a complete waste of time and energy
even if the recall is successful Whats the real benefit? Union leaders keep their jobs and try and keep the same status quo in place as far as pay and benefits. It's not like this recall is going to have any postitive effect on the states bottom line.
Tough choices will still have to be made. I guess if the recall is successful the greedy labor unions will get to keep their jobs and the civil servaants their inflated pay and benefits..Sadly that will mean tax hikes ect for the entire state
Considering most on the pro-union side consider this "class warfare" I hightly doubt that by ousting the the GOP will most certainly mean a major tax hike. Afterall if the unions wins why should they concede a dam thing
In the end I hope this fails but teaches young kids the power of elections and how they should stand up for what they believe. I dont agree with you MR forward but I hop you learned a few things and inspired others to stand up
maybe next time you won't be standing up for tax increases in your state
Well, I was going to chime in here but I'm a bit behind on the discussion (meaning there are way too many points to cover at once) and Mr Forward seems to be doing a great job without my help. Hang tough, brother, and you Cheeseheads are making this Viking not hate WI so much. (That was hard to say.)
If there anything a Tennessee boy can do to help with these recall election, let me know. Unlike Chi..roo, I wish we had recall provisions down here.
Having the recall elections is a good thing, yes. I am very much in favor of all politicians having their feet held to the fire at all times. It makes for more responsible, responsive and accountable behavior on the part of our elected officials.
Don't let Chicagorooer fool you - there are actually people who support Walker who are willing to have civil discussions on the issues. They aren't the majority, for sure, but they do exist. My Uncle Don is one of them. We can go in-depth for hours, and actually hear one another out and give the other's viewpoints considerations without resorting to such incivility. The last time we had one of these conversations, there was a particular point which I brought up to which Don would not agree. I proposed the notion that seems like common sense to me, but to him was something of a controversial proposition: "Democracy does not begin and end on Election Day." It was my response to his suggestion that protesters had no legitimate grounds to petition their government for redress of grievances after the last elections had been decided.
I feel that it is an ongoing experiment. The existence of a democratic republic today does not guarantee that we will have a democratic republic tomorrow. Continued democracy requires continued vigilance on the part of the citizenry. Without such participation, our government can be sidetracked from being by, for and of the people.
That is exactly why I was out there. To accuse me of doing what I have done this year strictly, or even primarily, in support of public sector labor unions is to do a disservice to what I have done this year and why I did it. It takes an excessively narrow view of why I was out there, one that is nowhere near comprehensive nor accurate in its reflection of my reasons. I do not appreciate Chicagorooer's effort to trivialize and misdefine my cause.
As I stated, the existence of a democratic process does not guarantee further democratic results. The process can be subverted toward other ends, which is exactly what I think is going on in my Wisconsin and in other states.
Is this about the labor unions and collective bargaining rights? Yes. Is this solely about the labor unions and collective bargaining rights? Far from it. If this were simply about collective bargaining rights, I personally would be unaffected as I am not a union member.
This is about so much more than just the labor unions, though I make no apologies for siding with Main Street over Wall Street.
Yes, I opposed the move to take away collective bargaining rights; I oppose most any attempt by our government to rescind rights of citizens without good reason - be they collective bargaining rights or otherwise. I support transparent, open government; I oppose the Walker administration & his legislative allies violating open meetings law (as mandated by my state constitution) and closing the state capitol while public business was transacted (also mandated by my state constitution) in their initial attempt to pass this bill. I oppose voter suppression through enacting one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the nation, as I believe that one of the aims of democracy is to increase the level of citizen participation. I support Medicaid and the notion that the government is charged with ensuring the general welfare of its people - a notion that is contained within our national constitution. I opposed the failed attempt to sever UW-Madison, my alma mater & the flagship of the UW System, from the UW System. I oppose the transfer of state assets into private hands without a competitive bidding process. I am wary of our legislature making Wisconsin the 49th state to allow concealed carry without observing the best practices of the 48 states which came before us. I oppose their lack of respect for local control, as evidenced by tying municipalities' hands on property tax levies and pushing for a redistricting plan before local governments were able to draw up their own wards/districts - a legal prerequisite for the state legislature to take such action. I support dialogue in debates on our public laws; I have seen quite the opposite watching my legislature in action, seeing scores of Democratic amendments shot down without consideration - some of which might be considered partisan, others as common-sense as "Items of value shall not be exchanged for a signature on a recall petition" in response to the "Shots for Signatures" scandal.
Last, but certainly not least, I oppose the undue influence which wealthy special interests exert upon our political process. It is this which I oppose first and foremost, because I believe that it is from this circumstance which my other aforementioned grievances arise. Wealthy special interests contribute roughly 10x as much to campaigns as we the people pay "our" elected officials in salary. I fail to see how we the people can have our interests adequately represented with such an imbalance. These interests buy our politicians off before their terms even begin. They have built a network of organizations to enable their purchased politicians in advancing their agenda to the detriment of the public. They create and fund think tanks which inevitably and invariably state that their goals are best, despite their theories' failures in practice. They cite their self-funded research when their legislative organizations (such as ALEC) draft model legislation for their bought-off politicians to introduce in the various states. Their army of lobbyists informs the politicians indebted to their wealth of how to best support their agenda. They utilize myriad front groups, "issue advocacy" ads, Tea Party rallies & bus tours, and other methods to support their agenda - whether or not it may be within the public interest. Again, inevitably and invariably, their agenda is in conflict with the public interest.
It is by these practices which our current democratic process may not necessarily produce future democratic results. It is through these wealthy interests and their activities that our democratic process becomes subverted, threatening to turn our democratic republic into something otherwise.
The basic definition of fascism, as Mussolini put it, is the marriage of government and business. This is exactly what is going on in Wisconsin and other states before our very eyes. As I said, the democratic process can be subverted to create undemocratic results.
For the entirety of my lifetime, these wealthy interests have gotten everything they have demanded from our government. They have gotten every war they ever asked for. They got the trade agreements which allowed them to offshore their businesses, showing a startling lack of economic patriotism by not investing in the communities from which they profit. They have gotten favorable tax treatment, hiding behind the false claim that giving them greater wealth would lead to job creation. Our taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they have ever been; had their claims been true we would have a corresponding job creation boom. This has not occurred. Rather, their preferred economic ideology - call it "trickle-down" economics, call it Reaganomics, call it whatever - has funneled wealth upward in increasingly greater amounts. Their wealth has not trickled down, it has not created the jobs they promised, their economic prescription has simply been a complete and utter failure. A doctor would diagnose an accelerated rate of growth in a specific area of the body as cancer. If our economy is ailing, I propose that it is because Reaganomics has acted as a cancer upon it.
If our nation is on the wrong track, it is because the man behind the curtain has led our leaders astray from the principles upon which this great nation was founded. If this is indeed class warfare, it is not we the people who have perpetrated it - we are merely fighting back.
The marriage vows between government and business have not yet been exchanged, but the ceremony is underway. It's hard to precisely define the line between our existing democratic republic and a corporatist/fascist republic, but we are dangerously close to having crossed that line entirely. We are nearing the critical juncture where the fascist marriage is complete. Now is the time to speak now or forever hold my peace, and I refuse to do the former.
That is why I am, have been, and shall continue to be involved in this movement. The stakes are simply too high for inaction.
"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - The Declaration of Independence
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 14, 2011 21:36:30 GMT -5
I'm Glad you are taking this as a learning experience. Just follow the money. Who's paying for all this? Who has the most to lose if walker get's his way?
certainly most of the workers whether walker stay's in power or not are in hot water. recall or no recall union workers are going to lose out.
I do agree with you about special interest. However Not recalling Scott walker will have no effect on that issue.
I enjoy your passion but feel it's missed guided. Recalling scott walker may be the topic of the day but it's hardly going to have the influence you ranted about
I am trying to help you see the forest from the tree's. The union leaders have the most to lose. These are the people that want walker recalled for their OWN SPECIAL INTERESTS
Put up the good fight and I will be there right with you. Follow the money and who has the most to lose
So who really has the most to lose. UNION leaders...clear and simple. That's where all the money for this is coming from
no offense but it's difficult to have a conversation on the wisconsin issue when you are ranting on about Mussolini, Dr's
The people who have the most to lose by the recalls are the people intent upon buying state governments. The recall of Walker and like thinking politicians may not, in and of itself, change things but it will definitely put fear in the heart of those whose goal it is to wrest power from the people.
Union leaders did not put tens of thousands in the streets for weeks on end. This was and is a movement of and by the people. Anytime the people stand up and demand to be heard is a good time IMHO. The fact that WI politicians felt they could ignore them has brought about these recalls.
As for following the money, I would suggest that Walker supporters take that advice themselves. It is no coincidence that so many "red" states are simultaneously pursuing identical policies aimed at diminishing pay and benefits of the common worker while cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations during a time of record profits. These politicians have been bought and paid for. Just follow the money.
And for some to talk of ranting is a bit disingenuous as I am sure we can disagree on which side is "ranting." I feel bringing up an applicable historical reference (the self-definition of fascism) as it pertains to current situation is a valid point. But such is in the eye of the beholder.
Last Edit: Jul 15, 2011 6:59:24 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Funny how any breakdown of campaign donations, particularly in the most recent elections in the wake of the Citizens United decision, shows that corporations outspend heavily in comparison to the unions. If you're of the "follow the money" belief as you claim, I am confused as to why you support the side that is throwing more money into campaign contributions. Chicagorooer, I think I'm the only one of the two of us who will admit wrongdoing on both the part of the unions and the wealthy/corporate interests. The fact that you're so singularly focused on bashing labor unions after I provided a litany of other reasons I choose to be involved is telling.
As far as I'm concerned, blaming labor unions for our current economic crisis is tantamount to blaming Saddam Hussein for the World Trade Center attacks. A big part of me suspects that you fell for that BS hook, line and sinker - and cast the votes to back it up.
So tell me, Chicagorooer... who did you vote for in 2000? 2004? 2008?
As far as I'm concerned, blaming labor unions for our current economic crisis is tantamount to blaming Saddam Hussein for the World Trade Center attacks.
Totally and completely agreed. I think anyone who tries to blame labor unions for the late 2000's economic crisis is either completely naive and misguided, with only a very vague notion of how our financial system actually operates, or is in extreme denial and just looking for an easy scapegoat - either way, they've got their heads in the sand. Of course, it's so easy to just completely ignore all the ramifications of deregulation in the late 1990's, banks giving out mortgages and NINA loans like they were worth little more than the paper they were printed on, big businesses gambling on credit default swaps using other people's money, and all the myriad other total abuses of their power. To place the blame on union laborers, the vast majority of whom are earning a middle class wage at best, is so utterly idiotic and nonsensical that I can't even begin to try to drive any rational thought into the heads of the people who are claiming as much. Unfortunately logic, reason and facts are of little use when you're trying to argue with certain bull-headed individuals.
Phew. I generally try stay out of political threads on here, but felt I really had to speak up on that one. By the way, KDogg - Massachusetts stands in solidarity with you all.
Last Edit: Jul 15, 2011 0:48:00 GMT -5 by jack324 - Back to Top
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 15, 2011 10:31:16 GMT -5
I am def not singling out unions and stating they caused the economic problems. Clearly gov't spending and wal-street played a big hand as well
With that being said Unions have to realize the new economic reality. Businiess can't afford to pay out huge benefits and guaranteed pensions and inflated salaries. ALL of this is needed to keep the union fat cats at the top.
If you want to talk about special interests and buying votes that's exactly what unions are all about. Union members vote in blocks. The union leaders tell them who they should vote for and the members stay in lock step. Politicians pay off unions with special contracts and make special exceptions for them. See Obama care. many unions are excempt from the program. WHY?? well union leaders make sure their members vote a certain way
capt jack if you read what I said..the union laborers LOSE either way. It's the union leaders who are kicking their feet and crying b/c THEY NO LONGER WILL HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE
This is happening in many states b/c it needs to be done. Union leaders don't care about the profit of the business only that they get to keep pushing and pushing for greater benefits under the threat of a walk out or strike
Look around Unions all over are in conflict with business. NFL, NBA , UAW are just a few high profile examples.
I am not blaming I have clearly stated this whole wisconsin mess is union leaders that arten't willing to give up their power
Give it to the people..perhaps they should be recalling their union leaders as well???
I'm not saying that union entitlements didn't play some very minor role in saddling the gov't with more shit they have to pay for. But it's barely a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that's added to our deficit, and the deficit is but a small piece of a much, much larger puzzle. A lot of different factors went into causing this, just as a lot of different factors have had to go into solving it. But to single out unions versus everything else that played a much larger role seems very short-sighted to me. I will admit that there are some union leaders who make an undeservedly high salary, and that yes, there are some people who will try to game the system. But it's just a fact of human nature that some people will try to do that, in much the same way that there are some people on welfare who make little effort to look for work ("dole bludgers", as we called them in Australia). It's an unfortunate side effect of a necessary social net, but the costs of not providing that net for anyone far outweigh the costs of having to support a handful of people who might not necessarily deserve the priviledge of that net.
And for the love of God, will people please stop calling it ObamaCare? Considering how watered down the final product was, you could just as easily call it BoehnerCare. The Republican strategy was to say 'no' more often than a child in the terrible twos without providing any solutions of their own other than keeping the status quo (which is clearly not working), force Obama to compromise repeatedly until his healthcare plan barely resembled what he initially proposed - and then they still refused to accept it even after he met them more than halfway, which left him to cop the blame for a final result that was not terribly popular with either party.
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 16, 2011 22:48:54 GMT -5
see you call it a minor issue I call guaranteed pensions and free cadillac healthcare packages as the main reason gov't need to reform their relationships with unions. With baby boomers coming to age and of course the federal and state gov'ts pissing away money. The states can no longer honor those contracts
This happens all the time in private business. Oops we went out of business. oops we made a bad investment for your pensions.
The status quo is still better then Obamacare. Clearly when huge portions of folks are exempt you know their is problems.
Social net?? What do unions have to do with providing a social net? The gov't and states have passes hundreds of laws thay provide a social safety net. Everything from FMLA to discrimination to safe working conditions to unemployment, food stamps ect
These programs are already in place and thus I feel the unions are nothing more than a middle man in between a business that NEEDS to be profitable and workers who need to earn an honest wage.
Sure I will agree that unions had their time and place but now not so much
In the end recalling scott walker Isn't going to do anything to solve these issues. All is will do is give unions leaders a nice edge in cutting a "NEW" deal with the state.
Right now the union leaders have been stripped of their power and they don't like it one bit. I can't blame them. They had a strangle hold on labore for decades and anybody that didnt bow down to thier demands are greeted with a threat os a strike which can ruin careers and cost people their business.
Power to the people. Not the geedy union leaders who are no better then the politicians they seem to hate
I could just as easily respond to Chicagorooer's last few posts, but I realized I could do it entirely by quoting back to him things that he seemed to have missed others say the first time around.
Oh, and by the way Chicago, I'm still waiting for you to admit you voted for W whenever you're ready to 'fess up to it...
(I am linking y'all back to my "recall roundup" post from a couple weeks ago for reference since it might be useful here.)
The next month is going to be among the most hectic of my entire life. There's a lot on my plate this week too.
Monday and Tuesday, I am going to be going to Green Bay and beyond. Sen. Dave Hansen, one of the Wisconsin 14 Democratic state senators, is defending his seat in the first general election of Recallapalooza 2011. (There will also be two primaries in other districts to determine which Republicans will get to face off with Democratic Sens. Holperin & Wirch four weeks later.) One of my fellow leads team members at the Madison office has been doing field work for the past week in one of the rural towns along the border with Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and I will be joining him for the big push these two days. I will be staying with a stranger in supporter housing; I can't say "total stranger" because he was given my number and we spoke briefly tonight. I have what I wouldn't be surprised to be in excess of one hundred pounds of campaign literature from the Madison office to take up with me. I've got a feeling there's also going to be a victory celebration in Green Bay on Tuesday night. It won't be the first one I've attended this year.
Wednesday is back to business at usual at the office in Madison. I imagine there will be significantly more high-fives exchanged than usual. Wednesday is also the night of the Democracy Addicts meetup, where many of us activist citizens get together to discuss, strategize and - last but certainly not least - have some beers. It's technically a monthly thing with the "official" gathering every third Wednesday - as it is this week - but in actuality it's grown into a weekly thing at this point.
Thursday is usually my night off, but with the switch enabling Tuesday off I will be working. I am hoping that I can finish my errands in time to drive out to the Milwaukee area and help out the Sandy Pasch campaign before work. We have a sister office in Milwaukee which does the same thing we do, with a focus on their geographically-closer recall districts. Sandy's arguably my favorite of our candidates (it's her or Jess King) and I recently discovered that the organizer running her operation is a guy I've known for years. I also have some newfound optimism in even this race. This is what I said about this race almost exactly two weeks ago:
8th: Sen. Alberta Darling vs. Rep. Sandy Pasch The 8th senate district is north of Milwaukee, an area rather friendly to Republicans as far as senate districts go. This is the district where a man collecting recall signatures was physically assaulted, after all. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there were even enough signatures to recall Darling to begin with considering the political landscape in that part of the state. Darling is a co-chair of the legislature's Joint Finance Committee, which means she had a big part of the legislature's role in rushing through so much of Walker's agenda. Hers is one of the scalps we would most like to collect in this wave of recalls, but nobody is holding their breath waiting on it for it to happen. That's a shame, because our candidate Rep. Sandy Pasch - currently serving her second term in the Assembly - seems like an amazing woman and candidate. Before being elected, she was both a nurse and assistant professor of nursing, holding master's degrees in both psychiatric nursing and bioethics. All that, and she still had time to raise three kids.
Now - after beginning this race two months ago down by double digits - Sandy Pasch is polling ahead by one point in this race with room to grow ;D
Friday is my double-duty day which goes for roughly 16-18 hours; I do the internship and I work until 2am.
This Saturday will be the only day between now and August 17th where I am not obligated to office, work, or both. I have a wedding to attend, which I suspect will be awesome. My friends have rented a small "old movie theater turned music venue" for both the ceremony and reception, and the ceremony will be performed by Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. That alone has me excited, but there will also be friends attending from out of state (the couple who are a perennial part of my Bonnaroo group, in fact.) They sent us Ian's Pizza while we were occupying the capitol, and I'm tempted to give them a quick tour of the office while we're killing time between airport and wedding.
I know myself too well to know that I will be in no condition following such a Saturday to do anything for the field office on Sunday, so I'm only working that day.
Just to give a rough picture of my schedule for the coming month.
Mondays & Tuesdays the next three weeks, I'll be in the districts helping with recall elections (this week) and campaigning (the following two weeks.) I have to make good on my word to go up to Oshkosh and canvass for Jess King with Joanne at least one of those weeks. The other week, I'll either do that for Jess King or Sandy Pasch again, or hopefully find a place to crash so I can work the Fred Clark race in Portage.
Whatever those trips may be, they'll be followed up by intern & Democracy Addicts Wednesdays.
Thursdays will be my flex day, and will all hopefully involve trips to the nearest recall districts on behalf of Sandy Pasch or Jess King again.
Fridays are my double duty day; I expect that Saturdays and Sundays quite likely will be as well.
My birthday is two days before the final recall election, and I will be in that office making Get Out The Vote calls. More important than celebrating my birthday will be celebrating Flip The Senate.
Wednesday the 17th, I presume, will be the taking down of our office. I'm already dreading it, because I already know I'm going to miss that place and those people. Fortunately, I've got a feeling this won't be the last I see a lot of these great people - we've only just begun and expect to have a big 2012 ahead of us.
I will definitely meet up with my Democracy Addicts that night. It is fortunate timing that the best-attended "official" meetup is the day after such a significant day for the movement. It might be the night I can finally drag the guys in charge of the office out for a drink. I know on a personal level that whatever the outcome of all this may be, my appropriate response at that point will probably be to go on a three-day bender. That's just how we roll in Wisconsin.
Post by chicagorooer on Jul 17, 2011 9:31:39 GMT -5
Look, I'd like to take your opinion more seriously, chicagorooer, but your lack of care toward grammar is not helpin'.
This is a typical response when you have nothing else to say. Don't try and debate any further now lets question his ability to read and write. this tactic is being used again ste tea party and others. When you can't win the debate then try and discredit them
First it's danroo with the grammar remarks..then it's MR forward questioning who I voted for back in 2000 and 2004 in the presidential election. WHAT does eith of those comments have to do with unions running the state of wisonsin to the bankruptcy line? Nothing!!
If you want to discuss why unions are no longer relevant and look for serious ways to help wisconsin and others states being held hostage by a group of power hingry union leaders then fine
I won't stoop to that level. I could easily make comments on both of your appearances and state how can I have a serious conversation with people that look the way you do.
So if you want to have a healthy TWO sides discussion lets do it. However if you want to discredit people by appearance, who they voted for or grammar. That tactic is played out and not helpful
see you call it a minor issue I call guaranteed pensions and free cadillac healthcare packages as the main reason gov't need to reform their relationships with unions.
So do you think "reform their relationships" = "eliminate their existence"? Because that's what they are trying to do in Wisconsin. If so, don't soft sell it. The unions have accepted concessions but the biggie is that they need to concede their right to a collective bargaining. I for one don't trust that big business should remain unchecked.
However if you want to discredit people by appearance, who they voted for or grammar. That tactic is played out and not helpful
For what it's worth....
I'm going to state the obvious here, but it seems that we have no other way to judge you since all you posts here on Inforoo are tirades about politics while you use poor grammar.
If you became a more contributing member of the Inforoo community (ie. posting in other threads), we would take you seriously and treat you with more respect.
Hey Chicagorooer, Obama has spent a lot of $$, he has not created jobs, the economy is in the toilet, I am paying almost $4/gal for gas, and he has that socialized health care plan, why should we not recall Obama?
First it's danroo with the grammar remarks..then it's MR forward questioning who I voted for back in 2000 and 2004 in the presidential election. WHAT does eith of those comments have to do with unions running the state of wisonsin to the bankruptcy line? Nothing!!l
I've personally been biting my tongue in regards to your spelling and grammar, but you crossed a line here as far as I'm concerned. May I ask how I am supposed to trust someone who can't spell "Wisconsin" to tell me what's best for Wisconsin?
Your prior political positions, as expressed in the voting booth, do indeed have some relevance to this - or any - political conversation. It demonstrates which candidates and policies you have been willing to support in the past. Your past support of particular candidates and policies, with the benefit of hindsight showing how well your favored candidates and the policies they enacted actually worked in practice, is indeed relevant. It shows whether or not you supported courses of action which have or have not benefited our nation over roughly the past decade. It shows whether your BS detector is active and properly calibrated. I think you are extremely wrong to suggest that the subject of politics is verboten in a political discussion. The subject is relevant.
In the spirit of showing that it's relevant to our discussion, I'll offer up full disclosure first: 2000 primary: Bill Bradley in the Democratic primary. 2000 general: Ralph Nader (He had me at the platform plank "A corporation is not a person.") 2004 primary: Dennis Kucinich on the spring ballot with the Democratic primary; write-in for a McCain-Powell ticket on the fall ballot with the GOP primary. (Wisconsin has an open primary system, in which voters do not have to register with a political party and can thus take whichever partisan ballot they prefer at the polls.) 2004 general: John Kerry (I held my nose as I cast this vote.) 2008 primary: Barack Obama, in opposition to Hillary Clinton, after having traveled to Iowa & New Hampshire to support Bill Richardson's failed candidacy. 2008 general: Barack Obama.
For the majority of the past decade, our country has gone dangerously off course. I know none of my presidential choices got us into unnecessary wars or plunged the nation into economic crisis. What I want to know, Chicago, is: Did yours?
Some people have taken sharp and strange turns with political thoughts over the years. For example... me.
I used to vote for Republicans, I shudder to that thought now. However, I thought Bush was a schmuck and Kerry wasn't that great... didn't vote for a president in 2004.
I'm -4.something, -4.something myself... just a square up and to the right from the one in which you reside.
I spent the better part of my college years at -2 on the Libertarian/Authoritarian scale, gradually migrating from around -2, -2 over to -8, -2.
One of the best professors I had at UW gave me a push simultaneously towards the center on the Left/Right axis and further down the Libertarian scale. I had made it to the point where I was roughly -2, -4 until all this Walker business began.
Took the test while this thread has been going, found myself pushed two towards the left after eight years of steadily weakening on that scale.
The way I see it, the center of American politics is roughly the opposite of where I stand on the compass. If the center of American politics met me halfway, we'd meet somewhere around 0, 0. And I'd be fine with that.
Considering how watered down the final product was, you could just as easily call it BoehnerCare. The Republican strategy was to say 'no' more often than a child in the terrible twos without providing any solutions of their own other than keeping the status quo (which is clearly not working), force Obama to compromise repeatedly until his healthcare plan barely resembled what he initially proposed - and then they still refused to accept it even after he met them more than halfway, which left him to cop the blame for a final result that was not terribly popular with either party.
;D
