Should There Be a Recall Election in Wisconsin?

[FDF12389]

The governor clearly takes his marching orders from the Koch Bros

Don't get me wrong, I am very upset with this, I had hopes that Walker would be a middle ground. Am I fine with the proposed bill as it pertains to collective bargaining and increased contributions? Yes. But what are the other 140 pages for? I'm looking into now, and while there are a few things I'm leery of, I'm not ready to write Walker off just yet. Time will tell me what I need to know.

 

[sandorski]

Have you ever thought of living in a country that is in line with your economic and social views?

Sounds like he does think about it all the time. I'm sure he hopes to one day say that he does.

 

[cubby1223]

as well as for his stealth, radical disastrous agenda.

He's crossed the line on having a hidden anti-public agenda. This isn't some new issue that arose in his term - he's been governor for weeks and clearly planned this secretly.

For a well-crafted agenda that is stealth, hidden and secret, you sure seem to know everything about it in full detail

And for the record, I am a part of the public, and I support the WI Governor's budget plan. He is not anti-me.

There are some things unions are good for. There are some things where unions are a pain in the ass. Governments all over the country, federal, state, and local, are all fighting unions to try and manage a budget, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat war. It's not a good vs. evil war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do not get mad at the bumbling Democratic Party.

What else would I expect from the petite bourgeois corporatist "liberal" party that masquerades as leftist in this country? Very few Dems I would consider comrades on the peoples side. Just happens to be less then the GOP (who have none in power at the moment)

I wrote in the WSUPS in 2008 being a Lefty Libertarian. I rarely vote Dem. (I voted for Kerry out of protest of Bush -my only time voting for either of the big corpdemolican parties)

I have come to reject the "liberal" traditional radical opposition to the (usually Republican) incumbent presidents (e.g., anti-Nixonism, anti-Reaganism, or anti-Bushism) the enemy of the working class is the entire exploitative social system based on ownership of the means of the production, not the presidents elected to run that system efficiently, as such opposition fosters the illusion of "better presidents" rather than an understanding of, and opposition to, the entire economic system based on an owning minority employing a non-owning majority to produce its profits.

So in your opinion who should own the means of production? If you say the state I would point out that the marxists were the last to do that and no one but them were very happy with it. In an imperfect world where people in places of authority are all to glad to use it as they see fit, what practical alternative do you suggest?

 

[OCGuy]

Sounds like he does think about it all the time. I'm sure he hopes to one day say that he does.

USA going communist just is not going to happen, so....

It's like a little girl wishing for a pony or world peace?

 

[Steeplerot]

Have you ever thought of living in a country that is in line with your economic and social views?

Nah, this one is fine. Wouldn't Somalia be more in line with your plutocratic views? Haul ass then! :awe:

 

[Steeplerot]

In an imperfect world where people in places of authority are all to glad to use it as they see fit

I am no Marxist-Leninist, as I have said many times. I am a left libertarian which has a much longer history in the USA then the more common libertarian term used nowadays. You would probably be surprised how many folks know the system is busted and learned a bit of US history not on tee-vee.
Ideas that are as old as the American itself.

Bakunin derived Libertarian Socialism =/= Marxist Communism the two despised each other in real life even.

To equate the two is uninformed, I know the mid 1800s political ideology stuff is obscure but know a bit before accusing someone on the left of being a Marxist-Leninist. It's like equating someone who reads books by Nietzsche with Hitlers Germany.

 

[Darwin333]

You really want me to define who the rich are?

Yes, I would. I would like you to define exactly who the "rich" are that will benefit, and become richer, from public sector unions losing the ability to collectively bargain for healthcare and retirement benefits.

The less the rest of the people in society have, the greater the share the rich have.

This is taxpayer money not some corporation or big business.

In the longer term this is counter-productive as the size of the pie is reduced, but in the shorter term the rich gain a larger share of the pie.

How the hell is the size of the pie reduced if the state has less long term obligations?

Yes, he was.

Outstanding.

That's a larger topic, but for one thing, there have been enormous changes benefitting the rich and changing our political system for the worse that can change that.

FDR didn't have a Washington with 36,000 lobbyists, a right-wing propaganda industry, a return to the huge concnetration of wealth he was reducing, etc.

He also didn't want the Pentagon to be a permanent center for the military. OK with that?

Are you willing to support his call for a second, economic bill of rights for Americans?

You can't possibly be implying that agreeing with a single idea or position means that you agree with every idea or position that person had?

And for bonus points, why exactly was FDR against public unions?

 

[Darwin333]

Shhhh! They only like FDR when he's against something they are.

Exactly which "they" am I apart of?

 

[soundforbjt]

Exactly which "they" am I apart of?

I'm guessing a conservative.

 

[OCGuy]

Yes, I would. I would like you to define exactly who the "rich" are that will benefit, and become richer, from public sector unions losing the ability to collectively bargain for healthcare and retirement benefits.

Don't confuse him by asking him to explain himself. NEVER question the evil-rich boogyman argument.

 

[sportage]

What do they pay in SS taxes, hmmm. Answer that one.

There you go.... pitting class against class.
Is it fair?
Are CEO's making 250 mill bonus fair?
Is raising the retirement age to 72 fair?
Is getting to listen to your iPod at work fair?
Is using the company pc to post on AnandTech while on the job fair?
Jealous....?

 

[jhbball]

There you go.... pitting class against class.
Is it fair?
Are CEO's making 250 mill bonus fair?
Is raising the retirement age to 72 fair?
Is getting to listen to your iPod at work fair?
Is using the company pc to post on AnandTech while on the job fair?
Jealous....?

it's hilarious, because he doesn't actually work. rofl @ easy IT jobs.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm guessing a conservative.

lol, a few threads back I was accused of being a liberal.

Whoever doesn't agree with your group of assholes just MUST belong to the other group of assholes eh?

I am one of those weird people that actually forms my own opinions, I don't fit in with nor am I a member of either club.

 

[thraashman]

As much as I hate shit like this that he Republicans are doing, I say let them do it. They're showing their true colors in Wisconsin. The give $27 million in tax cuts to corporations then do everything they can to squash the prosperity of the average worker. Recent polls show 61% of Americans oppose what Wisconsin is doing (even Fox News showed that poll ... after first showing it wrong saying that 61% supported it). In the next election cycle people will have been refreshed as to the destructive policies that Republicans push and We The People will get them out of office and maybe finally start fixing the problems in this nation.

 

[soundforbjt]

lol, a few threads back I was accused of being a liberal.

Whoever doesn't agree with your group of assholes just MUST belong to the other group of assholes eh?

I am one of those weird people that actually forms my own opinions, I don't fit in with nor am I a member of either club.

I should have said economic conservative, by the posts I've noticed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am no Marxist-Leninist, as I have said many times. I am a left libertarian which has a much longer history in the USA then the more common libertarian term used nowadays. You would probably be surprised how many folks know the system is busted and learned a bit of US history not on tee-vee.
Ideas that are as old as the American itself.

Bakunin derived Libertarian Socialism =/= Marxist Communism the two despised each other in real life even.

To equate the two is uninformed, I know the mid 1800s political ideology stuff is obscure but know a bit before accusing someone on the left of being a Marxist-Leninist. It's like equating someone who reads books by Nietzsche with Hitlers Germany.

I wasn't accusing in any sense. I was looking at options which have been widely used and the alternative to Capitalism has been Communism as practiced by the USSR and China (and yes I realize there are/were differences between the two).

The problem with human nature is that there is the tendency of individuals and groups to dominate. Those people seek control and power over others and minding their own business is foreign to their natures. Considering that nations have governments and governments by their nature exert control over the people by the enforcers of the law, government is the ultimate power. One can tell Exxon to go to blazes and that you'll not deal with them, but saying that you won't pay taxes because you disagree with policy? You risk livelihood and freedom.

Given the realities of the world as it exists, how would you implement your philosophy without resorting to substituting corporate power with governmental mandate?

I'm trying to understand your position, not reaching for trolling material. I'm just curious.

 

[XZeroII]

Do you people live in WI? If no, then your oppinion doesn't matter in this case. I live in WI and support the bill. The only real people who support it are the people who are prospering from it. Talk to any teacher and they will tell you that they never want to work in the private sector because their insurance is AMAZING and they don't have to pay squat for it. They also get a pretty good paycheck on top of it.

They are very over-compensated for a state that is in deep financial trouble. The democrats of the previous administration raided every last reserve the state had and when the money ran out, then governor announced that he wasn't running for reelection anymore. Our bonds are now rated one of the lowest in the nation and we have no where else to turn.

But none of that matters, right? Those people who work for the state shouldn't have to feel the pinch like the rest of us. State works should be a protected class and should be shielded from economic problems.

So unless you actually live here, stay out of our business.

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you ever thought of living in a country that is in line with your economic and social views?

Yes, they have, they're fighting hard to make ours into their bankrupt utopia.

 

[Genx87]

Just a reminder that spidey's wife earns a HUGE fucking paycheck from the state of kentucky, so take his bullshit with a grain of salt

I wonder if spidey would gladly have his wife take a big paycut since she's a "worthless public worker?"

You cant be this stupid.

 

[Zebo]

This is how such things work. In this country, workers organizing so they weren't powerless, each getting screwed and 'expendable', used to be a crime punished violently.

When workers got that right, it provided some balance to the owners' power and the middle class thrived, both those in unions, and not in unions benefitting from unions.

Unions are under attack for two reasons, one because the lower workers' incomes, the richer the rich are - in terms of short-term gains in percent of income and wealth.

Second, because the party of the rich, pursuing power for its base, wants to cut off the funding for Democrats.

The way these work is:

When unions are powerful and attacking them politically costly: Republicans pay lip service to them, while secretly looking for any way to harm them.

When unions are less powerful: Republicans increase the attacks and propaganda against Unions to make them less powerful.

When unions become a shadow of their earlier number and the Republican propaganda has made them a pariah among may voters: go for the kill. End 'collective bargaining'.

That's the stage Republicans think they're at. If it works, the middle class, already so weakened by right-wing policies that have redistributed huge amounts of the wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1%, will be even more gutted, largely reverting policies back to the gilded era before FDR if not before the 20th century - at the very time American workers face unprecedented competition from the global poor - a competition wanted by the rich who WANT to drag America's workers down in income.

Too bad for society, when the pie shrinks - the rich will own a bigger and bigger share.

That's the battle - the American middle class, versus a broken, poor, American oligarchy.

This has nothing to do with the good of the people or the fiscal health of government, and everything to do with Republicans pursuing monopoly power and restributing wealth.

There is no good reason for public employees to unionize other than cops.

There are no evil owners. Salary and benefits are democratically decided by election in the first place. introducing unions introduces an imbalance.

 

[Zebo]

I'd be perfectly fine with her having to contribute some to her awesome pension and health insurance if she could be assured to keep it (read sustainable). The benefits are out of this world good.

We've got it all planed out. She has something like 100 days vacation banked up so when she retire in less than 10 years she's going to "cash in" all those days so her salary is much higher than normal (which is what her pension pay is based on, last two years salary), assuring that her full salary pension has us set for life, should be over 200k a year by then. Sweetness.

I wouldnt bank on it. We're going broke.

 

[Zebo]

I wasn't accusing in any sense. I was looking at options which have been widely used and the alternative to Capitalism has been Communism as practiced by the USSR and China (and yes I realize there are/were differences between the two).

The problem with human nature is that there is the tendency of individuals and groups to dominate. Those people seek control and power over others and minding their own business is foreign to their natures. Considering that nations have governments and governments by their nature exert control over the people by the enforcers of the law, government is the ultimate power. One can tell Exxon to go to blazes and that you'll not deal with them, but saying that you won't pay taxes because you disagree with policy? You risk livelihood and freedom.

Given the realities of the world as it exists, how would you implement your philosophy without resorting to substituting corporate power with governmental mandate?

I'm trying to understand your position, not reaching for trolling material. I'm just curious.

Not to mention I don't wanna do anything under Red's regime. Work sux trust me I did it. After all everything is free under left libertarian I can walk in a grocery store with no money grab a case of beer some minnows fill up my tank and go fishing. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to starve me or force me in a gulag?