Wisconsin recall election

[UNI88]

I wouldn't take too much from this.

Walker outspent Barrett 10-1

There is recall fatigue in WI - a large number of even Democrats oppose using recalls for political (rather than malfeasance), and either didn't vote, or voted not to recall Walker.

Democrats regained control of the Wisconsin Senate last night

Jon,

You didn't answer my question: which would you choose in order to get Wisconsin's financial house in order?
1) Do what Walker did and reduce pension & health obligations
2) Lay people off and cut back on social services
3) Raise taxes in order to keep everything going

I'd also be open to discussion of alternatives as long as they aren't the equivalent of stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and pretend the problem will go away if you hide from it long enough.

[dbackjon]

I wouldn't take too much from this.

Walker outspent Barrett 10-1

There is recall fatigue in WI - a large number of even Democrats oppose using recalls for political (rather than malfeasance), and either didn't vote, or voted not to recall Walker.

Democrats regained control of the Wisconsin Senate last night

Jon,

You didn't answer my question: which would you choose in order to get Wisconsin's financial house in order?
1) Do what Walker did and reduce pension & health obligations
2) Lay people off and cut back on social services
3) Raise taxes in order to keep everything going

I'd also be open to discussion of alternatives as long as they aren't the equivalent of stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and pretend the problem will go away if you hide from it long enough.

I would have chosen a mix of 1 and 3, but be less dickish about it.

Public employees/teachers are NOT the enemy - for the most part, they are dedicated, hard working employees who contribute greatly to our society.

Some of the things done (Free school districts to shop insurance, etc are common sense ideas, and opposition by the union leaders (rank and file seemed ok with it0 hurts the union cause in the long run.
Both sides need to work together, and be willing to concede. A no concession policy by the unions is just as dangerous as a no-tax poicy by Walker.

[tampa_griz]

Jon,

You didn't answer my question: which would you choose in order to get Wisconsin's financial house in order?
1) Do what Walker did and reduce pension & health obligations
2) Lay people off and cut back on social services
3) Raise taxes in order to keep everything going

I'd also be open to discussion of alternatives as long as they aren't the equivalent of stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and pretend the problem will go away if you hide from it long enough.

I would have chosen a mix of 1 and 3, but be less dickish about it.

Public employees/teachers are NOT the enemy - for the most part, they are dedicated, hard working employees who contribute greatly to our society.

Some of the things done (Free school districts to shop insurance, etc are common sense ideas, and opposition by the union leaders (rank and file seemed ok with it0 hurts the union cause in the long run.
Both sides need to work together, and be willing to concede. A no concession policy by the unions is just as dangerous as a no-tax poicy by Walker.

Then you should be a fan of Scott Walker. He eliminated the deficit by reigning in unions and raising taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... nsins-36-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

I would have chosen a mix of 1 and 3, but be less dickish about it.

Public employees/teachers are NOT the enemy - for the most part, they are dedicated, hard working employees who contribute greatly to our society.

Some of the things done (Free school districts to shop insurance, etc are common sense ideas, and opposition by the union leaders (rank and file seemed ok with it0 hurts the union cause in the long run.
Both sides need to work together, and be willing to concede. A no concession policy by the unions is just as dangerous as a no-tax poicy by Walker.

Then you should be a fan of Scott Walker. He eliminated the deficit by reigning in unions and raising taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... nsins-36-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He had to raise taxes on the middle class to afford the tax cuts on corporations.

[tampa_griz]

Then you should be a fan of Scott Walker. He eliminated the deficit by reigning in unions and raising taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... nsins-36-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He had to raise taxes on the middle class to afford the tax cuts on corporations.

He decreased a tax credit.

[kalm]

He had to raise taxes on the middle class to afford the tax cuts on corporations.

He decreased a tax credit.

Did the people it affected pay more or less in taxes?

Walker is a supply-sider. Reaganomics does not work in the long run.

[tampa_griz]

He decreased a tax credit.

Did the people it affected pay more or less in taxes?

Walker is a supply-sider. Reaganomics does not work in the long run.

Well a large chunk of the tax credit decrease was the Earned Income Tax Credit....that often goes to people with a negative tax liability (they make money). So I guess you could say that those who used to net $1000 from the government who will now get $900 are "paying more taxes" but it's kind of an odd statement.

[UNI88]

Jon,

You didn't answer my question: which would you choose in order to get Wisconsin's financial house in order?
1) Do what Walker did and reduce pension & health obligations
2) Lay people off and cut back on social services
3) Raise taxes in order to keep everything going

I'd also be open to discussion of alternatives as long as they aren't the equivalent of stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and pretend the problem will go away if you hide from it long enough.

I would have chosen a mix of 1 and 3, but be less dickish about it.

Public employees/teachers are NOT the enemy - for the most part, they are dedicated, hard working employees who contribute greatly to our society.

Some of the things done (Free school districts to shop insurance, etc are common sense ideas, and opposition by the union leaders (rank and file seemed ok with it0 hurts the union cause in the long run.
Both sides need to work together, and be willing to concede. A no concession policy by the unions is just as dangerous as a no-tax poicy by Walker.

You and I are in agreement:
- Walker was dickish although I'm not sure that wasn't the best approach to actually get something done. Union leadership would have fought him tooth-and-nail on this. They would prefer the risk of layoffs to benefit reductions.
- Public employers/teachers are not the enemy although I've run into a few government employees that sometimes lead me to question whether they're dedicated, hard-working employees
- A combination of 1 & 3 was the right approach although we would disagree on where the taxes should come from.

We have enough common-ground where despite our differences we could actually work together to craft a solution that was effective and not as adversarial.

[Ivytalk]

I would have chosen a mix of 1 and 3, but be less dickish about it.

Public employees/teachers are NOT the enemy - for the most part, they are dedicated, hard working employees who contribute greatly to our society.

Some of the things done (Free school districts to shop insurance, etc are common sense ideas, and opposition by the union leaders (rank and file seemed ok with it0 hurts the union cause in the long run.

Both sides need to work together, and be willing to concede. A no concession policy by the unions is just as dangerous as a no-tax poicy by Walker.

You and I are in agreement:
- Walker was dickish although I'm not sure that wasn't the best approach to actually get something done. Union
leadership would have fought him tooth-and-nail on this. They would prefer the risk of layoffs to benefit reductions.
- Public employers/teachers are not the enemy although I've run into a few government employees that sometimes lead me to question whether they're dedicated, hard-working employees
- A combination of 1 & 3 was the right approach although we would disagree on where the taxes should come from.

We have enough common-ground where despite our differences we could actually work together to craft a solution
that was effective and not as adversarial.

Kumbaya, m'lawd, kumbaya! Oh, lawd, kumbayahhh!

UNI88 strikes again! Middle ground found! Long live Quaker Oatmeal! Mission accomplished!

[ODUsmitty]

Damn you 88, those are some great points and we'll have to see what happens. Still, there are unintended long-term consequences to spending cuts and wage/benefit deflation. Things like county and state parks get underfunded and fall into decline pushing kids to chose unhealthy activities. Decreased union compensation decreases private sector compensation, consumer spending goes down hurting small businesses, etc.

I have two young boys. I could not give a fkying f*** whether they can frolic in undermaintained state and local parks. Its my job as a parent to ensure that they get the proper amount and quality of physical activity, and the last thing I want them doing is playing in some loser-infected park full of society's dregs.

Of course, they must read their daily allotment of Ayn Rand and wipe their asses with Rachel Maddow imprinted toiletpaper prior to being allowed to play, but they will thank me for that later.

[kalm]

Damn you 88, those are some great points and we'll have to see what happens. Still, there are unintended long-term consequences to spending cuts and wage/benefit deflation. Things like county and state parks get underfunded and fall into decline pushing kids to chose unhealthy activities. Decreased union compensation decreases private sector compensation, consumer spending goes down hurting small businesses, etc.

I have two young boys. I could not give a fkying f*** whether they can frolic in undermaintained state and local parks. Its my job as a parent to ensure that they get the proper amount and quality of physical activity, and the last thing I want them doing is playing in some loser-infected park full of society's dregs.

Of course, they must read their daily allotment of Ayn Rand and wipe their asses with Rachel Maddow imprinted toiletpaper prior to being allowed to play, but they will thank me for that later.

[D1B]

D1B exercised his right not to vote, but if he did, he woulda voted for Walker because:

Recalls are a joke.
While a conk, he took on even more despicable people - public employee unions and their pampered members.
He didn't flinch and held his ground during the protests.


We need more people like him.


Too bad he's a conk.

[UNI88]

You and I are in agreement:
- Walker was dickish although I'm not sure that wasn't the best approach to actually get something done. Union
leadership would have fought him tooth-and-nail on this. They would prefer the risk of layoffs to benefit reductions.
- Public employers/teachers are not the enemy although I've run into a few government employees that sometimes lead me to question whether they're dedicated, hard-working employees
- A combination of 1 & 3 was the right approach although we would disagree on where the taxes should come from.

We have enough common-ground where despite our differences we could actually work together to craft a solution
that was effective and not as adversarial.

Kumbaya, m'lawd, kumbaya! Oh, lawd, kumbayahhh!

UNI88 strikes again! Middle ground found! Long live Quaker Oatmeal! Mission accomplished!

The country would be better off if Obama and Boehner relationship was a little more like Reagan and Tip O'Neill's.

And I'm more of a Malt-o-meal fan than plain oatmeal.

[GannonFan]

He decreased a tax credit.

Did the people it affected pay more or less in taxes?

Walker is a supply-sider. Reaganomics does not work in the long run.

No economic theory, in complete isolation, works well in the long run. But skewing in one direction can and has worked.

[Ivytalk]

Kumbaya, m'lawd, kumbaya! Oh, lawd, kumbayahhh!

UNI88 strikes again! Middle ground found! Long live Quaker Oatmeal! Mission accomplished!

The country would be better off if Obama and Boehner relationship was a little more like Reagan and Tip O'Neill's.

And I'm more of a Malt-o-meal fan than plain oatmeal.

Just pulling your chain, UNI88! I enjoy your posts and often agree with them. I'm just a bomb-thrower.

[Ivytalk]

D1B exercised his right not to vote, but if he did, he woulda voted for Walker because:

Recalls are a joke.
While a conk, he took on even more despicable people - public employee unions and their pampered members.
He didn't flinch and held his ground during the protests.


We need more people like him.


Too bad he's a conk.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If you felt that strongly about Walker, why didn't you vote?

[kalm]

Did the people it affected pay more or less in taxes?

Walker is a supply-sider. Reaganomics does not work in the long run.

No economic theory, in complete isolation, works well in the long run. But skewing in one direction can and has worked.

Agreed. Both dems and republicans have been practicing reaganomics for 30 years now. Grover is one of the most powerful players in politics, Steven Moore sits on the WSJ editorial board, Arthur Laffer was on Maher just last week. How many more years before we can expect that tide to rise?

[D1B]

D1B exercised his right not to vote, but if he did, he woulda voted for Walker because:

Recalls are a joke.
While a conk, he took on even more despicable people - public employee unions and their pampered members.
He didn't flinch and held his ground during the protests.


We need more people like him.


Too bad he's a conk.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If you felt that strongly about Walker, why didn't you vote?

I did vote for Walker.

I'm an asshole. Tried to mine a chuckle out of "My right not to vote."

[CID1990]

I wouldn't take too much from this.

Walker outspent Barrett 10-1

There is recall fatigue in WI - a large number of even Democrats oppose using recalls for political (rather than malfeasance), and either didn't vote, or voted not to recall Walker.



Democrats regained control of the Wisconsin Senate last night

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/06/v ... ou-recall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Also Sodomy

[GannonFan]

No economic theory, in complete isolation, works well in the long run. But skewing in one direction can and has worked.

Agreed. Both dems and republicans have been practicing reaganomics for 30 years now. Grover is one of the most powerful players in politics, Steven Moore sits on the WSJ editorial board, Arthur Laffer was on Maher just last week. How many more years before we can expect that tide to rise?

A lot of reaganomics does work, that's why people will use it. There's no secret that lower taxes are generally better in the long run and that reducing or limiting government spending is good as well. The trick is knowing how far to take it, i.e. how low should taxes be and how limited should government be in spending or regulation. But the direction of the idea is certainly justified and valid. And conversely, making sure you don't do one (say lower taxes) while not doing the other (say limiting government spending). You can do that in a very short time frame, but doing that longer than that is disastrous, obviously. Unfortunately, we've been doing that for too long now since W did that and Obama is doubling down on that now.

[UNI88]

The country would be better off if Obama and Boehner relationship was a little more like Reagan and Tip O'Neill's.

And I'm more of a Malt-o-meal fan than plain oatmeal.

Just pulling your chain, UNI88! I enjoy your posts and often agree with them. I'm just a bomb-thrower.

I know and I'm just playing along. I don't mind being called gelatinous occasionally

[UNI88]

Agreed. Both dems and republicans have been practicing reaganomics for 30 years now. Grover is one of the most powerful players in politics, Steven Moore sits on the WSJ editorial board, Arthur Laffer was on Maher just last week. How many more years before we can expect that tide to rise?

A lot of reaganomics does work, that's why people will use it. There's no secret that lower taxes are generally better in the long run and that reducing or limiting government spending is good as well. The trick is knowing how far to take it, i.e. how low should taxes be and how limited should government be in spending or regulation. But the direction of the idea is certainly justified and valid. And conversely, making sure you don't do one (say lower taxes) while not doing the other (say limiting government spending). You can do that in a very short time frame, but doing that longer than that is disastrous, obviously. Unfortunately, we've been doing that for too long now since W did that and Obama is doubling down on that now.

I believe Dubya was the only POTUS ever to reduce taxes during a war. Folly? Me thinks so.

[Baldy]

I wouldn't take too much from this.

Walker outspent Barrett 10-1

There is recall fatigue in WI - a large number of even Democrats oppose using recalls for political (rather than malfeasance), and either didn't vote, or voted not to recall Walker.



Democrats regained control of the Wisconsin Senate last night

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/06/v ... ou-recall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Also Sodomy

That's some funny shit right there.

Watching Donks step on their dicks never gets old.

[D1B]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/06/v ... ou-recall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Also Sodomy

That's some funny shit right there.

Watching Donks step on their dicks never gets old.

I bet it don't. However, 30 years of watching the conk circus, war machine and freakshow is getting old.

[GannonFan]

A lot of reaganomics does work, that's why people will use it. There's no secret that lower taxes are generally better in the long run and that reducing or limiting government spending is good as well. The trick is knowing how far to take it, i.e. how low should taxes be and how limited should government be in spending or regulation. But the direction of the idea is certainly justified and valid. And conversely, making sure you don't do one (say lower taxes) while not doing the other (say limiting government spending). You can do that in a very short time frame, but doing that longer than that is disastrous, obviously. Unfortunately, we've been doing that for too long now since W did that and Obama is doubling down on that now.

I believe Dubya was the only POTUS ever to reduce taxes during a war. Folly? Me thinks so.

And yet, oddly though, that wasn't even much of a factor in the economic downturn and recession. Not a good idea, I agree, yet in a short term period not impactful. The problem came when we continued doing it.