Thank you Wisconsin Senate Dems & Recall Efforts

  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 09, 2011 1:50 AM GMT
    Apparently a deal is being hammered out thanks to the tough stance that the Senate Democrats took. The article mentions that the threat of 8 senate Republicans being recalled was also on the minds of the Republicans as negotiations were taking place.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/scott-walker-proposes-uni_n_833189.html

    It pays to stand firm for what you believe in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    Hallelujah! Solidarity pays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 2:16 AM GMT
    What spoiled brats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 2:47 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat spoiled brats.



    Pot calling kettle.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 2:52 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat spoiled brats.


    Don't pout. If the wind changes your face will stay that way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 2:55 AM GMT
    creature saidApparently a deal is being hammered out thanks to the tough stance that the Senate Democrats took. The article mentions that the threat of 8 senate Republicans being recalled was also on the minds of the Republicans as negotiations were taking place.

    In the spirit of integrity, the relevant part of the article stated:

    ...polls show the public want a compromise and recall efforts were launched against 16 senators, including eight Republicans.

    This clearly shows the restatement by the OP misrepresented the pressures on a compromise by suggesting that such pressures were only directed to the Republicans. While the OP did not make a false statement, the glaring omission was a gross misrepresentation.

    Another quote from the article that the OP neglected to mention comes from the Republican Majority Leader

    support for the underlying bill remained strong.

    Perhaps a reasonable interpretation is the bill is largely as is, and a few small changes were offered as a compromise.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 09, 2011 3:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature saidApparently a deal is being hammered out thanks to the tough stance that the Senate Democrats took. The article mentions that the threat of 8 senate Republicans being recalled was also on the minds of the Republicans as negotiations were taking place.

    In the spirit of integrity, the relevant part of the article stated:

    ...polls show the public want a compromise and recall efforts were launched against 16 senators, including eight Republicans.

    This clearly shows the restatement by the OP misrepresented the pressures on a compromise by suggesting that such pressures were only directed to the Republicans. While the OP did not make a false statement, the glaring omission was a gross misrepresentation.

    Another quote from the article that the OP neglected to mention comes from the Republican Majority Leader

    support for the underlying bill remained strong.

    Perhaps a reasonable interpretation is the bill is largely as is, and a few small changes were offered as a compromise.


    I don't quote entire articles in my posts, nor do I mention every single point, that's why I put the link for people to read the entire article for themselves. If someone wants to highlight an issue that was brought up in the article as you just did, they are free to do so.

    I would not call this a misrepresentation. If the Senate Democrats did not leave the state and hold out for as long as they did, this deal-in-progress would have never occurred.

    Also, I am familiar with mathematics and understand that if there are 16 recall efforts with 8 of them targeting Republicans, that the difference of 8 must be for Democrats. However, as the article points out, Fitzgerald, who is a Republican, said that the recall against the Republicans was on everyone's mind during the plan for compromise.

  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 09, 2011 3:33 AM GMT
    At least the Democrats are able to get some form of change. Considering that Republicans control both houses and Walker was unrelenting about compromising, this is a big step. And if this is what it takes, more power to them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 3:40 AM GMT
    creature saidAt least the Democrats are able to get some form of change. Considering that Republicans control both houses and Walker was unrelenting about compromising, this is a big step. And if this is what it takes, more power to them.

    Your selective quote was misrepresenting. Walker willing to make relatively minor compromises will likely strengthen the public's view of the Republicans. Time will tell if the negatives of the Democrats leaving their posts will outweigh the small compromises in the public opinion, after the union financed ads have run their course.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 09, 2011 3:51 AM GMT
    There was no misrepresentation on my part.

    Think about it. In what part could the effort to recall the Democrats play into the decision for a compromise? Any form of compromise is what the Democrats want. They knew that they would not get the bill they wanted. The Republicans have the clear advantage to get initiatives they want passed. So any form of compromise, not matter how minor, is a plus for the Democrats.

    If the threat of a recall of the Democrats had any significance, it would have prompted them to return without any deal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 4:01 AM GMT
    creature saidThere was no misrepresentation on my part.

    Think about it. In what part could the effort to recall the Democrats play into the decision for a compromise? Any form of compromise is what the Democrats want. They knew that they would not get the bill they wanted. The Republicans have the clear advantage to get initiatives they want passed. So any form of compromise, not matter how minor, is a plus for the Democrats.

    If the threat of a recall of the Democrats had any significance, it would have prompted them to return without any deal.

    No. The Democrats did not want any curtailment of collective bargaining. That was their position, and despite their minority status, they hoped pressure would force the Republicans to keep collective bargaining for benefits. They did not get that, so their agreement to some minor things Walker offered represents a compromise on their part, in addition to being a minor compromise on the Republican's part. The pressure on them was considerable, not only the recall, but the public opinion on their hiding out.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 09, 2011 4:11 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature saidThere was no misrepresentation on my part.

    Think about it. In what part could the effort to recall the Democrats play into the decision for a compromise? Any form of compromise is what the Democrats want. They knew that they would not get the bill they wanted. The Republicans have the clear advantage to get initiatives they want passed. So any form of compromise, not matter how minor, is a plus for the Democrats.

    If the threat of a recall of the Democrats had any significance, it would have prompted them to return without any deal.

    No. The Democrats did not want any curtailment of collective bargaining. That was their position, and despite their minority status, they hoped pressure would force the Republicans to keep collective bargaining for benefits. They did not get that, so their agreement to some minor things Walker offered represents a compromise on their part. The pressure on them was considerable, not only the recall, but the public opinion of their hiding out.


    In the beginning Walker refused to compromised. Even on the tiniest of details of his proposal. He was adamant about it. Walker said he would not budge an inch. Getting him to change his position, not matter how small, is a plus. The odds were stacked against them.

    Yes, I know they didn't want to curtail the collective bargaining rights, but at least they were able to make some incision into what could have been a lost cause given their minority status.

    How can you say the recall was putting pressure on them. If they returned home under the threat of a recall, there would not have been any form of a compromise.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 09, 2011 4:23 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhat spoiled brats.


    You work with what you've got...if the Unions and the Democrats in this instance are "spoiled brats," what does that make the Republicans and the rich who pushed for a continuation of Bush era tax cuts for their demographic?

    Stuffed pigs sounds fair!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    Walker threw them a bone, keeping the majority of what he wanted. What he gave up is far less than what the Democrats gave up from their desired position. IMO him giving them a bone will enhance the Republican's position as offering something. If you want to view this as any kind of Democratic victory, you are really spinning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 4:32 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidWalker threw them a bone, keeping the majority of what he wanted. What he gave up is far less than what the Democrats gave up from their desired position. IMO him giving them a bone will enhance the Republican's position as offering something. If you want to view this as any kind of Democratic victory, you are really spinning.
    It aint over bonehead.. read the article..
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 09, 2011 4:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidWalker threw them a bone, keeping the majority of what he wanted. What he gave up is far less than what the Democrats gave up from their desired position. IMO him giving them a bone will enhance the Republican's position as offering something. If you want to view this as any kind of Democratic victory, you are really spinning.


    I'm not calling this a big victory. But as least they know that they were able to get him to change his immovable position, however minor. If they didn't leave the state, the bill would have been 100% as the Republicans wanted.

    The Senate Democrats forced a change, and the efforts to recall to the Republicans, as acknowledged by the Majority Leader Senator Fitzgerald, was on their minds during the plans for compromise. This is a good sign for those disenfranchised voters of Wisconsin. They can still shake things up.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 09, 2011 4:38 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature saidThere was no misrepresentation on my part.

    Think about it. In what part could the effort to recall the Democrats play into the decision for a compromise? Any form of compromise is what the Democrats want. They knew that they would not get the bill they wanted. The Republicans have the clear advantage to get initiatives they want passed. So any form of compromise, not matter how minor, is a plus for the Democrats.

    If the threat of a recall of the Democrats had any significance, it would have prompted them to return without any deal.

    No. The Democrats did not want any curtailment of collective bargaining. That was their position, and despite their minority status, they hoped pressure would force the Republicans to keep collective bargaining for benefits. They did not get that, so their agreement to some minor things Walker offered represents a compromise on their part, in addition to being a minor compromise on the Republican's part. The pressure on them was considerable, not only the recall, but the public opinion on their hiding out.


    Actually, the unspoken intent of Walker's plan was to destroy the public sector unions: he'd take away all but a very symbolic power, then force them to recertify each year. He was hoping that, by year two or year three, there would no longer be public sector unions for anyone but the emergency workers.

    Of course the reason he had hoped for that was because once you've got that outcome, all of the power rests with the employer: the government makes the annual contract offer, and the employee is left with an ultimatum- take it, or show yourself out!

    Some would leave...but others, indebted by the higher education it took to qualify for those jobs, would have no choice but to stay; no longer partners in the public service, the morale would nose dive, and it's the public themselves would would suffer in the long run. After all, unhappy public school teachers, swimming in post secondary debt do not encourage the next generation to take up teaching.

    The Unions and Democrats better be very careful with this Governor...I don't believe it would be beyond him to lure the Democrats back, then force the vote on his former bill. After all, didn't the Republicans slimeball their vote over the objections of the Democrats in the House?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 8:30 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidWalker threw them a bone, keeping the majority of what he wanted. What he gave up is far less than what the Democrats gave up from their desired position. IMO him giving them a bone will enhance the Republican's position as offering something. If you want to view this as any kind of Democratic victory, you are really spinning.
    It aint over bonehead.. read the article..

    Thought your therapist told you not to call names. Anyway, read the whole article, thanks.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 09, 2011 11:19 AM GMT
    Fact remains .....

    The longer the Democrats hold out the stronger their position
    and the sooner Scooter gets booted

    ........ and booted He's gonna get
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 12:15 PM GMT
    A significant outcome is that this dictatorial, intransgient behavior by a governor doesn't work and therefore other governors won't try it.

    I hope the Dems continue with their recall efforts for both the governor and senate members. If they can recall the governor, that will be a significant victory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 1:23 PM GMT
    Caslon17000 saidA significant outcome is that this dictatorial, intransgient behavior by a governor doesn't work and therefore other governors won't try it.

    I hope the Dems continue with their recall efforts for both the governor and senate members. If they can recall the governor, that will be a significant victory.

    Just to keep things in perspective, the Ohio bill is much stronger and seems likely to pass. From a source you guys trust:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/ohio-union-bill-aimed-at-_n_830565.html

    From my perspective, these bills may not be perfect remedies. But years of union bosses buying Democratic politicians, who enabled workers to get extremely generous benefits at taxpayer expense had to stop. If the workers are legitimately harmed down the road, the voters will be fair to them and support changes.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 1:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Caslon17000 saidA significant outcome is that this dictatorial, intransgient behavior by a governor doesn't work and therefore other governors won't try it.

    I hope the Dems continue with their recall efforts for both the governor and senate members. If they can recall the governor, that will be a significant victory.

    Just to keep things in perspective, the Ohio bill is much stronger and seems likely to pass. From a source you guys trust:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/ohio-union-bill-aimed-at-_n_830565.html

    From my perspective, these bills are not perfect remedies. But years of union bosses buying Democratic politicians, who enabled workers to get extremely generous benefits at taxpayer expense had to stop. If the workers are legitimately harmed down the road, the voters will be fair to them and support changes.



    I'm so tired of this meme that unions "buy" Democratic politicians to get generous benefits and wages.

    How many businesses "buy" politicians on both sides of the aisle to get tax breaks, regulatory favors, trade deals, policy changes, etc?

    How many businesses pit municipalities against each other by saying "we'll build our business in whichever city gives us the best tax breaks and other incentives?"

    How many wealthy people "buy" politicians to give them personal tax cuts, to keep capital gains at 15%, and to make sure that carried interest policies remain what they are?

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 1:59 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Caslon17000 saidA significant outcome is that this dictatorial, intransgient behavior by a governor doesn't work and therefore other governors won't try it.

    I hope the Dems continue with their recall efforts for both the governor and senate members. If they can recall the governor, that will be a significant victory.

    Just to keep things in perspective, the Ohio bill is much stronger and seems likely to pass. From a source you guys trust:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/ohio-union-bill-aimed-at-_n_830565.html

    From my perspective, these bills are not perfect remedies. But years of union bosses buying Democratic politicians, who enabled workers to get extremely generous benefits at taxpayer expense had to stop. If the workers are legitimately harmed down the road, the voters will be fair to them and support changes.



    I'm so tired of this meme that unions "buy" Democratic politicians to get generous benefits and wages.

    How many businesses "buy" politicians on both sides of the aisle to get tax breaks, regulatory favors, trade deals, policy changes, etc?

    How many businesses pit municipalities against each other by saying "we'll build our business in whichever city gives us the best tax breaks and other incentives?"

    How many wealthy people "buy" politicians to give them personal tax cuts, to keep capital gains at 15%, and to make sure that carried interest policies remain what they are?

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Lobbying from all interests is alive and well. Whenever excesses or imbalances are found in any area, adjustments should be made. In California, for example, an extremely incestuous relationship has existed between the public employee unions and Democratic politicians. At the federal level, Andy Stern almost lived in the White House. The imbalances have been given even more focus by the relationship between the White House and the UAW in the private sector. Especially the ownership position of GM given to the union ahead of others.

    Given what we've seen, while lobbying exists all around, the term "buying" is especially appropriate here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2011 2:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Caslon17000 saidA significant outcome is that this dictatorial, intransgient behavior by a governor doesn't work and therefore other governors won't try it.

    I hope the Dems continue with their recall efforts for both the governor and senate members. If they can recall the governor, that will be a significant victory.

    Just to keep things in perspective, the Ohio bill is much stronger and seems likely to pass. From a source you guys trust:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/ohio-union-bill-aimed-at-_n_830565.html

    From my perspective, these bills are not perfect remedies. But years of union bosses buying Democratic politicians, who enabled workers to get extremely generous benefits at taxpayer expense had to stop. If the workers are legitimately harmed down the road, the voters will be fair to them and support changes.



    I'm so tired of this meme that unions "buy" Democratic politicians to get generous benefits and wages.

    How many businesses "buy" politicians on both sides of the aisle to get tax breaks, regulatory favors, trade deals, policy changes, etc?

    How many businesses pit municipalities against each other by saying "we'll build our business in whichever city gives us the best tax breaks and other incentives?"

    How many wealthy people "buy" politicians to give them personal tax cuts, to keep capital gains at 15%, and to make sure that carried interest policies remain what they are?

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Lobbying from all interests is alive and well. Whenever excesses or imbalances are found in any area, adjustments should be made. In California, for example, an extremely incestuous relationship has existed between the public employee unions and Democratic politicians. At the federal level, Andy Stern almost lived in the White House. The imbalances have been given even more focus by the relationship between the White House and the UAW in the private sector. Especially the ownership position of GM given to the union ahead of others.

    Given what we've seen, while lobbying exists all around, the term "buying" is especially appropriate here.


    Then why aren't you criticizing the corporate contributor, or the wealthy who are solely looking out for their interests? Why focus on unions? It can't be tax-related since as you've agreed corporations and the wealthy are lobbying for less taxes, less regulation, etc.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Mar 09, 2011 2:42 PM GMT
    Why Christian?

    Because 1/3 of wages come from government payouts ...... that's why.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508

    This has annoyed the taxpayer and brought all of these sweetheart deals to light.



    I despise how wall street got bailed out. But that doesnt make 160k busdriver salaries ok, when the mayor makes much less. Or overtime scams by calling in sick.