Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Quote:

What is more likely to be an accurate expression of the will of the employees than a secret ballot? That is the essential question here.

You can't presuppose that if a majority signs something saying they want to act one way, the only accurate way to gauge their feelings is secret balloting. That is a nonsense argument george. Not only that but it goes directly against rulings of the USSC. You can argue the "essential question" all you want but the facts still go against you.

Recalls are a lot of work, and are devisive......I don't think the dems have it in them. Also, considering that the GOP tends to be more unified this is not a game that Dems should get into, as over the long hall they will tend to lose.

Recalls are a lot of work, and are devisive......I don't think the dems have it in them. Also, considering that the GOP tends to be more unified this is not a game that Dems should get into, as over the long hall they will tend to lose.

Hard to argue against such reflexive dishonesty on an obvious point.

We'll see, unlike the protest the recall needs to be signed by Badgers, and they need to be registered to vote to boot. This is going to be more difficult than ditching work and partying in Madison.

I've seen official recall bids filed against quite a few of the Dem senators that fled the state (as reported in one of the Wisconsin newspapers last week). Haven't found anything 'official' in the works for WI's GOP pols, but you just know it has to be in the works. GAB is gonna be working overtime.

Quote:

Hard to argue against such reflexive dishonesty on an obvious point.

That's funny george..

People are entitled to their opinion george and clearly you have yours and damn the facts. As has already been stated, employers and their managers, of which you claim to be one, can lie and intimidate as well. Your record here on the facts I think speaks for itself.

What then could be the possible public benefit of such legislation?

What then could be the possible public benefit of such legislation?

Re: recall, I think it's a very strong possibility at this point. Walker made a huge error here. He should have taken the deal the unions agreed to in the first couple of days and lauded himself for getting financial concessions. Then he could have passed his bill, complete with all its' odious provisions which are now coming to light, without this massive outpouring against him.

But he decided to go all-in. Not thinking about the fact that this is how you get wiped out of the game. Now no matter what happens, he looks weak and the rest of his term is going to be a big struggle.

The reason national polls and opinions matter, is that the recall votes against the GOP are going to be heavily funded from out-of-state. I for one intend to ensure that money is available to run the campaigns against these union-busting scumbags.

The longer this drags on, the worse it will get... not just for Walker but for the national GOP as well. The guys running for election in 2012 must be praying that this gets resolved quickly, before they are forced to take positions against it.

Walker shows no sign of conceding in Wisconsin battle
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that government workers’ collective bargaining rights have caused unsustainable costs and stuck to his demand that bargaining rights be curtailed for most public workers.

“If we do not get these changes, and the Senate Democrats don’t come back, we’re going to be forced to make up the savings in layoffs and that to me is just unacceptable,” he said.

Walker has been locked in a battle with his state’s public sector unions for the past four weeks over his proposal to strip the unions of most of their collective bargaining rights. His measure would apply not only to state employees but to those of local governments and school boards around the state.

Walker won last November with 52 percent of the vote, while Republicans won control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature, both of which had Democratic majorities before the election.

You are once again evading the central issue, and merely throwing irelevant dust in the air in a fruitless attemnpt to obscure your deceptive evasion.

Apparently you don't have the integrity and moral courage to answer the essential question, and instead retreat behind continued evasion and distraction. That is dishonesty of a fairly high order in my book.

Leaving aside that this crisis was a result of government intervention into housing markets going, at least, back to Carter area legislation like the CRA and the Clinton admin doubling down on ACORN like community 'activism', while seeing Frank/Dodd legislation being passed that forced the two FMs ( Fannie, Freddie) to significantly increase their exposure to subprimes, we must ask why did citizens elect Obama if not to clean up the 'Bush/GOP Mess'?

This is 100% bullshit and you are a fool if you believe it's true. The financial crash had nothing to do with the CRA or ACORN - at all. And you're deeply confused about the rest of it as well.

I'd ask you to substantiate any of this with actual evidence, but you've never done so in the past, so why would I expect it now? I would be shocked if you could produce anything even resembling a cohesive narrative as to how a housing market crash sunk every one of our largest banks and investment houses, and then explain to us what the CRA had to do with that.

You've bought into the narrative of lies deeper and more completely than just about anyone on this site, other than maybe Okie or Ican. Which is a little sad, because you just don't seem as dumb as them.

"On May 20, 2009, Public Law No. 111-21, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, was enacted into law, creating the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). According to the Act, the FCIC was established to “examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” The law requires that today, December 15, 2010, the FCIC submit “to the President and to the Congress a report containing the findings and conclusions of the Commission on the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.”
This primer contains preliminary findings and conclusions released by Vice Chairman Bill Thomas, Commissioner Keith Hennessey, Commissioner Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Commissioner Peter J. Wallison, and represents a portion of the findings and conclusions resulting from our work on the FCIC. As the transmission of the report of the FCIC to the President and Congress requires a majority vote of the Commission, these findings and conclusions do not constitute the Commission’s report. Rather, this document is an effort to reflect the clear intention of our enabling legislation."

"The GSEs invested in high-risk mortgages in two ways. The first was by doing exactly what the GSEs had done for decades: guaranteeing loans. The GSEs would provide a credit guarantee on mortgage pools that were sold to them by originators and then issued back to the lender as a GSE-guaranteed MBS, or “agency MBS.” The GSEs would charge a guarantee fee in exchange for taking on the credit risk of the pool of mortgages. But in an effort to meet their affordable housing goals, the GSEs began guaranteeing ever-riskier loans.
The second way the GSEs invested in high-risk mortgages was through MBS backed by subprime and Alt-A mortgages, which they held on balance sheet. Although some of these loans qualified for affordable housing goals, these investments were also, to a large extent, pure interest-rate arbitrage, given the low cost of funding for the GSEs.
The GSEs were not the only means by which the government supported the financing of high-risk mortgages. Through the GSEs, FHA loans, VA loans, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], among other programs, the government subsidized and, in some cases, mandated the extension of credit to high-risk borrowers, propagating risks for financial firms, the mortgage market, taxpayers, and ultimately the financial system.

True, because if by not taking this money the state is no longer obligated to follow the provisions of what ever "no child left behind" is called now then the state could cut a lot of positions. Teachers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to school labor now, as the number of support positions has exploded. The state might also be able to avoid all of the costs of Tittle X or what ever the law is that says that girls sports must have the same number of events as the boys no matter what the cost/interest/value equation result is.