hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 11:03 pm
@BillRM,
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.
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 11:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.


Hard to argue against such reflexive dishonesty on an obvious point. The potential for intimidation when a union organizer who expresses confidence that he will soon be running the show shoves a card in your face and tells you to sign is so obvious it doesn't require proof. Indeed that is precisely why we, and all demnocratic countries have secret ballots for our elected officials.

The fact is unions have lost the great majority of secret ballots in union organizing efforts for the past forty years. In a secret ballot neither the pressure the company nor the union has brought to bear on the individual counts - how he/she votes is unknowable to either. Now the unions want to prevent secret ballots. What other conceivable reason could the have dor doiung this>
Gargamel
 
  4  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 12:26 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.


So, 70,000 protesters in Madison today isn't unified? That makes the pathetic little megaphone conventions I saw the Tea Party put together in 2009 look sadder than they were, which was pretty ******* sad.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 01:14 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
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.


Yes in a small state the dems who had flooded up to 70,000 protesters into the state capital for going on 2 weeks now but they lack the will to get names on a on recall petitions for some strange reason!

And as I am only a few weeks from voting in two recalls elections myself in the south florida area I know it does happen.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:36 am
@BillRM,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 07:19 am
@hawkeye10,
So you are of the opinion that teachers and firefighters and other such are not on the whole register to vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 09:34 am
@georgeob1,
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.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 09:45 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

Actually, it will probably be easier. Only 30% of the voters in the last election have to sign petitions in a certain amount of time. The key will be to put the process in place before they collect signatures.

2.1 million people voted in the last election in Wi.
That was about 50% of eligible voters. If union workers and their supporters make up 15% of eligible voters that would make it relatively easy to collect the signatures to force a recall.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 10:54 am
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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 11:00 am
Massive rallies today in WI, despite a heavy snowstorm.

Bigger than last weekend. Estimates top 70k people.

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.

Cycloptichorn
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 11:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I was on the local council for Moveon.org for about a year (I left because I have so little time). Two of the leaders are retired state reps. One once voiced frustration with Senator Kerry because of compromises he has made but . . . she said she has to keep such criticism in check. Government runs on compromise and taking too hard a line might mean a lack of co-operation coming his way later on, over a bigger issue.

The odd thing is that I wrote the above, for the first time, it seemed to me that government is like a marriage. Taking an example from my own marriage, I often let smaller items go. I wanted an intercom installed in our three storey house when we expanded the top floor with a full-shed dormer. My ex adamantly refused. "Intercoms are low class," he said. I thought he was wrong but ignored that because there were other, what I thought were more important things I wanted. (Not having the intercom turned out to be a pain in my neck.)

On the other hand, what happened between us (which may not be universal at all) is that everything was his way. I just had to walk out.

Scott Walker sounds like a spoiled brat, a do everything my way kind of boy. In fact, all of the Tea Totalitarians sound that way. But, that is another story, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 11:24 am
@Irishk,
Quote:
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.


Some tea party group from out of state it would seem is behind that.

Utah if memory serve me correctly of all places.

Going by the turn out of the tea party counter protesters compare to the 70,000 plus unions supports my comment is good luck on that move.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 11:54 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.

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.

We have agreed that ntimidation is possible at the hands of both parties in this dispute (though the opportunities are more direct and frightening on the part of the organization that hands you a card to sign in their presence). The best possible remedy to the effects of such intimidation is a secret ballot in which neither of the potential intimidators can know what choice an individual makes. The essential feature of the card check legislation is to prohibit secret ballots in all union efforts at organizing non-union companies.

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

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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 12:05 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

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


The secret balloting process is used by management as a vehicle for intimidation of workers.

Let us imagine a shop in which 95% of workers have signed their 'cards.' Is it necessary or a good use of time to still be forced to hold a secret ballot? You don't see how the workers would be against management forcing them to do this?

As Parados said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you don't seem to think that proponents of card check laws are entitled to theirs. And you also have been playing very loose with the facts in this discussion. I would be careful about throwing around accusations of dishonesty in an environment where it had recently been revealed that I had done no research on a subject and where I was caught out forwarding multiple inaccurate statements. And that's putting a charitable spin on things.

Quote:

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


An increase of unionization. Seeing as unions are the ONLY force in America who is interested in preserving the rights of workers, instead of those of management and dis-interested investors, we should all be supporting them and the spread of them.

Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 12:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.


He certainly seems to have a personal conviction that his position is right and doesn't seem the least bit interested in compromise or politics as usual. Did he run on a different platform?

Quote:
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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 12:09 pm
@JPB,
Walker ran on cutting the benefits of unions but never said anything about changing their right to bargain collectively. Not once. And he's gotten the concessions he ran on. This is what I mean when I say that the whole thing is making him look weak and extremely partisan: he wasn't willing to get the things he ran on. He wanted to break the backs of the union.

It's pretty clear now that that isn't going to happen, no matter what. He should have, I repeat, taken the deal.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 12:19 pm
@JPB,
If I am not mistaken the democrats did not get out and vote as They had a very small representation at the polls!
I do not mean to put democrats down but they seem to have lost hope maybe because they are middle class and below? Well anyways in my opinion they seem to be this way but when things get very bad such as this, "they will eventually speak up! I just wish they would do it at the polls.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 12:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
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.

That was hardly the central issue. It was your fall back position after you found yourself defeated on every other issue. One need only look at the way your arguments have changed to see how it was never the central issue until you couldn't argue your other issues because you had no facts.

The question has been answered and you refuse to accept the answer because you feel your opinion should be taken as fact. It's your opinion and since you have shown your opinion is often contrary to facts I see no reason to continue to argue your opinion. I have given mine. You refuse to accept it and now are niggling about it.

Quote:

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.
Oh my.. that was childish on your part. Gosh.. I'm rubber you're glue...
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 02:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I wrote:
Quote:
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'?


Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
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.


Hi Cyclops. I think the sources that you have been accessing to inform your opinion are doing you a disservice, but that is just my opinion. What is not just my opinion but that of others also, is that government intervention produces price signal distortions in otherwise healthy markets leading to unintended consequences with, sometimes, dire results like the financial meltdown. We further assert that, despite the USA's housing market's rather small portion of the overall global economy, that small sector's decline, precipitated by government meddling, triggered the financial crisis. Contrary to your claims, I have produced and cited many sources to support that claim. So, I see little harm in producing, again, one more. This is just the latest in a long line of commentary and facts regarding the subject. Some background:

Quote:
"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."


Simply stated the above members of the commission felt compelled to fulfill the law and produce some report on the date required and inform the President as to the causes of the financial crisis. The PDF version of their document is here and a brief and relevant paragraph follows [note GSEs here are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]:
Quote:
"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.


Emphasis mine. The document is only 13 pages and, for anyone interested in the cause of the financial crisis, a must read.

JM
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 03:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
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.


An observation on the supporting positions: When it snows just a bit here (often just a couple of inches) schools start 2 hrs late. It seems that we cannot let the children walk on the unshoveled walkways without fear of being sued. We also cannot call in (in my day they were called) the janitors because they would get overtime pay therby increasing costs. Perhaps, if union rules allow, we could have that support staff come in 2hrs early and leave 2 hrs early? Meanwhile, even though the children's school day is shortened by 2 hrs (they leave the same time as usual), they get full credit for a full day of school to satisfy the law. The only thing that isn't supplied is the 2 hrs of education that those children, through their taxpaying parents, are paying for.

Speaking of independence, Title X denies institutions just that. Some small number of institutions, I am told, have declared their independence the only way they can and dropped all athletic programs. Sad really.

JM
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/29/2024 at 02:35:27