Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Fake Boris]

I'm not a US'ian and if I was I sure as **** wouldn't be a Republican, but the idea that elected officials running from election results they don't like is an acceptable way to proceed is truly alarming.

What did you say already when Harper prorogued the Parliament?

[Fake Boris]

Is that directed at anyone in this thread? I have been loudly opposed to military spending...

Actually it was meant for KH. Probably DD too.

[Wezil]

Ah, I see:



Setting aside the fact that this isn't 100% true, since it's mostly true, that seems like a fair point. Ok, but how does that translate into no unions allowed (or no striking, which to me reads like no union - why bother with a union if you can't threaten a strike?)? Isn't there a way to level the playing field for negotiations w/o removing the right to unionize?

-Arrian

As I said earlier I wouldn't have government employees that were not considered "essential". As essential workers they would not have the right to strike (as with police and fire for example). Police and fire still have unions.

[Wezil]

Walker and his corparation croonies should have seen this coming and not gone so overboard with the bill. They knew what the numbers in the Senate were and they tried to push the issue.

And, Wezil, I'd like to point out that not only am I Republican, I am also in one of the unions Walker exempted in his bill, so I have very little to gain personally.

I wasn't implying (I hope) that you were swayed by personal interest per se. I'm just wondering how you can support this tactic in one case (where you disagree with legislation) without having to support it again in the future when you perhaps do agree. It is a terrible way to conduct democratic politics Donegeal.

If the R's have truly GONE TOO FAR I would trust the public to make that clear in the next election.

[Wezil]

What did you say already when Harper prorogued the Parliament?

I sure hope you aren't using this as a "gotcha" point...

I am quite public about my opposition to Harper in general and his habit of running from the House in particular.

[Fake Boris]

Assuming that public sector employees really make more (which tends not to be the case, contrary to popular belief), why would people oppose that the government puts upward pressure on middle class salaries, in a context where its buying power has been eroding and its debt increasing?

[giblets]

I'm not a US'ian and if I was I sure as **** wouldn't be a Republican, but the idea that elected officials running from election results they don't like is an acceptable way to proceed is truly alarming.

So you think the majority should be able to do whatever it wants?

[Wezil]

Why be opposed to these good paying jobs?

Someone has to pay the salaries. Why not double public sector pay so we can really get things cooking?

[Wezil]

So you think the majority should be able to do whatever it wants?

Within the law, yes. That is what courts are for.


edit - and elections.

[DaShi]

I think you have to look at the specific actions of Walker and the Republicans in this case. This isn't about fiscal responsibility or improving how the government functions. It's purely about politics and punishing those who voted against them. If anything there should be greater checks in the system to prevent this kind of personal abuse of power. All we really have is protest at this point.

[DaShi]

Within the law, yes. That is what courts are for.


edit - and elections.

That's how Murbarak felt.

[Fake Boris]

Why be opposed to these good paying jobs?

Someone has to pay the salaries. Why not double public sector pay so we can really get things cooking?

I mean reasonable upward pressure.

The truth is that most people tend to blame other middle class workers for doing fine, instead of the big corps for relocalizing production (which used to be the bread and butter of our economy) and the politicians for allowing it.

[giblets]

Within the law, yes. That is what courts are for.


edit - and elections.

What the Democrats are doing is within the law. It's not a crime to leave Wisconsin. And they won enough seats in the election to have this power.

[giblets]

I think you have to look at the specific actions of Walker and the Republicans in this case. This isn't about fiscal responsibility or improving how the government functions. It's purely about politics and punishing those who voted against them. If anything there should be greater checks in the system to prevent this kind of personal abuse of power. All we really have is protest at this point.

Yes, and the Democrats are employing a check on the power of the majority that is part of the constitution of Wisconsin to stop this abuse of power.

[Wezil]

I think you have to look at the specific actions of Walker and the Republicans in this case. This isn't about fiscal responsibility or improving how the government functions. It's purely about politics and punishing those who voted against them.

Meh. That is a political opinion and I feel dirty enough for the support I've offered R's already in this thread. I'll leave it to a R to argue that.

Greater checks? I don't know but I have long said the American political system is dysfunctional. I'd overhaul the whole damn thing starting with the premise that a political system with 1.5 political parties offers some sort of meaningful choice.