timschochet
Footballguy
Look up the Boston Police Strike of 1920. But what does this have to do with anything?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cr8f
- Start date
jamny
Footballguy
I'm trying to get a better understanding so I don't throw out comments without having as much info as possible.
Eric Stratton
Footballguy
Pathetic, Timmy. As bad as you are here I thought you were better than resorting to this.
KingPrawn
Footballguy
The reason he has stated that he didn't include the firefighters and police is that before he proposed this plan he met with the Wisconsin National Guard to come up with contingency plans in case the public workers went on strike. The National Guard did not have contingency plans for the firefighters and police. It is already illegal for public employees to go on strike in WI but that matters little to the teachers. Most public employees have continued to show up for work except for the teachers.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
I don't get this at all......Does the Private Sector get to bargain collectively? Nope, we have to EARN our positions and our pay. Unions do all that for people and protect bad workers
timschochet
Footballguy
1. Please lower the tone. We're trying to have a civil debate here. If it's going to devolve into a yelling match or insults, I'm out.2. In the press conference, Walker did not acknowledge that the unions were willing to compromise by accepting his requested budget cuts. He claimed he couldn't compromise himself because he couldn't afford it, which by implication means that the unions were trying to negotiate over monies- this is dishonest. He then went on to argue that collective bargaining needed to be taken away in order for local governments to avoid massive layoffs in the future when cuts were made. He was vague about what layoffs he was talking about here, and anyhow it's a nonsensical argument, because if the unions are willing to renegotiate their contracts with the governor, then they will be just as willing to renegotiate with local governments- as if the unions would hold to their position and invite layoffs! Sorry, but that's ridiculous logic.3. I believe the reason that the police and firemen unions were excluded was because they are mostly Republican and those unions supported the governor. This was an assumption on my part, and Mr. Pack told me that the facts contradicted this. But he hasn't explained what those facts are.4. I did know that there are kids dependant on hot lunches. What I did not know, and still do not know, is whether or not the teachers calling in sick the last few days actually prevented those students from getting those lunches. That's what Stat claimed, but I can't find any evidence of this, and I seriously doubt it happened.Answer the damn question! You say he wants to crush the unions! Which unions is he including in this bill? How many unions? Since you seem to act like you know so tell us. Also, if you just watched his press conference he stated why layoffs will happen if it doesn't pass. It's clear you don't have any idea on this since you didn't even know some kids were dependent on schools for hot lunches.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Executive Order 10988 was issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 and recognizes the rights of federal employees to bargain with management.
KingPrawn
Footballguy
1. Please lower the tone. We're trying to have a civil debate here. If it's going to devolve into a yelling match or insults, I'm out.2. In the press conference, Walker did not acknowledge that the unions were willing to compromise by accepting his requested budget cuts. He claimed he couldn't compromise himself because he couldn't afford it, which by implication means that the unions were trying to negotiate over monies- this is dishonest. He then went on to argue that collective bargaining needed to be taken away in order for local governments to avoid massive layoffs in the future when cuts were made. He was vague about what layoffs he was talking about here, and anyhow it's a nonsensical argument, because if the unions are willing to renegotiate their contracts with the governor, then they will be just as willing to renegotiate with local governments- as if the unions would hold to their position and invite layoffs! Sorry, but that's ridiculous logic.Answer the damn question! You say he wants to crush the unions! Which unions is he including in this bill? How many unions? Since you seem to act like you know so tell us. Also, if you just watched his press conference he stated why layoffs will happen if it doesn't pass.
It's clear you don't have any idea on this since you didn't even know some kids were dependent on schools for hot lunches.
Why is this ridiculous? Unions do it all the time.
3. I believe the reason that the police and firemen unions were excluded was because they are mostly Republican and those unions supported the governor. This was an assumption on my part, and Mr. Pack told me that the facts contradicted this. But he hasn't explained what those facts are.
I believe there are around 100 police and fireman unions in WI. Only 3 supported Walker.
4. I did know that there are kids dependant on hot lunches. What I did not know, and still do not know, is whether or not the teachers calling in sick the last few days actually prevented those students from getting those lunches. That's what Stat claimed, but I can't find any evidence of this, and I seriously doubt it happened.
If there is no school there are no hot lunches. Seems obvious to me.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because it would be better to get the budget changes in cooperation with the unions, rather than by defeating them.I think we can all agree that what's happening in Wisconsin is going to have to happen everywhere. Pensions are going to have be renegotiated, and cuts are going to have to be made. There's no choice, if we want to avoid what happened to Greece. But it's far better to do this by working with the unions, and compromising with them, rather than by simply trying to slam them against the wall. The latter creates such discord which in the long run costs more than it gains. I know there is an emotional aspect to this: partisans on both sides care more about "winning" than they do about solving problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I want to repeat again, though, that I don't have anything against this governor, or the unions: they're both honestly fighting for their interests. I have great sympathy for the teachers, but I don't think they were right to walk off their jobs.
But the worst people in this whole drama are the Democrats in the State legislature. Their decision to disappear and go to other states is the most dangerous, anti-democratic aspect of this entire affair. How dare they do such a thing? It's terrible.
But the worst people in this whole drama are the Democrats in the State legislature. Their decision to disappear and go to other states is the most dangerous, anti-democratic aspect of this entire affair. How dare they do such a thing? It's terrible.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
I still don't understand why it's better to work with the unions. If you believe this is in your state's best long term interest, why wouldn't you try to "slam them against the wall" while you still can?
timschochet
Footballguy
You create discord. You divide the public. You set up a situation where it's possible you will be thrown out in the next election, and you lose all that you gained.But a compromise in which the unions concede all of these pension and budget issues serves to erode their power without this becoming divisive.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
If you truly believe it's by far the best option for the state, you get it done and worry about a re-election when that time comes. Having a sure thing now is far superior to a *possibility* of something down the line.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
The guy is in there for 5+ more years. The other "cuts" he is going to make are going to be on peoples minds. But, if jobs are back in Wisconsin and the right things are going right for the people, he will get reelected.And, if all of that happens, a Presidential run may be in order. Him and Paul Ryan would be an interesting ticket in 2018.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Sarnoff
Footballguy
bakes
I am the Beer God!
Too bad the election's in 2020... and Walker has zero chance on the national level. None. Unless the Koch Brothers (aka Soros Right) bankroll him some more.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
People don't even know who's going to run in the next election...yet you're able to predict his chances NINE years from now?
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Do you know who bakes is?
the moops
Footballguy
Yes.
bakes
I am the Beer God!
Here's a novel concept - how about, instead of trying to bring public sector workers down to where private sector workers have landed, create incentives for the private sector tycoons to get off of their bankrolls and start hiring people to bring them back up to where they were?
Naaah, never work....
Naaah, never work....
bakes
I am the Beer God!
I've seen more elections than he's seen birthdays...
ld
redicting is easy - just look at the guy. He's an uncharismatic smarmy arrogant corporate shill who is proof that while the cream rises to the top, turds also float. He's reached his level of incompetency.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
:X Walker's platform that he ran on was getting back to Fiscal Conservatism and job creation. Everything he did as Milwaukee County Executive was what people should have expected when he ran.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone in WI, and no way should he compromise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
gangster
He's on the front page of Drudge, he's being interviewed by every national news organization in the US, and none other than the President of the United States himself has sent his administrations thugs to Wisconsin to protest.The dude is VERY much in the national eye right now. I'm glad he's not blinking either.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Especially if he pulls this off and turns this State around and creates jobs. He WILL be a force in the future.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Do you ever vary your schtick?
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
Not really. I only know a few of the biased political extremists. I find most folk on here to be pretty solid, whether or not I agree with them. I guess bakes isn't one of the reasonable ones?
Statorama
gangster
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
:XHe IS getting lots of attention right now. And that's the biggest key to gaining national prominence. Where's the shtick in his post?
Statorama
gangster
Sometimes I do a "OOOOOOOOHHHHHH I really really LOVE this politician" gag
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
it was a joke...nevermind
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
Kasich came into Ohio and is basically using the same, "It's my way or the highway approach." I'm not sure the "hammer" approach was the best move for House Republicans and Governors. I've never contributed a dollar to either the Democrats or Republicans, but I'm going to walk 1 block from work at lunch next week and ask to the protestors who I should send my money to. Kasich has basically told everyone that corporations have free will to do what they want. I'm not comfortable with that; much like I would not be comfortable with the Unions forcing everything down my throat.
Last edited by a moderator:
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
Kasich in Ohio is basically using the same, "It's my way or the highway approach." I'm not sure the "hammer" approach was the best move for House Republicans and Governors. I've never contributed a dollar to either the Democrats or Republicans, but I'm going to walk 1 block from work at lunch next week and ask to the protestors who I should send my money to. Kasich has basically told everyone that corporations have free will to do what they want. I'm not comfortable with that; much like I would not be comfortable with the Unions deciding everything.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Two Cents
Footballguy
I agree compromise would be the exactly wrong thing to do.
KingPrawn
Footballguy
This might put an end to the "Walker created the fiscal crisis" talk:
PolitiFact
Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year
False
It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.
A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.
Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.
"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."
She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.
Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."
We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.
In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.
Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.
We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.
Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.
There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.
More on that second point in a bit.
The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.
But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.
The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.
It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.
A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.
To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.
But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.
This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.
Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)
So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?
Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.
Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.
But it is an inaccurate one.
Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?
Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.
The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.
Here’s the bottom line:
There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.
We rate Maddow’s take False.
PolitiFact
Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year
False
It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.
A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.
Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.
"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."
She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.
Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."
We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.
In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.
Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.
We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.
Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.
There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.
More on that second point in a bit.
The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.
But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.
The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.
It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.
A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.
To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.
But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.
This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.
Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)
So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?
Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.
Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.
But it is an inaccurate one.
Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?
Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.
The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.
Here’s the bottom line:
There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.
We rate Maddow’s take False.
snogger
Footballguy
If this is true my rep has a LOT of explaing to do
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnnymac
Footballguy
You create discord. You divide the public. You set up a situation where it's possible you will be thrown out in the next election, and you lose all that you gained.
But a compromise in which the unions concede all of these pension and budget issues serves to erode their power without this becoming divisive.
If you truly believe it's by far the best option for the state, you get it done and worry about a re-election when that time comes. Having a sure thing now is far superior to a *possibility* of something down the line.
Walker's platform that he ran on was getting back to Fiscal Conservatism and job creation. Everything he did as Milwaukee County Executive was what people should have expected when he ran.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone in WI, and no way should he compromise.
So what about the people who didnt vote for him? Are they just supposed to bend over?
But a compromise in which the unions concede all of these pension and budget issues serves to erode their power without this becoming divisive.
If you truly believe it's by far the best option for the state, you get it done and worry about a re-election when that time comes. Having a sure thing now is far superior to a *possibility* of something down the line.
Walker's platform that he ran on was getting back to Fiscal Conservatism and job creation. Everything he did as Milwaukee County Executive was what people should have expected when he ran.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone in WI, and no way should he compromise.
So what about the people who didnt vote for him? Are they just supposed to bend over?
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Conservatives just spent the last two years clamoring for Obama to compromise....
the moops
Footballguy
If this is true my rep has a LOT of explaing to do
While not as common, there are indeed private labor unions out there.Mr Two Cents
Footballguy
Good grief are they still trying to pin this crisis on Walker, I talked about this pages back. Just do a Google search on "Wisconsin 2010 budget" and you will get all the links you need, from all kinds of sources including the University of Wisconsin.
Come on people you are either knowingly posting lies or just posting talking points. Google is your friend.
Come on people you are either knowingly posting lies or just posting talking points. Google is your friend.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Mine too.First thing Monday morning, I'm going to find out who this guy is and find out why the hell i am not making more!If this is true my rep has a LOT of explaing to do
KingPrawn
Footballguy
I agree with your point about the action of the Senators leaving WI to avoid the vote. But my understanding is that a quorum is need to vote on bills dealing with the budget. Does this mean that the Republicans can continue to vote on other matters? Why not take the opportunity to vote on other Republican agendas such as voter ID? I would guess the Democrats come back in a hurry.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
You mean like the people that didn't vote for Obama? That's why we have elections.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
And?
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Obama: "I won. Deal with it"And?
Similar threads
