Today in Wisconsin students rise up and protest!

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Dem Rep to unions: Time to get ‘bloody’ � New Hampshire Journal

A Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts is raising the stakes in the nation’s fight over the future of public employee unions, saying emails aren’t enough to show support and that it is time to “get a little bloody.”

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.

Capuano’s comments come at a time when there is heightened sensitivity to violent rhetoric in the wake of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-Az.) shooting in January.

Capuano is considered a leading contender to take on Sen. Scott Brown in 2012.

This is not Capuano’s first brush with violent rhetoric. Last month Capuano said, “Politicians, I think are too bland today. I don’t know what they believe in. Nothing wrong with throwing a coffee cup at someone if you’re doing it for human rights.”

1. Awful choice of words, and he should be called out on it.

2. Congrats on ignoring everything people have been replying to you about just to get another shot in on the Dems.

[anitram]

Regarding the Congressman in Massachussetts who made that ridiculous statement - I am always astounded when elected officials make such ridiculous, over the top, inappropriate statements. I mean if there is anyone who should be aware of the reach of the media, it should be politicians. It does not take a lot of foresight or intelligence to choose your words and to give them some thought before speaking.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Dem Rep to unions: Time to get ‘bloody’ � New Hampshire Journal
[/I]

Indiana Official: "Use Live Ammunition" Against Wisconsin Protesters | Mother Jones



we could do this all day.

what do you think about the situation? use your words.

[Jeannieco]

My oh my. Somebody has egg on his face if this turns out to be the read deal.

Sing it Cindy... " I see your true colors shining through"..

Scott Walker Gets Punked By Journalist Pretending To Be David Koch

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what do you think about the situation? use your words.

Was that meant to be a serious question, when you asked that earlier? I wasn't sure...

Alright, I'll play along and act like the third-grader you apparently think I am. I'll even start by allowing you to read what I write slowly and in big letters, just so you get used to my juvenile, unsophisticated style and interpretation of what's going on.

There's... a... budget... crisis... in... Wisconsin. Walker... inherited... a... deficit... from... Doyle... despite... claims... that... there... is... a... surplus.

Following?

Walker campaigned on the benefit and pension concessions being required. That's no secret, and the proposal for such should not have caught anybody by surprise. Wisconsin's state and local taxes are higher than the national average, and jobs have been fleeing the state. You can't raise taxes. Any credible comparison measure will show that the public employees have it much better than the private counterparts. I heard on CNN last week that WI taxpayers pay $20billion for the public's pensions and benefits. Those in the unions pay just $500million. As far as the collective bargaining being dismantled, it's just for salaries; bargaining for benefits remains in tact. FDR, of all people, knew the dangers of unions. I need to look no further that here in IL. Unions have taken this state down the drain for decades. If not for the hell-hole that is Chicago, we'd be a reliably red (and prosperous) state. If you're unaware, IL is 5th in the country in unmet pensions. Of course, to alleviate this, rather than actually address the real issue, our income taxes rose 66% this year and businesses are getting out of here as fast as possible. I think it's pretty straightforward, and most national polls are, I'm sorry to say, not siding with you on this, Irvine. That's just my good ol' Tea Partyin' view on the basics of the matter, though.

To the Democratic Senators, they are cowards. They aren't patriots for hiding, or brave, or representing the people, or to be admired. They are cowards. We had an election, and in the words of Obama, "I won."

I'm equally as interested in the utter hypocrisy about the protests themselves. During the height of the Tea Party, all you guys could talk about were the signs, the supposed violent rhetoric, the stupidity, the backwardsness of the people at the rallies, the potential danger, the irresponsibility, the ignorance proudly on display, and- don't forget- Koch Brothers! Go into the Tea Party thread and look. Yet when I do the same- pointing out the Hitler signs, the trash EVERYWHERE, the busing in of people from other states and the OFA efforts there (astroturf, no?), the lying doctors, the lying teachers, the lack of a central message- I get "Whatever, both sides do it, move along, blah blah, shrug smiley" Where's the same level of lambasting? Where's the same level of mockery? Believe me, I don't mind it. I think such a complete-180 is amazingly entertaining to watch here.

Anyway, so what do YOU think? Is there a budget problem, or was there a fantastic surplus left by Doyle? Are Paul Krugman and Larry O'Donnell wrong? Or are Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz wrong? Along the same lines, how would you cut the debt- and I mean REALLY cut the debt? Saying "cut defense and raise taxes on the rich" isn't an answer, so don't bother. Do you have a plan?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Along the same lines, how would you cut the debt- and I mean REALLY cut the debt? Saying "cut defense and raise taxes on the rich" isn't an answer, so don't bother.

Why isn't that an answer?

I'm not being facetious.

[Canadiens1131]

The only answer to reducing the debt is obviously

• Cutting social programs for inches of political gain
• Tax breaks for high-income earners

instead of

• Cutting defense spending
• Realistically looking at social security cuts

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Alright, I'll play along and act like the third-grader you apparently think I am.

I think you're treated as such because you seem to invest most of your time posting here into desperately trying to elicit concessions from left-wingers that, oh my god, MSNBC editorial staff spins the newz, liberals are hypocrites, and Fox News (an entertainment network, just like MSNBC) needs vigorous defending as if it's some glorious pulpit of truth instead of a massive behemoth of corporate interest just like all cable 'news'.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe you do give a shit.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Anyway, so what do YOU think? Is there a budget problem, or was there a fantastic surplus left by Doyle? Are Paul Krugman and Larry O'Donnell wrong? Or are Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz wrong? Along the same lines, how would you cut the debt- and I mean REALLY cut the debt? Saying "cut defense and raise taxes on the rich" isn't an answer, so don't bother. Do you have a plan?

that was the first time you've ever, to my memory, actually written a paragraph that didn't involve MSNBC. though at the end, here, you bring them back up. but it's progress, thank you for writing.

my opinion? i think this is a blatant attempt to union bust because unions are the only GOTV vehicle that the Democrats have that's remotely comparable to what the GOP has with the (supposedly apolitical, thusly tax-free) churches. that's what this is about at it's core.

i absolutely agree that pensions need to be revised, though it's not like people live high on the hog after earning $49K a year as a schoolteacher for 30 years. because of that, that there need to be incentives in place to get good people to work in government because they are not motivated by profit. job stability and pensions are a good way to go about that -- i know tons of federal government workers, and many of them have left the private sector for the public and work considerably harder than they did before. they lose their 401K packages, but they gain a pension (something that i, as a same-sex partner, will never have access to in the future should Memphis die before i do, thanks to the bigots in your party). there are a series of trade offs between public and private sector work, and i find people like police officers, firemen, and teachers far more noble and far more valuable to the basic functions of society than i-bankers, lawyers, and even media people like myself.

i've said in here, repeatedly, that entitlements need to be seriously examined. all cuts to discretionary spending amounts to nothing more than political point scoring -- NPR! Planned Parenthood! -- and saves us, what, 1/100th of a penny on the dollar?

cut defense. raise the retirement age. and, yes, fully fund Obamacare as a way to afford real cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. that's where all the spending is, and social security is the easiest fix. our aging society has to be paid for.

raise taxes. simplify the tax code to increase revenue through closing loopholes. end corporate welfare. invest in a real manufacturing base in this country rather than shipping everything to China. invest in green energy as that's where the jobs of the future lie.

austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich is a one-way ticket back to the brutality of the 19th century.

(no Krugman, Schultz, or Maddow in sight ...)

[Diemen]

I saw a clip from FoxNews of Chris Wallace interviewing Governor Walker (that I'm too lazy to look up right now because I'm at work... I'll look for it later). Wallace asked Walker if he would be willing to drop the elimination of collective bargaining if the unions agreed to all the proposed cuts in pay/benefits/pension/etc. Walker said he would not. Let me repeat that: if the unions agreed to all proposed fiscal cuts, Walker still wouldn't be satisfied. That is not the response of someone primarily interested in fiscal responsibility.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Was that meant to be a serious question, when you asked that earlier? I wasn't sure...

Alright, I'll play along and act like the third-grader you apparently think I am. I'll even start by allowing you to read what I write slowly and in big letters, just so you get used to my juvenile, unsophisticated style and interpretation of what's going on.

There's... a... budget... crisis... in... Wisconsin. Walker... inherited... a... deficit... from... Doyle... despite... claims... that... there... is... a... surplus.

Following?

Walker campaigned on the benefit and pension concessions being required. That's no secret, and the proposal for such should not have caught anybody by surprise. Wisconsin's state and local taxes are higher than the national average, and jobs have been fleeing the state. You can't raise taxes. Any credible comparison measure will show that the public employees have it much better than the private counterparts. I heard on CNN last week that WI taxpayers pay $20billion for the public's pensions and benefits. Those in the unions pay just $500million. As far as the collective bargaining being dismantled, it's just for salaries; bargaining for benefits remains in tact. FDR, of all people, knew the dangers of unions. I need to look no further that here in IL. Unions have taken this state down the drain for decades. If not for the hell-hole that is Chicago, we'd be a reliably red (and prosperous) state. If you're unaware, IL is 5th in the country in unmet pensions. Of course, to alleviate this, rather than actually address the real issue, our income taxes rose 66% this year and businesses are getting out of here as fast as possible. I think it's pretty straightforward, and most national polls are, I'm sorry to say, not siding with you on this, Irvine. That's just my good ol' Tea Partyin' view on the basics of the matter, though.

To the Democratic Senators, they are cowards. They aren't patriots for hiding, or brave, or representing the people, or to be admired. They are cowards. We had an election, and in the words of Obama, "I won."

I'm equally as interested in the utter hypocrisy about the protests themselves. During the height of the Tea Party, all you guys could talk about were the signs, the supposed violent rhetoric, the stupidity, the backwardsness of the people at the rallies, the potential danger, the irresponsibility, the ignorance proudly on display, and- don't forget- Koch Brothers! Go into the Tea Party thread and look. Yet when I do the same- pointing out the Hitler signs, the trash EVERYWHERE, the busing in of people from other states and the OFA efforts there (astroturf, no?), the lying doctors, the lying teachers, the lack of a central message- I get "Whatever, both sides do it, move along, blah blah, shrug smiley" Where's the same level of lambasting? Where's the same level of mockery? Believe me, I don't mind it. I think such a complete-180 is amazingly entertaining to watch here.

Anyway, so what do YOU think? Is there a budget problem, or was there a fantastic surplus left by Doyle? Are Paul Krugman and Larry O'Donnell wrong? Or are Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz wrong? Along the same lines, how would you cut the debt- and I mean REALLY cut the debt? Saying "cut defense and raise taxes on the rich" isn't an answer, so don't bother. Do you have a plan?

You don't have facts correct, you always have to throw in some McCartyism like enemy, and you don't seem to grasp the issue. You're arguing from Rush/Beck's stance, I know because some of this is word for word their point of view, but when you do it second hand it gets even sloppier. Do yourself a favor stop listening to the hacks they WILL steer you wrong.

[deep]

Originally Posted by anitram

Why isn't that an answer?

I'm not being facetious.

Defense is paid from Federal taxes,
it is not included in the Wisconsin state budget.

[deep]

: Wisconsin Governor Punked; David Koch Imitator Pranks Scott Walker (VIDEO)

[anitram]

Originally Posted by deep

: Wisconsin Governor Punked; David Koch Imitator Pranks Scott Walker (VIDEO)

Are you now starting to see that there is more to this than meets the eye?

[maycocksean]

I'd be interested in hearing the pros and cons of collective bargaining. I confess I don't know much about this. I haven't been able to get a good sense of why--beyond the darker, political motives ascribed to him which of course he won't cop to--Walker and co. would be so opposed to it, and why banning it is supposed to be so vital to Wisconsin's fiscal health.

I see why the unions would see it as vital to their survival, but I haven't heard a real counter-argument from the other side.

2861? deep, maybe?

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

I'm equally as interested in the utter hypocrisy about the protests themselves. During the height of the Tea Party, all you guys could talk about were the signs, the supposed violent rhetoric, the stupidity, the backwardsness of the people at the rallies, the potential danger, the irresponsibility, the ignorance proudly on display, and- don't forget- Koch Brothers! Go into the Tea Party thread and look. Yet when I do the same- pointing out the Hitler signs, the trash EVERYWHERE, the busing in of people from other states and the OFA efforts there (astroturf, no?), the lying doctors, the lying teachers, the lack of a central message- I get "Whatever, both sides do it, move along, blah blah, shrug smiley" Where's the same level of lambasting? Where's the same level of mockery? Believe me, I don't mind it. I think such a complete-180 is amazingly entertaining to watch here.

Here's the thing: Nobody is defending those idiots on the left. Everyone has stated they disagree in some way, shape, or form. I'm disappointed and embarrassed by anyone on the left who is doing the very thing the Tea Party did. I don't want them to stoop to that level and find it disgusting and sad that there are some that are.

But we actually had to have a debate over whether or not there were racist attacks or violent rhetoric on the right. Remember the Giffords thread? People there claimed "bull crap" when we brought up that stuff, and we had to actually point out that no, it wasn't.

Once again, a post of mine from a few pages back:

I think everyone has made it perfectly clear that there is stupidity on both sides and that those comparisons are moronic either way. Our issue is more about the overabundance of them on one side vs. another.

However, to reiterate:

Nazi/Hitler comparison and weaponry-related signs are stupid, baseless, ill informed, pathetic, and annoying no matter who is making them.

There. Satisfied now?

The threats of violence, joking or not, need to stop, and I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't institute a rule that people don't speak of Hitler or the Nazis again outside of the necessary educational discussion in a classroom setting and things of that nature, 'cause quite frankly, if I hear ANYBODY make that sort of comparison again, I WILL scream. Shut up with that stuff already, people, for the love of God.

Originally Posted by anitram

Regarding the Congressman in Massachussetts who made that ridiculous statement - I am always astounded when elected officials make such ridiculous, over the top, inappropriate statements. I mean if there is anyone who should be aware of the reach of the media, it should be politicians. It does not take a lot of foresight or intelligence to choose your words and to give them some thought before speaking.

Fully agreed on this . It's the height of irresponsibility and it won't make me any more interested in hearing what you have to say.

Angela

[Diemen]

Daily Kos: Fox flips poll results to falsely claim Americans support union-busting

I'm sure it was just a simple mistake.

[Jeannieco]

Originally Posted by deep

: Wisconsin Governor Punked; David Koch Imitator Pranks Scott Walker (VIDEO)

Hey look up, I posted this earlier today. I thought everyone saw it and were unphased. He admitted to the phone call and what he said so it's all true... he is beholden to the Koch brothers and big business, not the working class.
Not that we needed any proof, but for the righties that need evidence...here you go.

[Jeannieco]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Daily Kos: Fox flips poll results to falsely claim Americans support union-busting

I'm sure it was just a simple mistake.

What exactly are you implying?? Fox News is right wing tool?

[yolland]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

As far as the collective bargaining being dismantled, it's just for salaries; bargaining for benefits remains in tact.

No--the reverse is true. From the official legislative summary of the bill (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011-...egislation.pdf):

Collective bargaining rights under current law would be retained for public safety employees only. Under MERA, a public safety employee would be defined as any municipal employee who is employed in a position classified as a protective occupation participant who is a police officer, a fire fighter, a deputy sheriff, a county traffic police officer, a person employed by a village to provide police and fire protection services, or a comparable position under the provisions of a county (Milwaukee) or city (Milwaukee) retirement system. Under SELRA, a public safety employee would be defined as a member of the state traffic patrol or a state motor vehicle inspector.
...............................
Prohibit any municipal employer under MERA or the state under SELRA from bargaining collectively with a collective bargaining unit containing a general municipal employee with respect to any factor or condition of employment except wages. Wages would include only total base wages and would exclude any other compensation, including, but not limited to, overtime, premium pay, merit pay, performance pay, supplemental compensation, pay schedules, and automatic pay progressions. Unless approved by referendum as described below, prohibit any increase in base wages that exceeds the total base wages for authorized positions 180 days before the expiration of the previous collective bargaining agreement by a greater percentage than the increase in the consumer price index.

(...i.e., an inflation cap.) The document also specifies that certain categories of workers (licensed childcare providers, home healthcare workers, and University of Wisconsin faculty) will not be allowed to engage in any collective bargaining whatsoever, and that public sector union members cannot be required to pay dues.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I'd be interested in hearing the pros and cons of collective bargaining.

The classic argument against *public sector* unions is that the unique relationship between employee and employer involved warps the collective bargaining process, and at the taxpayer's expense. The "employer" has often received large sums of money from the union in the form of campaign contributions (e.g. Walker with the police and firemen), and furthermore the "business" in question is often a state monopoly, so the inhibition of not wanting to risk your job by rendering your employer uncompetitive isn't there. Campaign finance reform might be one way to address the former concern, though there's considerable bipartisan opposition to that.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by yolland

Campaign finance reform might be one way to address the former concern, though there's considerable bipartisan opposition to that.

The one thing both parties can agree on, and it HAS to be that .

Angela