Gov. Walker of Wisconsin

[DZComposer]

["User"]

One, he is doing what he was elected to do and that is to help bring down the deficit. (And yes the "majority" comment that I put down earlier was actually concerning another politically related story which I will post up in a few minutes) This is democracy is it not?

Secondly, state democrats are technically breaking the law by leaving the state and not going their job as elected representatives. This sets a dangerous precedent and what's to stop other senators in other states of either party from doing the same thing? Why isn't this a crime in itself? If I didn't show up to work I'd be fired! What gives these people the right to do something like this without immediate punishment? Why aren't they representing the democratic process just because they don't get their way? If anyone are the assholes it's senators who just run away who don't get their way. This particular point isn't even a partisan line issue, if the people I helped elect in Canada didn't show up to work I'd be calling for their removal too.

Thirdly, concerning these protests. Is "mob rule" democracy? Democracy happened last November is a peaceful, bloodless, orderly manner after a campaign where the candidates argued the issues. These guys have the audacity to criticize the Republican's methods after the Democrats left the state to avoid voting!

Please elaborate on why exactly he is an asshole because he is taking a stand? He

s trying to get rid of a huge deficit here. I mean...I know what points you're probably going to make that are pro-union but this does nothing to really solve the problem there. :/

[ballisticwaffles]

he is an asshole becuase he is removing the collective bargining rights from federal employees paving the way for the glorius ways of communism to take hold in america. Removing rights is a bad thing regardless of t he reason behind it.

["User"]

he is an asshole becuase he is removing the collective bargining rights from federal employees paving the way for the glorius ways of communism to take hold in america. Removing rights is a bad thing regardless of t he reason behind it.

You know, countries like China might technically be communist but if you look deeper you'll find that they are amongst the best capitalists out there.

Collective bargaining isn't a right in Wisconsin. Rather, it's a privilege that can be take away. Contrast that with constitutional rights, which no legislature can nullify.

How to fix it so it is a right? It may mean adding a "labor bill of rights" to state constitutions that guarantee collective bargaining and other worker rights. Corporations however have an iron grip over the legislative process and very few legislators will step up to the task, leaving it to citizen initiatives to do the job. In states where the state constitution can't be amended by citizens, it may mean amending municipal home rule charters, a community's local constitution.

I'm not against unions or other assumed rights and in the long haul this is probably a bad thing since the Federal government and the states have such large deficits things like this probably won't even help. That being said, however, I'm kind of peeved that the democratic process is not being followed here. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you are on or who is "right", this entire thing completely disrespects and undermines the democratic process which America was founded and this charade is yet ANOTHER reason why American politics to me, while more "entertaining" then politics in my country, is in desperate need of repair. It is so polarized with regards to partisanship and MASSIVELY in debt (I have no idea what America's credit rating has not been downgraded yet >_>) that it wouldn't surprise me to see it eventually take a turn that most other great republics of the past did...

[ZM Anonymous]

I agree with User. The real assholes are the dems who fled Wisconsin

[Samantha Weltzin]

There is precedent for the walk-out the Democrats did in the past, but of course politics is so volatile right now that such an action is seen as incredibly extreme, despite having been done numerous times before. The reason it was done is because they were taking a stand against a single part of the bill that they deemed to be insane. I suppose it's called "civil disobedience," as, yes, it is against their jobs (to some extent, but more on that later), but it was also done out of principle. Should there be consequences for skipping out? Probably, yes. But that doesn't make it wrong, either.

The reason Walker is an asshole is because he would not budge on a single part of the bill, and refused to compromise despite the Democrats saying that if the collective bargaining part was taken out, they'd come back and vote on the bill that they still didn't exactly like. He tried to have them arrested (Dunno how they could do their jobs from jail either, but whatever), and then he and the remaining representatives forced a vote despite not having a quorum. The legality of that move is now being contested, so really...can you hold the Republican side higher than the Democratic? Both sides did things of questionable legality, after all. I'm more on the Democratic side, though, because at least what they did has historical precedent. Add to that that, yes, the Democrats are doing their jobs in representing their constituency. The people who voted them in did it so they would defend certain things Democrats typically hold dear, and union privileges are one of those things.

By the way, the argument that this was done to "reduce the deficit" is pretty much bullshit. If that was the goal, then Walker wouldn't have pushed through all the large tax breaks for huge businesses, and this whole thing wouldn't have even had to have been an issue. Businesses can afford it; they had been affording it up until the breaks went through anyway, so any tax breaks that happen are just extra money in their pockets. Besides, it's been proven time and again in study after study that tax breaks have minimal impact on stimulating an economy. The "Trickle Down" theory Reagan proposed has been proven not to work, and honestly? It makes sense why it wouldn't: Big businesses don't redistribute the wealth to their workers, and they rarely use it to expand their businesses. They typically give it to their CEOs and spend it on trips and various other frivolities. If you want proof, take a look at your paycheck next time a large tax break goes through. If it doesn't increase, that means that the tax breaks are not stimulating the economy. After all, who spends more in the market? CEOs or consumers? (Hint: The latter)

Anyway, the second part there seems like a big tangential rant about tax breaks and the like, but the point is that Governor Walker is just pulling the same bullshit hypocritical Republican maneuver that's been done time after time, and he'll get away with it too because the same tactic works constantly: Claim you're reducing the budget whether you are or not, and demonize the other side for disagreeing with your proposals. People don't research, so you can count of them to eat up every word because of it.

By the way, I support children, and if you disagree with anything I said up here, you clearly do not support children.

(P.S. A good read about civil disobedience for you: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html )

["User"]

There is precedent for the walk-out the Democrats did in the past, but of course politics is so volatile right now that such an action is seen as incredibly extreme, despite having been done numerous times before. The reason it was done is because they were taking a stand against a single part of the bill that they deemed to be insane.

As long as in today's polarized climate, which I doubt was this bad in recent memory, it's not a regular occurrence. The insane part clearly goes both ways though. What is insane to what side might be perfectly legitimate to another. Obamacare comes to mind as the most contentious thing right now.

I suppose it's called "civil disobedience," as, yes, it is against their jobs (to some extent, but more on that later), but it was also done out of principle. Should there be consequences for skipping out? Probably, yes. But that doesn't make it wrong, either.

Again, depends on the issue and which side of the aisle you're on.

The reason Walker is an asshole is because he would not budge on a single part of the bill, and refused to compromise despite the Democrats saying that if the collective bargaining part was taken out, they'd come back and vote on the bill that they still didn't exactly like. He tried to have them arrested (Dunno how they could do their jobs from jail either, but whatever), and then he and the remaining representatives forced a vote despite not having a quorum.

I haven't looked at a lot of the very specific parts of the bill but the part you are talking about I'm quite familiar with. Again, my disdain, as previously mentioned is more so the democratic process not being followed as I haven't spend as much time as I would have liked to read over the bill in detail and as such I can't make an informed pro or anti union stance. Regardless, not doing your job is a dick move, regardless of previous precedent, and ESPECIALLY if it's almost a totally partisan issue like this one.

The legality of that move is now being contested, so really...can you hold the Republican side higher than the Democratic? Both sides did things of questionable legality, after all.

Agreed. If the party roles were reversed I'd have the same opinion as I do now.

I'm more on the Democratic side, though, because at least what they did has historical precedent. Add to that that, yes, the Democrats are doing their jobs in representing their constituency. The people who voted them in did it so they would defend certain things Democrats typically hold dear, and union privileges are one of those things.

Doing your job is showing up to work and voting yay, nay, or abstaining altogether. Based on what you've said here if that's the case than why aren't there a heck of a lot more walkouts in general? It's an extreme move yes and although there is precedent for something like this fleeing the state you don't see every session.

By the way, the argument that this was done to "reduce the deficit" is pretty much bullshit. If that was the goal, then Walker wouldn't have pushed through all the large tax breaks for huge businesses, and this whole thing wouldn't have even had to have been an issue. Businesses can afford it; they had been affording it up until the breaks went through anyway, so any tax breaks that happen are just extra money in their pockets. Besides, it's been proven time and again in study after study that tax breaks have minimal impact on stimulating an economy. The "Trickle Down" theory Reagan proposed has been proven not to work, and honestly? It makes sense why it wouldn't: Big businesses don't redistribute the wealth to their workers, and they rarely use it to expand their businesses. They typically give it to their CEOs and spend it on trips and various other frivolities. If you want proof, take a look at your paycheck next time a large tax break goes through. If it doesn't increase, that means that the tax breaks are not stimulating the economy. After all, who spends more in the market? CEOs or consumers? (Hint: The latter)

Maybe the situation regarding tax breaks then is more different than I thought in the States as opposed to Canada, I'll have to do further research. Other than that you are right in your points.

By the way, I support children, and if you disagree with anything I said up here, you clearly do not support children.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic with the disagreement part but I support children too, that doesn't mean we necessarily have to have the same beliefs on how to best proceed. This sounds like demonizing to me. :)

[Samantha Weltzin]

As long as in today's polarized climate, which I doubt was this bad in recent memory, it's not a regular occurrence. The insane part clearly goes both ways though. What is insane to what side might be perfectly legitimate to another. Obamacare comes to mind as the most contentious thing right now.

Again, depends on the issue and which side of the aisle you're on.

I haven't looked at a lot of the very specific parts of the bill but the part you are talking about I'm quite familiar with. Again, my disdain, as previously mentioned is more so the democratic process not being followed as I haven't spend as much time as I would have liked to read over the bill in detail and as such I can't make an informed pro or anti union stance. Regardless, not doing your job is a dick move, regardless of previous precedent, and ESPECIALLY if it's almost a totally partisan issue like this one.

Agreed. If the party roles were reversed I'd have the same opinion as I do now.

Doing your job is showing up to work and voting yay, nay, or abstaining altogether. Based on what you've said here if that's the case than why aren't there a heck of a lot more walkouts in general? It's an extreme move yes and although there is precedent for something like this fleeing the state you don't see every session.

Maybe the situation regarding tax breaks then is more different than I thought in the States as opposed to Canada, I'll have to do further research. Other than that you are right in your points.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic with the disagreement part but I support children too, that doesn't mean we necessarily have to have the same beliefs on how to best proceed. This sounds like demonizing to me.

Sounds like we don't really disagree that much, so I'll just comment on that last part.

It was sarcastic and meant to be silly, but it was also meant to show the tactic I was talking about earlier. Massive red herring that a lot of politicians use. I've seen it more on the Republican side than the Democratic side, but the Democrats have used it as well in the past (the abortion issue comes to mind when they say "Pro-Choice"). Whoever uses it, it ticks me off, so I figured I'd mock it by using a parody of it here.

[Sabre]

Clearly the most compelling argument of all time. :P

[DZComposer]

Well, let's look at the facts.

1. Walker created the deficit himself. The first thing he did when he came in office (he inherited a freaking budget SURPLUS) was get massive corporate tax breaks passed. He then turns to the public employees and says "we can't afford unions, so no collective bargaining." Basically, he took money from workers to give to businesses.

2. The state's finance people said that even though Walker created a deficit, it was not enough of one to be considered an emergency.

3. The unions agreed to all of the pay and benefit cuts Walker wanted.

4. The Democrats had no other option to slow this bill down. There is no allowance for a US Senate-style filibuster. The Republicans were trying to ram it through without debate or the possibility for amendments, and were all voting in lockstep. What the Wisconsin Dems did is no different than what the federal Senate Republicans did for the past two years with their constant filibusters. As far as legality, the courts are not forcing them back, so it isn't as illegal as you would think. The courts have, though, ordered that the capitol remain open, which the Republicans have violated said order numerous times in the past couple of weeks.

5. Walker has a history of creating fake crises and then using it to try to destroy Unions. Except that last time he did it the courts bitch-slapped him for it.

Now to the issue of "mob rule" and democracy. None of these Republicans ran on a platform of destroying unions. They likely would not have won had they done so. (PROTIP: Politicians lie and mislead) Also, criticizing people for protesting what their government is doing is retarded. The ability to protest the government is one of the founding principles of the United States of America. While I agree that elections have consequences, sometimes those consequences are not what the people were intending.

One thing of note: Walker has probably insured that Wisconsin will be a blue state in 2012, if not sooner. The recall efforts of Republican senators have exploded in popularity in the past couple of days.

[Robert Monroe]

I think if Walker wanted to "soothe" the deficit of Wisconsin, there are probably more worthwhile and less controversial things than "herpderp no Union bargaining rights".