If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Since the beginning of the recall effort against him, the people have rallied around WI Gov Scott Walker, donating almost $4 million to his campaign. And by "the people" I mean millionaires in TX, MO, and AZ   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 107
    More: Obvious, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth  
•       •       •

1413 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2012 at 12:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-25 01:21:13 PM  

ArkAngel: KarmicDisaster: ArkAngel:

One reason teacher strikes are less common now is that 37 states don't allow them to strike.

I'm not talking about other states, I'm talking about Wisconsin.

Illegal here, too.


If it is illegal, why are you complaining about the horrible strikes that you say you endured? You can't do much more than making something illegal. Strikes were almost constant before the unions, illegal after the unions, and now you are complaining that the unions are responsible for strikes? Google Wisconsin teachers strikes 1970's to read some different perspective on the pre-union strikes; that's what you want to return to.
 
2012-01-25 01:23:32 PM  

theorellior: Don't Troll Me Bro!: You can't make this up. He cut funding for healthcare for the poor because he claimed we could not afford it. Then the federal government tries to help us and he turns it down and cuts healthcare programs anyway, while still claiming we can't afford it. He stated that he did this because it will make his case stronger when he refuses to implement "Obamacare." (new window)

What is this I don't even.

/facepalm


He's banking on the repeal of "Obamacare"; he's not even getting the OCI or any other department started on setting up the health-care exchanges.

/Not that OCI would have half a clue on what they're doing but hey...
 
2012-01-25 01:24:35 PM  

ArkAngel: Isitoveryet: wait a minute, we pay crossing guards!?

i thought those were parents who volunteered to keep kids safe at crosswalks.

really?

what is that, a 10 hour work week?

Yep. One hour in the morning, one in the afternoon. I'm not sure you could get enough volunteers in some of the weather we have.

Here's my corner (new window)


nice neighborhood.

you said you had a .40cent reduction in pay, which means they pay more than minimum for that position, i am a little shocked.

i have to tell you, if i were Walker, i would cut that down to minimum.
at least then you wouldn't have to worry about another decrease.

perhaps then you could acknowledge the importance of being part of the negotiation process when it comes time to bargaining for your labor.
 
2012-01-25 01:24:55 PM  

KarmicDisaster: If it is illegal, why are you complaining about the horrible strikes that you say you endured? You can't do much more than making something illegal. Strikes were almost constant before the unions, illegal after the unions, and now you are complaining that the unions are responsible for strikes? Google Wisconsin teachers strikes 1970's to read some different perspective on the pre-union strikes; that's what you want to return to


Tommy banned teachers from striking. Hence why you get "sick outs" and no after school participation from time to tiem in some districts.
 
2012-01-25 01:33:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: meat0918: DozeNutz: qorkfiend: ArkAngel: First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected.

The exact same reasoning can be applied to government contracting. Costs are borne by the taxpayer, politicians decide the fate of contracts, etc. Are you similarly against privatization of government functions?

Do you know how the bidding process works? I'm not talking Halliburton and shiat like that where they were hand picked, I'm talking Waste Water Treatment plants and Bridges and that sorts. The government comes out with a project, and they put it up for bid to see who can construct the building the cheapest/cost-effective. This is the best choice for both the taxpayer IMHO, instead of having preset wage controls on workers pumping up the projects price.

You know how I can tell you've never been involved in the bidding process, especially at the local level???

Did you know that I work for an electrical contractor that does private and govt contracts? Did you know that they take lowest bidder 95% of the time? Other 5% based on previous successful contracts if bids are close? Do you know how I know that you are full of shiat?

Do the words "prevailing wage rates" mean anything to you?


I was thinking more along the lines of bids that undercut the competition so far below what is reasonable that it blows his "cost effective" line out of the water. Project overruns are so common these days because everyone tries to be the lowest bidder, and will exclude any cost they can in order to be that low bidder. They are no longer effective measures of cost estimation.

And yes, I watch bids get done regularly. They skirt around so many of the real costs that the bid numbers are always, ALWAYS much lower than the real costs. Makes budgeting a pain in the ass.
 
2012-01-25 01:34:03 PM  

someonelse: This is a man who complains about the influence of out-of-state money while at an out of state fundraiser. And then goes on to refer to his own out-of-state donors as "people from around the country helping [him] at the grassroots level."

There is something seriously wrong in his brain.


After taking the Kochs up the hiney for so long, you just get dead on the inside and not feel anything.
 
2012-01-25 01:55:51 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: KarmicDisaster: If it is illegal, why are you complaining about the horrible strikes that you say you endured? You can't do much more than making something illegal. Strikes were almost constant before the unions, illegal after the unions, and now you are complaining that the unions are responsible for strikes? Google Wisconsin teachers strikes 1970's to read some different perspective on the pre-union strikes; that's what you want to return to

Tommy banned teachers from striking. Hence why you get "sick outs" and no after school participation from time to tiem in some districts.


Teachers strikes in Wisconsin were banned in 1971 under Patrick Lucey
 
2012-01-25 02:07:47 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: ArkAngel: I've been a far right shill as long I've been on fark, but take me seriously!

That's some serious concern trolling but the Internet proves how much of a lying fark you are. Besides, even if any of that was honest, the solution is to demand the government negotiate fairly. You do realize that the public employees union agreed to every demand made by the state government, right?


That's pretty awesome.
 
2012-01-25 02:07:59 PM  

winterwhile: whosits_112: winterwhile: Spend baby spend dem-o-rats

at least this time you are wasting your own money and not mine

Was it brain cancer that you had? If so, you poor poor person. That would explain a lot.
/If it WASN'T brain cancer, then I wish you had died.
//Yes, that was very mean. No, I don't care. You repeat the same sh*t over and over and over again. Everyone hates you. DIAF.

nice liberal.... nice liberal


Who said I was a liberal? I'm sure conservatives are tired of you too because you offer nothing but DERRRRRRRRRRRR.
 
2012-01-25 02:16:21 PM  

ArkAngel: Ken VeryBigLiar: KarmicDisaster: If it is illegal, why are you complaining about the horrible strikes that you say you endured? You can't do much more than making something illegal. Strikes were almost constant before the unions, illegal after the unions, and now you are complaining that the unions are responsible for strikes? Google Wisconsin teachers strikes 1970's to read some different perspective on the pre-union strikes; that's what you want to return to

Tommy banned teachers from striking. Hence why you get "sick outs" and no after school participation from time to tiem in some districts.

Teachers strikes in Wisconsin were banned in 1971 under Patrick Lucey


That didn't stop them from striking, the unions did. Work slowdowns were teachers refuse to work on their own time after school is far less bad than the old strike days where kids didn't go to school, and there have not been that many slowdowns and not for long. Fire them all! That's been done too; what happened was that no teachers would go to work in those districts; why should they. Only the unions forced them to work. There were bitter bitter complete strikes before the unions.
 
2012-01-25 02:43:20 PM  

ArkAngel: I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.


Then perhaps you should reconsider you stance on unions?
 
2012-01-25 02:54:52 PM  

BeesNuts: ArkAngel: I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.

Then perhaps you should reconsider you stance on unions?


I don't think the job should get benefits. What kind of benefits can you offer someone working 10 hours a week? Any kind of insurance would take more than my whole paycheck.
 
2012-01-25 03:01:18 PM  

count chocula: But, is it not also important to pay people in such important positions such as teaching or policing a competitive enough wage to keep qualified applicants interested? The less the state pays a starting salary for a teacher, the less likely a qualified candidate entering the job market will take that job. This creates a race to the bottom effect in the quality of the education your children will receive. This is how free markets work, remember.


...what do you think the Republicans want?

Step 1: Destroy the effectiveness of government.
Step 2: Sell the now "ineffective" government pieces to the highest bidder, as privatization is "obviously" so much better than the incompetent government that we made incompetent.
Step 3: Profit, in both money and re-election.
 
2012-01-25 03:29:33 PM  

ArkAngel:

I'm a crossing guard..


hahaha
 
2012-01-25 03:41:02 PM  
Wow ArkAngel, are you TRYING to clown the fark out of yourself in this thread?

"If you've seen my posts, you'll know I'm about equal parts snark, political debater, advice giver, and joke maker, with a little trolling thrown in for flavor"

Well, at least you admit it.
 
2012-01-25 03:58:13 PM  

ArkAngel: BeesNuts: ArkAngel: I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.

Then perhaps you should reconsider you stance on unions?

I don't think the job should get benefits. What kind of benefits can you offer someone working 10 hours a week? Any kind of insurance would take more than my whole paycheck.


And the paycut?

/Is that your only employment?
//This situation doesn't seem like a normal 'public employee' situation to me.
 
2012-01-25 04:05:05 PM  

IlGreven: ...what do you think the Republicans want?

Step 1: Destroy the effectiveness of government.
Step 2: Sell the now "ineffective" government pieces to the highest bidder, as privatization is "obviously" so much better than the incompetent government that we made incompetent.
Step 3: Profit, in both money and re-election.


4. Turn the US into a third-world theocracy where the poor pay taxes to the rich, just so the rich won't have to pay taxes at all.
 
2012-01-25 04:07:03 PM  

BeesNuts: ArkAngel: BeesNuts: ArkAngel: I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.

Then perhaps you should reconsider you stance on unions?

I don't think the job should get benefits. What kind of benefits can you offer someone working 10 hours a week? Any kind of insurance would take more than my whole paycheck.

And the paycut?

/Is that your only employment?
//This situation doesn't seem like a normal 'public employee' situation to me.


We all took a pay cut, we dropped a few corners, our boss (the safety officer) doesn't go out to elementary schools as often. And yes, it's my only job. The economy in my city sucks. It's made worse because I don't have a car and the bus service in my city is terrible
 
2012-01-25 04:10:08 PM  

Smackledorfer: Wow ArkAngel, are you TRYING to clown the fark out of yourself in this thread?

"If you've seen my posts, you'll know I'm about equal parts snark, political debater, advice giver, and joke maker, with a little trolling thrown in for flavor"

Well, at least you admit it.


Anyone who says trollin isn't fun is a liar. I do it every now and then, but it's always blatant and meant to be funny, like saying "Welcome to Obama's America" in a thread about Canada.
 
2012-01-25 04:13:13 PM  

ArkAngel: Philip Francis Queeg: ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll

So tell, us about the pay cuts and benefit cuts you've demanded for yourself to benefit the taxpayer. Tell us about the longer hours you demanded to work to benefit the taxpayer. Tell us that you've demanded that your raises be subjected to a referendum of the voters.

You're doing all those thing, right?

I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.

A Dark Evil Omen: gulogulo: ArkAngel: Yes I was trolling for laughs in that instance (notice the shark reference?), but just because I don't like unions doesn't mean I can't support their legality. I'm the same with gay marriage and illegal drugs. I support their legalization but would not take part in them myself.

Don't hurt yourself stretching like that. You tried to come off moderate and reasonable, but your back pedaling now is patently transparent.

Google for "site:fark.com ArkAngel unions". Most of it isn't relevant ...


SO you work 10 hours/week... Are a single father with young child per your facebook page...

On the public dole then? Or just independently wealthy?

OH and your facebook page says you are a part of "WIsconsin Federation of College Republicans"

Looking at THEIR facebook page, all they do is suck the cawk of Walker!

I don't know WHAT exactly you are, but it looks more and more like a typical R shill.

You sure as hell are not someone working 10/hr week trying to scrape by while raising a kid alone.

You do have one thing down that Repubs seem to like. You can lie with the best of them and when its pointed out, your brush it off with even bigger ones!
 
2012-01-25 04:19:28 PM  
 
2012-01-25 05:12:47 PM  

The Life Of Brian: ArkAngel: SO you work 10 hours/week... Are a single father with young child per your facebook page...

On the public dole then? Or just independently wealthy?

OH and your facebook page says you are a part of "WIsconsin Federation of College Republicans"

Looking at THEIR facebook page, all they do is suck the cawk of Walker!

I don't know WHAT exactly you are, but it looks more and more like a typical R shill.

You sure as hell are not someone working 10/hr week trying to scrape by while raising a kid alone.

You do have one thing down that Repubs seem to like. You can lie with the best of them and when its pointed out, your brush it off with even bigger ones!


I am not independently wealthy, nor did I ever say that I wasn't on state aid. I get food stamps. I used to get a free bus pass, but now my work time interferes with the class I need to attend to get it so I don't get that anymore. My son used to spend half the week with me and half with his mother, but I lost my last place because I couldn't pay. So now he stays with him mom full time in Milwaukee and I stay up there on weekends to spend time with him.

I follow the Wi. College Reps. because I used to be in the group in my school that became them (it started out as the Young Conservatives of America, which I helped found). Notice I also follow the Student Government, the Wargamer club, and the radio station, all of which I also used to be in. I like to see what they do in case I want to come back and visit old friends and have some fun. I am not a shill, nor do I step to the Republican tune. There are things I agree with them on (i.e. abortion) and things I disagree with them on (i.e. drug legalization). I'm probably closer to Ron Paul than Paul Ryan. I probably wouldn't be in as good a shape as I am today without the food stamps I've received, and I don't think they should be eliminated. If you look at my Fark posts from more than five years ago, I've tempered my beliefs considerably. I am not nearly the rampant idealist I once was and lean far more towards practicality.

Philip Francis Queeg: ArkAngel: We all took a pay cut, we dropped a few corners, our boss (the safety officer) doesn't go out to elementary schools as often. And yes, it's my only job. The economy in my city sucks. It's made worse because I don't have a car and the bus service in my city is terrible

In the 2011-'13 state budget, legislators moved to moderate the impact of a 10% cut in transit aid, by appropriating new funding for paratransit services, keeping aid for transit systems in the transportation fund and shielding transit systems from new collective bargaining rules that could have cost them $46.6 million a year in federal aid, said Gary Goyke, lobbyist for the Wisconsin Urban and Rural Transit Association.

Gov. Scott Walker proposed the 10% cut, which will slice state transit aid by $9.6 million a year, starting in 2012. (new window)


Don't blame Walker. Bus service sucked in my city long before he was governor. It even sucked before the economy tanked. We just don't put enough money towards it. The only cuts we've made to out service in the last budget cycle is half of one route that is pretty much empty except when it's carrying students from the high school it runs by.
 
2012-01-25 05:14:55 PM  
Perry, a Texas home builder, helped pay for the Swift Boat Veterans ads that attacked Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. Perry has a total of $500,000 to Walker's campaign.

That is some fine company to keep.
 
2012-01-25 05:26:30 PM  

ArkAngel: Don't blame Walker. Bus service sucked in my city long before he was governor. It even sucked before the economy tanked. We just don't put enough money towards it. The only cuts we've made to out service in the last budget cycle is half of one route that is pretty much empty except when it's carrying students from the high school it runs by.


I'm sure Walker's 10% cut will remedy that.
 
2012-01-25 05:28:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ArkAngel: Don't blame Walker. Bus service sucked in my city long before he was governor. It even sucked before the economy tanked. We just don't put enough money towards it. The only cuts we've made to out service in the last budget cycle is half of one route that is pretty much empty except when it's carrying students from the high school it runs by.

I'm sure Walker's 10% cut will remedy that.


I never said I agreed with everything Walker did.
 
2012-01-25 05:45:17 PM  

ArkAngel: O.o



This is why it scares me that people like you are allowed to vote.
-You bring up teacher strikes failing to realize that based on Wisconsin history, the formation of the teacher unions put an end to those, it was because the workers (teachers) had a different means to attempt to improve their quality of life rather than refusing to work. Across the board for workers the creation of unions has reduced the frequency and size of strikes, the difference between pre-union strikes and post-union strikes was the ability of unions to voice their issues with a single voice rather than just a large group of people shouting this drastically improved communication between both parties as well as the workers capability to communicate to the press what their issues were.

-You question unionized public safety workers and brought up the monopolization of many of of those public safety workers by the government, but neglect to consider that there as a time when police and fire had next to no oversight. The police worked for the highest bidder and would strong arm businesses that their funders did not like out of towns. Fire departments would fight over who would get to fight a fire, while the building was burning down right next to them, then whoever won would loot the place (whatever was left of it) rather than trying to save anything. But unionized workers destroyed those unions.

-You claim that the transportation services people like you rely on suck due to a lack of funding, but see no problem in cutting that funding further.

-You worry about the future for your son, but neglect that in many places in Wisconsin the public schools are some of the best schools in the country. Do you think the budget cuts to the public schools will benefit your son? I mean unless you are sending your son to a private school (which private schools in Wisconsin have always performed worse than the public schools except in Milwaukee, and only then if you are a minority) because now private schools will receive more public funding, that seems unlikely though with you only working 10 hours a week.

-You are probably relying on health care that was traditionally provided for you by the state (based on you saying you are on food stamps) that just had its funding slashed, as well as what it provided (unless your son is covered by his mom that includes what is covering him). To make it worse Walker turned down federal aid to help bridge that gap.

What has Walker done for you? I mean that seriously what has Walker done to help you out? Ignore everything that everyone else says about Walker, ignore what everyone else is complaining about, and consider what Walker has done that will directly impact you and your son. Will anything he has done have a positive effect on you or your son directly?


I worry for your son too, it is pretty sad when a kid's parents political beliefs get in the way of their well being, your distrust of unions out weighs education, health care, and transportation for you and your son. There is nothing wrong with being conservative, there is nothing wrong with being Republican, there is something seriously wrong about voting for someone just because they are the candidate for that party even though they are not representing you at all, the point of elected officials is to protect and serve their constituents, I would say he is failing pretty badly at doing either of those things, actually in your case he is making it worse for you.
 
2012-01-25 05:46:04 PM  

ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing).


As a poor, government employed (though non-corporate) parent, I oppose Walker. While I do support the ability to form corporations, I don't support their involvement in government operations, except when strictly necessary, and then only under heavy restrictions. First, when corporations do business with the government, the costs are born by taxpayers instead of the corporations. Thus, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians decide the fate of corporate contracts, it creates a conflict of interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, corporations dominate political campaign contributions. Not only is there a conflict of interest, then, but that conflict is heavily weighted towards advantaging corporate interests over the public interest.
 
2012-01-25 05:58:10 PM  
>> Since the beginning of the recall effort against him, the people have rallied around WI Gov Scott Walker, donating almost $4 million to his campaign. And by "the people" I mean millionaires in TX, MO, and AZ

In other words Walker and his scumbag buddies are really worried
 
2012-01-25 06:29:31 PM  

Bob16: >> Since the beginning of the recall effort against him, the people have rallied around WI Gov Scott Walker, donating almost $4 million to his campaign. And by "the people" I mean millionaires in TX, MO, and AZ

In other words Walker and his scumbag buddies are really worried


I'm sure they've got fifty different angles to beat on about the various mentioned combantants, and IIRC he can put all the funds he raises into a re-election pot or just give it all back to the WI GOP if he does get booted.

And if they can get the ballot to late July or August they're counting on the electorate remembering they just paid less in property taxes this past year provided they do the half and half payment. It might be maudlin but it's worked before.
 
2012-01-25 06:44:04 PM  

ArkAngel: It's made worse because I don't have a car and the bus service in my city is terrible


That's not very bootstrappy taking a soshulist gubbermint commie city bus. Bet you want a free transfer too, right leaker?
 
2012-01-25 06:49:23 PM  

Lligeret: ArkAngel: O.o


This is why it scares me that people like you are allowed to vote.


It scares you when people try to understand the subject and vote on what they feel would be best for their state instead of blindly listening to politicians?

-You question unionized public safety workers and brought up the monopolization of many of of those public safety workers by the government, but neglect to consider that there as a time when police and fire had next to no oversight. The police worked for the highest bidder and would strong arm businesses that their funders did not like out of towns. Fire departments would fight over who would get to fight a fire, while the building was burning down right next to them, then whoever won would loot the place (whatever was left of it) rather than trying to save anything. But unionized workers destroyed those unions.

First, you can't reasonably compare the police and fire forces of the early 20th Century to now. Nearly everyone was corrupt in those days. Modern technology and communication has struck many of those methods of hiding corruption away. Second, fire companies in those days were often private, so they had different reasons to do what they did. And I'd like to see some evidence (I'm actually intrigued, not disparaging) that unions destroyed these things. Because it seems to me these days that police still have hardly any oversight and the unions often don't let it happen.

-You claim that the transportation services people like you rely on suck due to a lack of funding, but see no problem in cutting that funding further.

I already said I didn't agree with transportation cuts. One of the reasons I disliked Jim Doyle was that he raided the dedicated transportation fund to fix holes in the budget.

-You worry about the future for your son, but neglect that in many places in Wisconsin the public schools are some of the best schools in the country. Do you think the budget cuts to the public schools will benefit your son? I mean unless you are sending your son to a private school (which private schools in Wisconsin have always performed worse than the public schools except in Milwaukee, and only then if you are a minority) bec ...

Parents always worry about the future for their children. If I had the choice of where to send my son to school, I would send him to Christian Life School, a private school where my friend Tim is a dean. It is a highly regarded school and I trust my friend to make sure my son gets a good education.

What has Walker done for you? I mean that seriously what has Walker done to help you out? Ignore everything that everyone else says about Walker, ignore what everyone else is complaining about, and consider what Walker has done that will directly impact you and your son. Will anything he has done have a positive effect on you or your son directly?

It is the epitome of selfishness to vote for someone because they will help me directly. I think that the steps Walker is taking will help Wisconsin overall. That is why I support him.

I worry for your son too, it is pretty sad when a kid's parents political beliefs get in the way of their well being, your distrust of unions out weighs education, health care, and transportation for you and your son. There is nothing wrong with being conservative, there is nothing wrong with being Republican, there is something seriously wrong about voting for someone just because they are the candidate for that party even though they are not representing you at all, the point of elected officials is to protect and serve their constituents, I would say he is failing pretty badly at doing either of those things, actually in your case he is making it worse for you.

I don't let my politics get in the way of caring for my son. When I first had to go on them, I was embarrassed about having to go on food stamps and getting Medicaid. But I refused to let my own pride stop him from being able to see a doctor, have food in his stomach, or a roof over his head. I love my son. And I will do anything I need to do to see him have a happy life. If I have to suckle at the government teat or stand in line at a food bank to ensure he is taken care of, I will do it because that's my job - to provide however I can for him.
 
2012-01-25 07:15:56 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: Bob16: >> Since the beginning of the recall effort against him, the people have rallied around WI Gov Scott Walker, donating almost $4 million to his campaign. And by "the people" I mean millionaires in TX, MO, and AZ

In other words Walker and his scumbag buddies are really worried

I'm sure they've got fifty different angles to beat on about the various mentioned combantants, and IIRC he can put all the funds he raises into a re-election pot or just give it all back to the WI GOP if he does get booted.

And if they can get the ballot to late July or August they're counting on the electorate remembering they just paid less in property taxes this past year provided they do the half and half payment. It might be maudlin but it's worked before.


Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down. What Walker did was to push state spending for essential services off on local municipalities, say that he cut spending, mission accomplished! and let the locals deal with how to raise money to pay for their fire and police and teachers if they still want them. Most municipalities have been able to hold the line on tax increases, but very few if any have seen any decrease.

What is scary is how he is flooding the state with ads and mailings, saying that he has created jobs when that is simply not true. He has almost unlimited Koch funds now, about 20 times what the Dems have raised, there are no limits any more. OK, yeah, NET jobs were lost, and in fact Wisconsin is the WORST in the entire country for job loss for like 5 months now, but you can apparently spin that fact into "jobs created" and "we are now moving in the right direction with Governor Walker!" and people believe it. It's sick.
 
2012-01-25 07:27:05 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down. What Walker did was to push state spending for essential services off on local municipalities, say that he cut spending, mission accomplished! and let the locals deal with how to raise money to pay for their fire and police and teachers if they still want them. Most municipalities have been able to hold the line on tax increases, but very few if any have seen any decrease.

What is scary is how he is flooding the state with ads and mailings, saying that he has created jobs when that is simply not true. He has almost unlimited Koch funds now, about 20 times what the Dems have raised, there are no limits any more. OK, yeah, NET jobs were lost, and in fact Wisconsin is the WORST in the entire country for job loss for like 5 months now, but you can apparently spin that fact into "jobs created" and "we are now moving in the right direction with Governor Walker!" and people believe it. It's sick.


The plan with the Budget Repair bill was to make the municipalities the bad guys all along. The PD my girlfriend works at had to pass the increases in health/retirement benefits to their officers and they're catching hell for it. It's to the point last night where a meeting to announce the purchase of $3.5MM in land went on for five hours last night. Keep in mind, this isn't some bucolic hellhole like where I grew up, this fairly well-off Waukesha County.
 
2012-01-25 08:37:31 PM  

ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll


Does it occur to you that the person you support doesn't support you, and by extension, doesn't care one bit about the future of your son? And do your co-workers know that you support someone who would just as soon see them join the ranks of the unemployed?
 
2012-01-25 08:37:41 PM  

The Life Of Brian: Looking at THEIR facebook page, all they do is suck the cawk of Walker!


Yeah, but he still won't have sex with them
 
2012-01-25 08:46:10 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Ken VeryBigLiar: Bob16: >>

Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down.

The 20,000 plus residents of West Bend would like a word...

/Yours didn't != nobody's didn't.
 
2012-01-25 09:04:33 PM  
ArkAngel
As I already said, I don't like unions. I don't think government employees should be unionized.

Too bad. It's not up to you, and it's not up to the state government. It's up to the workers. It's as impossible to prevent workers from sticking up for each other as it would be to prevent them from communicating entirely.
 
2012-01-25 09:06:13 PM  

ArkAngel: theorellior: Don't Troll Me Bro!: You can't make this up. He cut funding for healthcare for the poor because he claimed we could not afford it. Then the federal government tries to help us and he turns it down and cuts healthcare programs anyway, while still claiming we can't afford it. He stated that he did this because it will make his case stronger when he refuses to implement "Obamacare." (new window)

What is this I don't even.

/facepalm

The way I understand it is that he turned down the money is the same as when he turned down the railroad money - because the costs to the state in the future would not be sustainable. I don't know much about the subject, so I can't clarify if he is correct or not, but that is my understanding.


no, the $11m is particularly retarded for him to turn down because it was for a project that HE proposed to do, but then got concerned that people would see him as sympathizing w Obamacare so he turned it down, along w another $36 million or so to set up health insurance exchanges.
 
2012-01-25 09:11:50 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Ken VeryBigLiar: Bob16: >> Since the beginning of the recall effort against him, the people have rallied around WI Gov Scott Walker, donating almost $4 million to his campaign. And by "the people" I mean millionaires in TX, MO, and AZ

In other words Walker and his scumbag buddies are really worried

I'm sure they've got fifty different angles to beat on about the various mentioned combantants, and IIRC he can put all the funds he raises into a re-election pot or just give it all back to the WI GOP if he does get booted.

And if they can get the ballot to late July or August they're counting on the electorate remembering they just paid less in property taxes this past year provided they do the half and half payment. It might be maudlin but it's worked before.

Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down. What Walker did was to push state spending for essential services off on local municipalities, say that he cut spending, mission accomplished! and let the locals deal with how to raise money to pay for their fire and police and teachers if they still want them. Most municipalities have been able to hold the line on tax increases, but very few if any have seen any decrease.

What is scary is how he is flooding the state with ads and mailings, saying that he has created jobs when that is simply not true. He has almost unlimited Koch funds now, about 20 times what the Dems have raised, there are no limits any more. OK, yeah, NET jobs were lost, and in fact Wisconsin is the WORST in the entire country for job loss for like 5 months now, but you can apparently spin that fact into "jobs created" and "we are now moving in the right direction with Governor Walker!" and people believe it. It's sick.


six months and counting :(
 
2012-01-25 09:14:18 PM  

sluflyer: KarmicDisaster: Ken VeryBigLiar: Bob16: >>

Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down.

The 20,000 plus residents of West Bend would like a word...

/Yours didn't != nobody's didn't.


Did you miss the part where I said "a few isolated cases"? It is even in the bit you quoted. Yes, West Bend. Is that one on the talking points list somewhere? By the same token, your taxes went down != everyone's taxes went down. In general though, property taxes did not go down, they went up. Yes, you can find a few cases where they did go down, but you could find those before Walker too.The idea that Walker lowered everyone's property taxes is false.
 
2012-01-25 09:42:21 PM  

ArkAngel: I don't let my politics get in the way of caring for my son. But I refused to let my own pride stop him from being able to see a doctor, have food in his stomach, or a roof over his head. I love my son. And I will do anything I need to do to see him have a happy life. If I have to suckle at the government teat or stand in line at a food bank to ensure he is taken care of, I will do it because that's my job - to provide however I can for him.



Read what I made bold.

Now consider Walker pushed cuts to education, which your son receives, one of the faults of private schools is accessibility. Not all of those cuts come from reducing the number of teachers and reducing pay, it is funding that goes toward school programs he probably participates in, funding that goes toward materials he uses at school, funding that goes towards furthering his education. On the bright side though some of those funds are going toward the school you want to send your son to.

Now consider Walker pushing to cuts to state funded health care for kids of low income parents, as well as low income and elderly people in the state.

Now consider Walker attempting to privatize food stamps (with a plan that was based on similar plans implemented in Indiana and Texas, both of which by the way FAILED HORRIBLY (and still are failing horribly).


Your entire last paragraph is a contradiction.



I can appreciate people doing what they feel is right for society as a whole, but when you are struggling and society is letting you down you should look out for yourself first. Why is it that we should strap people like you who are struggling with a larger burden? I am no where near rich, but I make enough that I could handle a small tax increase, still have enough to put away for my future, and still go out and have fun. I would happily take a small tax increase (and before someone brings up well you could always give more, I do it means I give a little more to charity, because I am able to directly impact programs that help the local community, as well as volunteer, but not everyone does this with the excess income or time they have, hence the reason taxes exist to fund social services). I see no reason why people who have the means of helping out society shouldn't help society out a little more rather than pushing the burden on to people already struggling.
 
2012-01-25 09:58:18 PM  
35,000+ private sector jobs lost thanks to douchebag Walker (new window)

Of course he's going to feed a line of bullshiat. He knows people who are going to vote for him are borderline retarded.
 
2012-01-25 10:10:12 PM  

KarmicDisaster: sluflyer: KarmicDisaster: Ken VeryBigLiar: Bob16: >>

Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down.

The 20,000 plus residents of West Bend would like a word...

/Yours didn't != nobody's didn't.

Did you miss the part where I said "a few isolated cases"? It is even in the bit you quoted. Yes, West Bend. Is that one on the talking points list somewhere? By the same token, your taxes went down != everyone's taxes went down. In general though, property taxes did not go down, they went up. Yes, you can find a few cases where they did go down, but you could find those before Walker too.The idea that Walker lowered everyone's property taxes is false.


I never said anything about him lowering everyone's. I'm simply pointing out that an entire city had theirs go down. I can't speak for any other areas. I never asserted anything to the contrary.
 
2012-01-25 10:11:13 PM  

cretinbob: 35,000+ private sector jobs lost thanks to douchebag Walker (new window)

Of course he's going to feed a line of bullshiat. He knows people who are going to vote for him are borderline retarded.


He just finished his state of the state address to explain how he has been creating jobs the whole time. Meanwhile the Bureau of labor stats just released their latest figures today and Wisconsin has lost jobs for 6 months straight, and the decline didn't start until after he took office. Not sure if we are the worst in the country or just still fighting for the bottom spot. And people believe him and they can't wait to get more.
 
2012-01-25 10:13:25 PM  

cretinbob: 35,000+ private sector jobs lost thanks to douchebag Walker (new window)

Of course he's going to feed a line of bullshiat. He knows people who are going to vote for him are borderline retarded.


Most of that crowd believes that everyone and their brother wants to hire here but the recall and political unrest makes them hesitant. If walker's legislature wanted to get something done to show businesses they wanted them to come it could have been something as small as introducing a large deductible for work comp policies (like 45 other states) or maybe getting away from the slavish devotion to manufacturing and getting more into professional fields, or improving 94 from Waukesha County to the Illinois border. But no, concealed carry and voter fraud were top on employers lists for things to deal with.
 
2012-01-25 10:17:10 PM  

sluflyer: KarmicDisaster: sluflyer: KarmicDisaster: Ken VeryBigLiar: Bob16: >>

Nobody's property taxes went down in Wisconsin though (maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase). Mine sure didn't go down.

The 20,000 plus residents of West Bend would like a word...

/Yours didn't != nobody's didn't.

Did you miss the part where I said "a few isolated cases"? It is even in the bit you quoted. Yes, West Bend. Is that one on the talking points list somewhere? By the same token, your taxes went down != everyone's taxes went down. In general though, property taxes did not go down, they went up. Yes, you can find a few cases where they did go down, but you could find those before Walker too.The idea that Walker lowered everyone's property taxes is false.

I never said anything about him lowering everyone's. I'm simply pointing out that an entire city had theirs go down. I can't speak for any other areas. I never asserted anything to the contrary.


OK, point understood and accepted. Likewise, I didn't say everyone's went up, I just said that they generally went up. "maybe a few isolated cases, but in general everyone saw a small increase" and also " Most municipalities have been able to hold the line on tax increases, but very few if any have seen any decrease." The point being that taking credit for a general decrease in property taxes is something that Walker can't really do.
 
2012-01-25 10:26:34 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: cretinbob: 35,000+ private sector jobs lost thanks to douchebag Walker (new window)

Of course he's going to feed a line of bullshiat. He knows people who are going to vote for him are borderline retarded.

Most of that crowd believes that everyone and their brother wants to hire here but the recall and political unrest makes them hesitant. If walker's legislature wanted to get something done to show businesses they wanted them to come it could have been something as small as introducing a large deductible for work comp policies (like 45 other states) or maybe getting away from the slavish devotion to manufacturing and getting more into professional fields, or improving 94 from Waukesha County to the Illinois border. But no, concealed carry and voter fraud were top on employers lists for things to deal with.


They just have spent almost no time on jobs, and all of their time of social legislation (e.g guns and preventing sex ed) and consolidating their position and rewarding donors (limiting lawyer fees, allowing them to bring suit in hand picked jurisdictions when they want to, voter ID, handing over land for mining). Even the jobs summit degraded in a few minutes and got completely off track with jobs not even being discussed. There have been a few token efforts lately, such as appointing a panel of 12 taxpayer paid business leaders that is somehow supposed to substitute for all the cut high school "school to work" programs (Almost all have been cut now), but they are just for show so far. I'm not sure how a campaign of cutting jobs and wages and giving tax breaks to businesses that are already flush with cash but don't have customers to expand is going to work, but hey!
 
2012-01-25 10:41:42 PM  
Walker gave away millions in tax cuts to his campaign contributors, then plugged the hole he created with the wages and benefits of the middle/lower class public workforce, then took away their rights to organize, then admitted to Congress that taking away their rights does nothing to fix the budget, then turned down millions in federal money to provide internet to schools, then turned down millions in federal money and suddenly reverse-declared there to be a budget deficit again so he could kick people off of their healthcare plans.

Year 1 of Walker's War on Wisconsin.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-01-25 11:01:07 PM  

ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll



Not only are you a troll, you're likely a liar.

I don't believe for a second you're a "government" employee. Otherwise you would realize that unions do not prevent state and federal employees from being terminated. State and federal employees are not allowed to "walk out" or strike.

State employees don't refer to themselves as "government" employees, they refer to themselves as state employees or civil servants. Everyone in any civil service job knows walk outs and strikes are against the law and result in immediate termination as they do in private sector jobs. Everyone in any civil service job knows that state and federal unions are virtually powerless to stop or do anything except file lawsuits which anyone could do on their own and is a difficult endeavor against any government activity. State and federal unions just talk and complain. Everyone in a civil service job knows that even if their agency has a union (many don't), there is no pressure or requirement to join the union and pay dues. Even if they don't belong to the union or pay dues the union must by law still represent them if they request representation. Pressuring a civil servant to join a union can and will result in termination of the guilty party. This essentially starves public service unions (why pay dues if they have to represent you for free?). If some state, federal manager decides to fire someone because he/she wants to hire their brother in-law, their agency gets sued by the union as they probably should be.

You're probably a liar and likely just an ignorant Fox News viewer/troll who has no clue what you're talking about. .
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-01-25 11:06:30 PM  

NFA: Everyone in any civil service job knows walk outs and strikes are against the law and result in immediate termination as they do in unlike private sector union jobs.



FTFM
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report