patrick.net

Vicente says

In 1839, a young Abraham Lincoln, serving as a Whig in the Illinois House, jumped out of the building in a futile bid to prevent Democrats from getting a quorum to vote on a banks bill.

Sorry, but according to ellie mae's rules of discussion, this observation is completely irrelevant... Do you really want people to go back to people living in log cabins, no automobiles at all, no such thing as x-ray machines, no Internet, telephones, etc.?

Vicente says

Was Lincoln a traitor to the Constitution? Awaiting your answer…..

To the US Constitution? Not likely.... Perhaps you can explain how the Constitution had any bearing what he did in the Illinois legislature in this particular case? Awaiting your answer....

Besides... as discussed before, whatever Lincoln did was irrelevant.... happened too long ago and we don't want to go back to that standard of living...

elliemae says

But I know you think I’m awesome-er!

Sure, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think so....

Paralithodes says

Sure, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think so….

I'm glad that I can make ya'll come together. It doesn't happen often.

Paralithodes says

Perhaps you can explain how the Constitution had any bearing what he did in the Illinois legislature in this particular case? Awaiting your answer….

Question for original poster, which posited that the actions of the Democrats attempted to "block the Constitutional process". Or are you admitting you are just an "alt" for RayAmerica?

Vicente says

Paralithodes says

Perhaps you can explain how the Constitution had any bearing what he did in the Illinois legislature in this particular case? Awaiting your answer….

Question for original poster, which posited that the actions of the Democrats attempted to “block the Constitutional process”. Or are you admitting you are just an “alt” for RayAmerica?

The OP used "constitutional process in Wisconsin," (with "constitution" in lower case). You referred to Lincoln being a "traitor" to "the Constitution." Since you used the term "traitor" and "the Constitution" together, without clarifying whether it was the Wisconsin Constitution or the US Constitution, I assume you mean the former. The term "traitor" gets bandied back and forth between liberals and conservatives towards each other, but I have never, ever heard it used in the context of a state's Constitution.

Case may mean something (maybe not)... context of which words are chosen and how words are used mean something.... If you were specifically referring to the Wisconsin Constitution, then I stand corrected on use of "Constitution" but assert that your answer, by throwing in such perjoratives as "traitor" make your question invalid and unanswerable.

Whether I am an "alt' for RayAmerica" or not, somehow I think you missed the nuance and you were referring to the US Constitution... Even if RayAmerica was referring to the US Constitution, you perpetuated his mistake. Care to clarify how "traitor" applies to a state constitution? Did the Illinois constitution have provisions for "traitor" to the state of Illinois within it?

Vicente says

Or are you admitting you are just an “alt” for RayAmerica?

That was posted by RayAmerica

Vicente says

Was Lincoln a traitor to the Constitution? Awaiting your answer…..

"Traitor" might be a little strong, but Mr. Lincoln did in fact suspend the writ of habeas corpus back in 1862. I think that little thingy was kind of mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Does that count as an answer? I really, really hope so. I anxiously await your answer.

Like anyone else who refuses to show up for work, they need to be fired. The governor should appoint some replacements and get on with his anti-union legislation.

shrekgrinch says

As far as Joe Q. Public is concerned, all the Reps are ‘asking’ is for cuts

Actually the unions are extremely willing to negotiate further cuts in their pay and benefits. What they are objecting to is losing their collective bargaining rights, that is losing the right to negotiate these for the future. This is something the governor only wants certain select public employees to lose and not others.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (a fiscal conservative) recently pointed out that Ohio Turnpike toll booth operators start out at $52,000 plus benefits. On average, toll booth operators make $66,000 per year due to overtime .... plus benefits. All that for a job that requires literally no skill other than to make change and hand over a ticket stub. Although the Turnpike has been paid for many times over, it is now operating at a deficit. Just one of thousands of examples that can be cited to illustrate that government, on all levels, is out of control.

shrekgrinch says

Please re-read what I wrote

Actually, I caught what you wrote. And my comment in response was intended to inform two or three of of John and Jane Q Public, and maybe you as well.

We will see if it's too late. Maybe it temporarily is, at least in Wisconsin. But I don't see why it should be impossible for a majority of the people to learn what is actually happening.

Are you one of those who believe that the media is now so overly controlled by the right wing that all liberal policies and agenda are henceforth doomed ?

shrekgrinch says

Wisconsin is but the vanguard of what will sweep the nation with regards to states getting out of their unfunded pension and employee benefits messes

We'll see. It is true that the baby boom bubble in health and pension benefits is a problem that can only be solved by significant GDP growth or combinations of cuts and increased pay in by employees. But using this temporary situation that also coincides with a huge recession as an excuse to destroy unions is basically cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Interesting to me that the right wing sheep, envious of what are now good pay and benefits that state employees receive (because our standard of living per person (not per household with 2 wage earners) has dropped so much), want to see those union employees lose out. Don't they see it's just a step in the wrong direction for everyone ? And not just because your descendants or friends may one day work for the government. It's also because it lowers the salary bar for other jobs. I wish I could say that it's deflationary, but it is only deflationary relative to salaries.

RayAmerica says

Does that count as an answer? I really, really hope so. I anxiously await your answer.

No.

Let me try again.

When Lincoln jumped out a window to break quorum, was he wrongfully blocking the rightful "constitutional proccess"?

And now we see buried WAY down in the Union-Killer Bill.....

a hidden freebie for the billionaire Koch Brothers:

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/

Things can't actually end up with a single monopolist. That situation results in the people killing the monopolist and taking what is his (hopefully I don't have to enumerate all the instances of this happening in the past...)

You also have upstarts that can take a "fighting the big bad man" angle.

Now, if the rule of law doesn't exist, that upstart can't come into existance. At that point you don't have a free market though, so it's a moot point.

shrekgrinch says

Zlxr says
Without workers rights, without collective bargaining and all - there will not be a precedent anymore for what constitutes a safe and fair working environment.
Cry me a river and move to some third world country to see how workers are truly abused. I mean, really.

Lovely. Got any more 3rd grade arguments? Well, as long as we're not as bad as Somalia...

shrekgrinch says

Lincoln ended up doing far, far worse things regarding blatant defiance of the Constitution..so you sure you want to continue on with the Lincoln Analogy with regards to this topic?

Hello Ray....errr Shrek,

I wasn't speaking of those things. Specifically breaking quorum, is that always when people "Unite Against the Democratic Process" even if they happen to be Republicans?

The whole process stopped being "Democratic" when supreme court allowed unlimited capital to flow into elections allowing those with more money to influence the outcome.

If corporations have collective bargaining, why shouldn't the unions? After all we shouldn't (in my opinion) apply the laws differently to different people based purely on their connections to the current ruling party.

"if unions are such hot shit, then why do they have to depend on forcing workers to join them like good little comrades at the local soviet collective in order to be a going concern, eh?"

Largest corporations do that now by exercising their collective bargaining. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. My argument here is that if we do not allow unions to collectively bargain than we have to take away corporate lobbying collective bargaining or we'll simply end up tipping the scale in favor of feudalism.

shrekgrinch says

ChrisLA says

Largest corporations do that now by exercising their collective bargaining.

Then I guess I didn’t get the context of ‘collective bargaining’ made with regards to corporations (because it is an alien term made in context of corporations, really). I thought it had to do with how they funnel political contributions because that was what was originally bitched about in the posting where this originally appeared.
Unions ‘collectively bargain’ for wages, benefits, etc. not to make political contributions. Public sector unions should NEVER be making political contributions as that is the taxpayer’s money being used against the taxpayers interest (more taxes and more spending…no matter what!).
And like I said, what corporations do is voluntary on their part. That is their money they are contributing from earnings, not salaries and if workers really, really don’t like it, they can quit and go work for a competitor…whereas most states that have unions also force workers to join said unions and force them to pay union dues whether they want to join or not…simply to hold a job in that field (try and find another state employer other than your state if you want to work as a public sector employee at the state level).
So I ask again, if unions are such hot shit, then why do they have to depend on forcing workers to join them and pay the dues? All other attempts at collective bargaining amongst individuals — grocery co-ops, for example — are voluntary. Individuals freely join or leave them based upon their own determinations of value they derive/don’t derive from membership.
But not when it comes to unions who want national card check scams to force workers to join and pay up. Such blatantly anti-American concepts is what they are all about..and why the public is against them.

I just like you do not like how corporations or unions do political contributions, I really dislike this system. Because it is not honorable, and it really just screws everyone who is not in the union or has a big daddy in Federal Reserve.

But I still think both should be addressed.

shrekgrinch says

It has been widely documented.

Ahh. The old widely documented. The last defense of a poster that knows he's wrong.

It's so widely documented that you were able to post 0 links to anything, huh?

Workers in states where unions were demolished, make about $5,000 less.

It's pretty clear the game here is part of the "divide the peasants" policy so a billionaire can buy another mansion with matching Rolls Royce.

Just say No.

Vicente says

Workers in states where unions were demolished, make about $5,000 less.

The cost of living in those state is also lower and companies are moving FROM the union states to the right to work states, creating jobs for the working class in the process. What was the point you were trying to make?

RayAmerica says

The cost of living in those [Union hostile] state is also lower

Oh REALLY?

According to the Cost of Living Calculator.....

If $50K in Madison, WI is your "living wage", you'll need $59K to live in Phoenix Arizona.

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

Vicente says

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

I wonder if illegal immigration, which is much higher in AZ than Wisconsin, might have a little something to do with it?

Vicente says

If $50K in Madison, WI is your “living wage”, you’ll need $59K to live in Phoenix Arizona.

I have a funny feeling that housing expenses alone would be much higher in Phoenix, AZ than in Madison, WI. Does anyone actually live in Wisconsin?

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

I wonder if illegal immigration, which is much higher in AZ than Wisconsin, might have a little something to do with it?

Why would illegal immigration have anything to do with it?

I thought you made it clear it was crushing UNIONS that were the difference in making a great economy. If we tar & feather them surely the Horn of Plenty will shower us with good things.

Thus Arizona should have low unemployment and higher salaries, and lower cost of living. Yet it does not.

Obviously your simple relationship, is wrong, once you start having to reach for other factors to explain it's plain failure.

Also ran into this little factoid:

Winsconsin SAT scores 2nd in the nation

http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/08/25/state-sat-scores-2009.aspx

I have to wonder about the people running down Wisconsin teachers as lazy Union turds just killing time between vacations and deliberately getting sick so they can use up all the healthcare. I suspect the ones saying this were the ones flunked out of school. Or perhaps never finished college because they were asked to leave like gov walker.

Next up on Fox News.... Outrage of the day! We have "heard it said" that Wisconsin female teachers get taxpayer-funded first class flights to EVERY spring break in Cancun, doing drugs and molesting our boys until they get knocked up, and return to Wisconsin to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

shrekgrinch says

By historians and economists. I am not going to be your Google Bitch because YOU remain stubbornly uneducated of both. Perhaps if you had an open mind

I love it. Shrek can write novels on here but can't take the time to do a simple google search to find any of the "widely documented" evidence.

Vicente says

Next up on Fox News…. Outrage of the day! We have “heard it said” that Wisconsin female teachers get taxpayer-funded first class flights to EVERY spring break in Cancun, doing drugs and molesting our boys until they get knocked up, and return to Wisconsin to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

I shoulda been a teacher. ;)

RayAmerica says

Pretty amazing that the same school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where the PRIVATE average income is only $19,000, public school teachers make with benefits, over $100,000. Talk about greed! I guess that’s what you get with collective bargaining.
http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

ChrisLA says

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

It's not about MONEY, the unions and Democrats both made it clear they would compromise on money. GOP changed it's tune and said that wasn't enough, they wanted the unions crushed. It's funny people are so quick to engage in "class envy" when it comes to teachers making "too much", however if you talk about taxing a billionaire hedge fund manager at more than 15% they cry CLASS WARFARE HOW DARE YOU! Divide & conquer, working according to plan.

Vicente says

ChrisLA says

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

It’s not about MONEY, the unions and Democrats both made it clear they would compromise on money. GOP changed it’s tune and said that wasn’t enough, they wanted the unions crushed. It’s funny people are so quick to engage in “class envy” when it comes to teachers making “too much”, however if you talk about taxing a billionaire hedge fund manager at more than 15% they cry CLASS WARFARE HOW DARE YOU! Divide & conquer, working according to plan.

I think the taxes on them should be raised too. Vincente we both know that in US whoever can get the money rolling to politicians gets the worlds best policy kickbacks. Very wealthy people pay very little taxes compared to their income, labor unions get treated very well (not all, but many are treated like better citizens).

I simply do not agree with the way our system works. I really do not believe any "Group" of people should be able to influence politicians with money. Unions or Corporations. Because as a taxpayer who is a non union worker or part of the too big to fail club I'm only stuck in the middle with no voice.

As far as collective bargaining goes. Years ago when I just graduated high school I applied to work at Vons. Its a major grocery store chain. I worked part time, about half my paycheck went to pay the union dues for the first month. I didn't care to be a part of the union, it was a very temporary affair for me. And yet I had to, I couldn't decline if I worked there. I really did not like that.

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group... given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don't see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

ChrisLA says

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group… given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don’t see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

And yet plainly it IS class warfare. Unions are a vanishing species. Domestic & FOREIGN Corporations have been recently made "people" and have ever-expanding influence. And your move is... to assign false moral equivalence and stand idly by, while we complete our transition to an outright plutocracy. Much like the Native Americans fighting amongst themselves while a tide sweeps over them.

It's clear that states with better unions, even non-union workers make more too. So if you are looking for a "zero sum" case where they are enriching themselves and therefore impoverishing everyone else, it's yet to be clearly made.

Vicente says

Also ran into this little factoid:
Winsconsin SAT scores 2nd in the nation

Another interesting little factoid: Millwaukee public schools graduate a whopping 68%. They sure are getting their money's worth from those $100K collective bargaining teachers!

OH man this is awesome! Prank caller pretending to be billionaire David Koch, calling Governor Walker to check in on how his stooge is handling his Wisconsin "crush the union" project. Clicka-da-pic:

Not just a spectacular imitation of a lackey reporting to his boss, it's also real:

WP: Governor Walker's office confirms prank Koch call

Vicente says

ChrisLA says

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group… given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don’t see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

And yet plainly it IS class warfare. Unions are a vanishing species. Domestic & FOREIGN Corporations have been recently made “people” and have ever-expanding influence. And your move is… to assign false moral equivalence and stand idly by, while we complete our transition to an outright plutocracy. Much like the Native Americans fighting amongst themselves while a tide sweeps over them.
It’s clear that states with better unions, even non-union workers make more too. So if you are looking for a “zero sum” case where they are enriching themselves and therefore impoverishing everyone else, it’s yet to be clearly made.

It is plutocracy, and it has always been. It's a capitalistic society, capitalism leads to plutocracy.

I know what you are saying. And I do not disagree with a lot of that. I'm just not easy about how everything is turning out lately. Both political sides have valid arguments for and against.

In Democratic society it should be a democratic vote on the budget and spending. Instead the only democratic part of it is voting for the candidate given to us by whatever party. Which means bribes, donations, etc...

And because of that I do not have a clear choice here:
Unions aren't exactly there because they have everyone else's interest at heart. I don't agree with the fact that they can bribe and bargain much better deals than an average person on the street can afford, while an average person does pay for their deals.

And large corporate interest couldn't care less if we all starved on the streets either as long as their profit margins are up. They get the same advantages with government and lobbying.

And another thing I don't understand is why would Republicans stage class warfare? I don't see any benefit to them out of it. Maybe this is simply being misinterpreted.

And because I cannot logically see a clear right side, there is too much unknown here, I can only stand by.

I really cannot justify collective bargaining by one group, while not providing it to the other. Until government is completely transparent and everything is democratically voted on (not by just the elected representatives) we'll have corruption and lobbying by special interest which I still disagree with. (I know I'm digressing a bit)

Vicente says

My favorite bit was just the ending (2nd recording). Walker was not a busy servant of the people, he was willing to jawbone with Boss Hogg all day, Until Boss was the one who said he was done.

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. [* Ethical violation much? *] Thanks for all the support…it’s all about getting our freedoms back…

Koch: Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well. [Laughs]

Walker: [Blah] Thanks a million!

Koch: Bye-bye!

Walker: Bye.