Wisconsin Dems in Illinois

[Ranger2]

For several weeks now, in order to prevent a quorum on a vote on taking away public unions' rights, Wisconsin Democratic Congressmen have left the state and are staying in Illinois.
While I can't criticize their excellent choice of which state to stay in (being an Illinoisan myself,) I think that it is obstructionist and downright cowardly.

The Democrats have been calling the Republicans the obstructionists, and rightly so. Having a House Speaker whose primary goal is to get Obama fired ain't exactly calling for bipartisanship.
But this time, the Democrats are the obstructionists. At a time when decisive action needs to take place, the Democrats have run away from a bill that they don't want to vote on. Remember, the Congressmen are elected by the people, so, in theory, they represent the people's will. In other words, the Congressmen and Senators of Wisconsin speak for the people and want what they want.

If the people of Wisconsin want public workers to keep collective bargaining benefits, then the Wisconsin Dems have nothing to fear in a vote. Governor Scott Walker was elected with the people knowing full well his views on business and the unions. If he was elected, shouldn't that send a message to Wisconsin Dems that the people are a bit more conservative now? That the people of Wisconsin aren't as left as they were before?

What annoys me is that the Dems claim they are doing this for the people of Wisconsin. The best way they can serve the public interest is by manning up, going to the Wisconsin Capitol and voting on it. With this they are serving not the people, but their own interests. They want to get their way despite the possibility that what they want might not be popular with the rest of Wisconsin.

But if what they want is popular with Wisconsin, then they have no reason to be here in Illinois.

I personally disagree with what Walker's trying to do. I think it goes too far. But I think that what the Democrats are doing is cowardly. They are essentially running with their tails between their legs because they are afraid that in a vote, the majority will win and democracy will be done, but not the way they want it.

[gumOnShoe]

Eh, I can see how the criticism goes both ways. The reason I don't care much if you call them obstructionists is because they are protecting people's liberties. The Republican agenda in the federal congress was simply to block everything no matter what, even if it had been their own policies (which it often was). The democratic obstructionists in this case actually do believe in not doing this.

Unfortunately for the Republicans the laws of WI allow this sort of move. And the longer this plays out the more WI people are against it if you look at the polls. Also, if you go back and look at Walker's campaign, this is not something he campaigned for. Its hard to say WI republicans are representing the majority of people in WI when the polls are against them. It is easy to say WI democrats are representing their constituents.

I don't think it is an entirely parallel circumstance. And honestly, its not cowardly. They aren't running from something they could fight. They are running from something when its their only course of action.

We'll have to see how it all plays out, but its not exactly the same thing. Republicans are free to be up in arms over this, but consider how many times the filibuster has been threatened in the last 2 years and over what.

[Ranger2]

At 3/8/11 08:18 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its hard to say WI republicans are representing the majority of people in WI when the polls are against them.

If what you say is true, then the Democrats have nothing to fear in a vote. If they are a majority then they will win any vote.
You just helped prove my point.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/8/11 07:30 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 3/8/11 08:18 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its hard to say WI republicans are representing the majority of people in WI when the polls are against them.

If what you say is true, then the Democrats have nothing to fear in a vote. If they are a majority then they will win any vote.
You just helped prove my point.

You understand why that makes no sense right? The republicans hold a majority of the seats in the WI congress and as such, if it weren't for this procedural hurdle their will would be law. There is no public override once you've elected people into office. If you've elected liars or people who campaigned on a different set of ideals than what they led you to believe, you are stuck with them.

[Ranger2]

At 3/8/11 07:42 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: You understand why that makes no sense right? The republicans hold a majority of the seats in the WI congress and as such, if it weren't for this procedural hurdle their will would be law. There is no public override once you've elected people into office. If you've elected liars or people who campaigned on a different set of ideals than what they led you to believe, you are stuck with them.

Again you assume that all those who are elected into office lied through their teeth about their beliefs on how the economy should be handled. Perhaps that applies to Democrats as well as Republicans.
If the Republicans have the majority that means that the majority of Wisconsinites voted them into office. If that much is true, then the Democrats are simply going against what the people of Wisconsin want.

It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the Democrats have a majority. If they do have a majority then they have no reason to flee when any vote would go in their favor. If the Dems have a minority, then that means that they are standing in the way of what the people of Wisconsin want. If the majority of Congressmen are Republicans, then the Democrats are not serving the people but their own self-interests.

Remember, there is no pleasing everybody. Ever. No matter what an elected official does there will be naysayers.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/8/11 08:49 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Again you assume that all those who are elected into office lied through their teeth about their beliefs on how the economy should be handled. Perhaps that applies to Democrats as well as Republicans.

You're assuming that peopel agree with everything their representatives do.

If the Republicans have the majority that means that the majority of Wisconsinites voted them into office. If that much is true, then the Democrats are simply going against what the people of Wisconsin want.

Yeah they did. They did on a message of economic revival, not budget cutting at the cost of the working class.

It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the Democrats have a majority. If they do have a majority then they have no reason to flee when any vote would go in their favor. If the Dems have a minority, then that means that they are standing in the way of what the people of Wisconsin want.

The polls clearly show that the Democrats are representing the majority of people from Wisconsin on this issue, at least in its current form. The Republicans, by proceeding in the manner they have have turned away from what people want.

Remember, there is no pleasing everybody. Ever. No matter what an elected official does there will be naysayers.

Yeah. That's why the Republican representatives that were voted in are on the wrong side of public opinion this time.

[Memorize]

At 3/8/11 07:42 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You understand why that makes no sense right? The republicans hold a majority of the seats in the WI congress and as such, if it weren't for this procedural hurdle their will would be law. There is no public override once you've elected people into office. If you've elected liars or people who campaigned on a different set of ideals than what they led you to believe, you are stuck with them.

The polls also reflect that the people aren't supportive of those Democrats fleeing the state to avoid a vote.

But nice try attempting to neglect that little bit of info.

[Memorize]

At 3/8/11 09:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The polls clearly show that the Democrats are representing the majority of people from Wisconsin on this issue, at least in its current form. The Republicans, by proceeding in the manner they have have turned away from what people want.

I like how when Obama doesn't come through with his promises, it's the Republican's fault for being obstructionists.

But last I checked, they didn't flee the state entirely to avoid a vote... which, may I point out again: The polls showing the Democrats clearly not doing what the people want by running away like whiny, little bitches.

Allow me to also say to you, that like Gum, I love how you conveniently neglected to even mention those polls.

Congrats, you two are still just as retarded today as you were yesterday.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/8/11 08:49 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Again you assume that all those who are elected into office lied through their teeth about their beliefs on how the economy should be handled.

I don't have to assume anything. The poll numbers are against the Republican policies and if you look at the records for campaigns you'll see that most of the Republicans did not campaign on a union busting platform.

If the Republicans have the majority that means that the majority of Wisconsinites voted them into office. If that much is true, then the Democrats are simply going against what the people of Wisconsin want.

No, it really doesn't. It means that the democrats are going against the majority of representatives. This isn't a direct democracy, it is a republic. Sometimes your representation doesn't actually represent everything you believe. In the case of union busting in WI, WI got the short end of the stick.

If the Dems have a minority, then that means that they are standing in the way of what the people of Wisconsin want. If the majority of Congressmen are Republicans, then the Democrats are not serving the people but their own self-interests.

lol, the democrats that are there were elected to serve the democratic population of WI, that's what they are doing.

Remember, there is no pleasing everybody. Ever. No matter what an elected official does there will be naysayers.

Yeah, and clearly the WI democrats aren't pleasing you.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/8/11 09:15 PM, Memorize wrote: The polls also reflect that the people aren't supportive of those Democrats fleeing the state to avoid a vote.

But nice try attempting to neglect that little bit of info.

You mean the single poll conducted by Rasmussen, a known right leaning poll that always is 10 points more to the right than any other poll?

[Memorize]

At 3/8/11 09:55 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You mean the single poll conducted by Rasmussen, a known right leaning poll that always is 10 points more to the right than any other poll?

Translation: "I only like rasmussen or gallup when they agree with me."

But even still, the 10-point spread doesn't make up for their utter fail on this one.

67% disapprove

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/8/11 10:21 PM, Memorize wrote: 67% disapprove

That's a national poll, seems pretty irrelevant.

[Memorize]

At 3/8/11 10:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/8/11 10:21 PM, Memorize wrote: 67% disapprove

That's a national poll, seems pretty irrelevant.

Don't tell me you're stupid enough to believe that with numbers that far spread, that those Democrats would possibly poll in the majority if it was only Wisconsin.

[Korriken]

well it'll be funny to watch later on when the democrats eventually gain enough of a majority and they want to vote on something and the republicans travel to texas to some resort and give the dems the finger. when they start whining about the republicans "not abiding by the will of the people" the republicans can retort with "Funny, you didn't have a problem doing this back in 2011..."

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/8/11 10:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/8/11 10:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/8/11 10:21 PM, Memorize wrote: 67% disapprove

That's a national poll, seems pretty irrelevant.

Don't tell me you're stupid enough to believe that with numbers that far spread, that those Democrats would possibly poll in the majority if it was only Wisconsin.

I think its pretty clear that since some states are red and others blue its entirely possible that different states have different views and opinions on these sorts of matters and that because of this a national poll is mostly irrelevant.

As usual, you're being a fucknut; but you know, insulting me will only make you look that much more right. :P

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/8/11 08:18 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Eh, I can see how the criticism goes both ways. The reason I don't care much if you call them obstructionists is because they are protecting people's liberties.

They aren't protecting everyone's liberties. I get tired of hearing about how young teachers are shuffled around and laid off due to archaic seniority employment practices. They bitch about how their union doesn't protect them, though their dues are subtracted unwillingly.

Should they be forced or coerced into paying for something they view as worthless, even damaging to their own well-being?

If you're a fan of Obama's healthcare takeover, you probably do.

The Republican agenda in the federal congress was simply to block everything no matter what, even if it had been their own policies (which it often was). The democratic obstructionists in this case actually do believe in not doing this.

That's a curious claim. I'd have thought it's the millions that unions funnel into the democratic coffers stirring their collective "belief".

Unfortunately for the Republicans the laws of WI allow this sort of move. And the longer this plays out the more WI people are against it if you look at the polls. Also, if you go back and look at Walker's campaign, this is not something he campaigned for. Its hard to say WI republicans are representing the majority of people in WI when the polls are against them. It is easy to say WI democrats are representing their constituents.

Constituents is a loose term. I'd call it looking out for themselves. Screw the union monopoly and you lose the biggest supporter of the DFL. Why would they do that? ...and how do you discern the DFL motives?

I don't think it is an entirely parallel circumstance. And honestly, its not cowardly. They aren't running from something they could fight. They are running from something when its their only course of action.

Debate is generally the tool for action. If you can't defend yourself on those grounds, running IS cowardly, wouldn't you say?

We'll have to see how it all plays out, but its not exactly the same thing. Republicans are free to be up in arms over this, but consider how many times the filibuster has been threatened in the last 2 years and over what.

"We won't know what's in the healthcare bill until it's passed."

[Camarohusky]

So the Wisconsin Senate shoved the bill through anyway. I guess the State decided that the state workers should share in the troubles of the regular people (you know, except the wealthy, who recieved a tax cut that turned a surplus into the current defecit).

[Ravariel]

At 3/9/11 09:00 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Constituents is a loose term. I'd call it looking out for themselves. Screw the union monopoly and you lose the biggest supporter of the DFL. Why would they do that? ...and how do you discern the DFL motives?

Considering that is the very point of the republican's tactic, then protecting that flank is merely good strategy. And considering they're gathering the support of the people, this looks like a war that the republicans may lose in the end, even if they do succeed in busting the union.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/9/11 08:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So the Wisconsin Senate shoved the bill through anyway. I guess the State decided that the state workers should share in the troubles of the regular people

Why shouldn't they? They're necessarily less productive than private sector workers. Their jobs exist only because the government coercively redistributes wealth.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/9/11 09:53 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Their jobs exist only because the government coercively redistributes wealth.

Thank you. Redistributing wealth seems like a very apt description for cutting middle class government workers' pay so the corporations can have $170 million in tax breaks.

[Memorize]

At 3/9/11 11:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Thank you. Redistributing wealth seems like a very apt description for cutting middle class government workers' pay so the corporations can have $170 million in tax breaks.

Funny how that doesn't involve stealing money from anyone.

[aviewaskewed]

At 3/10/11 12:22 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Well, libs can bitch and moan all they want, but the public sector unions (who's right to exist remains ambiguous) have lost. Hmm, maybe if the chickenshit democratic senators had actually CAST THEIR VOTES, it would be a different story. Ah well, it all worked out for the best, anyways.

Not really, since the whole way this was done as I understand it was to create a SEPERATE measure that DID NOT require the Democrats at all...then if you consider that since the Republicans had a majority so if they voted on the budget bill that had the objectionable bit in it anyway Dem votes would be meaningless...it was lose lose no matter what here.

What's funny to me is here we have a conservative Republican celebrating a move where one party has shoved through a law despite the objections of constituents and the opposition party...but when it was the liberals doing it at the national level that was just evil foul play wasn't it?

That's not a comment on the issue of the unions really...just on the hypocrisy and bullshit some people like to live under.

[BrianEtrius]

Oi, Republicans just gave themselves a huge blow for 2012. Yes, that's right, I'm calling it right now, close to 600 days before election day. It's only going to hurt them in the polls.

Look, both Dems and Independents overwhelmingly oppose eliminating collective bargaining.For the Republicans to win in 2012, they're going to need to not only rally the base and get a good chunk of the Indies, and by pulling something like this, they're not helping their cause.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/9/11 11:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Thank you. Redistributing wealth seems like a very apt description for cutting middle class government workers' pay so the corporations can have $170 million in tax breaks.

Um, that is the OPPOSITE of wealth redistribution.

People/corporations are keeping their money. It was never the teachers' money to begin with.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/11 05:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Um, that is the OPPOSITE of wealth redistribution.

Just because the rich get it doesn't change the fact that it is still wealth distribution.

People/corporations are keeping their money. It was never the teachers' money to begin with.

No. The corporations are getting a discount on the services the rest of us have to pay full price for, and for what? So Union member could get their bargaining rights and pay slashed.

If a store did this there would be some serious backlash.

[Roy-Tomara]

Elections have consequences.

[aviewaskewed]

At 3/10/11 01:21 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Oh, please. Cut the bullshit, man. All that the fucking law requires is that teachers pay into their own fucking pensions. (Oh, and that union membership be voluntary, but you don't see THAT part being reported.)

Except I'm not talking about the merits of the law. I'm talking about what I see as hypocrisy on your part when it was you and other conservatives saying the Healthcare Law and what not was crammed down the throats of a public that didn't want it by a liberal majority that didn't need to listen to the opposition. But when the conservatives did the exact same thing, in an even more heavy handed way, it's all good. Seems like hypocrisy to me.

Hell, I dunno why I'm even calling it a law, it's a budget plan. The whole point OF this budget plan is to spend less money on unimportant bullshit.

If it's part of a budget plan...why did they need to separate it from the budget plan itself to pass it? Because that's what they did so they wouldn't need the democrats to come back and vote on it.

Either way, the constituents were quite divided on the law, so stop acting like you had some kind of clear majority, or something. And the "opposition party" FLED THE STATE TO AVOID THE VOTE!

They did, because they felt strongly about their belief and they knew they weren't going to be listened to any way. But my issue is it seems to me this is the healthcare law in reverse. Because there's some similarities to me in that here's something that many people didn't want to see go through, but one political party with the majority pushed it through no matter what. But in this instance it's ok for you because this time the "right" party did it.

"Foul play" is not letting the constituents know what's in a fucking bill before passing it.

It was posted online as I recall. It was out there for anyone who cared to read it. If people didn't, well that's on them I think.

"Foul play" is giving billions of dollars in tax payer money to congressional districts that don't exist.

It is...but let's not act like only Dems do that.

"Foul play" putting 9000 pages of earmarks in a bill to bribe support from centrists.

Again, let's not act like only one party does that. You're also missing what I feel was the biggest problem with the bill.

And yes, "Foul play" is purposely obstructing the democratic process by fleeing the state to avoid (or at least postpone) a loss.

Would you say that if it was the Republicans doing it on the issue? Or if the Republicans had done it on the healthcare bill.

By the way, just to close that one out, I think the worst thing about it was it turned into a giant blowjob for insurance providers.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/11 08:56 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Republican earmarks (assuming they exist) never even come close to the scope of Spendocrat earmarks.

Here's one example found after a half assed 1 minute search. You are extremely blind if you believe that only democrats have skeletons in their closet.

Yes, the Republicans DID use stall tactics. But they never did anything so terrible as that. Besides, it's important to look at what they were stalling for. The Republicans were stalling with the hope of the midterm election happening before the vote did, thus giving them back the majority and allowing the people to be adequately represented.

So It's ok to stall, so long as it is part of a grab for power?

The Wisconsin Dems simply wanted to let the state burn until the legislature caved in to the demands of the unions. A majority was not something that was going to happen any time soon, so it's an entirely different issue than the Republican stalling.

That is EXACTLY what the Republicans did in the US Congress.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/10/11 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Just because the rich get it doesn't change the fact that it is still wealth distribution.

I said REdistribution.

No. The corporations are getting a discount on the services the rest of us have to pay full price for,

Even though corporations pay many multiples of what government spends on services the corporations, it's a discount?

and for what? So Union member could get their bargaining rights and pay slashed.

Higher union wages are not an unqualified good. You're basically saying "higher wages = good, therefore coercion."

If a store did this there would be some serious backlash.

Store employees never had the inflated wages and benefits of union workers though.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/11/11 12:08 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Even though corporations pay many multiples of what government spends on services the corporations

...use*