Ah! A poll! At last!
MORE: Rasmussen surveyed likely voters across the country — I'd like to see an all-Wisconsin poll — and found "strong partisan disagreement on both questions and a wide gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters."
२१ फेब्रुवारी, २०११
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
So, garbage, how do you want your crow prepared?
Counting the seconds until garage or someone else on the left refers to "Rasmussen's well-known pro-Republican bias"...
as befits the purplish (but getting redder) nature of Wisconsin
as befits the purplish (but getting redder) nature of Wisconsin
It was a national poll.
38%!?! Wow, there are a lot of short-sighted and/or stupid people in this country.
Read it and weep Obama:
When it comes to the nation’s historic-level federal budget deficit, 70% of all voters think voters are more willing to make the hard choices needed to reduce government spending than elected politicians are.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of all voters nationwide favor a proposal to cut the federal payroll by 10% over the coming decade.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans think workers in the private sector work harder than government workers.
Counting the seconds until garage or someone else on the left refers to "Rasmussen's well-known pro-Republican bias"...
He goes on cruises with the NRO. He worked on George Bush reelection campaign. Does that count?
LOL funny. Was wondering when RasmussenHouse would get out the talking points narrative
38%!?! Wow, there are a lot of short-sighted and/or stupid people in this country.
Mostly, there are just a lot of people getting checks from the government.
garage mahal said...
He goes on cruises with the NRO. He worked on George Bush reelection campaign. Does that count?
Nope, but nice try at guilt by association.
With pollsters, all that counts is the accuracy of their recent electoral predictions -- say, the last five years. If those are accurate, there's no bias.
And I'm not saying they were accurate. I haven't looked at the data recently. But they were pretty accurate in years past when the whole bias meme was first floated. Since it was a lie then, I'll believe it's a lie now until I see data to the contrary.
Uh oh, bad news for the public employee unions and their leashed lackeys: the proletarians are throwing off their chains.
Rasmussen's well documented bias in tracking polls is probably irrelevant here. However, as Althouse pointed out, it would be nice to know what a poll among Wisconsinites shows. Walker won with 52% of the vote. It would be interesting to see if more citizens of the State support him in this bill, or less.
What is this political class?
Whatever it is, the teacher is probably out sick this week.
Triangle,
An article in the New York Times proves Rasmussen is biased!
Did you read the other postings today?
Does it hurt the GOP to be drawn into an explicitly anti-union stance?
I realize that union membership is down and all that, but an important part of the Reagan coalition was blue collar, union workers.
Does it hurt the GOP to be drawn into an explicitly anti-union stance?
Most of us understand the difference between a public employee union and a private sector union.
Most of us understand that public employee unions and Democratic Party officials are involved in a kickback scheme for campaign contributions.
... a wide gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters ....
News Flash to the Political Class: You work for us. The "Mainstream Voters." The citizens of a truly remarkable and successful experiment in social organization called the United States of America.
We the people ... remember?
Didn't think so.
Here's the poll I want to see:
As a Wisconsin taxpayer, do you agree or disagree with Scott Walker's proposal to through no-bid contracts to sell off the state's power plants to the same people that fund his campaign and initiatives?
peter hoh said...
Does it hurt the GOP to be drawn into an explicitly anti-union stance?
I realize that union membership is down and all that, but an important part of the Reagan coalition was blue collar, union workers.
By no standard measure is a teacher "blue collar"
I do rather enjoy watching people like you conflate AFSCME members with the UAW.
Does it hurt the GOP to be drawn into an explicitly anti-union stance?
Um, no.
The state senator should implement a simple rule change:
End direct deposit of senators' paychecks. All paychecks will be picked up by the senator, not his staffer, from the senate Sergeant at Arms.
That's the poll I quoted earlier.
In answer to Ann's question, there was a WI poll firm that found overwhelming support for Walker (65%) at the end of last week. Saw it through another blog, but can't remember where or the name of the firm. With your greater resources, you may be able to find it.
peter hoh said...
Does it hurt the GOP to be drawn into an explicitly anti-union stance?
The Demos have painted them that way for 80 years, so it's irrelevant. Private sector unions are moribund anyway, so the public sector ones are the battleground.
I agree with the Professor -- a Wisconsin-only poll is more important than a national poll at this point. For the people of 49 states it's not their ox that's being gored.
And Rasmussen found "strong partisan disagreement on both questions and a wide gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters"? Color me gobsmacked.
"garage mahal said...
Here's the poll I want to see:
As a Wisconsin taxpayer, do you agree or disagree with Scott Walker's proposal to through no-bid contracts to sell off the state's power plants to the same people that fund his campaign and initiatives?"
Garage no like poll result.
Demand different poll!
wv: derde - the type of deeds that are done dirt-cheap...
He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty.
-Proverbs 22:16
Garage no like poll result.
Demand different poll!
Rasmussen asked: 3* "Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?"
Well, actually nobody is striking in Wisconsin, as a judge just recently ruled. What a hack.
Rasmussen is known for being notoriously biased. Come on, saying that their polls are neutral is like calling Fox News fair and balanced.
As for WI polls, there has been one. Edutcher, please, keep your bias out of this. The poll found that Wisconsinites favor the financial concessions, with one exception--stripping the unions of their collective bargaining rights. Wisconsinites were overwhelmingly AGAINST doing that...about 65%, in fact. I looked at the questions, and while I think they're slightly biased in the way that people were questions, think they're generally reasonable overall. And, unlike you, I actually have the poll:
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/BSW_POLL_PRESS_RELEASE_FEB_17___2011.pdf
Bob: Rasmussen is known for being notoriously biased.
Nope. And its track record is better than all the others out there.
I also like that they do a rolling 3 day average.
Come on, saying that their polls are neutral is like calling Fox News fair and balanced.
Fox News is fair and balanced. Compared to the other choices out there.
The reason its not for you is because you're so far out in left field you're in the parking lot.
Yea, the polls on this issue have been oddly missing. But also missing is any but the slightest detail about the wages and benefits in question. I've seen two numbers on teacher compensation, both poorly sourced from seemingly biased sources, and nothing on the details of the current pension plan or health care coverage other than the pending changes in employee contribution. These may not be absolutely critical to understanding the debate, but Enquiring minds want to know.
Can anyone help?
Fen, you're a moron. Fox News is far, far worse than anything else out there, even CNN/MSNBC...take that from a C-SPAN watcher. Any station that has Glenn Beck, Hannity and Sarah Palin as a contributor will never have my respect as an unbiased news source. My news generally comes from the AP, since it tends to be devoid of any opinion.
Whenever a Lefty uses words like "obviously" or "known to be", you can be sure they a full of shit.
Fen, you're a moron. Fox News is far, far worse than anything else out there, even CNN/MSNBC...take that from a C-SPAN watcher.
Bwahahaha! C-SPAN?
My news generally comes from the AP, since it tends to be devoid of any opinion.
Laugh out loud funny.
garage mahal said...
Well, actually nobody is striking in Wisconsin, as a judge just recently ruled.
Well, actually teachers are striking in Wisconsin. Just because it does not meet a legal definition does not mean it does not meet the English language definition.
What a hack.
Somewhere, Gödel is smiling
Rasmussen asked: 3* "Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?"
Well, actually nobody is striking in Wisconsin, as a judge just recently ruled. What a hack.
Why is he a hack for asking such a question? Striking is a fundamental tool of unions for forcing concessions. The question has merit the judges ruling notwithstanding.
with one exception--stripping the unions of their collective bargaining rights.
Nobody is "stripping collective bargaining rights."
The bill Walker wants to sign says that no collective-bargaining agreement may be for longer than one year and no agreement may be extended.
Any station that has Glenn Beck, Hannity and Sarah Palin as a contributor will never have my respect as an unbiased news source.
As opposed to Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann or Ed Schulz?
Oh wait, like Beck, Hannity and Sarah Palin they're pundits, not you know, newspeople.
Fen's poll question:
"Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment" (/via wiki)
Do you support or oppose Wisconsin becoming a Right To Work state?
Collective Bargaining fully intact? Yeah...
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-his-budget-repair-/
Hey Bob, "there's a growing perception across this" blog that you are a Libtard.
Martin L. Shoemaker - "Counting the seconds until garage or someone else on the left refers to "Rasmussen's well-known pro-Republican bias"
As if their polling isn't just that...DUH.
What Glenn, Rush, Sean and Bill too busy?
Fen - Why would anyone care what some right wing nutcase like you has to say about anything relating to worker's rights?
When was the last time you even had a job?
Well, actually teachers are striking in Wisconsin. Just because it does not meet a legal definition does not mean it does not meet the English language definition
Gotcha.
How many of you, and that includes the good professor, are platinum members of Rasmussen? Without being a platinum memmber, how can you say anything remotely intelligent (from either political perspective) about these poll results by simply reading the article at the link to which you're taken by the post? The questions in the poll are almost laughable. (You can get to those without ponying up dough.)
If someone is a platinum member and thinks this poll is fabulous proof of something, let's hear the details.
Well, actually teachers are striking in Wisconsin. Just because it does not meet a legal definition does not mean it does not meet the English language definition
Gotcha.
Lets put it this way, if the teachers don't go back to work tomorrow, I'm curious as to what one would call their refusal to go to work?
Anyplace I have ever worked three unexcused absences was considered 'voluntary termination'.
Perhaps the 48% who back Walker on this know that if they just didn't show up to work because they were mad, they'd be unemployed.
An article in the New York Times proves Rasmussen is biased!
Did you read the other postings today?
For those who mindlessly ignore anything written in the NY TImes because it is the NY Times, here's another report of the analysis from the analyst's own blog .
Corn Cobb - "Oh wait, like Beck, Hannity and Sarah Palin they're pundits, not you know, newspeople."
At least the people you whine about at MSNBC took the time to attend and graduate from college.
Between Beck, Hannity, Palin and even the fat druggie...they have one degree between the bunch. (And it took the Princess about six years and six colleges to graduate.)
Corn Cobb - "Anyplace I have ever worked three unexcused absences was considered 'voluntary termination'."
And you feel this should be the law of the land?
Even YOU can't be that dense.
Bob said...
Rasmussen is known for being notoriously biased. Come on, saying that their polls are neutral is like calling Fox News fair and balanced.
As for WI polls, there has been one. Edutcher, please, keep your bias out of this. The poll found that Wisconsinites favor the financial concessions, with one exception--stripping the unions of their collective bargaining rights. Wisconsinites were overwhelmingly AGAINST doing that...about 65%, in fact. I looked at the questions, and while I think they're slightly biased in the way that people were questions, think they're generally reasonable overall. And, unlike you, I actually have the poll:
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/BSW_POLL_PRESS_RELEASE_FEB_17___2011.pdf
Ras is only "known for being notoriously biased" among Lefites who can't stand the facts (are there any other kind?). As it takes a membership to view past posts on wispolitics, I can't verify Bob's assertion, but, given his generally KosKid ranting, I'll stand by my statement until we can see the actual post.
The issue is Kos, DU, and Arianna are seeing the polls go against them and all the little trolls have been given their marching orders to do the Uncle Saul FUD discredit dance.
PS Kim can go to rasmussenreports.com and it's right on the index page. You need no membership.
I placed a direct link to the poll--it's a PDF file. There is no membership required. Not sure what you're talking about, but you can see the poll, in full, but going to the link.
And, much to your dismay, I'm sure, I don't read Daily Kos. There has only been one WI poll that's come out, and contrary to your rather ignorant beliefs, it goes against part of Walker's bill. If we want to get into technicalities, roughly 65% of Wisconsinites favor the bill...with the EXCEPTION of stripping the CB rights. This isn't rocket science. Have you ever learned how to read? Asking too much, perhaps?
Obviously. I comprehend your drivel perfectly.
Since the local local teabaggers and The Queen are apparently sooooo concerned about these nasty teachers taking advantage of their "collective bargaining" abilities (but not the firefighters or police?)...why no discussion of this?
"While there has been significant attention devoted to the fact that Walker's 144-page budget repair bill would strip away collective bargaining rights for public employees, there is a less noticed provision that would allow the state to sell or contract out any state-owned energy asset in NO-BID deals with private corporations. From the legislation."
(The department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state.)
It's unclear what "the best interest of the state" is.
One of the companies that could stand to benefit significantly is Koch Industries. Koch already has several companies in the state, including a coal subsidiary, timber plants and a large network of pipelines.
Oh, and during the 2010 election cycle, Walker received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC, his second-largest contribution. The PAC also gave significantly to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn helped out Walker considerably in his race. Koch also contributed $6,500 to support 16 Republican legislative candidates in the state.
Bob - Why are you wasting your time providing any "factual" evidence to the regular sycophants here?
They're ONLY interested in what they already believe to be so, want to be so...or of course, what The Queen tells them is so.
And you feel this should be the law of the land?
Actually I do. I think if an employee just decides he or she doesn't have to come into work and does for for three consective days should be fired.
Even YOU can't be that dense.
Of course not. I consider the fact that an employee who chooses not to come to work to do the job they are getting wages for is causing an undue burden on his/her fellow employees who now have to work harder to make up for his/her slacking off.
I experienced this first hand when I worked in the mill where if your relief didn't show up you worked a double. Amazing how many Friday and Monday midnight-day turns I worked because my relief didn't feel the need to show up.
Paul Krugman on the power play in Wisconsin:
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.
And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.
There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.
So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t.
On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Krugman supports forcing an ever higher progressive income tax on the top income earners and then bemoans that a handful of wealthy people dominate?
Perhaps Krugman misses the point in that when public employee unions can wield their power, it is the taxpayer that has to pay the bill.
Corn Cobb - "Actually I do. I think if an employee just decides he or she doesn't have to come into work and does for for three consective days should be fired."
And of course, there would be no form of discussion or negotiation either...right?
Three unexcused days and the employee, regardless of their abilities, work history or length of tenure...would be fired...right?
*Bu, speaking of taking time off (while, mind you, two wars were raging)...what should we have done with this government worker?
During 2 terms as President, Bush spent all or of part of 487 days at Camp David, on retreats and made 77 trips to his Crawford Ranch, in Texas, where he spent all or part of 490 days, on his Ranch.
The total number of days of vacation or retreat President Bush took, while in office over a period of 8 years was 977 days, or 32% of his total time in office, was spent on vacations or retreats.
That's right: 32% of his entire time in office...
We are talking past each other here, Bob and EDutcher. I think Bob is talking about a link to a poll at WisPolitic.Com. I am saying that without ponying up $19.95 a month or $200 per year, you have no idea about the results of the Rasmussen poll. If EDutcher says that he can access the whole poll without ponying up money, he should please answer this question: What was the poll question on which the 48% favored Scott Walker and the 38% sided with the union?
By the way there was a poll of just Wisconsin residents, 2400 of them on February 18:
http://weaskamerica.com/2011/02/18/weirdness-in-wisconsin/
Two questions only. Guv got spanked, as did the Wisconsin 14.
Corn Cobb - "when public employee unions can wield their power, it is the taxpayer that has to pay the bill."
Who's footing this bill?
"Sarah Palin's Alaska," the 8-part TLC reality show, is set to receive $1.2 million in tax credits, helping the program's producers recoup a third of the $3.6 million they spent filming in the Frontier State.
According to a measure, signed into law by then-Gov. Palin in 2008, crews filming in Alaska are eligible to receive subsidies for around 30 percent of their operating costs.
That's right: 32% of his entire time in office...
Hysterical.
Again, how do we know you ignorant little children can't defend the indefensible?
You're talking about Bush.
Who's footing this bill?
It isn't a bill, bozo.
Two questions only. Guv got spanked, as did the Wisconsin 14.
And then what?
Walker didn't win the election?
We should rule by majority vote?
You continue to make inane posts.
Who's footing this bill?
You do understand what a tax credit is?
The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation
This ignorance is laughable.
There was no "financial deregulation"
Keep lapping it all up, clown. For you, ignorance is a virtue.
Corn Cobb - "when public employee unions can wield their power, it is the taxpayer that has to pay the bill."
Who's footing this bill?
"Sarah Palin's Alaska," the 8-part TLC reality show, is set to receive $1.2 million in tax credits, helping the program's producers recoup a third of the $3.6 million they spent filming in the Frontier State.
According to a measure, signed into law by then-Gov. Palin in 2008, crews filming in Alaska are eligible to receive subsidies for around 30 percent of their operating costs.
Is there a line between these two dots?
What was the poll question on which the 48% favored Scott Walker and the 38% sided with the union?
Um, there were only 5 questions.
Only 1 asked respondents who they favored:
In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?
Are you always this dense?
Corn Cobb - "You do understand what a tax credit is?"
Sure, and in this case..."The subsidies are in the form of transferable tax credits. Many of the companies claiming the tax credits do not have to pay much, if anything, in the form of Alaska taxes, so they sell the tax credits to companies. There have been reports the going rate is 80 to 90 cents on the dollar. Some have been sold the same day they were issued."
So, if they "do not have to pay much, if anything, in the form of Alaska taxes"...how is this good for Alaskan taxpayers?
ure, and in this case..."The subsidies are in the form of transferable tax credits.
Notice you never provide a link to these alleged facts.
Want to take a guess as to why that is?
Jeremy
I saw the Huffpo article which you obviously referenced and did a little more digging.
I found this interesting.
"I think Alaska theme shows are going to entice more feature films to Alaska because they're going to see all of the different, great stories that Alaska has to tell," Worrell said. The new film office offers incentives including a 30 percent tax credit to qualifying productions spending at least $100,000 in the state. Added incentives for Alaska hires, as well as offseason and rural shoots, boost credits to a maximum of 44 percent.
So it looks that tax credit incentive Palin signed is bringing in more business to Alaska.
The program is set to expire in 2013, but some state lawmakers are determined to keep it going. Among them is state Rep. Chris Tuck, an Anchorage Democrat who is a sponsor of bill that would extend the program by 10 years and another $200 million.
So Jeremy, as you can see, providing a tax credit incentivizes business to come to the state which brings in, yes you guessed it, more revenue.
Thanks for playing.
Jay - "There was no 'financial deregulation'"
Were you asleep over the past decade or so?
Duh.
So, if they "do not have to pay much, if anything, in the form of Alaska taxes"...how is this good for Alaskan taxpayers?
BWWAHAHAHAHAAHA
Um, like this maybe?
to qualifying productions spending at least $100,000 in the state
You people really, really do not understand basic economics.
Corn Cobb - Alaskans pay less tax than any other state, while gobbling up more Federal Funds than any other state.
And you think this tax credit deal...is good?
Were you asleep over the past decade or so?
Duh.
Um, you can't name any law or regulation that was repealed "over the last decade or so" dumbass.
So, if they "do not have to pay much, if anything, in the form of Alaska taxes"...how is this good for Alaskan taxpayers?
See my previous post.
while gobbling up more Federal Funds than any other state.
You are a silly liar.
Jaybird - "Obligations for federal domestic spending rose 16 percent in fiscal year 2009 to $3.2 trillion. That comes out to $10,548 per person living in the United States.
Alaska received nearly twice the national average, taking in $20,351.13 per resident, the most of any American state."
Jay - "You are a silly liar."
Once again...asshole:
"Obligations for federal domestic spending rose 16 percent in fiscal year 2009 to $3.2 trillion. That comes out to $10,548 per person living in the United States.
*Alaska received nearly twice the national average, taking in $20,351.13 per resident, the most of any American state."
Alaska received nearly twice the national average, taking in $20,351.13 per resident, the most of any American state."
Notice you never link to a source for these alleged facts.
Want to take a guess as to why that is?
Corn Cobb - Alaskans pay less tax than any other state, while gobbling up more Federal Funds than any other state.
Jeremy, about 65% of Alaska is owned and operated by the Federal government. It stands to reason the state receives a huge amount of Federal funds. As you would say, Duh.
And you think this tax credit deal...is good?
Um...its obviously bringing in a good amount of movie production business so I'd have to take a guess and say yes.
Once again...asshole:
Notice you never link to a source for these alleged facts.
Want to take a guess as to why that is?
That comes out to $10,548 per person living in the United States.
Which is irrelevant and actually not a valid data point.
And you're too dumb to understand why.
Jay, you like to talk, but you never say anything with substance.
Here's the link:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/states-that-received-the-most-federal-funds/
The source is the US Census Bureau. Now, go back into the hole you crawled out of.
Jaybird - Alaska takes in about $1.90 in Federal Dollars for every dollar if pays.
Are you drunk, high on drugs or just plain stupid?
Jaybird - Have at it: www.taxfoundation.org
Alaska takes in about $1.90 in Federal Dollars for every dollar if pays.
"Alaska" doesn't "pay federal dollars"
Bozo.
Jay, you like to talk, but you never say anything with substance.
You're an idiot.
How's that?
Are you drunk, high on drugs or just plain stupid?
Can you name a single financial regulation or law that was repealed in the last 9 years demonstrating this "de-regulation" you speak of?
Thanks in advance.
Alaska takes in about $1.90 in Federal Dollars for every dollar if pays.
So, what exactly is your point? The fact that Alaska has been the recipient of too much Federal money is kinda old news. Again, 65% of the state is owned and managed
by the Federal government so perhaps a breakdown on where those Federal funds are actually going would be helpful don't you think?
As to Wisconsin and Walker's claim that the unions are creating his state's economic woes:
1. There was no sharp rise in collective bargaining in 2006 and 2007, no major reforms of the country's labor laws, no dramatic change in how unions organize. And yet, state budgets collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Taxes had to go up, and spending had to go down, all across the country.
2. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank. Instead, it's facing a deficit. Why?
More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).
In English: The governor called a special session of the legislature and signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it helped turn a surplus into a deficit.
3. And note that not all public-employee unions are covered by Walker's proposal: the more conservative public-safety unions -- notably police and firefighters, many of whom endorsed Walker -- are exempt.
(Ezra Klein)
Actually I was wrong.
The Fed's own 89% of Alaska.
Jay, you need to look up ad hominem in the dictionary. If it makes you feel smug to insult everyone on this site that disagrees with something you say, rather than set out a cogent argument in support of your position, then you aren't really adding to discourse, you are just ranting. As to your claim that I "continue to make inane posts," I find your insight interesting since I have only started commenting to this blog today, and only on this limited issue. This is my third comment. I guess in your world, two strikes and you're out.
To answer your questions: Yes, majority does rule, as to elections, unless there are three or more candidates.
Yes, Scott Walker did win the election. That is why we get to have this conversation.
Yes, sometimes I am dense. I guess I am still dense. Where did you pull up the specific question that you inserted in your post? To wit:
"In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?"
Please be so kind as to post a link to where you got the question and verified the percentages of how people responded to it.
Now please tell me why you think that specific question sheds any light whatsoever on whether the Governor should try to bust the public unions by not allowing them to bargain on their pay and benefits? For example (but certainly not trying to limit what you may have to say about the issue), tell me what you think the average person responding to that brilliantly thought out Rasmussen question would have understood the parameters of the "dispute" to be.
P.S. Sorry, Jay, but "Screw you idiot" will not earn you any bonus points on your response.
Jaybird - Compliments of Phil Gramm:
"From 1999 to 2001, Congress first considered steps to curb predatory loans — those that typically had high fees, significant prepayment penalties and ballooning monthly payments and were often issued to low-income borrowers. Foreclosures on such loans were on the rise, setting off a wave of personal bankruptcies.
But Mr. Gramm did everything he could to block the measures. In 2000, he refused to have his banking committee consider the proposals, an intervention hailed by the National Association of Mortgage Brokers as a “huge, huge step for us.”
A year later, he objected again when Democrats tried to stop lenders from being able to pursue claims in bankruptcy court against borrowers who had defaulted on predatory loans.
In late 1999, Mr. Gramm played a central role in what would be the most significant financial services legislation since the Depression. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as the measure was called, removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes. Long sought by the industry, the law would let commercial banks, securities firms and insurers become financial supermarkets offering an array of services.
The measure, which Mr. Gramm helped write and move through the Senate, also split up oversight of conglomerates among government agencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, would oversee the brokerage arm of a company. Bank regulators would supervise its banking operation. State insurance commissioners would examine the insurance business. But no single agency would have authority over the entire company.
How do the earnings of government workers who are union members compare to the earnings of private-sector workers?
Two economists at the University of Wisconsin, Keith Bender and John Heywood point out that “government workers have jobs that demand more education, which is not accounted for by raw averages.”
Bender and Heywood did a study last year for the Center for State & Local Government Excellence, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, in which they concluded that “although a comparison of unadjusted average earnings will show that wages are higher among jobs in state and local government, this result is largely due to the fact that the workers in those sectors have more education.”
“Holding education and other characteristics the same, typical state and local workers earn an average of 11 percent less and 12 percent less, respectively, than comparable private-sector workers.”
*This is ALL about union busting...period.
I agree with the Professor -- a Wisconsin-only poll is more important than a national poll at this point. For the people of 49 states it's not their ox that's being gored.
I disagree for two reasons:
(1) A lot of what are normally locally and State taxpayer-funded services are increasingly being paid for by federal taxpayers so we have some skin in the game. More so if there are anymore “bailouts” of the States by the federal taxpayers, particularly with regards to unfunded liabilities such as pension and employee health care costs.
(2) We are probably going to be seeing similar battles in the other 49 States. How residents in the other 49 States perceive the various combatants in this battle could dictate how those battles are waged and won.
This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNION BUSTING.
This has everything to do with giving freedom of choice to those employees in "closed shops” who no longer want to pay dues to a Union.
This has everything to do with eliminating oligarchical Executive Boards that do absolutely nothing for its membership.
This has everything to do with the Labor Management Rights Disclosure Act (LMRDA). It is WRONG that a Union can dictate whether or not an employee should be hired or force membership as a condition of employment.
GOP is beating out the president even though the president visited Madison several times. Interesting. It's beginning to look like the unions and Obama miscalculated.
One of the companies that could stand to benefit significantly is Koch Industries. Koch already has several companies in the state, including a coal subsidiary, timber plants and a large network of pipelines.
So I go to copy this blather by Jeremy, in preparation for mocking his smarmy allegations of how Koch "could stand to benefit" without even the flimsiest scrap of evidence that they have any more intention of doing so than my grandmother. Or more pertinently, than the Democrat-funding whorehouse at General Electric.
Unfortunately, I select "Search with Google" instead of "Copy" from the popup menu.
Lo and behold, a whole page of Google links pops up, showing this same paragraph word-for-word. Not similar words; no, the exact same language. Try it for yourself.
Jeremy is either completely devoid of the intellect to make his own arguments, or he is beavering away on George Soros's nickel to plaster this boilerplate crap all over the Internet.
You guys have lost, Jeremy. The unions are going down. No longer will the taxpayers' money be extorted from them and transferred to teachers, then extorted from the teachers and transferred to Democratic Party coffers.
Jaybird - Compliments of Phil Gramm:
Laugh out loud funny.
Nowhere in that drivel did it say:
the government previously regulated something and now it no longer regulates that something
Which would be de-regulation.
Funny how you fail to point out that Sarbanes-Oxley was passed a year later.
You are so stupid I kind of feel sad for you.
Where did you pull up the specific question that you inserted in your post? To wit:
"In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?"
Please be so kind as to post a link to where you got the question and verified the percentages of how people responded to it.
Um, you do understand the blog post linked to Ras' Web site and the article had other links, the first one being "To see survey question wording, click here.) " don't you?
You could actually try to think for yourself.
It may help.
Bender and Heywood did a study last year for the Center for State & Local Government Excellence, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, in which they concluded that “although a comparison of unadjusted average earnings will show that wages are higher among jobs in state and local government, this result is largely due to the fact that the workers in those sectors have more education.”
Hysterical.
And of course "more education" doesn't make you efficient, productive, or necessarily set a market value.
Keep gobbling up the drivel, clown.
"From 1999 to 2001, Congress first considered steps to curb predatory loans
Which is not "de-regulation"
You do not even understand what "de-regulation" means, moron.
And a biased poll at that:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/rasmussen-poll-on-wisconsin-dispute-may-be-biased/
A left-wing rag as a source re Rasmussen? Too funny.
Kim: to bust the public unions by not allowing them to bargain on their pay and benefits?
Public unions wont lose the ability to negotiate wages (pay).
Are you just winging it here?
Public unions wont lose the ability to negotiate wages (pay).
Why the fuck shouldn't they? They should take what the taxpayers feel like paying, or they can fuck off to the private sector with their degree in post-structural grievance mongering.
@ Kim
Now please tell me why you think that specific question sheds any light whatsoever on whether the Governor should try to bust the public unions by not allowing them to bargain on their pay and benefits? For example (but certainly not trying to limit what you may have to say about the issue), tell me what you think the average person responding to that brilliantly thought out Rasmussen question would have understood the parameters of the "dispute" to be.
Well, it is certain that you don't understand what the bill Walker wants to sign says.
Nobody is "not allowing" unions to collectively bargain or negotiate.
So try again.
Jeremy: During 2 terms as President, Bush spent all or of part of 487 days at Camp David, on retreats and made 77 trips to his Crawford Ranch, in Texas, where he spent all or part of 490 days, on his Ranch.
The total number of days of vacation or retreat President Bush took -
Can't include either Camp David or Crawford. Both sites are set up as static Op Centers. Crawford is even known as the Western White House.
Comparing times spent at those sites to Obama's TRUE vacations on the golf course is dishonest of you.
But then, thats who you are.
BTW, I forget which SockPuppet Jeremy is. Which Libtard does he belong to again?
Fen - You're full of shit, as usual.
You're trying to tell me that a president who spends 32% of his time in office...away from Washington, D.C. is doing his job? While two wars he himself initiated were raging on?
Why you and others here continue to defend this fool just makes you look like...a fool.
You're also one of the last on the planet who continues to say that there were WMD...when even G.W., and even Rummy admit there were not.
Yank your head out of your right wing ass and try reading something before posting drivel.
As for the Wisconsin situation: Blaming the unions while this is the case?
According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations in the state pay no taxes, and the share of corporate tax revenue funding the state government has fallen by half since 1981.
Skookum John - Ahhh, and yet another teabagging dolt joins the fray.
Do you people all live somewhere together in a cave or a trailer?
Do you people all live somewhere together in a cave or a trailer?
God no! Another shithead idiot who thinks he's clever.
The trailer park bit is class contempt for white people.
Has somebody told this piece of shit that the union protesters in Wisconsin are all white?
It's been a gigantic Klan rally.
And, I'll bet you my house that this Jeremy piece of shit is white.
Classic strategy.
Piss on other white people to try to distract the evil eye. Work off your white guilt by accusing other white people of being trash.
Real man of the people, this Jeremy asshole.
Jay wrote: I do rather enjoy watching people like you conflate AFSCME members with the UAW.
I'm not conflating the two. I'm asking, as I'm not sure how much union brotherhood there exists between blue-collar unions and public-sector unions.
And fwiw, I suspect that the average UAW union member earns more than the average AFSCME union member.
With the exception of Kim, I think everyone on this thread deserves each other.
With the exception of Kim, I think everyone on this thread deserves each other.
Your best comment ever, Ritmo.
Clint Eastwood put it better, however, in Unforgiven.
Remember, when the kid was wailing that he wasn't no cold blooded killer like Clint and he didn't have the awful fate coming to him that was obviously coming to Clint?
Clint said: We've all got it coming, kid.
Jeremy @ 5:56pm:
"According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations in the state pay no taxes"
Response:
Not-for-profits are generally corporations. Churches are widely incorporated. Cities and towns are incorporated. School systems are incorporated.
Many corporations lose money even if the goal of the managers is to make money.
Percentages are less than useful in such a discussion because so many "corporations" have no net income. Please try again.
Since public employee unions have the right to bargin collectively for their wages and benefits, do the taxpayers who are actually paying those wages and benefits have any say in the matter?
I agree with the Professor -- a Wisconsin-only poll is more important than a national poll at this point. For the people of 49 states it's not their ox that's being gored.
Eau contraire. I live in Ohio where this very problem may soon rear its ugly head.
Jeremy, corporations NEVER pay taxes. Never have, never will. They only collect them for the government.
The taxes are ultimately paid only by human beings: employees i(n the form of lower wages), retirees (in the form of smaller pensions), customers (in the form of higher prices), suppliers (in the form of fewer purchases), and stockholders (in the form of smaller dividends and less capital gain.)
And the stockholders getting shafted are typically not top-hatted plutocrats, but pension funds and insurance companies working to secure the financial futures of millions and millions of us working stiffs.
The corporate income tax is a clever way for the rapacious, insatiably greedy tax-eating swine of the Democratic Party to surreptitiously steal massive amounts of money out of the pocket of the working man, while dislocating their shoulders as they pat themselves on the back for their tender concern for his well-being.
It's wrong, and evil. The corporate rate should be ZERO. And it will be. Government should be dismembered at all levels. And it will be. Government worker unions should be smashed. And they will be.
Jeremy: Fen - You're full of shit, as usual. You're trying to tell me that a president who spends 32% of his time in office...away from Washington, D.C. is doing his job?
So you're counting Obama's trip to China as a vacation?
What about Air Force One?
Do you understand what Camp David is?
Oh, good, Tomas (just before 5pm) pointed out the likely bias in the poll.
E.M. Davis makes a good point that this poll is not worthless, but I would also like to see how this is playing between Kenosha and Superior. I would also like to see a poll with a little more detail than this one, especially if it's going to be national, hence more useful in terms of issues than in terms of the specifics of the situation.
For example, you can support Walker's benefit cuts (which at least some of the union officials seem to be ready to accept) without liking the requirement that significant pay raises be ratified by the populace. You can think (as I do) that any restrictions on the teachers' union should apply to the police (I think the case against public sector unionism is strongest in those fields where the state necessarily has a monopoly). You can agree with the Walker plan entirely but disdain his contention that there is no room for negotiation. You can agree with the unions entirely and commend Walker's kind words for state employees generally and abhor the sick-out.
Which team people generally side with is useful information, but I'd be interested in a lot more detail.
Jeremy? Echo?
Are you still trying to google "Rafting Tours at Camp David" ?
ah, here we go:
Today's Activities at Camp David
11AM Team Sadat VS Team Menachem in Capture the Flag.
Poll: 61% oppose limits on union bargaining power.
From USA Today (another "left-wing rag", I guess):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा