Taking on Walker would be a daunting challenge for the most seasoned pol, let alone a candidate making the rough equivalent of a major league debut in the playoffs. Burke has improved on the stump since she jumped into the race last year, even Walker’s team acknowledges. She hired an A-list of former Barack Obama advisers, including respected adman Jim Margolis. But while she’s become more at ease, at times her inexperience shows. Burke was caught off guard, for example, by a straightforward question about what she thinks of the president’s performance.
“He got us out of the deepest recession that the country has seen,” she said during an interview, “and uh, are there things I agree with him on? Absolutely. Are there things I disagree with him on? Absolutely.”
Like what?
Burke paused for 12 seconds....
Burke is not, however, a natural champion of the left.... “I assessed her as a 1-percenter at the time, but she’s a 1-percenter with one great conscience,” said John Matthews, who heads the Madison teachers union.
७ ऑगस्ट, २०१४
"She’s a Harvard-educated multimillionaire who rarely goes to church; he’s a middle-class son of a preacher who is just now trying to complete his college degree."
Politico has an article on Mary Burke: "The woman who could beat Scott Walker."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११० टिप्पण्या:
In the space if a day, we have articles in Politico, Slate and WaPo, all with the same lefty slant, as if the Almighty himself stepped in to say "go forth and help Mary, she needs campaign cash". Good to know JournoList is alive and well.
There is no such thing as a liberal with a conscience. At least I've never met one. And I'm sure Mary Burke isn't a counterexample to my assertion.
Burke is a privileged conservative who is proud that she always votes liberal.
On Wisconsin.
The soft soaping and appeal to credentialism over competence is telling.
We're still in a recession. All the economic growth numbers released with great propaganda fanfaire are always downgraded within 2 months back to recession level numbers.
It's all bullshit, all the time from the Democrats, as they have nothing else to run on.
Burke paused for 12 seconds....
That sort of mindlessness used to be normal among Obama supporters. It was periodically necessary to deny that they worshiped the lightworker, but it was always done in vague terms. When asked specifically what they didn't like about him, they had nothing to say.
For someone still, today, to be unable to name a disagreement...I don't know what to say. It's hard to believe such stupidity can exist in the world.
But then I remember she is a Harvard graduate.
This should be an interesting one--I understand the polls show them neck and neck. If Walker can focus enough on job creation and budget improvement over the last four years, he can likely pull ahead. That, and any gaffes Burke commits can give him the edge.
I'd like to see him win if only to stick it to organized labor which went so ballistic on him for what were very reasonable labor reforms. Showing that they can't just destroy anyone who crosses them would be essential to getting others around the country to make much-needed changes to our labor laws. It's not 1935 anymore and our economy needs to modernize.
"It's all bullshit, all the time from the Democrats, as they have nothing else to run on."
That's really all they got these days--the initiatives they implemented over the past several years have been disastrous, so their only way to win is to paint the opposition as too horrible to contemplate. They can only win by default.
The deepest recession we've seen as a country? Lord help me. We've got a generation of morons who believe history started the day they were born. This isn't even the deepest recession since the great depression. It's just that the recovery--or more properly the "non" recovery has taken longer under OBumble's watch than it should.
But okay Ms. Burke, I'll go you one better. You save Obama "got us out" of this recession. Then tell me the answer to a riddle. Why is actual workforce participation (expressed as a percentage of the available work force) at its lowest level in over 40 years> Is that what you call "getting out of a recession".
You may be Harvard educated (like the moron in the White House) but you are still a moron.
I'm reminded of what House Speaker Sam Rayburn said about JFK's brilliant Harvard-educated advisers, "I'd feel a lot better if some of them had run for sheriff just once."
The last thing this country needs is another Harvard-educated millionaire who "rarely" goes to church.
"I assessed her as a 1-percenter at the time, but she’s a 1-percenter with one great conscience,” said John Matthews, who heads the Madison teachers union.
Fen's Law again.
"Eat the rich! [unless they are in our tribe]
"Down with Goldstein!" [unless she's Mary Burke]
"Greedy Capitalist!" [except for the Mary Burkes, who we just *know* have Great Conscience]
[okay, honestly - we never really believed all that crap about the rich. We just wanted to play class warfare to exploit you rubes in the audience]
"Occupy! Occupy! We are the 99 percent!"
[swallow hard, morons]
Good to know JournoList is alive and well.
It actually is. AceOfSpades just linked to another one.
So yah, our independent speak-truth-to-power free press is coordinating its message to influence another election.
Orwell's proles at MiniTru were amateurs.
http://eagnews.org/1000-member-secretive-progressive-journalist-group-uncovered/
Obama got us out of the recession? I wasn't aware the recession had ended.
After the present batch of credentialed morons has just about wrecked the US, I can't imagine Mary Burke's credentials will impress any sentient voter.
but she’s a 1-percenter with one great conscience
Wait, wait, wait...you mean there's more complexity to the class vs class thing than simply class vs class?
I would think that John Matthews is a 1% compared to a lot of the taxpayer. Too me it is different to be paid by the taxpayer than how Warren Buffet is paid.
Fuck the 1% nonsense:
If she doesn't have any racists advising her, as Walker does, then she's got my support,...
If being rich makes you a 1%we in politics then wouldn't that invalidate almost all dems? The not too hidden secret is that most of them are not just rich but
Stinking rich. Same with the celebrities. Same
With a lot of the occupy wall streeters.
In fact if they start in with the socialism and/or the wealth redistribution is look for where they're hiding their silver spoon.
Robert Cook said...
Obama got us out of the recession? I wasn't aware the recession had ended.
Ironically, it ended for rich people. The rest of us, not so much.
Burke is not, however, a natural champion of the left.... “I assessed her as a 1-percenter at the time, but she’s a 1-percenter with one great conscience,” said John Matthews, who heads the Madison teachers union.
Translation: "She will do what we tell her to do."
OMG, I find myself agreeing with Robert Cook. Don't do this too often Cookie, or my mind may explode.
An econometrician friend told me that if the US government evaluated inflation the way it did during the Carter years, and evaluated joblessness the way it did during the Carter years, then we would in fact be worse off than the we were during the lowest point of Carter's "stagflation."
How does the commentariate here skew so sharply right?
The blogress is largely libertarian and socially liberal, but generally moderate on policy. She does not suffer fools gladly, and that may fend off the many fools on the left.
But the commentariate here is so sharply right that I wonder what's going on.
Are there things I disagree with him on? Absolutely.”
Like what?
Burke paused for 12 seconds....
She is an empty vessel that liberals fill with their hopes and dreams. Sort of like someone else in national politics...
“I assessed her as a 1-percenter at the time, but she’s a 1-percenter with one great conscience,” said John Matthews, who heads the Madison teachers union.
I really, really, hate it when people put the comma inside the quotes like they did here. The comma isn't part of the quoted text, but is part of the larger sentence. This isn't part of a law review article, and the style being enforced is probably some 19th century artifact. My old boss would almost mindlessly move all my punctuation inside quotes when proofreading my work, because that is what they do on Law Review. And, I would move it back where it belonged.
That said, spending someone else's money does not show a conscience, and that is what this educrat is talking about. It shows even less when the person positing this is seeking to personally benefit from her increasing the amount of loot being dispensed at the public trough. If she had the sort of conscience that he claims she does, she would give her money to charity, and work on Habitat for Humanity houses in her spare time.
All you need to do to see if a lot of (esp. Dem) politicians are hypocrites, is to look at their personal wealth. If you are a Mitt Romney, giving away large amounts of his own money every year, you may be a decent human being. If you are a John Kerry, spending your wife's former husband's money on another yacht, then probably not. And, if your entire wealth, as with Harry Reid, comes from crony and inside deals, then definitely not.
So, I say to the Mary Burkes, and the Harry Reids, etc., spending your own money first is what shows a conscience. Not spending mine.
Vote Mary Burke, because Birth control! Abortion! She has a conscience!
And yeah, Scott Walker had sex in college and never finished. So there!
If Walker can focus enough on job creation and budget improvement over the last four years, he can likely pull ahead.
He can't run on job creation. That is his biggest weakness.
As long as she went to Haaaahvad, she's qualified.
Burke paused for 12 seconds....
When you are asking someone, a candidate running for office, no less, a question and they pause for 12 seconds, that is a LOOOONNNNGGGGG time. It shows a lack of any thought at all.
The mark of a great conscience is someone who believes in an earlier retirement age and at a higher pension for public employees. This is the defining moral issue of our generation, and Mary Burke fights on the side of the angels.
But in the end after all this lib thunder on Mary's behalf....she will qiute simply....lose.
People always get the Government they deserve.
If Walker were running on a Dave Brat-style populist platform of anti-corporatism and reducing immigration to boost wages, he'd win easily.
But he's cast his lot with the Chamber of Commerce and the rest of the open borders for cheap labor crowd. For choosing donor $$$ over voters, he deserves to lose, and I hope he does: That will be one less pro-amnesty & mass immigration candidate in the GOP primaries.
I would think that John Matthews is a 1% compared to a lot of the taxpayer
$241,578 in salary, $92,447 in benefits last year. Not quite top 1%, which is $388,905, but it's nearly twice what Scott Walker makes.
Inherited wealth and creating jobs in China. The Conscience of a Progressive.
1%-ers with a conscience tend to assuage that conscience with our jobs, our futures, our safety, our communities, our children's prospects...
"Burke paused for 12 seconds....
That sort of mindlessness used to be normal among Obama supporters."
You can get that same pause by asking any Hillary supporter to name precisely one accomplishment, any one, from her time in the public sphere...
"garage mahal said...
He can't run on job creation. That is his biggest weakness."
LOL. Walker's record on jobs crushes Burke. By every measure.
El Crack va para los ricos mujer blanca.
Mantener la fe allí, Kanye ...
"He can't run on job creation. That is his biggest weakness."
I was under the impression Wisconsin has gained jobs since 2010 as a percentage of its population. Or is that not the case?
Whether it is due to anything Walker did or not is always debatable, but he can run on that, as politicians always do.
"How does the commentariate here skew so sharply right?"
The progs just swing by every once in a while to make sure Ann isn't straying too far off the rez. Sadly, we know she's gonna vote the Dem ticket again...
"When you are asking someone, a candidate running for office, no less, a question and they pause for 12 seconds, that is a LOOOONNNNGGGGG time. It shows a lack of any thought at all."
I think the issue isn't so much the long pause--if anythng, a pause shows that they're actually thinking about the question--but the fact that she so casually stated that she agrees and disagrees with Obama on a number of things, and couldn't name anything promptly when called on it. It's as though she had her happy sound bite, but didn't have substance behind it.
Bruce Hayden wrote: "I really, really, hate it when people put the comma inside the quotes like they did here."
USA to Bruce, that's the way we do it here. Love it or hate it, on this side of the Big Ditch, commas and periods go inside the quotes. See Chicago Manual of Style 6.8.
I mis-read Mary Burke as Elizabeth Warren first time through. Oops.
You might ask: How could I misread that? I don't know.
John Matthews has to be one of the worst labor leaders ever. How has MTI's fortunes improved on his watch? (I had heard in the Spring he was going to be replaced by someone from West, but I guess that didn't happen).
Bob Ellison,
I think that there's particular polarization around the Walker/Burke race. You don't see the same "rightward skew" on other topics.
At least, I don't; but, then, I'm probably part of the rightward skew myself ...
"She’s a Harvard-educated multimillionaire who rarely goes to church; he’s a middle-class son of a preacher who is just now trying to complete his college degree."
... Together, they fight crime!? Apparently not.
Bruce Hayden said:
" I really, really, hate it when people put the comma inside the quotes like they did here. The comma isn't part of the quoted text, but is part of the larger sentence. This isn't part of a law review article, and the style being enforced is probably some 19th century artifact."
From the Associated Press Stylebook, 2004 edition, page 329:
BEFORE ATTRIBUTION: Use a comma instead of a period at the end of a quote that is followed by attribution: "Rub my shoulders," Miss Cawley suggested.
Hardly a 19th Century artifact.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
- C.S. Lewis
So...she's perfect for the job.
Bob Ellison said...
How does the commentariate here skew so sharply right?
The blogress is largely libertarian and socially liberal, but generally moderate on policy. She does not suffer fools gladly, and that may fend off the many fools on the left.
But the commentariate here is so sharply right that I wonder what's going on.
8/7/14, 9:31 AM
Simple: they aren't reality challenged as is typical of the lefties.
"If she doesn't have any racists advising her"
Surely some of them have gardens.
garage mahal said...
If Walker can focus enough on job creation and budget improvement over the last four years, he can likely pull ahead.
He can't run on job creation. That is his biggest weakness.
8/7/14, 9:45 AM
If I was a WI taxpayer I would be content knowing he didn't create any new public slug jobs.
Tank said: "Ironically, (the recession) ended for rich people. The rest of us, not so much."
But then, there never was a recession for rich people.
Rating Change: Wisconsin Governor
"We’re changing The Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call rating of the race from Leans Republican to Pure Tossup."
Wisconsin is so ungrateful!
Out of a deep recession? I keep hearing that, and not seeing it.
HEY! There's still time to get your tickets for the SIXTH Annual Tour of The Summer Of Recovery!
"She's a State-fellator, he seems to come down generally on the side of liberty . . . therefore, vote for Walker!" (translated from Liberal BS to honest English).
I meant "vote for Burke."
"The mark of a great conscience is someone who believes in an earlier retirement age and at a higher pension for public employees."
Anyone who's interested in people who actually had a great conscience should read the mini-biographies in Jim Powell's great book THE TRIUMPH OF LIBERTY. Coercion does not mesh with a great conscience.
Burke paused for 12 seconds....
Burke knows that many of Obama's policies are unpopular, she agrees with those policies, but she can't say that she agrees with his unpopular policies.
Bob Ellison writes:
"But the commentariat here is so sharply right that I wonder what's going on."
I think I quoted you correctly Mr. Ellison. I believe there's an answer in a phrase from an old Tom T. Hall country song. "A man's not writing if he can't relate all the things he sees in his life."
I think many of the commentariat here (well okay not necessarily Garage or Crack) simply see more clearly than those who wear ideological blinders. And since even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. sometimes even Garage or Crack is spot on.
Air is leaking slowly from the Walker balloon.
"I'd like to see him win if only to stick it to organized labor which went so ballistic on him for what were very reasonable labor reforms."
Making it illegal for a union to bargain on practically everything is very reasonable indeed.
"How does the commentariate here skew so sharply right?"
Perhaps its the editing out of comments? Or more specifically, the time it takes to have comments approved.
In my experience, the left tends to be pretty immature and impatient. This blog's comments section doesn't cater to such.
Burke paused for 12 seconds....
It's like one of those Star Trek episodes where Kirk uses logic-judo to confuse the computer. Kirk wins when smoke begins to bellow from the computer.
LOL. Walker's record on jobs crushes Burke. By every measure.
Why were there more people working during Burke's tenure at Commerce than there are now under Walker?
BEFORE ATTRIBUTION: Use a comma instead of a period at the end of a quote that is followed by attribution: "Rub my shoulders," Miss Cawley suggested.
Hardly a 19th Century artifact.
The fact that it is still being done, or even mandated, today does not address my point that it was started at a time when text was typeset and not computer generated. It seems to be mandated primarily because that is what used to be mandated by newspapers and law review journals. Etc. But, they mandated it, initially, at least partly for technological reasons, which no longer apply. But, it doesn't make as much logical sense as putting the comma outside the quotes - because the comma itself is not part of what is being quoted, but is rather a part of the larger sentence. Putting the comma inside the quotes just makes it look stilted, because it is.
BTW - I note that my own punctuation tends to be on a much lower level than the text I complained about, as I tend to include many too many commas in my blogging comments. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't be outraged by how someone else handles punctuation.
"Making it illegal for a union to bargain on practically everything is very reasonable indeed."
Really? He did this to private sector unions in Wisconsin? It is now illegal for them to bargain on practically everything? Or is this like the case of the Supreme Court deciding that religious people can not prevent anyone from getting contraception?
That sort of hysterical overstatement is why the unions are so unpopular now that they can only gain membership by force. I guess I shouldn't expect better of a protected monopoly.
Air is leaking slowly from the Walker balloon.
Maybe. But is Burke's Balloon Bouncing Brightly?
Thank you several for the discussion of the "skewing right" question I posed here.
It's pretty obviously not because of deleting comments. Althouse and Meade would be deleting a lot more if they were not as open to argument as they are.
There's a self-deletion factor, though, as eric suggests. When you get slammed in the comments often enough, you tend to leave the podium. But that idea is self-serving for righties like me, so I hesitate to adopt it.
Still, visit DemocraticUnderground.com for evidence that lefties go deep into their echo chambers and never come out. Visit any lefty site for such; DU is just an extreme example.
I'd like to see more commentary from garage mahal, Robert Cook, and other folks on the left around here who are pointy and reasonable.
Skeptical Voter, I don't know and can't find that Tom T. Hall song.
But yes, a big part of artistry is connection. Someone once told me after a simple piano performance that she didn't understand how I could convey such emotion at my (then) young age. It's one of the highest compliments I've ever received.
Comedians and writers in general seem to have to face this problem. How to connect and make people laugh or cry? They have to push boundaries. Some of the commenters here do that well.
I'm with Bruce Hayden on punctuation inside quotations. Hatred is not the emotion for me. It just seems wrong.
I was taught that way in public school. '"Put the bowl on the table," he said.' That's just stupid.
Maybe a little software coding convinced me to give up on it.
Put the punctuation that's actually in the quotation inside the quotes. This is not difficult to do.
madisonfella said...
Making it illegal for a union to bargain on practically everything is very reasonable indeed.
Well, given that the unions bought the elections of the very same (mostly) Democratic politicians who "negotiated" with them for decades, then absolutely.
That brought us retirement ages and pensions out of line with the private sector, "work" rules that promoted inefficiency and waste, and a great benefits package towards which they contributed nearly nothing.
It also gave us the practice of forcing the taxpayers, by contract, to purchase only a wildly overpriced health care policy approved by the union, which no doubt brought the unions large kickbacks. It was so egregious that, despite cutbacks in state grants, nearly all the municipalities and school districts were able to obtain essentially the same policies from other vendors and turn budget deficits into surpluses with the savings. The total savings were into the many many tens of millions of dollars statewide.
In fact, Barrett was in the same unenviable position as Romney in the recall, being unable to use the labor reforms as a major campaign issue just like RomneyCare kept Mitt from slamming Obama with ObamaCare,
You see, Barrett himself had used the reforms to obtain bids from private health insurers and close an $18 million dollar deficit for the city of Milwaukee.
Instead, his main campaign theme was "restoring trust", not the labor reforms.
Maybe we need to look into the contracts of the really powerful police, firefighters, and other "essential" personnel unions. Bet the savings would go up even more dramatically.
Making it illegal for a union to bargain on practically everything is very reasonable indeed.
Allowing PUBLIC employee unions to exist period is unbelievably reasonable.
Why were there more people working during Burke's tenure at Commerce than there are now under Walker?
That's largely BECAUSE of Burke's tenure.
I'd like to see more commentary from garage mahal, Robert Cook, and other folks on the left around here who are pointy and reasonable.
When did mahal become "Reasonable"? Cook is consistent (wrong, but consistent). mahal is a fat Crack Emcee.
"garage mahal said...
Why were there more people working during Burke's tenure at Commerce than there are now under Walker?"
LOL, yes, she inherited a much better situation than Walker did.
But there were less people working at the end of her tenure than the beginning. So she had a NEGATIVE EFFECT on employment during her tenure. She LOST jobs during a time a financial stability. And that was because of the poor climate for business in the state...policies that she either had a part in or endorsed.
Walker on the other hand has steady job growth, and has almost halved the peak unemployed and unemployment rate that came under Mary Burke's bestest mentor ever Governor "Rob the Trusts to a Balanced Budget" Doyle.
Funny that you never use the same logic to measure Obama. Well,actually predictable. You are a habitual liar...and an idiot.
"madisonfella said...
Making it illegal for a union to bargain on practically everything is very reasonable indeed."
PUBLIC unions. And it is so reasonable that it is more LENIENT than the US Government and in line with the majority of states.
I'd like to see more commentary from garage mahal, Robert Cook, and other folks on the left around here who are pointy and reasonable.
...or eelpout. Whatever happened to that guy? Anyone? Garage?
"garage mahal said...
Why were there more people working during Burke's tenure at Commerce than there are now under Walker?"
Because it took a while for the failed policies of Doyle and Burke to have really adverse effects.
Nice softball, Garage.
Not getting easier for our dull boy.
County to release records Friday on first John Doe probe
"Prosecutors have given Abele's office about 500 gigabytes of data — a mountain of material, but a quarter of the two terabytes of data Abele initially believed his office might have to comb through.
The material includes the hard drives of 14 people who worked in Walker's office when he was county executive, as well as the private email accounts of six of those employees, Conway said."
Bob Ellison - how is garage reasonable? He openly pines for Scott Walker to be arrested put into prison.
Being rich means being recession-proof. If you want that status, work hard for it. Otherwise, stop your fucking bellyaching.
I'm talking to Cook, garage, madisonfella.
It seems as if all the enlightened persons here want Burke. I'd like Wisconsin to be just exactly like Crack wants it to be. I'm from Illinois.
"The Crack Emcee said...
If she doesn't have any racists advising her, as Walker does, then she's got my support,..."
You don't live in Wisconsin, so you can't give her your vote.
You don't work so you can't donate any real money.
What exactly do you mean by your "support"
Ann, I'll bet you're voting for Burke, because gender. Burke is the HRC of the Capitalist Class. Instead of hubby's name she has Daddy's $$$
"But the commentariate here is so sharply right that I wonder what's going on."
I think that a lot of us are libertarian but that seems right to a lefty. I am pro-choice and neutral on gay marriage although I think it is a fad.
Commas go inside parentheses in Chicago Manual.
garage should note that the hard drives he is setting his hopes so high on have not been erased. Signs of ethical administration ? Maybe.
garage mahal,
"Prosecutors have given Abele's office about 500 gigabytes of data — a mountain of material, but a quarter of the two terabytes of data Abele initially believed his office might have to comb through.
The material includes the hard drives of 14 people who worked in Walker's office when he was county executive, as well as the private email accounts of six of those employees, Conway said."
It would seem that the epidemic of hard drive failures which has struck multiple D.C. offices didn't extend to Walker's office. Good to know.
I was taught in public school to put the punctuation INSIDE the quote marks. That's the only way that looks right to me.
"Being rich means being recession-proof. If you want that status, work hard for it. Otherwise, stop your fucking bellyaching.
"I'm talking to Cook, garage, madisonfella."
There are more people who work hard who aren't rich than there are rich people who work hard.
That aside, most people don't even aspire to be rich; they just want to have jobs that pay wages that allow them to pay their bills, have shelter and food, and perhaps have some money to put aside. The rich--the alleged "job creators"--are enriching themselves further not by working harder but by sending jobs overseas to be performed for a fraction of what is a living wage in America. They're fattening their bottom line by erasing American wages from the balance sheet.
So, the real problem more and more is finding a job to work at at all.
"Prosecutors have given Abele's office about 500 gigabytes of data — a mountain of material, but a quarter of the two terabytes of data Abele initially believed his office might have to comb through.
The material includes the hard drives of 14 people who worked in Walker's office when he was county executive, as well as the private email accounts of six of those employees, Conway said."
...all that "evidence" obtained illegally according to courts and that didn't actually lead to anything.
And I love the insults of Walker. He's Governor. You're a tubby schmuck.
It seems to me that most of the commenters here are somewhat conservative libertarians, while Cook is a somewhat liberal libertarian. Cook is suspicious of concentrated power, be it in private or government hands. That used to be the classical liberal position, nowadays only the libertarians seem to think that way.
I wouldn't call Garage a liberal either. He's just a not-too-bright partisan. To be a coherent liberal he would have to be smart enough to understand the philosophy he espouses. Unlike Cook, Garage hasn't figured out yet that politicians of all stripes cannot be trusted.
As for Crack, it is sad to see him go the way of Andrew Sullivan. Like Sullivan, Crack used to be interesting. Then he got stuck on a single issue and it blinds him to everything else. With Sullivan, it was gay rights. With Crack it's race. Too bad. Crack's rage against New Age bullshit is not only authentic, it's also interesting in that he was saying original stuff, not parroting a party line. I wish he were still trying to be original rather than this tired victim of racism stuff.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said, "It would seem that the epidemic of hard drive failures which has struck multiple D.C. offices didn't extend to Walker's office."
No hard drives crashed. None failed. This is 100% BS.
MDT, I know you know this. I'm just trying to type it clearly for people who may not know about it. This crap about hard drive failures and lost emails is total bull shit.
Folks, you are being lied to.
Bruce Hayden said:
"BEFORE ATTRIBUTION: Use a comma instead of a period at the end of a quote that is followed by attribution: "Rub my shoulders," Miss Cawley suggested.
Hardly a 19th Century artifact.
The fact that it is still being done, or even mandated, today does not address my point that it was started at a time when text was typeset and not computer generated. It seems to be mandated primarily because that is what used to be mandated by newspapers and law review journals. Etc. But, they mandated it, initially, at least partly for technological reasons, which no longer apply. But, it doesn't make as much logical sense as putting the comma outside the quotes - because the comma itself is not part of what is being quoted, but is rather a part of the larger sentence. Putting the comma inside the quotes just makes it look stilted, because it is.
BTW - I note that my own punctuation tends to be on a much lower level than the text I complained about, as I tend to include many too many commas in my blogging comments. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't be outraged by how someone else handles punctuation.
What punctuation would you have at the end of a quoted sentence? After all a quote is a record of something said and you don't say, "I ran across the street period" E.B. White said, "Clarity, clarity, clarity..." about sentence structure and judging from your sentences I'd suggest a re-read of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style.
The rich--the alleged "job creators"--are enriching themselves further not by working harder but by sending jobs overseas to be performed for a fraction of what is a living wage in America. They're fattening their bottom line by erasing American wages from the balance sheet.
So, the real problem more and more is finding a job to work at at all.
You're almost there, Cookie. The question you should be wondering about is why are they incentivized to send the jobs away? What laws and regulations make it better for the bottom line to send the work away than to do it locally? Once you noodle your way through that you will be on your way to enlightenment.
Big Mike said...
You're almost there, Cookie.
Don't waste your breath. The trotskyite is a true beliver.
"...why are they incentivized to send the jobs away? What laws and regulations make it better for the bottom line to send the work away than to do it locally?"
Their incentive is the desire to increase their profit. This is not driven by laws and regulations but by the promise of virtual slave labor within near immediate reach (due to technology). They don't want to pay wages that would be necessary for Americans to be able to support themselves comfortably.
Robert Cook said...
a living wage
8/7/14, 6:34 PM
And what pray tell would that be? Is $5 an hour a living wage? $10? $100?
Why should your (anyone's) personal situation in regard to the amount of income you "need" affect what a business is willing or able to pay?
Wages, like any other form of pricing (when government stays out of the way) will naturally adjust to the "right" point given market forces. Anyone can flip a burger so why should a business be forced to pay more than what that skill is worth?
It has been shown time and time again that minimum wage laws and "living wage" laws hurt those it attempts to help. If, as a business I have $1000 to pay in wages per week, I can either hire 10 people at $100 each or 5 people at $200 each. If the job is only worth $100, more people are employed if I can pay what the job is worth. If no one wants the job at $100 per week, I am forced to offer more to get the workers I need. This is simple supply and demand.
This process only fails when "invalid" forces affect the system. These invalid forces can be regulations, laws and/or monopolies. You need to read more Milton Friedman and Adam Smith.
Also, what do you think all those "greedy capitalists" do with their "evil profits"? Stuff them in their mattresses? Bury them in the yard? No. They save them in banks (which then make loans). They invest them in other businesses (making jobs). They buy expensive things (driving the economy and paying for other people's jobs).
The only "evil" capitalist is one that uses the government or a monopoly or fraud to make their money. If they run a legitimate business, they deserve all they can earn.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"...why are they incentivized to send the jobs away? What laws and regulations make it better for the bottom line to send the work away than to do it locally?"
Their incentive is the desire to increase their profit. This is not driven by laws and regulations but by the promise of virtual slave labor within near immediate reach (due to technology). They don't want to pay wages that would be necessary for Americans to be able to support themselves comfortably.
8/8/14, 7:22 AM
That is NOT their responsibility or job. That is your job and an individual. To make yourself worth a wage that allows you to live "comfortably".
"That is NOT their responsibility or job. That is your job and an individual. To make yourself worth a wage that allows you to live 'comfortably.'"
So, if one job pays me poor wages and I can't afford to live on that, I must get another job (or two) to try to obtain enough additional income to support myself and family, because the "job creators" (sic) choose to make themselves richer than ever by paying for semi-slaves abroad to do the jobs Americans used to do for decent wages.
Do you not recognize that jobs are disappearing from America? This is not a matter of people being lazy and choosing not to work; this is a matter of surplus workers in an environment with no work to be had, where what vanishing work remains pays pitifully.
Meanwhile, the "job creators" (sic) grow ever richer by paying less and less in wages to workers. Why don't we just surrender ourselves to slavery? We can happily work long hours in miserable conditions in exchange for their providing us cots in company barracks and regular (if small and non-nutritious) food rations a couple of times a day. If we should be concerned only with what will best serve the interests of our oligarchic masters, this seems the best option, (and, where we may be heading if current conditions continue.)
"It has been shown time and time again that minimum wage laws and 'living wage' laws hurt those it attempts to help."
This is not true.
Robert Cook said...
"...why are they incentivized to send the jobs away? What laws and regulations make it better for the bottom line to send the work away than to do it locally?"
Their incentive is the desire to increase their profit. This is not driven by laws and regulations but by the promise of virtual slave labor within near immediate reach (due to technology). They don't want to pay wages that would be necessary for Americans to be able to support themselves comfortably.
Point to the slavery.
We've gone over this together, Bob, ad nausdeum.
You're failure to grasp the most elementary economic concepts point to a rather inadequate intellect.
Robert Cook said...
"It has been shown time and time again that minimum wage laws and 'living wage' laws hurt those it attempts to help."
This is not true.
8/8/14, 9:49 AM
How? Even the GAO routinely produces reports showing that minimum wage increases increase unemployment and limit options for young and unskilled workers. How are my statements untrue?
Robert Cook said...
So, if one job pays me poor wages and I can't afford to live on that, I must get another job (or two) to try to obtain enough additional income to support myself and family, because the "job creators" (sic) choose to make themselves richer than ever by paying for semi-slaves abroad to do the jobs Americans used to do for decent wages.
Do you not recognize that jobs are disappearing from America? This is not a matter of people being lazy and choosing not to work; this is a matter of surplus workers in an environment with no work to be had, where what vanishing work remains pays pitifully.
Meanwhile, the "job creators" (sic) grow ever richer by paying less and less in wages to workers. Why don't we just surrender ourselves to slavery? We can happily work long hours in miserable conditions in exchange for their providing us cots in company barracks and regular (if small and non-nutritious) food rations a couple of times a day. If we should be concerned only with what will best serve the interests of our oligarchic masters, this seems the best option, (and, where we may be heading if current conditions continue.)
8/8/14, 9:46 AM
Why is it the responsibility of the person paying you to make up for that fact that you are not worth more money? Why do they have to make up for that fact that you have no skills of any value to them? When you go out to eat at McD, do you pay $100 for a Happy Meal? If not, why not? That is the same reason there should not be minimum wage laws.
If minimum wage laws are so good, why not make everyone rich by setting the minimum wage rate to $100 an hour? If that sounds ridiculous, why then is it OK to make it $10 an hour? If you don't think making it $100 an hour is ridiculous, that in its self says much.
"Why is it the responsibility of the person paying you to make up for that fact that you are not worth more money? Why do they have to make up for that fact that you have no skills of any value to them?"
This has nothing to do with "what you're worth" to a company, or what "skills" you have: they're paying you what they can get away with paying you...the lower the better. Desperate people will take any pittance rather than none.
When even the pittances Americans will accept are too high for the companies who want to further fatten their profit margins without making or selling more of what they make or sell, they move the jobs overseas or automate. They can find people overseas with skills equal to Americans but who can and will work for far less than will sustain an average middle class lifestyle. Or do you think an expectation of achieving a middle class lifestyle is an audacious presumption?
Again, are you not aware of what's happening? College graduates can't find jobs, can't move out of their parents' houses, can't even begin to start paying their student loan debt. (And without taking out student loans, most people cannot afford college...without which, they cannot acquire the "skillset" necessary to demonstrate they're "worth" paying a living wage.)
I must assume you are too cosseted by your good fortune to give a shit about the realities facing more and more Americans...or you just don't care.
The Crack Emcee said...
Fuck the 1% nonsense:
If she doesn't have any racists advising her, as Walker does, then she's got my support,...
Well, I'm sure she has a lot of advisers who are racist fans of "affirmative action", so you're going to have to keep looking, Crack.
If there are any Democrat politicians who aren't racists, who actually believe in judging people by the content of their character, rather than by the color of their skin, I haven't heard of them. Can you point me to some?
garage mahal said...
LOL. Walker's record on jobs crushes Burke. By every measure.
Why were there more people working during Burke's tenure at Commerce than there are now under Walker?
What was the employment rate at the beginning of Burke's tenure? What was the rate at the end?
Compare to rate at beginning of Walker's term, vs right now.
It's the delta that matters. Which you know.
Dudes....Comrade Cook has been a good student.....he is among the last of the "real communism hasn't been tried yet" Leftys. By definition, "owners" are evil, and "workers" are heroes.
@Gharie:
Ideally, owners of capital ("capitalists") and workers are partners in a common endeavor that will profit them both. Neither is innately virtuous or malevolent, except where their respective behavior vis a vis the other may be one or the other.
A partnership in which the partner(s) with the greater means treats the other partners as subordinate or disposable--subject to arbitrary or unilateral dismissal from the partnership--or where the terms of the partnership are disproportionately more beneficial and profitable (or disproportionately more disadvantageous or onerous) to one side of the partnership than to the other, or where one party to the partnership has unequal (or no) power to negotiate or renegotiate terms, is, in fact, NOT a partnership but a relationship of coercion, of dominance and submission, of master and slave.
A system of such partnerships were there is disproportionately unequal power and profit (and loss), is a malevolent system.
Cook, I am very aware of what is happening. All is proceeding as you and yours have wished. Collage has been watered down and over valued so current graduates have too much debt and not enough knowledge. Regulations are too high, taxes are too high. The only way to get anything done is to be too small to notice or too big to fail. All of this is a result of the government getting too involved in issues that are not their concern. It is thinking like yours that got us into this mess.
It is NOT your job, never was and never will be. It is a position that the company owns and want to fill for some period of time, with the best qualified individual at the lowest cost. If you are worth more, negotiate for more. If they won't pay more, either accept it or go try to get another position at another company or start your own. You are NOT a slave unless you want to be. Want a better job that pays more? Earn it. Business is NOT your friend, never was and should not be. It is a business arrangement between you and the company for as long as both of you think it is. As soon as it is not, one of you walks away.
Once you understand that, you can plan accordingly.
The point is Todd, you seem to think there are jobs aplenty to be had for any and all workers who want one, that workers have great freedom to move from a job that doesn't pay them enough to a job that does.
Those jobs are disappearing overseas, or are being automated out of existence.
The truth is, many workers desperately hold onto jobs they hate, or jobs that pay so little they must seek public assistance to meet their basic needs, as losing whatever job they have means catastrophe for them.
I also understand the employer/employee relationship is not a friendship but a business relationship. But a business relationship should be equitable to all parties to the relationship. Employers profit by the labor of their employees and they should share a portion of those profits in the form of decent pay. You seem to think it perfectly fine for employers to take advantage of their captive workforce, (as the employers know full well how desperately people need to keep their jobs).
Robert Cook said...
The point is Todd, you seem to think there are jobs aplenty to be had for any and all workers who want one, that workers have great freedom to move from a job that doesn't pay them enough to a job that does.
Those jobs are disappearing overseas, or are being automated out of existence.
The truth is, many workers desperately hold onto jobs they hate, or jobs that pay so little they must seek public assistance to meet their basic needs, as losing whatever job they have means catastrophe for them.
I also understand the employer/employee relationship is not a friendship but a business relationship. But a business relationship should be equitable to all parties to the relationship. Employers profit by the labor of their employees and they should share a portion of those profits in the form of decent pay. You seem to think it perfectly fine for employers to take advantage of their captive workforce, (as the employers know full well how desperately people need to keep their jobs).
The current situation is one that was desired by a majority of voters. They wanted the "light worker" instead of a worker. They continue to vote for politicians that put "feels right" over is right. You reap what you sow.
If you as an individual are "trapped" in a low paying job, why is that? What have you done or not done that has left you with no other options? Immigrants from Korea, China and India come to this country with pennies in their pockets and within a few years are owners of their own businesses. Why is it that they can do that and people that are born in this country wind up on public assistance?
Why is it that you "feel" that a business (or anyone for that matter) has a responsibility or a duty to "share" in what they have acquired with others for no other reason than they have and others have not?
The only responsibility a business has is to earn profit within the law. End of story. Whether they should do more than that is between the owners and/or shareholders. If jobs are moving overseas, why is that? What jobs are still being done here at home and which are moving overseas and why?
It is not the responsibility of a business to pay a "living wage", a minimum wage or any other feels right type of compensation. Their responsibility is to get the most effort out of the least expenditure in order to maximize profit and/or reduce costs. Everything else is a distraction.
What an individual worker is worth is dependent on the job to be performed, the skills required and the pool of available people to fill that position. Brain surgeons earn a lot more than burger flippers because not anyone can poke around in a human brain and make it better than before they started.
No one in government can "make jobs", all they can do is drive jobs away faster. That has been what this current government has been doing "full steam ahead" for the past 5 or 6 years with taxes and regulations and policies. Why are you blaming business for reacting to incentives? Only an idiot continues to touch a hot stove.
Of the jobs that are left, is it not your individual responsibility to make you the best candidate for that job? So that you can negotiate the best salary?
As John Wayne said: Life is hard. It is harder if you are stupid.
People should be less stupid.
Here is a pertinent column published just today on COUNTERPUNCH.COM that tells the tale.
Cook, and why do you think the country is in this position? Do you really think this is a result of greedy businesses simply trying to maximize profits? Or might it have to do with the current business climate in America? A business has a responsibility to do whatever it needs to to meet the needs of its customers and shareholders. That means the best products at the lowest prices while maximizing profits. If the US Government (and unions) at all levels burden businesses with regulations, inflated wage costs, inflated benefits costs and inflated legal and tax costs, like any sane person, business will adjust how it operates to minimize the pain. If that means cutting the work force to below a magic number, that is what they will do. If it means moving a factory to another state or over seas, that is what they will do. If that means moving to a full contractor work force, that is what they will do. I fault NO business for any decision it makes as long as it follows the law. I may not like it but it is not my business.
If you want jobs to stay here, act like it. Stop treating business like the enemy. Decisions and votes have consequences. You really need to watch more Milton Friedman and less Pravda.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा