Wisconsin recall election

1. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

   What do you think?  Do you support Scott Walker who is backed by the anti-regulation big business Koch brothers or Tom Barrett who is supported by labor unions representing fire fighters, teachers, police, and other workers?
   
   Bitter Wisconsin recall race in voters' hands
   
   "Polls in arguably the most polarized state in the nation will open this morning, giving the final say over a fierce recall election for governor to Wisconsin voters instead of billionaire moguls, labor groups and pundits all struggling for months to sway the outcome.
   
   Barring the very real possibility of a photo finish, the state should know by the end of the evening whether Republican Scott Walker will be allowed to serve out the remainder of the term to which he was elected in 2010 or be replaced by Democrat Tom Barrett, the Milwaukee mayor.
   
   It is an election clearly fraught with implications for Wisconsin, where Walker's tea party-inspired brand of budget slashing, union bashing and conservative social activism energized many on the right but also fed a backlash that netted more than 900,000 signatures on a recall petition drive.
   
   Some also think the results in this traditionally purple state could be a harbinger of the national political mood heading into the November presidential election."

   replyreport
   1. 60

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You forgot to mention he is supported by Soros and the $10 million Obama campaign gave to Barret

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, I'll take your word for it since you didn't supply a source and I don't feel like checking.  I did mention the support of Obama's grass roots organizers; I just didn't include a dollar figure.  I have no idea how much Soros has contributed.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I do not know how much Soros has donated either but I have read in several places it was $15 million.

            replyreport
2. 92

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   I don't really know enough about the situation to make an informed comment. I do sort of agree with some top Dems, however, that perhaps the recall was a mistake. Recalling an elected official is pretty difficult. Maybe they should have let him serve out his term and then vote him out in the next election.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why do some high-ranking Dems think it was a mistake? Why hasn't Obama been more visible in the WI battle? Would the money being spent on the recall have been put to better use later? IF Walker wins, a lot of folks are going to be second-guessing their thinking - IMO.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Obama has not involved himself because he does not want to repeat the Scott Brown fiasco.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         This is a fight for the people, to send a message to politicians that they aren't god and it's their way or the highway. If Walker wins, it's a sad day for the people. People like you and me, who need to know our votes can outway the enormous amounts of money given to Walker to buy his job. This is an important test. If the voters fail, it will set the framework for corporate greed and the wealthy, controlling our lives. People talk about the government controlling our lives? They need to also consider how corporate greed, wealth, and politicians lead us around by a nose ring! Using fear, lies, and dissention amongst ourselves for THEIR good, not the masses!

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Scott Walker was elected by the people.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, he was, and he can be recalled by the people.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  We will know in a few hours. 

                  replyreport
         2. 66

            SparklingJewelposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "...They need to also consider how corporate greed, wealth, and politicians lead us around by a nose ring! Using fear, lies, and dissention amongst ourselves for THEIR good, not the masses!..."
            
            both sides do this and until everyone recognizes the establishment in the right and the left nothing is going to change
            
            we need to have the converstations about what is constitutional and what does it mean to have free markets and adhere to the natural laws of supply and demand...where are unions off track from the greater good, corruption I mean

            replyreport
      3. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The Obama campaign has been helping extensively with GOTV efforts and organizing.  I know, because I have been receiving fundraising solicitations daily.  The DNC also contributed $1.4 million (I think). 
         
         It is better political strategy for the Obama organizational team to provide on-the-ground and financial support and leave Obama personally out of it.
         
         Which major Dems thought the recall would be a bad idea? I'm curious, as quite a few establishment Democrats are known for their spinelessness in the face of major political challenges to core Democratic policies.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Top Democrats now say that when labor groups first raised the specter of a recall, the party's officials urged their allies in Wisconsin to reconsider. "We told them it was a bad, bad, bad idea," one Democratic official said. A union official said both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign expressed reservations. "I don't know that anyone was enthusiastic about it over there," the union official said. Party leaders also counseled against pouring money into a contested primary ahead of the recall election, the Democratic official said. Mr. Barca, the Wisconsin Assembly minority leader, said he had heard rumblings about the DNC's displeasure with the recall. But Wisconsin residents weren't seeking approval from Washington, he said."
            
            I guess most of the Dems against the recall don't want to be named, but Ed Rendell didn't seem to mind:
            
            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … stake.html
            
            
            
            According to an article in WaPo, WI Dems were "furious" with the DNC. But that was 3 weeks ago, so fences could have been mended since then:
            
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu … _blog.html

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yep, establishment Dems don't like it when the people exercise their muscle anymore than establishment Republicans do.

               replyreport
3. 0

   screamingposted 11 years ago

   It's important to send a message to these politicians. That if the peoples interests aren't represented, that candidate is gone. And Habee, the recall wasn't a mistake. Walker attacked people in your field as well, teachers. Problem again is money from all over the country from Republicans to keep him in office at the expense of collective bargaining, unions, teachers, police officers and firemen. And the list goes on. Follow the money.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Screaming,
      
      I am curious why do you think the peoples interests are not represented?
      
      He did what he was elected to do and the results back it up. So are you saying do your job and we will fire you anyway?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So Wisconsin having the 2nd worst employment rate in the US was what the people wanted? Regardless how hard Hannity tries to spin it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Could you cite where it shows the unemployment rate was the 2nd worst in the country? The current rate is 6.7%, National rate is 8.2%
            
            From the BLS report
            "Wisconsin's unemployment rate was 6.7 percent in April, which was better than the national rate of 8.2 percent. It's also the lowest it's been in Wisconsin since 2008 and better than when Walker took office in January 2011, when unemployment was at 7.4 percent."
            
            According to the BLS Wisconsin unemployment is 16th in the nation, check it out on the link
            
            http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
         2. 92

            habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Spinning? Where did you pull that from? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, WI is #16 - not #49. It's tied with MD and WV for having the 16th BEST - not the second-worst.
            
            http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               What she actually means is it's the second worst performing state unemployment wise since Walker's election.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/1428 … ewestfirst

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks.

                     replyreport
4. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   Walker did exactly what he said he would do while campaigning for the office.  The people of Wisconsin obviously liked what they heard from him during the campaign, that is why he was elected.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In the eyes of political scientists and others, Walker offered a politically potent set of very specific policy prescriptions and more general philosophical aims honed during two successive campaigns for the statehouse.
      
      "It's a pretty ambitious agenda, a clear shift in direction for the state,” said University of Wisconsin-La Crosse political scientist Joe Heim.
      
      With a Republican state Legislature taking over, Walker — a former state representative — should get a friendly reception. He takes office at a time of widespread agreement that Wisconsin needs to tighten spending and end a cycle of deficits.
      
      
      
      Cutting the budget in Madison usually means that local schools, the university system, local government services and other popular programs will feel the pain, so Walker will face opposition and perhaps resistance from his party if he goes too far.
      
      "Achievements rarely rise to the level of expectations,” said Heim. "We are not electing a dictator so they can't get everything they want.”
      
      But Republicans are aware frustrated voters will judge them quickly and harshly if they don"t follow through.
      
      "If we don"t make cuts we'll be out on our ear,” said state Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon). "The voters divorced the Democrats, but they didn't marry us. I'm not sure when they get the medicine they are going to enjoy swallowing it, but the gimmicks are over.”
      
      http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/art … -promises/

      replyreport
   2. 76

      lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No he dint. He never mentioned signing away collective bargaining. And he was wringing hands about the deficit, so why give rich people another tax break?
      
      Another phony Repub pretending to govern, when all he wants to do is shut down the Dems only source of big money that can compete in Koch-Sucker Heaven.IE Citizens United.
      
      Walker out-spent him 7 to 1.  Fooooey!

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Collective bargaining changes did this much and more
         Updated: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 | By Dave Umhoefer
         
         In his 2010 campaign for governor, Scott Walker emphasized holding down local school costs and creating efficiencies in local government.
         
         One proposal from Walker was on mediation-arbitration, the process used to settle labor disputes over wages, benefits and working conditions when unions and management could not agree on a contract.
         
         Echoing a common complaint by local officials, Walker said he wanted to ensure that "local economic factors” and other "common sense” factors were considered when arbitrators selected from among the final offers by teachers" unions and school boards.
         
         In other words, does the school district have the ability to pay?
         
         Most arbitration hearings are decided on which offer is most comparable to settlements in other districts.
         
         Once elected, Walker rendered the arbitration system moot for all but police, fire and transit workers in government jobs. His overhaul of the collective bargaining system eliminated the arbitration system for most workers, at the same time it eliminated benefits as a subject of bargaining and greatly limited bargaining on wages.
         
         Walker's stated intent in making his promise was to give local districts financial control and lower costs.
         
         His controversial limits on collective bargaining accomplished that on a grander scale than he promised when discussing mediation and arbitration.
         
         He took a far more dramatic and sweeping route to get there: He didn't just change the arbitration rules, he wiped them out for teachers.
         
         This goes down as a Promise Kept.
         
         http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/pro … acher-uni/

         replyreport
   3. 82

      Rafiniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's right.  He said - tough decisions need to be made and that he did.

      replyreport
5. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

   LOL, conservatives are anxious to protect a private business owner's right to fire an employee at will, but when the people rise up to fire an elected official, it's somehow suspicious.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ...unless that elected official's name is Gray Davis, and his replacement Arnold Schwarzenegger.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yep.

         replyreport
      2. 76

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly what I was thinking, ll.
         Oh the wasted $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
         
         But at least Californians got our "what we need is a high powered high profile businessperson to run this state like the Terminator (or at least like a business)" insanity out of the way in time to swat down Meg Whitman.
         
         I sure hope the rest of the nation was/is paying attention.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Seriously! I still remember that Brown's most effective ad against Whitman was the one where many of her campaign slogans were shown to be the exact same as Schwarzenegger's.

            replyreport
6. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   Why was he caught telling a rich donor his goal was to "divide and conquer" the people against unions?
   
   Like all Republicans, he blames he unions for all the states' woes, while giving incredible tax-gifts to the very wealthy.
   
   What a Con game.

   replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   This argument is unbelievable , But the answer is simple. WE CAN"T AFFORD IT , state after state  all across America's  issmanaged budget fiascos are coming due ! Unions will have to  sacrifice as the rest of us are! Wisconsins public  voters should be ashamed  of the organized labor bullies. I hope that Gov.Scott survives this and keeps up with the balancing act!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We can't afford to pay a reasonable wage to our teachers, bus drivers, firemen and policemen, real working people? But we have the highest average CEO wage in the world? We can't afford to pay the public workers who save our lives and educate our children but none of them get a fraction of what the governor gets that same governor with the wage dozens of times what they receive and still has the nerve to tell them they are earning too much? This Republican attitude is best for balancing state budgets yet Blue states are much more profitable than Red states on average? So this is where we are going to cut back? We aren't going to tax people with too much or anything like that we are going to ensure that the working people don't get wages that keep up with inflation? You think that screwing working people who are struggling to make it as it is should be where we get our money? But we wouldn't dare raise the tax rates on people who make more that a million a year because THAT would be immoral. Right wing logic I guess.
      

      replyreport
8. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   Rich people are not sacrificing. Let them! They are the ones who GOT all the bennies for the past 32 yrs or so in the 1st place!
   
   They can give back what the gvt took from the middle and gave to them.

   replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   Come on that argument is getting pretty lame !

   replyreport
10. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

    UPDATE:
    
    The voter turnout in Wisconsin is through the roof!  A local radio reporter tweeted: 
    
    Madison City Clerk tells me turnout is on pace to hit 119% in Madison, adding "That would be unprecedented."
    — @AmyBarrilleaux via web
    
    Before you start ramping up the conspiracy theories, there is a simple explanation.  Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration so more people could end up voting than were registered at the start of the day.

    replyreport
    1. 92

       habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That's awesome! More voters should take part in elections.

       replyreport
11. 76

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    No recall.
    57% voted to keep Walker and a similar percent voted to keep his Lt. Gov.

    replyreport
12. 0

    screamingposted 11 years ago

    Money wins over the people. Money buys political positions and power. And I thought only money bought stuff? Boy was I wrong!

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Walker campaign spent 31 mil, to Barrets 4......
       
       That is a HUGE differential. Mind-boggling.
       
       And sad.
       
       Makes you wonder why all these out-of-state funds? Why care so much about Wisconsin if you don't live there?
       
       "I'll take corporate take-over for 100 Alex."

       replyreport
       1. 60

          American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Cite those numbers LMC, because you are going to find you are way off. The Dems started that talking point last week when they knew they were going to lose. Your Barrett's 4 million is bogus, President Obama's campaign sent $10,000,000 over two months ago for the Barrett campaign, the unions were bragging as little as three weeks ago that they spent more money in the recall than they did during the election and we know they spent $30 million on Barrett's last run.
          
          Makes you wonder why the Dems accepted all those out-of-state funds.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             http://billmoyers.com/2012/06/05/how-mu … wisconsin/
             
             I'd like to see you cite a source for $10,000,000 from the Obama campaign, since this is now the second time you've stated it. 
             
             This first link (above) talks about money raised, the second link (below) talks about total money spent on the recall by both candidates and independent groups.
             
             http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/06/03/90 … tside-cash
             
             
             
             Campaign contributions tell only part of the story. National unions have kept Barrett’s campaign alive by funding outside groups dedicated to defeating Walker.
             
             "More than a year since Walker limited collective bargaining rights for most public employees, the nation’s three largest public unions — the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — have channeled at least $2 million from their treasuries and super PACs to two Wisconsin-based independent expenditure groups.
             
             The American Federation of Teachers, United Food and Commercial Workers, Teamsters and the United Autoworkers have also dipped into their D.C. treasuries for the Wisconsin recall.
             
             The unions, however, have struggled to keep up with Walker’s deep-pocketed, anti-union friends. They include the Republican Governors Association, which received a $1 million contribution from conservative billionaire David Koch in February, and billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson."
             
             and
             
             "Walker, meanwhile, has benefitted from the state’s election finance rules that allowed his campaign to raise unlimited contributions from individuals after recall petitions were filed in November 2011. His challengers could take no more than $10,000 from individuals.
             
             Through April, Walker’s top three donors combined gave more than challenger Barrett’s campaign had raised overall. Four of Walker’s top seven donors are out-of-state billionaires, including former AmWay CEO and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, and casino magnate Adelson, who each gave $250,000."

             replyreport
    2. 85

       rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Big money wins every time. 
       
       Walker had no cap on maximum individual contributions. 66% came from out of state.
       Barret's maximum individual contribution was $10,000.
       
       The money spent on this is sick. 63.5 million total, 45 million from Walkers people.  Think of what that money could have been better spent on.

       replyreport
13. 90

    Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years ago

    The computers were rigged. Vote count was off.

    replyreport
14. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Interesting:
    
    • $510,000 to Walker from Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin's richest businesswoman and a member of Charles and David Koch's million-dollar donor club
    
    • $490,000 to Walker from Bob Perry, a Houston homebuilder who with his wife has spent more than $8 million on the 2012 elections
    
    • $260,000 to Walker from David Humphreys, a member of the Kochs' million-dollar donor club
    
    • $250,000 to Walker from Amway founder Dick DeVos of Michigan, a member of the Kochs' million-dollar donor club
    
    • $250,000 to Walker from Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who with his wife has spent more than $25 million on the 2012 elections
    
    • $100,000 to Walker from Wyoming investor Foster Friess, a member of the Kochs' million-dollar donor club
    
    • $100,000 to Walker from New York billionaire Louis Bacon, a media-shy hedge-fund trader
    
    • $100,000 to Walker from Dallas oil and gas billionaire Trevor Rees-Jones
    
    • $6.5 million on ads spent by Americans for Prosperity, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the anti-labor Center for Union Facts
    
    • $4 million on ads spent by the Republican Governors Association's Right Direction Wisconsin PAC; only about $7,000 was raised in-state. The RGA got $1 million from David Koch in February. It's also received $500,000 from the US Chamber of Commerce
    
    Some of the biggest contributions and expenditures in support of Barrett:
    
    • $200,000 to the America Votes Action Fund, a Democratic super-PAC, from Fred Eychaner, a reclusive media mogul and Obama bundler from Chicago*
    
    • $1 million to the We Are Wisconsin Political Fund, an independent expenditure group run by state AFL-CIO president Phil Neuenfeldt, from the National Education Association's super-PAC
    
    • $500,000 to We Are Wisconsin from the Service Employees International Union; $500,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; and $350,000 from the American Federation of Teachers
    
    • $1.3 million to Greater Wisconsin, an independent expenditure shop, from We Are Wisconsin; $900,000 from the Democratic Governors Association; $500,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
    
    • $2 million on ads spent by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, GW's 501(c)(4) branch
    
    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06 … oney-stats
    **************
    
    What do you see in support of Walker? Koch, Koch, Koch.
    
    What do you see in support of Barrett? Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "I think they're trying to buy it, but not for me but against me," Walker said. "The money that's come in since last February is overwhelmingly from special interests, particularly big government unions in Washington who have tried to take me out."
       
       About a quarter of Barrett's money came from outside of Wisconsin. In any other year, that would seem an astronomical amount, Lueder says.
       
       Both sides are guilty, quit being a sore loser

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not a sore loser: I'm scared for this country.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Everything has a price, and usually money wins out over the people. Walker got 66% from out of state!

             replyreport
             1. 76

                lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I have no money...neither do my kids. That's why I'm scared.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   And everyone should be scared, as we watch the wealthy outsource our jobs and are on the path to total control, with only one party representing us. They outsourced our jobs, making many dependent on them for low paying service jobs. Hence eliminating the middle class. We are now operating in a caste system.We are the serfs!

                   replyreport
                   1. 76

                      lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Yes--the next global corporate cheap labor pool.

                      replyreport
15. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

    The best election money could buy.

    replyreport
16. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    Why then does money in the election bother you NOW ? It also elected this President , one with absolutely no experience , who promised  he would balance the out of controlled spending of the past only to play into the hands of the Unions everywhere.  You cannot have it both ways , a balance of mmonetary concerns and  a free willed and uncontrolled organized labor stranglehold on state economies everywhere . To say nothing about the fed Gov't!  The self supporting and self serving unions  make me sick.  Chicago ......50% dropout  rate in many high schools, an average income of 75,000 for teachers ?

    replyreport
    1. 92

       habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I was going to make the same comment about campaign spending. In 2008, Obama spent $740.6 mil, while McCain spent $227.7 mil. And that's not counting the $2 mil that Obama failed to report. Some of Obama's largest contributors were Wall Street. The Dems didn't seem to have a problem with any of that, though.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I would amend that to say that Democratic politicians don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, the way the rules are currently set up, that is how the game is played.
          
          I don't like it, but I don't know how to fix it, and even if I did, would the politicians be willing to fix it?

          replyreport
          1. 92

             habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I don't like it, either. I think the amount spent on campaigns is obscene! Think of all the good that $$ could do elsewhere.

             replyreport
       2. 76

          lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          MOST of Obama's contributors were "little people"....through the internet.
          He mastered that, just as Howard Dean before him.
          
          And Wall Street abandonded Obama as soon as the talk of reform started coming up....what will Mitt do about corporate greed?
          
          What has Obama? They had their best quarter EVER under him.
          
          But--Obama wants to include everybody in the party. And that's what Republicans never seem to understand. People are not against making money, living the good life. People are against piracy, criminal behavior, taking from those with less so those with more can have more more more.
          
          Allowing so much profit, that a basic standard of life is un-attainable to the working class!
          
          It's ridiculous. And R's only cut from those with less, never from those with more.
          And they will make Bush tax cuts permanent. They will strip union rights. We will be third-world America....all for the benefit of Republicorp.
          
          Go for it: It's on your heads. We tried the best we could to warn people....it's no use.
          
          People only see what they want to see. Period.
          
          I'll keep yelling--just as I have since 2001. No use, but it makes me feel better.
          so sue me...Koch is good at that.

          replyreport
17. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Played into the hands of Unions?
    
    Where? Name it!
    
    Dems do not want it both ways....Republicans do. Dems are willing to cut AND raise revenue.
    
    Repubs will only cut. NO raising revenue.
    
    Marjorie Eagan here in Boston said it was a vote againt excess....but guess what? Police and Fire were exempt from Walker's union-busting. Cops do QUITE well here in my little town....
    
    R's never want to speak about police excess...only teachers and janitors and such.
    
    And they ALWAYS give money to rich people--who don't need it--, which they take from the middle class--who do!
    
    Walker did just that. And people are fine with that??? Not any American values I recognize. Far from it.
    
    If he's SOO concerned with deficit: why big tax break for rich?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       This is the roadmap to Republican and corporate takeover. It's so obvious that money can buy anything! More states will follow this move, eventually eliminating the middle class and democracy as we know it. People are being brainwashed by tv ads produced with lotsssssssss of money! More money spent, the more the robotic followers go to the polls to vote for that candidate.

       replyreport
18. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    another question no one will answer:
    
    Why give tax cuts to wealthy people and huge profit-getting corporations?
    
    This increases the deficit hugely. Why do it?
    
    Just admit it: you think like Cheney: "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter."
    
    Put it on the credit card.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm quite curious, how is it giving a tax cut to a wealthy person creates a used deficit, but a tax cut on the middle class doesn't? You make no sense LMC.
       
       if the countries revenues are $1.8 trillion and tax cuts are put in place and the revenues jumped to $2.6 trillion, how did those tax cuts hurt the revenues? Now what if during that same time. You are spending $1.863 trillion and then jump spending to $2.9 trillion, would you not agree that you are spending too much, therefore what needs to be done is to eliminate that wasteful spending and bring it back in line with your revenues. Your problem is that now under Obama your spending according to the CBO will exceed $4 trillion and your revenues have decreased to $2.3 trillion.
       
       In order to do through tax increases what you LMC and president Obama want to do, you will have double the current taxes you are paying, and eliminate 100% of all tax deductions.
       
       So what makes more sense that, or make cuts?

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Answer PP, and I will answer you.  Cite your source for Obama giving Barrett 10,000,000

          replyreport
19. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    "Pack it in, Unions. It's over." --Brett Doster, Senior Romney advisor.

    replyreport
20. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Ummm--I just posted the numbers, and the link.
    
    I don't believe anything you say.
    People hate Obama and Dems so much, there is no reasoning in their opinions.
    
    You can all ALL my sources liars.....doesn't make it so.
    
    I would think they had more to lose than you...as they make their money reporting things.
    
    You just have dislike for Obama and all Dems. IMO

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Here is one article , I will get you the one that quotes the dollar amount
       
       "“Whether it’s people organizing on the ground, using Obama for America organization — which is one of the best in the country, and certainly very strong in Wisconsin — raising money for Barrett, sending surrogates on the ground for Barrett…,” she said, outlining the Obama campaign’s financial support .
       
       That support hasn’t been matched by the Democratic National Committee, who haven’t come close to matching the same funds as the RNC and earned public rebuke from an anonymous Wisconsin Democratic Party source in the Washington Post for not doing enough for the recall effort."

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Obama for America...is a PAC. Nothing to do with Obama himself.
          
          and if you are trying to point out money from Washington...that just said the RNC spent way more than the DNC!
          
          But I'll wait for the direct source.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I never said the RNC spent less, I know they sent more money there, but it is interesting the DNC did not invest there. It was suppose to be so important

             replyreport
       2. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Still waiting, or did I miss it?

          replyreport
21. 0

    screamingposted 11 years ago

    66% of Walker's money came from out of the state, while only 25% of Barretts came from out of state. Call me what you will, but corporate america if they haven;t already are buying politicians for their best interests.

    replyreport
22. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    No offense, but when you have ever recognized the establishment in the right?
    
    Your attacks are always on Obama and the left.--then you say we must be unbiased

    replyreport
23. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    Here's one liberals will never understand , the tax codes allow people with more money to hide more money, same with corporations ! Write offs! And news flash ........You don't pay for tax cuts by raising the head of another tax on another Item or service. Revenue cuts, tax cuts are just that .....Cuts. Not increases!  51% of Americans on some kind of public assistance  .  Not even including  public emploments!..........And Bush still says ..Do Ya Miss Me Yet?

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Public assistance is OUR money! We choose to spend it on people in need, not corporations that make huge profits and still come running to Uncle Sam for more.
       
       If you allow thieves to live here, make money off American people here, but put their money in foreign banks to avoid taxes here....you are a chump!
       
       Gambling is not work. Moving money on a screen is a game.
       
       WE pay for it all. By taxes, or buying their scum-bum products. Rich take the money and run, and act like we should bow to them because they know how to steal. Not this gramma---crooks deserve jail time, not reverence!

       replyreport
24. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    By the way!Scott  Walker for President!

    replyreport
25. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    Public money IS "ours ", But too much public assistance is ruining our economy .Unions ,  Pacs ....are corporations too  , so the supreme court says. Getting every break that corporations get ! We are evolving our economy away from a manufacturing base and into a public assistance base. Which cannot support itself . Without corporate write offs and subsidies  G.M. would be in mexico and .......Ohh thats right , they already are ! So is  Solyndra !....Maybe the NEA of wisconsin should be in China too . Go  GOV Scott!

    replyreport
26. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Solyndra was the fault of the GOP in Congress, who denied that funding to hurt Obama. They helped China instead. Party Uber Alles with them.
    
    They have no allegiance to America...only to their money-masters.
    
    Ship jobs overseas, ship money over-seas, ship companies over-seas...and it's all the big bad gubmint's fault.--which they can't wait to get into!
    
    Grow up GOP. Only babies take take take

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Solyndra was the fault of the GOP?? are you kidding me!!! LMC what the hell you drinking today??

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          First of all...the law that got the ball rolling on Solyndra was passed by W. Obama agreed to do it.
          China came in and out-bid him. GOP Congress refused to give Obama the $$ for it.
          
          China got the deal.
          
          Can't let anything good happen, when you're trying to de-rail the presidency, now can you?
          That would go against the plan. Oh sure, it would help America---but really: America only matters to the GOP when the GOP is running it.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             No, get the facts straight. The Bush administration sad NO to  Solyndra!! NO NO NO
             
             Obama gave them the money, they went broke, CHina had nothing to do with it.

             replyreport
27. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    HUH???,Solyndra's W's Fault...... right !%$#...Talk about putting on the blinders. You've had way too much cool-aid lovemychris.......keep on keepin on though ! Four more years of this !.......yup ,If you can blame W for Obama's blindness to reality you will swallow anything!

    replyreport
28. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    by Stephen Lacey and Richard Caperton
    
    "It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
    
    You’d never know from the media coverage that:
    
    The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
    The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
    The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.
    Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years."
    
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/0 … guarantee/

    replyreport
29. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    "You’d never know from the media coverage"

    replyreport
30. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    And yet ....Obama's self owned Media cronyism blames it on him?!?....Right!

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Right in one ear and out the other, huh?
       
       whooooooosh

       replyreport
    2. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Notice the continued bogus sources.

       replyreport
31. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    U know ...there comes a time when any incumbant has to stand on his own two feet without blaming the last guy !......if O man gets four more years  , will you then blame him for how much worse it will be ........Naw , you wont ...then it's the next presidents's fault , Right ?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       In economics they teach us something called trend continuity: at what rate a new policy or economic tactic will change an outcome so if you enact new policy to replace one not working the effects will be a gradual change not an immediate one, it's an economic fact. Below is a perfect example:
       
       
       
       
       That is both real and official unemployment as you can see Bush policies created massive unemployment and since Obama has taken over that trend has ended and slowly reversed.

       replyreport
32. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    ?.....So what you're saying is its all Bushes fault ? Yet there has never been a more disconnected white house leadership , nor a lack of progressive economic policy origionating from the white house , ever. You are saying that the economy goes up and down in natural cycles mindless of who is in the whitehouse .......or only when a democrat is there?  Its a stupid question but ! Where is that "hope and change"?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       OK, I will not the smartest guy in the room on any given day, but I do believe that chart proves the opposite. After September 11 economy was decimated. Unemployment skyrocketed, consumer confidence was in the toilet, businesses were at a complete standstill. In 2003 President Bush enacted tax cuts and other business incentives to get things rolling. Your chart clearly shows the immediate impact as unemployment went down. Not to mention record revenues that we have not seen since.
       
       Bush overcame several major economic impacts during his presidency with policy moves. Coming into office there was a recession as the economy was going down fueled by the.com bust and all the companies that were lying about their financial soundness. Stocks plummeted as people realized they were not worth what they were told. Which was only in office eight months when September 11 happened, and as we said earlier decimated economy. There were several mother nature related disasters that also occurred under Bush's watch such as Katrina, several years of hurricane disasters in Florida and much more. But each time the economy began to recover because of moves made.Gas prices rose to over four dollars a gallon during Bush's term. With one Executive Order, gas prices plummeted to $1.70 per gallon rising to a dollar 89 per gallon on the day Obama took office. And the price began to rise due to Obama's prediction that he felt gas was too cheap and needed to be five dollars a gallon. And one more thing, I know everybody's bragging about the stock market under Obama, that everybody forgets stock market highs occurred during the Bush administration and have not been back to those highs since.
       
       Under Obama he came in as a recession was fitting mostly fueled by the housing bubble exploding, a bubble that was warned about for at least seven years by Republicans and Barney Frank kept testify that everything was fine. And of course he would, he and the Democrats created and passed the bill that created this calamity. In 3 1/2 years Obama has done nothing that has worked to fix anything. The housing market is still disaster, foreclosures are still going on, the unemployment number under Obama is going down but not because people are going back to work, but because their benefits has run out so they are not counted. Yet they're still employed. Consumer confidence is low, lower than under Bush. Despite Obama's claim of hiring for 28 months in a row, a bogus claim by the way since July August of last year job reports were zero and -56,000 respectively, when he doesn't account for to you is all the jobs lost. For example he brags that he created depending on the day anywhere from 3 to 7,000,000 new jobs. Most of those jobs he claims came from the stimulus package. Even if you agree with that, all those jobs are now Gone. Any short term road project has been completed, and all those green companies like Solyndra that hired but now are bankrupt , so those jobs are history.
       
       We did get hope and change, he changed things for the worse and now we hope to vote him out

       replyreport
33. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Speak for the Tea Party--not anyone else.
    
    I want to know WHEN someone will call RMoney on his lies?
    
    What has the GOP become? Liars, cheats and malcontents? Come ON!
    
    Mittens:
    
    "federal spending under President Obama has increased at "unprecedented levels." 
    
    In fact: "Federal spending under President Obama has actually been slower than under any of our past 10 presidents going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower." 
    http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/obama-spending
    
    Is everyone asleep out there?
    
    Mitt is mean. Why wold you vote for a mean a-hle? What kind of person mocks other people? Mocks the president....does he then think if he is elected, HE is deserving of respect?
    
    And who's spreading the dirty lie that Obama is leaking classified info?
    
    You R's are going to regret acting this way.
    Don't forget: what comes around, goes around.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Here  is your chance LMC,
       
       When Bush was Prez in 2001, the country spent 1.863 trillion dollars. In his last year he spent 2.883 trillion dolllars That's a trillion dollars in 8 years
       
       Obama's first year was 3.518 trillion CBO say this year will be 4.2 trillion. That's a 1.4 trillion increase in 4 years,
       
       Obama has the largest spending in history,

       replyreport
34. 0

    ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

    Here's what you don"t get , what comes around and what goes around has already happened! If Pes.Obamas economic  and energy policies [if he had one ] had been inclusive of positive changes , it would have already happened ! Four years of a 'leadership ' totally unhinged from reality!  Thats enough for me thanks ! Take the mans teleprompter away from him ........and he'd fall on his inexperienced face! Oh yea ....that already happened!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Did you see the speech Obama gave last week at Honeywell. He was blatantly staring at the Teleprompter while trying to give his speech. The funny part was after he did a joke about Al Franken, he was staring at the Teleprompter reading right off of it without moving his face and talking about where he was in Minnesota over the last day and a half. One should know where one was without having to read where one was.

       replyreport
35. 60

    American Viewposted 11 years ago

    A final thought on this recall election. The unions supplied over 900,000 signatures of support for the recall election. They claim they were turning them away, that there were many thousands more who wanted to sign. Does anybody besides me find it interesting that Barrett received 1,162,785 votes, just barely more than the 900,000 on the original recall list. I have already heard all the Democrat conspiracy theories that are abound about voter fraud. I would strongly think the original signature list was loaded with phony signatures and perhaps maybe not enough legal signatures. If that's true, and of course we'll never know, there never should have been a recall election in the first place
    
    Like I said, just a thought

    replyreport
36. 0

    screamingposted 11 years ago

    A final thought from my point of view. In the months to year to follow we will all see if not being able to recall the governor was a good or bad thing. If more governors follow his plan, how many public employees-teachers-firemen-and policemen will see their pensions lowered and benefits lowered. Those are the people who will decide if the recall was a good or bad thing. When those folks get hit in the wallet and have what was promised to them upon retirement slowly taken away. Just my opinion!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Scream,
       
       you said:
       
       " If more governors follow his plan, how many public employees-teachers-firemen-and policemen will see their pensions lowered and benefits lowered"
       
       Please cite your source. I will save you the trouble, there is not one, it is your opinion and you are following Dems talking points. Do yourself a favor and do some research before making talking point statements.
       
       The public service employees did not see their benefits go down, their retirements did not go down, they just have to contribute more like everyone else does. I saw in your one hub you paid $350 a month for health insurance and because of Obamacare it jumped to $1200. Why should you pay when others who you are paying for their salaries get it for free.
       
       And before you go off on some I am a righty tangent, I am a former public service employee, I served NY as a firefighter for 15 years and yes I was at 911. I was union and if I waqs still there would have no problem with having to contribute to my benies like every other working person does. If everyone gets them for free, then I have no problem getting them for free.
       
       Be accurate

       replyreport
       1. 0

          screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          As for the jump in my healthcare that us under President Bush not President Obama. And I applaud your service as a fire fighter. I also was in the fire protection business.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Thank you for getting back to me about when that happened to you, I believe in accuracy. I got that from your hub about Obama care and based on the weight was written it appeared that that happened to you during the time frame of Obama care. You might want to consider going back and updating that blog so that others do not come away with the same vision that I did.

             replyreport
37. 0

    screamingposted 11 years ago

    Towns across America are feeling budget cuts. They will be forced to make it up somehow. Whether it be cutting benefits, raising property taxes or both. Communities around the country are losing tax revenues. One reason, being online purchases. With so many people buying products online from so many companies not collecting sales tax, thousands of dollars are being lost. I've heard the benefits cuts from news sources on tv. On Cnn, Fox, and Msnbc. Perhaps they are wrong? Time will tell.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Scream,
       
       You have a good point about online products, unfortunately the taxes lost for online purchases is very minute. You see if you purchase online from within your state you still pay taxes. And the Internet while growing and expanding, is still overall a very small part of our economy.
       
       No question towns, cities, states, federal government, are all feeling be pinches of lost revenues. For example missed just take one small segment of lost revenues and that is from the taxes no longer being paid on houses that had been foreclosed on and are currently facing foreclosure. President Obama has not put forward one plan of any kind to address the mortgage crisis. The only proposal he has put forth is for those who pay their mortgage on time for the last two years and basically are in good shape, so that way if they choose they can refinance and get a break. Well if they're already in good financial shape and making their payments on time, they could apply anywhere at any time to refinance, they don't need any help though I'm sure they will not turn away any credits. Not to mention those properties are paying their taxes on time. So would it not make sense to put in place a program that would refinance the homes of those who of lost were about to lose them that would allow them to stay there and pay the bills? It would be quite easy since the majority of these loans were made to people who were able to make the payments until the interest rates adjusted because they were arms. That person could make the payment while the interest rate was at 2%, but when he jumped to 7% because their credit is not the best they'll pay a higher interest rate, they could no longer afford the home. So why not just lock the loan at 2%? The bank would still be making money at 2%, they be saving money for not having to pay everything involved the foreclosure, tens of thousands of dollars. Multiply that out amongst the millions of homes out there and one can see the banks save money, the taxes would be paid increasing revenues to the local cities and school districts, not to mention that taxpayer money saved because no bank bailouts, Fannie or Freddie bailouts, would be needed. Just think of the relief to the budget just that one move would make. Think of what else we can do if we eliminate the waste like shrimp on the treadmill study, the mating habits of bees study, which by the way has been funded for six years in a row to the tune of $15 million per year, we could go on forever.
       
       In my opinion before we raise taxes, cut salaries, and all the other crap that hurts the workers, let's take care of the big stuff first and then take a step back and look we are at that point.

       replyreport
38. 79

    Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

    All I know if that I had a pension I paid into for years and I was depending on to live on once I retired and it was cut I would not be happy.

    replyreport