|
Post by wheels on Jun 7, 2012 12:09:27 GMT -5
Barrett getting 75% from in state and Walker getting about 60% from out of state. take out all of the out-of-state money and walker still collected 4x as much in-state money.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 7, 2012 12:25:10 GMT -5
What is the problem with the elected officials that can't say no when demands outstrip resources, or reasonableness? The problem is that state employee unions use their resources to deliberately elect people who will increase their pay at the expense of all other concerns. They literally prevent the election of the politicians who would say no to them. How is that not the democracy you so fervently promote?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jun 7, 2012 12:34:44 GMT -5
The problem is that state employee unions use their resources to deliberately elect people who will increase their pay at the expense of all other concerns. They literally prevent the election of the politicians who would say no to them. How is that not the democracy you so fervently promote? Pro union governor gets elected=more money for unions=more pro union governor can be elected=more money for unions=even more pro union governor and state house can be elected=more money and more favorable union protection laws. It's a corruption of the system. Even a chimp could figure this out. That aside, I don't recall being a huge fan of our particular democracy. Too many people can vote under our system and, eventually, that will need to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 7, 2012 13:20:37 GMT -5
On the other hand it is OK for those that have money, or control vast amounts of money to buy an elected person to shut off any prospect of a working person to get paid a living wage, and at the same time pass laws favorable to big business that damages all consumers and often, through pollution, everyone in a region.
I fully understand how either side gets elected and for what purpose. The question is then whether one supports corporate welfare or worker and indigent welfare? Tax the poor to pay for the corporate welfare. OR Tax the wealthy to pay for helping the disadvantaged.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jun 7, 2012 18:39:30 GMT -5
Let's begin with the nonsensical concept of a "living wage". What is that even supposed to mean? One's wage is entirely dependent upon his skill set and no amount of legislation is going to change that. A minimum wage set with an eye toward putting a floor under wages is an ntirely different thing that attempting to force employers to pay people some pie in the sky number that would, by definition, be self defeating.
Go off the rails much? Advocating for one's cause s a third party is entirely different from the union types' direct access to the public till.
I don't think you do.
Why do you think this is an either/or situation. Most folks think that "corporate welfare"(a term that can be very much disputed) is wrong and unreasonable but believe that minimum services for the poor are reasonable.
Pinko schlock.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jun 8, 2012 16:47:22 GMT -5
What is the problem with the elected officials that can't say no when demands outstrip resources, or reasonableness? Which is what Scott Walker did and look what happened? It took millions of dollars, but the little people eventually won.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jun 8, 2012 16:57:09 GMT -5
I can't believe how much union dues was wasted!
Just think, they could have increased their pension funds, fed some hungry children, given to scholarships to educate children...
The list is long, but they chose to try to destroy individual liberties.
|
|