• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois?

Should Wiscnson Democrats be paid while they hide in Illinois?

  • Total voters
    47
Walter said:
Are you the Main Stream Media? I offered an opinion...about the AWOL TREASONOUS actions of the PROGRESSIVES. Do you think traitors should be paid for treason? The truth takes no sides.
Click to expand...

When you quote me, I assume you're directing your comment to me. You've quoted me here again. This time, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Okay, wait. I just read your edit on previous post. I get it now. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois and subvert the democratic process?
Click to expand...

No they should not, failure to do their duty of office has its consequences.
 
Baralis said:
I just heard that today they removed electronic deposits on their paycheck. So to collect their pay they will have to return to the state.
Click to expand...

Yep failure to do duties of the office they were elected to has its consequences.
 
from Walter

offered an opinion...about the AWOL TREASONOUS actions of the PROGRESSIVES.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what treason is?

and by a very wide margin, a significant majority of Americans do NOT want the Walker Wisconsin final solution to come to their own state

Poll: Americans oppose weaker unions - USATODAY.com

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm

It seems the American people want nothing to do with the right wing anti-labor agenda in their own backyards. 61% to 33% is a huge margin of victory here.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Giving up your rights is not one of them.
Click to expand...

What rights are those?

Be prepared to cite either the State or Federal Constitution to support your answer. (I heard rumour you are a retired teacher; if true you know the drill.)
 
MaggieD said:
Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois and subvert the democratic process?
Click to expand...

This is how I'd view things if it happened in my state:

I did not stand in line this last election for 3 hours to vote only to have my vote turn into someone hopping out of MY STATE to NOT show up and VOTE for something.

I don't want those who I vote for to be chicken-****s. I want them to do their JOBS. That MEANS: make an adequate and persuasive argument AGAINST something that they don't support while they have the time to do so and then be there when they need to be and VOTE when they need to vote.

If they write out and deliver arguments and rebuttals that AREN'T persuasive enough then running away won't change that.
 
Baralis said:
I wasn't trying to imply that the two were on the same level only that I view both tactics as immoral. Legal does not necessarily equate to moral imo.
Click to expand...

You may view skipping town to prevent a vote as immoral but many do not. Morality is subjective. Especially something minuscule on the immorality scale. Until they make to where a vote can still go on when politicians skip town this will always be an option of those in the minority, just like filibusters are.

I just heard that today they removed electronic deposits on their paycheck. So to collect their pay they will have to return to the state.
Click to expand...
Not if they were smart enough to authorize a relative to pick up the check.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This is how I'd view things if it happened in my state:

I did not stand in line this last election for 3 hours to vote only to have my vote turn into someone hopping out of MY STATE to NOT show up and VOTE for something.

I don't want those who I vote for to be chicken-****s. I want them to do their JOBS. That MEANS: make an adequate and persuasive argument AGAINST something that they don't support while they have the time to do so and then be there when they need to be and VOTE when they need to vote.

If they write out and deliver arguments and rebuttals that AREN'T persuasive enough then running away won't change that.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point that these Democrats are more than likely doing what those who voted for them want them to do. These Democrats are standing up to a principle, I call them heroes. It takes takes guts to do that in the face of adversity. And if there were an oposite issue, you would feel the same way.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This is how I'd view things if it happened in my state:

I did not stand in line this last election for 3 hours to vote only to have my vote turn into someone hopping out of MY STATE to NOT show up and VOTE for something.

I don't want those who I vote for to be chicken-****s. I want them to do their JOBS. That MEANS: make an adequate and persuasive argument AGAINST something that they don't support while they have the time to do so and then be there when they need to be and VOTE when they need to vote.

If they write out and deliver arguments and rebuttals that AREN'T persuasive enough then running away won't change that.
Click to expand...

If I believed that something fundamentally immoral and potentially cataclysmic were about to happen and there was just one method by which I could prevent it from happening, wouldn't I be betraying the people I represent NOT to pursue that course of action?

It appears to me that they are not breaking the law, they are not breaking the rules of the House and they are protecting a significant and important group of their constituents.

I don't understand why people are getting so het up about whether they should be paid or not. How minor a consideration is that to all concerned?
 
Andalublue said:
If I believed that something fundamentally immoral and potentially cataclysmic were about to happen and there was just one method by which I could prevent it from happening, wouldn't I be betraying the people I represent NOT to pursue that course of action?

It appears to me that they are not breaking the law, they are not breaking the rules of the House and they are protecting a significant and important group of their constituents.

I don't understand why people are getting so het up about whether they should be paid or not. How minor a consideration is that to all concerned?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with showing up and voting, though?

If you oppose it - vote AGAINST it - argue AGAINST it - and if it passes because more people voted for it then it's not *your* doing.

By skipping out they've unstitched EVERYONE'S lives with the ensuing strike and drama that THEY caused - If that happened in my state I'd be so infuriated I'd probably blow my top so thoroughly.

See - because I was raised on the belief that your VOTE countes. If the MAJORITY votes 'yes' - then why should the MINORITY still somehow have the power to overturn the majoirities decision because they wanted to abandon ship?

That's NOT how our system is suppose to be influenced or work.
 
Ockham said:
What rights are those?

Be prepared to cite either the State or Federal Constitution to support your answer. (I heard rumour you are a retired teacher; if true you know the drill.)
Click to expand...
Do the union workers have the freedom to assemble?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What's wrong with showing up and voting, though? If you oppose it - vote AGAINST it - argue AGAINST it - and if it passes because more people voted for it then it's not *your* doing.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is an exercise in just covering their asses and avoiding being blamed for the damage to the lives and livelihoods of the Wisconsin workers - it's about preventing that damage, if they can, by all means legal and available.
By skipping out they've unstitched EVERYONE'S lives with the ensuing strike and drama that THEY caused - If that happened in my state I'd be so infuriated I'd probably blow my top so thoroughly.
Click to expand...
No, the Governor's dangerous and immoral proposal is the cause of the drama.

See - because I was raised on the belief that your VOTE countes. If the MAJORITY votes 'yes' - then why should the MINORITY still somehow have the power to overturn the majoirities decision because they wanted to abandon ship?

That's NOT how our system is suppose to be influenced or work.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The system operates with a number of checks and balances that limits the power of elected officials, preventing them from acting in a dictatorial and unfair manner. Some people may argue that the only limit to the power of elected officials is the ability to vote them out once every so many years. I think most people would say that there must exist the possibility of influencing decision-making more often. Congressional procedure is one such example of the checks and balances built into a democratic system. That is what these reps are using.

As I've said previously, there are several procedural techniques for a member of a minority and/or opposition in a legislature to prevent the majority always getting its own way. Filibustering is one, this is another, use of points of order a third. I think that's the way a modern democracy is meant to work.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I say yes. They are doing what their voters elected them to do which is oppose and prevent legislation that their constituents oppose and support and enact legislation that their voters support.
Click to expand...

You got it right.
 
I've really thought long and hard about this one and how I view what the Wisconsian Democrats are doing. First off, I have no problems with the minority party using obstructionist tactics. A lot of these procedural roadblocks were put into place to give the minority party some voice in government and to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

That said, I don't think the rules regarding a quorum fit into the category. My understanding is we require a quorum so a small group of representives can't call a midnight session and ram through controversial legislation simply because they are the only ones who showed up. So I think depriving the state Senate a quorum to block legilsation goes against the spirit of the rule and should not be considered in the same boat as filbustering or tying things up in committee or any other number of procedural roadblocks politicians can use.

I will say if it were something truly awful being proposed. Something that grossly violated the principles of this nation (like ending private property or reinstituting slavery or something else really radical and unAmerican) I could see using any and all means to defeat or block such a measure. But I don't think the stakes are nearly high enough on this issue to warrant that sort of political guerrilla warfare.
 
Hmm. I wonder if Wisc needs a quorum to vote on making it a "right to work" state. It's my understanding that they only need a quorum under certain circumstances, one of which is appropriating funds.

If not, it would be a clever albeit devious move to pass a "right to work" state amendment in the democrat's absence. That way they can remove the offensive "union busting" language from the budget bill, because unions would now be moot.

BTW, I am NOT a republican and I'm definitely NOT a "tea bagger"... perish the thought... but one does not have to be an extreme conservative to be against the kind of economic bullying that unions have wrought in many areas of the country, more specifically in the public sector. People have no constitutional right to collective bargaining, especially not when their wages are being paid by taxpayers purchasing a service rather than consumers purchasing a product. The governor has handled this like a ham-handed noob, but what he wants is neither illegal nor immoral. He's just going about it in a really poor way. That is still no excuse for organizing a democratic "escape". They work for all the people of the state, not just democrats, not just union members. They have betrayed the trust of a hell of a lot of Wisconsin citizens.
 
Andalublue said:
I don't think this is an exercise in just covering their asses and avoiding being blamed for the damage to the lives and livelihoods of the Wisconsin workers - it's about preventing that damage, if they can, by all means legal and available.
No, the Governor's dangerous and immoral proposal is the cause of the drama.
Click to expand...

See - exactly what I mean when I say they've held the people of the state hostage. . . so now people can't even PROPOSE A bill that some might disagree with lest it cause a strike. . . which is the exact OPPOSITE of our system and how it works.

There are *a lot* of bills in my state that are possibly detrimental - there are bills going through Congress that are WORSE than this one - is the ensuing drama NECESSARY?

Not necessarily. The system operates with a number of checks and balances that limits the power of elected officials, preventing them from acting in a dictatorial and unfair manner. Some people may argue that the only limit to the power of elected officials is the ability to vote them out once every so many years. I think most people would say that there must exist the possibility of influencing decision-making more often. Congressional procedure is one such example of the checks and balances built into a democratic system. That is what these reps are using.

As I've said previously, there are several procedural techniques for a member of a minority and/or opposition in a legislature to prevent the majority always getting its own way. Filibustering is one, this is another, use of points of order a third. I think that's the way a modern democracy is meant to work.
Click to expand...

Yeah - so why cause quite the stink if other means are even there?
 
Andalublue said:
Seems to me the stink is being caused by those who disagree with the reps actions, not the reps themselves.
Click to expand...

My husband spends a lot of time flying and driving internationally to fetch AWOL soldiers.

I don't support the notion that one has the 'right' to abandon their post on the taxpayers dime.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I don't support the notion that one has the 'right' to abandon their post on the taxpayers dime.
Click to expand...

Back again with the issue of the pay. So don't pay 'em. This isn't about money, at least not for the reps, but it's about a principle of protecting the livelihoods of people who work for the State, to the benefit of the entire community.
 
Andalublue said:
Back again with the issue of the pay. So don't pay 'em. This isn't about money, at least not for the reps, but it's about a principle of protecting the livelihoods of people who work for the State, to the benefit of the entire community.
Click to expand...

This is about the principle of the public sector bleeding taxpayers dry with their over-the-top Rolls Royce Benefit Plans....it's about the public sector retirement plans that put the rest of ours to shame....it's about taxpayers not being able to afford to carry these public sector workers on their back anymore....it's about Democrats giving away the store to public unions in order to assure their own re-election. Wisconsin is the tip of the iceburg. Nationally, our public pensions for Fed workers are in worse shape than the Social Security fund. It is a horrendous situation.
 
As long as Republicans in Congress get free government healthcare while being against it publicly for everyone else, and refuse to give up their own government healthcare, then I see no problem in these Democrats getting paid for doing their duty to protect their constituents against an overbearing majority.

The real question is should any politician get paid as long as they are partisan hacks and refuse to compromise to fix the US economy?
 
MaggieD said:
This is about the principle of the public sector bleeding taxpayers dry with their over-the-top Rolls Royce Benefit Plans....it's about the public sector retirement plans that put the rest of ours to shame....it's about taxpayers not being able to afford to carry these public sector workers on their back anymore....it's about Democrats giving away the store to public unions in order to assure their own re-election. Wisconsin is the tip of the iceburg. Nationally, our public pensions for Fed workers are in worse shape than the Social Security fund. It is a horrendous situation.
Click to expand...

Well, it strikes me that you (and us over here in Europe) are suffering a crisis that was 100% the creation of the private, financial sector. They came running to dip into the public purse to have their debts underwritten by the tax payer, which stupidly the governments decided to do. You are now expecting the public sector workers to soak up the impact of those debts, taken on by the western governments on behalf of, but without consulting, the tax-payers. At the same time, the corporate recipients of those trillions of tax dollars, who haven't yet repaid the bail-outs, are still giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses...and you're getting angry at the firemen, teachers and health workers. I think you need to rethink your values, Maggie.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
This is about the principle of the public sector bleeding taxpayers dry with their over-the-top Rolls Royce Benefit Plans....it's about the public sector retirement plans that put the rest of ours to shame....it's about taxpayers not being able to afford to carry these public sector workers on their back anymore....it's about Democrats giving away the store to public unions in order to assure their own re-election. Wisconsin is the tip of the iceburg. Nationally, our public pensions for Fed workers are in worse shape than the Social Security fund. It is a horrendous situation.
Click to expand...

Democrat lawmakers the protesters have said numerous times that they concede to cuts in benefits as well as paying more into benifits. Even Fox news has reported this. This is about them wanting to keep their ability to collectively bargain. So its its dishonest to say they want to keep bleeding the public dry.



PTAOfficerforObama: This IS about rights. The cuts and concession*s were agreed

Democratic lawmakers have said they and union members would agree to financial concessions that the Republican governor wants in exchange for workers keeping their collective bargaining rights.

Impasse over Wisconsin union rights proposal enters second week as Democrats remain on the run | StarTribune.com
Public employees have said they would agree to concessions Walker wants that would amount to an 8 percent pay cut on average, but they want to retain their collective bargaining rights.

Wis. governor turns up pressure on Democrats - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com
"We'd love to come back today," said Sen. Jon Erpenbach. "We could be up there this afternoon and pass this if he would agree to removing the language that has absolutely nothing to do with balancing the budget."


Wis. governor refuses to give in to protests - USATODAY.com
Public employees have said they would agree to concessions Walker wants that would amount to an 8% pay cut on average if they can retain collective bargaining rights. Another option would make the elimination of those rights temporary.

Protesters in Wisconsin Aim to Keep the Peace
Sen. Jon Erpenbach said Democrats want Walker to seriously consider a deal under which public employees would agree to pay more for benefits as long as they kept their rights to collectively bargain.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Protesters in Wisconsin Aim to Keep the Peace


Wisconsin Gov Holds Firm As Protests Enter Day 6 - FoxNews.com

They argued the unions had already agreed to cuts in their health care and retirement benefits that could reduce take-home pay for many workers by about 8 percent, and it was time for the Republican governor to compromise.

Read more: Wisconsin Gov Holds Firm As Protests Enter Day 6 - FoxNews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom