• 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!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

The thing I don't understand is, a governor, Scott Walker in this case, gets elected by a good majority, and does exactly what he said he intended to do when running for election, and then he's accused of breaking unions just because he's trying to fix the fiscal mess of the state. So they bring him to a recall election just because of that, which he wins again by a large margin. This is just a case of sore losership for the democrats in Wisconsin. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
The thing I don't understand is, a governor, Scott Walker in this case, gets elected by a good majority, and does exactly what he said he intended to do when running for election, and then he's accused of breaking unions just because he's trying to fix the fiscal mess of the state. So they bring him to a recall election just because of that, which he wins again by a large margin. This is just a case of sore losership for the democrats in Wisconsin. Nothing more, nothing less.



Welcome.

Well most thinking folks would see it that way. :lol:
 
Here's what I found a PolitiFact Wisconsin

Gov. Walker said: "most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums and it would still be half the national average." Politifact said: "It's True."

The article stated "unionized state workers pay about 4 percent to 5 percent of their health insurance premiums". The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study saying employees share "paid by state and local government workers nationwide at 25 percent for family coverage."

Thus I have to conclude, these union folks were/are getting better bennies, coming from Wisconsin taxpayers pockets, that the taxpayer is getting.
So you want to take those benefits away from them, and give it to big corporations in the form of new tax breaks. We already know that is the right wing plan -- take from the worker, give to the rich.

But was Walker satisfied when the unions finally agreed to his reverse Robin Hood plan -- and agreed to pay more?

No, he was not. He went on to eliminate most of their collective bargaining rights, proving that your post was a wasted effort -- it wasn't about money, it was about stripping power from unions.
 
But was Walker satisfied when the unions finally agreed to his reverse Robin Hood plan -- and agreed to pay more?

he was smart to prefer a permanent solution.
 
The thing I don't understand is, a governor, Scott Walker in this case, gets elected by a good majority, and does exactly what he said he intended to do when running for election, and then he's accused of breaking unions just because he's trying to fix the fiscal mess of the state. [...]
You have evidence that while running for election he said that he was going to break unions? May we see that please?
 

Thank you! I was searching for a good political forum, and after a read-through of some threads, this one looks like it has a good mix of differing viewpoints, intelligence and relative civility, so I decided to give it a try.
 
You have evidence that while running for election he said that he was going to break unions? May we see that please?

He never said that he was going to break unions, and he's not breaking unions. Curbing collective bargaining and stripping the requirement that one MUST join the union in order to work at a specific job is not breaking unions. The people who want to be in a labor union can still unionize all they want.
 
Last edited:
he was smart to prefer a permanent solution.
I don't think I'd describe corporate fascism as smart, and I'm not sure his approach was smart, but he did accomplish the goal of crushing the workers to the benefit of the corporations (who got the tax breaks). I realize that the right thinks this is a good thing, but I'm not sure that they are smart in admitting it in public.
 
I don't think I'd describe corporate fascism as smart, and I'm not sure his approach was smart, but he did accomplish the goal of crushing the workers to the benefit of the corporations (who got the tax breaks). I realize that the right thinks this is a good thing, but I'm not sure that they are smart in admitting it in public.

blablabla. the will of the people was done TWICE. crying about fascism is weak sauce
 
He never said that he was going to break unions, and he's not breaking unions.
Of course he's breaking unions. Stripping them of collective bargaining rights is what -- a Christmas bonus?

However, can you at least provide evidence that during the campaign he said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining for state employees?

After all, you said he is doing exactly what he campaigned on:

The thing I don't understand is, a governor, Scott Walker in this case, gets elected by a good majority, and does exactly what he said he intended to do when running for election, and then he's accused of breaking unions just because he's trying to fix the fiscal mess of the state. So they bring him to a recall election just because of that, which he wins again by a large margin. This is just a case of sore losership for the democrats in Wisconsin. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
I don't think I'd describe corporate fascism as smart, and I'm not sure his approach was smart, but he did accomplish the goal of crushing the workers to the benefit of the corporations (who got the tax breaks). I realize that the right thinks this is a good thing, but I'm not sure that they are smart in admitting it in public.


Aw, yes, another "Progressive" temper tantrum and distortion of reality. No one was crushed and if you don't live in Wisconsin why does this affect you? The people of Wisconsin spoke so your next step has to be to get an activist judge to overturn the will of the people. When is that going to happen?
 
Of course he's breaking unions. Stripping them of collective bargaining rights is what -- a Christmas bonus?

However, can you at least provide evidence that during the campaign he said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining for state employees?

After all, you said he is doing exactly what he campaign on:

So tell me how he's breaking unions. Are employees no longer permitted to unionize in Wisconsin?
 
blablabla. the will of the people was done TWICE. crying about fascism is weak sauce
Three WI Republican Senators were recalled by the will of the people, apparently throwing control of the Senate to the Democrats, so there seems to be a healthy number out there who don't like the fascism sauce, despite how weak it may or may not be.

Of course if the majority will of the people is your measure of all that's good and proper, I'm sure you're just tickled pink with President Obama :2razz:
 
So tell me how he's breaking unions. Are employees no longer permitted to unionize in Wisconsin?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine, which I've asked twice now.

Third time: However, can you at least provide evidence that during the campaign he said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining for state employees?
 
[...] stripping the requirement that one MUST join the union in order to work at a specific job [...]
There is no such requirement. You need a new information source.
 
I'll answer your question when you answer mine, which I've asked twice now.

I answered your question in my first post in response to your question. Curbing collective bargaining and stripping the requirement that employees MUST join a union to work at a specific job is NOT breaking unions.

Now, how is Scott Walker breaking unions?
 
Three WI Republican Senators were recalled by the will of the people, apparently throwing control of the Senate to the Democrats, so there seems to be a healthy number out there who don't like the fascism sauce, despite how weak it may or may not be.

We shall see in November about control. Personally, as a libertarian, I typically win the most in gridlock.

Of course if the majority will of the people is your measure of all that's good and proper, I'm sure you're just tickled pink with President Obama :2razz:

I was as tickled as possible with Obama winning considering the alternatives. He won on an anti-war message primarily. Sadly he has since abandoned any pretense of hope and change in regards to our actions abroad.
 
There is no such requirement. You need a new information source.

Right, there's no longer that requirement in public sector employment in Wisconsin, thanks to Scott Walker.

So, how does curbing collective bargaining keep employees from unionizing if they want to?
 
Last edited:
Aw, yes, another "Progressive" temper tantrum and distortion of reality.
Ad hominem.

No one was crushed [...]
Stripping collective bargaining rights from a union is not "crushing" it? In what zip code -- the Twilight Zone?

[...] and if you don't live in Wisconsin why does this affect you?
Ostrich argument. Also used by many in the U.S. during the Holocaust.

The people of Wisconsin spoke so your next step has to be to get an activist judge to overturn the will of the people. When is that going to happen?
Delusion/paranoia.
 
Right, there's no longer that requirement in public sector employment in Wisconsin, thanks to Scott Walker. [...]
There was not one before Scott Walker. You really, really need a new source of facts.

Since you've repeatedly refused to answer my question, I'll answer none of yours. I will, however, continue to point out your erroneous claims, which at the rate they're arriving may require secretarial assistance.

Fourth time: Can you at least provide evidence that during the campaign he said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining for state employees?

Welcome :2razz:
 
Last edited:
There was not one before Scott Walker. You really, really need a new source of facts.

Since you've repeatedly refused to answer my question, I'll answer none of yours. I will, however, continue to point out your erroneous claims, which at the rate they're arriving may require secretarial assistance.

Welcome :2razz:

Ahh, you will answer none of my questions because you have no answers, or at least no answers that make any sense. Gotcha!

Good day sir! :wave:
 
So you want to take those benefits away from them, and give it to big corporations in the form of new tax breaks. We already know that is the right wing plan -- take from the worker, give to the rich.

But was Walker satisfied when the unions finally agreed to his reverse Robin Hood plan -- and agreed to pay more?

No, he was not. He went on to eliminate most of their collective bargaining rights, proving that your post was a wasted effort -- it wasn't about money, it was about stripping power from unions.


No I don't want to take away benefits. I want those in public service to pay no more, nor no less, than those footing the bill for these bennies - The Taxpayer.

In this case "big corporations" aren't involved. The taxpayers of WI are paying these benefits. Right Wing or Left Wing, it's wrong for public servants to get a better deal than those paying the bill.

I'm looking for fairness. How about you? Seems you think that taxpayers of WI should pay whatever the unions can grab with both hands.
 
I'll answer your question when you answer mine, which I've asked twice now.

Third time: However, can you at least provide evidence that during the campaign he said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining for state employees?

He did say he was going to cut gov't costs, and try to balance the budget by doing so. What is the largest gov't cost? Yep, labor of gov't employees. He did NOT eliminate collective bargaining, he just said NO to their "offer" and made a counter offer. He did make union membership OPTIONAL, and the majority of those given that OPTION chose NOT to remain in the union. It is not a right of the tiny minority that choose gov't employment to set their own salary/benefit packages, that is still up to the majority, through their elected representatives to do. Not all changes in pay/benefits are increases, as seems to be the wish of those in the union. If tax revenue drops, obviously that means cuts in gov't spending will be needed. The salary/benefit packages of the gov't workers are neither cast in stone, nor are they a guaranteed minimum forever, they are simply a PAST agreement that is subject to change when it expires.
 
Back
Top Bottom