Caller Posing As David Koch Dupes Scott Walker

Politics • Views: 22,493

Big story of the morning: a blogger for the Buffalo Beast got through on a phone call to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, pretending to be far right wing billionaire David Koch, and talked to Walker for about 20 minutes — when Walker is rejecting all calls from Democrats. It’s a fascinating read, and here’s one of the most damning exchanges:

“David Koch”: We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that—because we thought about that…

Walker also compared himself to Ronald Reagan, making it clear that his intention is to destroy the unions, not to negotiate.

This is going to hurt Walker; he’s already trying to spin the conversation:

“The governor takes many calls everyday,” Walker’s spokesman, Cullen Werwie, said in a statement. “Throughout this call the governor maintained his appreciation for and commitment to civil discourse. He continued to say that the budget repair bill is about the budget. The phone call shows that the governor says the same thing in private as he does in public and the lengths that others will go to disrupt the civil debate Wisconsin is having.”

Actually, it shows much more than that.

Upon learning of the call, Democrats blasted the governor. “Scott Walker won’t listen to Senate Democrats, or the hundreds of thousands of average Wisconsinites who are speaking up against his divisive power grab. But an oil billionaire from Kansas gets his full attention,” Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Mike Tate said. “It is a damning, embarrassing and possibly illegal admission that Scott Walker has put Wisconsin up for sale.”

State Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) read excerpts of the recording and said, “My first reaction, it’s revealing of his true agenda and his character.”

He added that Walker “talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan. If that’s true, his intention isn’t to solve the problem it’s to make a name for himself.”

Barca said he was trying to arrange for the full Democratic caucus to listen to the recording.

Jump to bottom

234 comments
1 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:49:24am

What I’m amazed is how Walker manages to hit that sweat spot previously only seen with Rob Blagojevich of being both corrupt and incompetent, how did he not recognize the voice of someone who donated so much money to his campaign?

2 Stanghazi  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:50:05am

Scott Walker doing a 2:30 central time presser to address the prank Koch call, his office sez.

3 Bulworth  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:50:50am

I had a hard time believing this was real when I first read about it. Happy spinning, Gov.

4 S'latch  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:50:54am

Rather ironic that a plant gets Walker to admit that he thought about using plants.

5 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:52:57am
6 KingKenrod  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:52:59am

No one as stupid as Walker should be in charge of anything. Can he get recalled?

7 Stanghazi  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:53:13am

Crowd outside of Walker’s office

[Link: yfrog.com…]

8 HappyWarrior  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:53:15am
9 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:53:18am

Really, for me, the biggest thing alone is simply taking the phone call.

Koch is from Kansas. He’s not from Wisconsin. Why would Walker take the call?

10 Merryweather  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:53:19am

Maybe he was inspired by Mark Williams’ ‘Super Sekrit Plan I Posted On The Internet To Screw WI Protesters’.

Walker really is a scumbag. The fact he was even considering doing that shows he’s nothing more than a thug in political clothing.

11 S'latch  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:53:57am

re: #9 Obdicut

$

12 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:54:41am

re: #5 Dreggas

Indiana Dep. Atty. Gen.: “Use live ammunition on protesters in Wisconsin”

Yeah, because shooting nonviolent protestors is what America is built on.

///

13 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:54:54am

re: #6 KingKenrod

No one as stupid as Walker should be in charge of anything. Can he get recalled?

Sadly I think I recall reading somewhere that he has to serve at least a 4th of his term before he can be voted out… it’s gonna be a long 9/10 months….

14 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:54:59am

re: #9 Obdicut

Really, for me, the biggest thing alone is simply taking the phone call.

Koch is from Kansas. He’s not from Wisconsin. Why would Walker take the call?

I’m sure he could give you a couple thousand reasons why.

15 Gus  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:55:04am

He admits to having thought about employing troublemakers in the crowd. That’s not the kind of response you would want to hear from any public official let alone a state governor.

Wisconsin should have a recall election alright. One to replace their governor, Scott Walker.

16 Merryweather  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:55:08am

re: #5 Dreggas

Indiana Dep. Atty. Gen.: “Use live ammunition on protesters in Wisconsin”

WTF? Did this loon take Gaddafi’s speech yesterday as an object lesson in how to deal with protesters?

17 HappyWarrior  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:55:20am

I think Walker’s an idiot honestly.

18 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:55:48am

re: #17 HappyWarrior

I think Walker’s an idiot honestly.

To bad he isn’t at least an honest idiot….

19 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:55:57am

re: #17 HappyWarrior

I think Walker’s an idiot honestly.

There is that.

20 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:56:16am

re: #13 jamesfirecat

Yes. The earliest possible recall would be Jan 2012

21 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:57:03am

re: #20 BishopX

Yes. The earliest possible recall would be Jan 2012

That to me is totally insane. Its like an election is a blank check?!

22 wrenchwench  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:57:16am

re: #6 KingKenrod

No one as stupid as Walker should be in charge of anything. Can he get recalled?

I think this one call was enough. You think he needs another?

/

23 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:57:37am

Oh, expect some fireworks…

Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

In a statement Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder says President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration can no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

24 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:57:51am

Show of Hands…. Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

25 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:58:32am

re: #24 Buck

Show of Hands… Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

I did, though I trailed off at times.

26 HappyWarrior  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:59:15am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, expect some fireworks…

Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

About time.

27 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:59:27am

re: #17 HappyWarrior

I think Walker’s an idiot honestly.

On a completely superficial note, he even looks like one - check out the screen grab on this YouTube clip:

I’ve never seen such dull, expressionless eyes on anything that wasn’t a plastic toy.

28 KingKenrod  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:59:50am

re: #24 Buck

Show of Hands… Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

The fact that he took the call at all proves he shouldn’t be doing anything more complicated than running the neighborhood lemonade stand.

29 Merryweather  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:18am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, expect some fireworks…

Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

Good for Obama.

30 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:32am

re: #9 Obdicut

If you’re a politician and you get someone on the phone who claims to be a billionaire who might have interests in your state, I think you’d take the call.

Moreover, the Kochs’ have a stake in Georgia Pacific, which has extensive operations in Wisconsin.

So, it’s not as though they don’t have any relationship to what’s going on in-state.

Yet, none of those relationships justify their union-busting attempts.

31 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:34am

re: #24 Buck

Show of Hands… Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

Pitiful.

32 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:39am

re: #21 McSpiff

That to me is totally insane. Its like an election is a blank check?!

If you’re a Republican, yes. Unless it’s the Democrats who won, then Obviously you must fight, scratch, and claw to stop, obstruct, and derail as much of the ‘enemy’s’ agenda.

It’s not the obstruction that annoys me, it’s the hypocrisy that really pisses me off. The Democrats dealt with this for the last two years. Surely the Republicans can handle a little adversity. Right? Right?!?

I guess not.

33 Kragar  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:40am

BTW, here is the call here, in 2 parts

34 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:41am

re: #29 Merryweather

Good for Obama.

and Holder.

35 tigger2005  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:50am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, expect some fireworks…

Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

Expect a mushroom cloud.

36 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:00:55am

re: #21 McSpiff

It makes some sense… I wouldn’t want to have the governor locked in a perpetual recall/election cycle. A 12 month grace period after each electoral mandate seems reasonable to me. It just sucks in this case.

37 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:01:03am

re: #28 KingKenrod

The fact that he took the call at all proves he shouldn’t be doing anything more complicated than running the neighborhood lemonade stand.

With Koch backing he could easily undersell all the other lemonade stands on the street and corner the market!

38 wrenchwench  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:01:03am

re: #27 publicityStunted

On a completely superficial note, he even looks like one - check out the screen grab on this YouTube clip:


[Video]I’ve never seen such dull, expressionless eyes on anything that wasn’t a plastic toy.

To be fair, I think YouTube screen grabs are worse than driver’s license photos.

39 HappyWarrior  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:01:10am

re: #27 publicityStunted

On a completely superficial note, he even looks like one - check out the screen grab on this YouTube clip:


[Video]I’ve never seen such dull, expressionless eyes on anything that wasn’t a plastic toy.

Ha, I guess my point is that he seems to have totally underestimated the union presence in his state and the fact he was elected in large part due to one of the worst years in recent history for the Democratic Party.

40 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:01:22am

re: #24 Buck

Show of Hands… Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

When you listened to it did you find anything worth talking about?

41 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:01:23am

re: #24 Buck

Show of Hands… Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

Most of it’s boring. What’s your point?

42 Gus  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:01:54am

Leave Michael Jackson Scott Walker alone!

[snif]

43 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:02:06am

re: #36 BishopX

It makes some sense… I wouldn’t want to have the governor locked in a perpetual recall/election cycle. A 12 month grace period after each electoral mandate seems reasonable to me. It just sucks in this case.

I can see having much higher requirements for the first 12, but no, I can’t agree with no possibility of recall.

44 efuseakay  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:03:31am

re: #29 Merryweather

Good for Obama.

Good for America.

45 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:03:44am

Great news about DOMA but let me be a bit of a sourpuss. I remember a lot of the arguments about how Obama was not supposed to influence DOJ here, how it would be throwing DOJ back to the Bush era. Uhhuh.

46 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:04:26am

re: #30 lawhawk

I don’t think it’s proper to take this call while this is going on, no matter if Koch has interests in the state or not. The text of the call showed, of course, why he did take the call.

Walker should be focusing on negotiations with the unions, or, if not, making his case to the people about why the unions should truly be busted.

The fact that money buys access to politicians is a sign of how bad things are in terms of finance reform, and of just how terrible a decision Citizens United was.

Walker will take a call from an out-of-state billionaire, but not from a labor union official from his state.

47 researchok  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:04:36am

re: #45 Sergey Romanov

Great news about DOMA but let me be a bit of a sourpuss. I remember a lot of the arguments about how Obama was not supposed to influence DOJ here, how it would be throwing DOJ back to the Bush era. Uhhuh.

Political promises go stale faster than bread.

48 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:04:39am

re: #45 Sergey Romanov

Great news about DOMA but let me be a bit of a sourpuss. I remember a lot of the arguments about how Obama was not supposed to influence DOJ here, how it would be throwing DOJ back to the Bush era. Uhhuh.

Well Holder announced it. It was his decision as far as anyone knows. People are just attributing it to Obama.

49 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:05:02am

re: #44 efuseakay

Now if the Administration can follow through on DADT.

This week, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department is expected to file papers with a federal court in California that, essentially, defend the original policy.

Meanwhile, the system for discharging people found to be gay has not been dismantled.

So what’s going on? Is “don’t ask, don’t tell” a legal zombie — dead but still walking around? Even those involved in the case say they find the situation absurd — and frustrating.

“Why is the case still alive?” asked R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, the group that sued in federal court to have the policy overturned. “A lot of people would be surprised to know that the discharge panels are still in place.”

The problem, Mr. Cooper explained, is one of timing: “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not quite dead, and so the fight over killing it in the courts is still, improbably, alive.

The bill passed by Congress did not actually repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but only created a mechanism for doing so. The policy will not end until 60 days after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the Department of Defense “has prepared the necessary policies and regulations” to carry out the change, and that the shift will not damage the ability of the military to fight or recruit. Until then, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 expressly states that the old policy “shall remain in effect.”

50 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:05:43am

re: #46 Obdicut


Walker will take a call from an out-of-state billionaire, but not from a labor union official from his state.

But look at it from the right-wing point of view: the more money you have, the more your opinion should count!

That’s just the natural order of things.

51 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:06:09am

re: #25 Sergey Romanov

I did, though I trailed off at times.

Great…. did you hear the part where “Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan.”??? I heard the prank caller say crush the unions, but not walker…. and I listened three times.

I must have missed it.

52 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:06:15am

re: #50 iossarian

The Producers!

53 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:07:40am

re: #45 Sergey Romanov

Great news about DOMA but let me be a bit of a sourpuss. I remember a lot of the arguments about how Obama was not supposed to influence DOJ here, how it would be throwing DOJ back to the Bush era. Uhhuh.

It’s not like the Obama DOJ was going to rule any differently about terrorists, trials, etc. anyway. Holder was picked in part because he’d follow Obama’s philosophies—like any DOJ would.

They’re theoretically indepedent from the executive branch, but in reality? Pffft.

54 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:07:50am

re: #38 wrenchwench

To be fair, I think YouTube screen grabs are worse than driver’s license photos.

Not Rachel Maddow:

Her expressions alone = WIN :)

55 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:07:52am

re: #43 McSpiff

Meh, I live in MA. We have to live with the governor we pick for four whole years without the possibility of a recall. While it can be a nice feature in a political system I like having my elected officials be able to govern without constantly looking over their shoulders at the angry activists trying to tear them down.

The essence of democracy is the ability to lose an election with grace. That doesn’t mean you don’t occasionally have to pull out the parliamentary stops to fight a battle, but I don’t like constant war.

56 Gus  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:08:16am

Off to the store. Back later.

57 Kronocide  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:09:03am

I wonder if this will be spun on talk radio today. Yesterday they were spinning Koch’s influence in WI.

58 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:09:10am

re: #52 McSpiff

The Producers!

The cast is great
The script is swell
But this I’m telling you sir
It is just all blow
You’ve got no show
Without the Producers!

59 Merryweather  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:09:11am

Victory for the private unions and protesters of Indiana:

Indiana Kills Right To Work Bill

Republicans in Indiana’s state senate on Wednesday killed a proposed “right-to-work” bill that would have reduced the power of unions in the state.

“It was a mistake,” said Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, a Republican, at a late morning press conference, the Courier-Journal reported.

Now, let’s hope the same thing happens in Wisconsin.

60 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:09:12am

re: #48 recusancy

Well Holder announced it. It was his decision as far as anyone knows. People are just attributing it to Obama.

Well, he openly states that it was Obama first and himself second.

61 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:10:09am

re: #51 Buck

Great… did you hear the part where “Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan.”??? I heard the prank caller say crush the unions, but not walker… and I listened three times.

I must have missed it.

“War on Terror”

“Islamic Fundamentalism”

Lets not argue about what words/terms he uses, all that really matters is his intent which he’s made perfectly clear.

62 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:10:10am

re: #56 Gus 802

Off to the store. Back later.

ok, but you’ll be missed!

63 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:10:14am

re: #55 BishopX

Oddly enough, it seems like the US has longer campaigns with your fixed election cycles. To each their own.

64 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:12:22am

[Link: www.americablog.com…]

Koch: You’re the first domino.

Walker: Yep. This is our moment.

Koch: Now what else could we do for you down there?

Walker: Well the biggest thing would be—and your guy on the ground [Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips] is probably seeing this [stuff about all the people protesting, and some of them flip him off].

[Abrupt end of first recording, and start of second.]

Walker: [Bullshit about doing the right thing and getting flipped off by “union bulls,” and the decreasing number of protesters. Or some such.]

Koch: We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that —because we thought about that. The problem—the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this…[explains that planting troublemakers may not work.] My only fear would be if there’s a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems…[something about ’60s liberals.]…Let ‘em protest all they want…Sooner or later the media stops finding it interesting.

Koch: Well, not the liberal bastards on MSNBC.

Walker: Oh yeah, but who watches that? I went on “Morning Joe” this morning. I like it because I just like being combative with those guys, but, uh. You know they’re off the deep end.

Koch: Joe—Joe’s a good guy. He’s one of us.

Walker: Yeah, he’s all right. He was fair to me…[bashes NY Senator Chuck Schumer, who was also on the program.]

Koch: Beautiful; beautiful. You gotta love that Mika Brzezinski; she’s a real piece of ass.

Walker: Oh yeah. [story about when he hung out with human pig Jim Sensenbrenner at some D.C. function and he was sitting next to Brzezinski and her father, and their guest was David Axelrod. He introduced himself.]

Koch: That son of a bitch!

Walker: Yeah no kidding huh?…

Koch: Well, good; good. Good catching up with ya’.

Walker: This is an exciting time [blah, blah, blah, Super Bowl reference followed by an odd story of pulling out a picture of Ronald Reagan and explaining to his staff the plan to crush the union the same way Reagan fired the air traffic controllers]…that was the first crack in the Berlin Wall because the Communists then knew Reagan wasn’t a pushover. [Blah, blah, blah. He’s exactly like Reagan. Won’t shut up about how awesome he is.]

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. [*** Ethical violation much? ***] Thanks for all the support…it’s all about getting our freedoms back…

Koch: Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well. [Laughs]

Walker: [Blah] Thanks a million!

Koch: Bye-bye!

Walker: Bye.

65 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:13:17am

re: #61 jamesfirecat

“War on Terror”

“Islamic Fundamentalism”

Lets not argue about what words/terms he uses, all that really matters is his intent which he’s made perfectly clear.

Right, Peter Barca can make up what was said, and distort the truth it beyond recognition… after all it is non violent, and his cause is pure.

/sarc

66 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:14:43am

re: #65 Buck

Right, Peter Barca can make up what was said, and distort the truth it beyond recognition… after all it is non violent, and his cause is pure.

/sarc

What does Scott Walker need to be doing for his plan to be accurately described as “crushing the unions”?

67 Winny Spencer  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:14:55am

re: #54 publicityStunted

Not Rachel Maddow:


[Video]Her expressions alone = WIN :)

Man, I miss Sharron Angle. She brought so much fun to all our lives during the primary season last year. My favourite crazy person of 2010.

68 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:15:30am

re: #64 celticdragon

Walker: [Blah] Thanks a million!

Heh forever.

69 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:16:00am

re: #65 Buck

Right, Peter Barca Breitbart, O’Keefe and Lila Rose can make up what was said, and distort the truth it beyond recognition…after all it is non violent, and his their cause is pure and one I support.

There. Now it describes your actual thoughts :P

70 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:16:15am

re: #45 Sergey Romanov

There are different levels of influence. Bush used politics as a rubric for hiring and firing civil service employees (mostly prosecutors). Those positions are supposed to be merit based and non-partisan. The top level of any department is political. Always has been, always will be, always should be.

This is a policy decision not one that requires a impartial view based on the law. It should be political.

71 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:17:02am

I don’t understand why anyone here bothers responding to Buck. He doesn’t care what you have to say. Why converse with someone who has no problem lying to your face to prove his ‘point’?

72 prairiefire  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:17:30am

This is just amazing. Palinism is sweeping the country.

73 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:17:55am

re: #70 BishopX

The decision could have been taken at any moment, which is why those arguments were disingenuous after all.

74 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:18:15am

re: #60 Sergey Romanov

Well, he openly states that it was Obama first and himself second.

Ah. Either way it’s nowhere near the same thing. Bush hired and fired depending on whether state attorneys investigated political opponents.

75 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:18:35am

re: #65 Buck

Right, Peter Barca can make up what was said, and distort the truth it beyond recognition… after all it is non violent, and his cause is pure.

/sarc

Hey boy genius.

The complete transcript is available and the governor’s office has authenticated that the transcript is accurate.

76 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:19:12am

re: #71 McSpiff

I don’t understand why anyone here bothers responding to Buck. He doesn’t care what you have to say. Why converse with someone who has no problem lying to your face to prove his ‘point’?

Because I don’t want to close myself off to opposing viewpoints.

77 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:19:21am

re: #72 prairiefire

This is just amazing. Palinism is sweeping the country.

Armed and ignorant Palinism.

78 prairiefire  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:25am

re: #52 McSpiff

The Producers!

Blue blanket! ~ fast forward past the first minute

79 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:33am

re: #74 recusancy

Indeed, which is why those arguments were doubly disingenuous.

80 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:42am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, expect some fireworks…

Govt drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

Finally. DOMA is a perfect example of bad legislation drafted for bad reasons. Marriage doesn’t need legislation “defending” it from gays.

81 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:20:44am

re: #73 Sergey Romanov

The decision could have been taken at any moment, which is why those arguments were disingenuous after all.

What? I don’t follow.

82 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:21:51am

re: #69 publicityStunted

There. Now it describes your actual thoughts :P

I suppose it is nice to be able to change what someone really said/wrote and pretend you know what they were thinking.

83 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:22:50am

re: #81 BishopX

I don’t know what to add to #45. Obama could have determined what he did just now at any moment, right?

84 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:23:01am

re: #82 Buck

I suppose it is nice to be able to change what someone really said/wrote and pretend you know what they were thinking.

Why did Walker take a call from a billionaire in Kansas?

85 Political Atheist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:23:51am

re: #30 lawhawk

A governor (or any person really) has the right to take or decline a phone call from whoever he pleases. What he agrees to do, or says can be an issue of course. The corruption is in the content of the call, not the acceptance of a call.

86 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:24:01am

re: #75 celticdragon

Hey boy genius.

The complete transcript is available and the governor’s office has authenticated that the transcript is accurate.

OK, and where does this transcript have Walker say that he is going to crush the unions like Ronald Regan? I mean you can’t count the Blah blah blah parts right? You know the stuff in () is comments and not transcript? Right?

87 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:24:37am

re: #71 McSpiff

I don’t understand why anyone here bothers responding to Buck. He doesn’t care what you have to say. Why converse with someone who has no problem lying to your face to prove his ‘point’?

I do it mostly for the benefit of any lurkers following the conversation. It’s like spritzing the place with troll-Febreze to get rid of the lingering stench :)

88 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:25:03am

re: #84 tnguitarist

Why did Walker take a call from a billionaire in Kansas?

He can take calls from anyone he wants. You want to spin a conspiracy from that? You need more than taking a call.

89 blueraven  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:26:37am

re: #24 Buck

Show of Hands… Who here has heard the entire prank call? Unedited version in full…

Anyone?

It wasn’t a Breitbart phone call! Besides, aren’t all Governor’s phone calls recorded anyway? (Blago). He could always release “his” version.

90 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:26:41am

re: #86 Buck

OK, and where does this transcript have Walker say that he is going to crush the unions like Ronald Regan? I mean you can’t count the Blah blah blah parts right? You know the stuff in () is comments and not transcript? Right?

Is the commentary unaccurate in any way?

Did

A) Ronald Reagan not Crush the Unions?

Or

B) Is Scott Walker not trying to crush the unions?

Because if both A and B are true… I fail to see how you have a case to object to his commentary…

91 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:01am

re: #88 Buck

He can take calls from anyone he wants. You want to spin a conspiracy from that? You need more than taking a call.

When he won’t talk to Democrats? That’s called being a hypocrite.

92 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:21am

re: #85 Rightwingconspirator

Of course he has the right to. It doesn’t mean he should do so, nor does it mean that it’s not incredibly meaningful that he’d take this call, but not talk to the union guys.

93 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:24am

re: #88 Buck

He can take calls from anyone he wants.

Obama can bow to anyone he wants. You want to spin a conspiracy from that?

94 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:40am

re: #91 tnguitarist

When he won’t talk to Democrats? That’s called being a hypocrite.

You don’t know that. In fact he has spoken to democrats.

95 prairiefire  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:43am

re: #88 Buck

He can take calls from anyone he wants. You want to spin a conspiracy from that? You need more than taking a call.

No, I am making a judgement from that information. A judgement of Walker.

96 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:27:52am

re: #93 iossarian

Obama can bow to anyone he wants. You want to spin a conspiracy from that?

That’s not me.

97 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:29:39am

re: #94 Buck

You don’t know that. In fact he has spoken to democrats.

In the call he says, “I’ll talk to them……I won’t negotiate”. In other words, I’ll listen to them as long as they do what I want.

98 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:29:48am

re: #96 Buck

That’s not me.

Fair enough. My point (like that of others) is that there is no conspiracy here: Walker’s eagerness to take the call speaks volumes to the question of where his loyalties lie.

Hint: not to the people of Wisconsin.

99 BishopX  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:29:51am

re: #83 Sergey Romanov

No. This is in response to a civil suit. The government has until March 11 to file a response. The DoJ is dropping the defense (probably after significant review of the legality of this action) with enough time for them to defend it.

We don’t know when Holder and Obama talked about this. This policy decision could have been on a memo from Obama written anytime in the last two years.

100 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:30:41am

re: #96 Buck

That’s not me.

Yeah, too bad too many people on the Right Wing can’t live up to your sensible standard…

101 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:07am

re: #90 jamesfirecat

Is the commentary unaccurate in any way?

I ask a simple question. Can anyone who actually heard the whole unedited prank find where Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan?

You can’t just make it up and call it true because you think you know what his intention is.

102 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:31:47am

re: #94 Buck

You don’t know that. In fact he has spoken to democrats.

He also said his plan was to say he’ll negotiate if they return, then once they return, don’t negotiate but pass the bill now that he has enough Senators in the room, at the very least he’s guilty of negotiating with them in bad faith…

103 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:32:27am

re: #97 tnguitarist

In the call he says, “I’ll talk to them…I won’t negotiate”. In other words, I’ll listen to them as long as they do what I want.

His position is to debate the bill. That is not done in private. It is done in the house, in public. That is democracy.

104 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:32:27am

re: #94 Buck

You don’t know that. In fact he has spoken to democrats.

“He’s just hard-lined — will not talk, will not communicate, will not return phone calls,” said Carpenter. “In a democracy, I thought we were supposed to talk. But the thing is, he’s been a dictator, and just basically said this is the only thing. No amendments, and it’s going to be that way.”

link

105 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:32:50am

re: #101 Buck

I ask a simple question. Can anyone who actually heard the whole unedited prank find where Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan?

You can’t just make it up and call it true because you think you know what his intention is.

And if it isn’t there we should just throw out the entire statement because the way the guy chose to comment on some of it (while posting the entire thing so we could listen to it all to verify for ourselves what was said) shows him to be an incurable partisan?

106 McSpiff  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:34:33am

re: #103 Buck

His position is to debate the bill. That is not done in private. It is done in the house, in public. That is democracy.

The governor has a say in house debates? Didn’t know that, honestly.

107 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:34:46am

re: #103 Buck

His position is to debate the bill. That is not done in private. It is done in the house, in public. That is democracy.

You really think his position is to “debate” the bill? You’re deluded if you believe that.

108 recusancy  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:34:48am

re: #101 Buck

I ask a simple question. Can anyone who actually heard the whole unedited prank find where Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan?

You can’t just make it up and call it true because you think you know what his intention is.

He’s stated his intention. He’s said point blank he wants to get rid of bargaining rights. It’s in the proposal that Walker submitted, which he also states in the call is non negotiable. That’s what unions do. They bargain. Without that they are done aka crushed.

109 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:35am

re: #102 jamesfirecat

He also said his plan was to say he’ll negotiate if they return, then once they return, don’t negotiate but pass the bill now that he has enough Senators in the room, at the very least he’s guilty of negotiating with them in bad faith…

That is the fucking definition of bad faith. Anybody who refuses to admit that is being disingenuous.

Walker said his plan was to lie to the opposition, and trick them. He said it explicitly, and explained how. He was recorded saying this, and Walker has since confirmed that the tape is genuine.

And Buck still isn’t convinced. Heh.

110 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:36am

re: #70 BishopX

There are different levels of influence. Bush used politics as a rubric for hiring and firing civil service employees (mostly prosecutors). Those positions are supposed to be merit based and non-partisan. The top level of any department is political. Always has been, always will be, always should be.

This is a policy decision not one that requires a impartial view based on the law. It should be political.

Further - the charge is that under the Bush administration, SAGs were fired for not launching prosecutions when they had determined that there was insufficient evidence for a legitimate charge.

111 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:35:55am

re: #103 Buck

His position is to debate the bill. That is not done in private. It is done in the house, in public. That is democracy.

Wrong.

His position is

“I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders—talk, not negotiate and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn—but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them will come back and sit down in the state assembly…legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day, and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have quorum…so we’re double checking that. If you heard I was going to talk to them that’s the only reason why. We’d only do it if they came back to the capital with all 14 of them…”

Or say he’ll negotiate so that he can get them to come back and then force the bill down their throats.

So at the very least any “negotiating” he’s doing is in bad faith…

112 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:36:36am

re: #105 jamesfirecat

And if it isn’t there we should just throw out the entire statement because the way the guy chose to comment on some of it (while posting the entire thing so we could listen to it all to verify for ourselves what was said) shows him to be an incurable partisan?

Yes, if it isn’t there then we should throw away the entire statement. That is how lies should work.

In the meanwhile let’s count the number of times people here say that Walker said he was planning to crush the unions.

113 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:36:44am

re: #102 jamesfirecat

He also said his plan was to say he’ll negotiate if they return, then once they return, don’t negotiate but pass the bill now that he has enough Senators in the room, at the very least he’s guilty of negotiating with them in bad faith…

He essentially is trying to trick them in to coming back so they can vote on the bill.

114 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:37:43am

re: #112 Buck

Yes, if it isn’t there then we should throw away the entire statement. That is how lies should work.

In the meanwhile let’s count the number of times people here say that Walker said he was planning to crush the unions.

So we should throw away a recorded conversation that we know is genuine, because we don’t like how some people who reported the recorded conversation tried to annotate it for us?

115 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:38:08am

re: #113 tnguitarist

He essentially is trying to trick them in to coming back so they can vote on the bill.

Would it be out of line to say this reads like the political version of date rape?

116 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:38:35am

re: #112 Buck

Now it’s time for you to defend Walker saying he had thought about planting troublemakers. Ready, go…..

117 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:40:38am

re: #112 Buck

Sounding just a little like Lewinsky-era Clinton now, Buck.

118 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:42:02am

Buck isn’t convinced because he doesn’t have a live video feed of Walker driving a tank over demonstrators whilst holding aloft a sign that says “MY PLAN IS TO DESTROY UNIONS”.

119 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:43:00am

re: #114 jamesfirecat

So we should throw away a recorded conversation that we know is genuine, because we don’t like how some people who reported the recorded conversation tried to annotate it for us?

No, I didn’t say that. However a great example of making stuff up.

I specifically said “the statement”, and so did you.

120 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:43:02am

re: #118 Fozzie Bear

Buck isn’t convinced because he doesn’t have a live video feed of Walker driving a tank over demonstrators whilst holding aloft a sign that says “MY PLAN IS TO DESTROY UNIONS”.

Man, I wish I could draw cartoons.

121 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:43:42am

re: #116 tnguitarist

Now it’s time for you to defend Walker saying he had thought about planting troublemakers. Ready, go…

And his thought was not to.

122 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:44:01am

re: #119 Buck

No, I didn’t say that. However a great example of making stuff up.

I specifically said “the statement”, and so did you.

Okay then.

Lets throw out that statement and just that statement, does it change the over all meaning of the call any?

123 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:44:12am

re: #115 jamesfirecat

Bringing up rape when not necessary is a bad idea.

124 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:44:22am

re: #121 Buck

And his thought was not to.

Because it wouldn’t work, not because he had any, you know, moral or legal objection to it….

125 tnguitarist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:45:29am

re: #121 Buck

And his thought was not to.

Except that he said, “because we had thought about that…”. Willful ignorance is unbecoming.

126 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:45:44am

re: #5 Dreggas

Indiana Dep. Atty. Gen.: “Use live ammunition on protesters in Wisconsin”

Yikes. I hope he’s got an uncomfortable interview with his boss scheduled for later today.

127 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:45:50am

re: #121 Buck

And his thought was not to.

Would you care to comment on Walker’s explicitly-stated plan to lie to the Democratic state representatives in order to trick them into creating a quorum?

128 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:46:23am

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yeah, because shooting nonviolent protestors is what America is built on.

///

THE STREETS ARE FULL OF MIDDLE-AGED PROFESSIONALS TOTING SNARKY SIGNS!!!! SHOOT THEM!!! SHOOT THEM!!!

129 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:47:08am

re: #122 jamesfirecat

Okay then.

Lets throw out that statement and just that statement, does it change the over all meaning of the call any?

ABSOLUTELY. As far as I could hear, the words “Crush union” come from the prankster and NOT Walker.

To keep characterizing the conversation in a way that says “Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan” when he didn’t… changes the character of the conversation. Don’t you think?

130 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:47:35am

re: #16 Merryweather

WTF? Did this loon take Gaddafi’s speech yesterday as an object lesson in how to deal with protesters?

If he says that he thinks Walker should become a martyr, we’ll know for sure.

That said, I don’t really like this kind of trap-setting, no matter who it benefits.

131 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:48:30am

re: #129 Buck

ABSOLUTELY. As far as I could hear, the words “Crush union” come from the prankster and NOT Walker.

To keep characterizing the conversation in a way that says “Walker talks about crushing the unions like Ronald Reagan” when he didn’t… changes the character of the conversation. Don’t you think?

He has been offered the chance to accept the unions taking cuts in their pay and benefits if they kept their collective bargaining.

He refused.

Why would he do that if he wasn’t trying to crush the unions?

132 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:49:06am

re: #129 Buck

changes the character of the conversation. Don’t you think?

Yes, yes, it changes the character of the conversation from “odious pandering to out-of-state uber-wealthy sociopath” to “dubious comparison of self to Reagan”.

Glad we agree on that much.

133 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:49:32am

re: #129 Buck

If I say to you, “Let’s hit the clubs and dance badly in a 70’s style”, and your response is to talk about what sort of outfits we should wear, then, indeed, you are talking about dancing badly in a 70’s style.

134 prairiefire  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:51:48am

re: #133 Obdicut

If I say to you, “Let’s hit the clubs and dance badly in a 70’s style”, and your response is to talk about what sort of outfits we should wear, then, indeed, you are talking about dancing badly in a 70’s style.

Are you implying 70’s style dancing is bad? I like the “finger pointing in the air” move.

135 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:52:59am

re: #127 Fozzie Bear

Would you care to comment on Walker’s explicitly-stated plan to lie to the Democratic state representatives in order to trick them into creating a quorum?

Do you know the process for making a bill a law? Do you understand how elected people read debate and vote on bills?

How they take calls from people in their district, and represent them?

The dems are playing hooky. It is a bit like filibustering, but actually worse. They are failing to represent the voters. Business is continuing, and they are MIA.

136 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:53:41am

re: #134 prairiefire

Are you implying 70’s style dancing is bad? I like the “finger pointing in the air” move.

Point early, point often.

I am personally a fan of the “thrust open hand in air, then slowly ball into fist while bringing same down towards chest and adopting facial expression to show torment of raging inner fires of passion (or constipation, whichever is easier)” move.

137 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:54:31am

re: #135 Buck

How they take calls from people in their district, and represent them?

Oh now that is rich considering you are saying this in defense of WALKER who JUST TOOK A CALL FROM KANSAS.

And yes, pun intended on ‘rich’.

138 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:54:57am

re: #131 jamesfirecat

He has been offered the chance to accept the unions taking cuts in their pay and benefits if they kept their collective bargaining.

He refused.

Why would he do that if he wasn’t trying to crush the unions?

You don’t know that. You don’t know the details. I know this because “taking away collective bargaining” is not actually in the bill.

139 prairiefire  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:55:45am

re: #136 iossarian

Point early, point often.

I am personally a fan of the “thrust open hand in air, then slowly ball into fist while bringing same down towards chest and adopting facial expression to show torment of raging inner fires of passion (or constipation, whichever is easier)” move.

What about the hands held up high, together in a fist, Than brought down between the two legs in a kind of squat, repeated. I hate that one.

140 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:56:46am

re: #135 Buck

Do you know the process for making a bill a law? Do you understand how elected people read debate and vote on bills?

How they take calls from people in their district, and represent them?

The dems are playing hooky. It is a bit like filibustering, but actually worse. They are failing to represent the voters. Business is continuing, and they are MIA.

They are representing their voters by doing everything in their power to obstruct the law.

This is far better than filibustering in my view because they have to make a personal sacrifice to do it….

141 General Nimrod Bodfish  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:57:54am

Just curious, but could this bill be killed after not being brought up after a certain amount of time, or does the WI state legislature rules state that all bills must come to a vote and thus the bills will be in limbo? (I can’t think of a better way of wording that)

142 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:58:01am

re: #139 prairiefire

What about the hands held up high, together in a fist, Than brought down between the two legs in a kind of squat, repeated. I hate that one.

WTF. We must not attend the same parties. I like my 70s dancing plain vanilla thank you very much!

143 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:58:10am

re: #138 Buck

You don’t know that. You don’t know the details. I know this because “taking away collective bargaining” is not actually in the bill.

I do know that…

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

Or here’s something a little closer to home…

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

144 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 10:58:49am

re: #135 Buck

You know, I’ll bet the Democrats-in-exile are probably taking more calls from their constituents than Walker is while in his office.

145 prairiefire  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:02:20am

re: #142 iossarian

Once you learn how to let your back bone slip, it’s all good.

146 moderatelyradicalliberal  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:03:05am

re: #144 Spocomptonite

You know, I’ll bet the Democrats-in-exile are probably taking more calls from their constituents than Walker is while in his office.

Leave Buck alone. This has clearly ruined his day. I can remember having a similar response to being told there was no Santa Claus, by an evil older cousin. This like when Sean Hannity, nearly in tears, tried to argue with Alan Colmes that Sally Hemmings’ children could have been fathered by Thomas Jefferson’s nephew. LOL!

147 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:04:15am

re: #143 jamesfirecat

I do know that…

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

Or here’s something a little closer to home…

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Both of your links simply repeat the union talking points. Neither actually quote a line form the bill that takes away the right to form a union, or collectively bargain. It does put limits on some of the things that can be negotiated. However there are always limits.

So for example the bill places the responsibility for collecting union dues from the employer to the unions. (Horror) So when negotiating a contract, the union cannot force the state to deduct from the employees and hand the money over. That demand would be off the table.

148 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:06:01am

re: #147 Buck

Both of your links simply repeat the union talking points. Neither actually quote a line form the bill that takes away the right to form a union, or collectively bargain. It does put limits on some of the things that can be negotiated. However there are always limits.

So for example the bill places the responsibility for collecting union dues from the employer to the unions. (Horror) So when negotiating a contract, the union cannot force the state to deduct from the employees and hand the money over. That demand would be off the table.

Why does Walker want to revise that?

It seems like a system set up to save time and effort at the moment, you belong to a union money is automatically deducted from your account.

Why make it more complicated?

Is there something I’m missing?

149 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:06:56am

re: #146 moderatelyradicalliberal

Leave Buck alone. This has clearly ruined his day. I can remember having a similar response to being told there was no Santa Claus, by an evil older cousin. This like when Sean Hannity, nearly in tears, tried to argue with Alan Colmes that Sally Hemmings’ children could have been fathered by Thomas Jefferson’s nephew. LOL!

I’ve never been sure why the people who adhere to that think that it’s nicer to think that Jefferson was allowing male relatives under his roof to sexually exploit his slaves, than to think that he was exploiting them himself.

Note: Jefferson once sold one of his slaves at a very low courtesy price to the white man she had been having an affair with for some years, because the couple wanted to live together and raise their children, and he wanted to help them out.

The history of race is so complicated and weird that it boggles the mind.

150 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:09:12am

re: #135 Buck

Do you know the process for making a bill a law? Do you understand how elected people read debate and vote on bills?

How they take calls from people in their district, and represent them?

The dems are playing hooky. It is a bit like filibustering, but actually worse. They are failing to represent the voters. Business is continuing, and they are MIA.

Bolded for extreme irony.

151 Decatur Deb  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:09:20am

re: #149 SanFranciscoZionist

…snip
Note: Jefferson once sold one of his slaves at a very low courtesy price to the white man she had been having an affair with for some years, because the couple wanted to live together and raise their children, and he wanted to help them out.

That was very white of him.

152 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:11:10am

re: #148 jamesfirecat

Why does Walker want to revise that?

It seems like a system set up to save time and effort at the moment, you belong to a union money is automatically deducted from your account.

Why make it more complicated?

Is there something I’m missing?

Ya, it costs the state money, and in Walkers opinion, it is a good cost cutting measure. Why do you think it shouldn’t be the employers responsibility?

Anyway it doesn’t matter what your opinion is on it, that is in the bill…

I have yet to see any “No collective bargaining”.

153 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:13:36am

re: #152 Buck

Ya, it costs the state money, and in Walkers opinion, it is a good cost cutting measure. Why do you think it shouldn’t be the employers responsibility?

Anyway it doesn’t matter what your opinion is on it, that is in the bill…

I have yet to see any “No collective bargaining”.

Why should the union have to pay for it?

Is the state next going to say that it costs them money to automatically deduct the social security/unemployment insurance from our paychecks so instead we need to get our full checks cash them, and then deliver the money to some government clerk every month?

154 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:14:56am

re: #151 Decatur Deb

That was very white of him.

Indeed.

//There’s a book about the Hemings family that I really want to read. Really interesting bunch of people.

155 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:17:17am

re: #153 jamesfirecat

Why should the union have to pay for it?

Is the state next going to say that it costs them money to automatically deduct the social security/unemployment insurance from our paychecks so instead we need to get our full checks cash them, and then deliver the money to some government clerk every month?

It is not the same thing at all. It is the money ($1000 a year in the teachers case) that is for the union. It is not government trust monies. That is the responsibility of the employer and to include their portion as well. (as an aside you would be surprised how many don’t).

Let them bill and collect from their members. Just like every other bill collector.

156 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:22:04am

re: #152 Buck

How does it cost the state money?

157 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:22:26am

re: #155 Buck

Not every other bill collector does. There are a host of things that can be taken out of the paycheck, from health insurance, health savings accounts, retirement funds, etc.

158 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:22:30am

re: #155 Buck

It is not the same thing at all. It is the money ($1000 a year in the teachers case) that is for the union. It is not government trust monies. That is the responsibility of the employer and to include their portion as well. (as an aside you would be surprised how many don’t).

Let them bill and collect from their members. Just like every other bill collector.

How expensive is it exactly for the government to take care of transfering said $100 a year exactly?

159 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:25:47am

re: #152 Buck

Ya, it costs the state money, and in Walkers opinion, it is a good cost cutting measure. Why do you think it shouldn’t be the employers responsibility?

Anyway it doesn’t matter what your opinion is on it, that is in the bill…

I have yet to see any “No collective bargaining”.

But why is this not only being considered, but the very first thing Walker decides to go after?

Walker’s budget makes no sense from a priority standpoint. He just gave out huge tax breaks to greatly increase a problem that was already there, and his solution is something that is so financially insignificant it wouldn’t have solved the budget problem even before he himself made it worse.

He’s just using his budget shortfall as an excuse to after things he hates on principle (or in Walker’s case, lack of principle), not because they are financially sensible. So what’s next after Teacher’s Unions? “Huge” (sarc) budget drains like Foodstamps? Mental health services? Will he enable fortunes to be made like Marcus Licinius Crassus made his?

160 iossarian  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:30:23am

re: #157 Obdicut

Not every other bill collector does. There are a host of things that can be taken out of the paycheck, from health insurance, health savings accounts, retirement funds, etc.

I for one think people would be much more likely to save for their retirements if employers were preventing from deducting 401k contributions at source.

Plus it would save the employers money!

///

161 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:32:14am

re: #158 jamesfirecat

How expensive is it exactly for the government to take care of transfering said $100 a year exactly?

First, for teachers it is a thousand, not $100. And many don’t clear $1000 in one pay check, and don’t want to pay it all at once (ie come up with a nil paycheck).

So there are administration costs. EXACTLY how much I could not say, but I know that it does not really matter how much. Visa and Mastercard figure that it is about 3%.

More importantly the TEACHERS are not losing the right to collective bargaining. The bill does place limits on the collective bargaining. There are limits right now, Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA), and the State Employment Labor Relations Act (SELRA) provide those limits. This bill amends and adds to those rules. Some of the rules limit the state, some limit the union.

162 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:33:44am

re: #159 Spocomptonite

But why is this not only being considered, but the very first thing Walker decides to go after?

Walker’s budget makes no sense from a priority standpoint. He just gave out huge tax breaks to greatly increase a problem that was already there,

That has already been shown to be not true.

163 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:34:26am

re: #162 Buck

That has already been shown to be not true.

It has been shown that it didn’t create the problem. It certainly aggravates the problem.

164 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:36:21am

re: #161 Buck

First, for teachers it is a thousand, not $100. And many don’t clear $1000 in one pay check, and don’t want to pay it all at once (ie come up with a nil paycheck).

So there are administration costs. EXACTLY how much I could not say, but I know that it does not really matter how much. Visa and Mastercard figure that it is about 3%.

More importantly the TEACHERS are not losing the right to collective bargaining. The bill does place limits on the collective bargaining. There are limits right now, Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA), and the State Employment Labor Relations Act (SELRA) provide those limits. This bill amends and adds to those rules. Some of the rules limit the state, some limit the union.

So far you are the only person here who is claiming it doesn’t clip their rights to collectively bragian…

Why is that exactly Buck?

Would you care to post a page on the truth of the issue and explain it all to us?

165 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:42:58am

re: #162 Buck

That has already been shown to be not true.

What? Which “that” are you saying has already been proven otherwise?

a) Wisconsin already had budget problems, pre-Walker

b) Walker gave out tax breaks

c) those tax breaks greatly contributed to an already existing budget problem

166 Bulworth  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:46:31am
More importantly the TEACHERS are not losing the right to collective bargaining.

Right. They can continue to collectively bargain over wages but not health and retirement benefits. But this “limit” doesn’t extend to police and firefighters. I wonder why.

167 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:48:43am

re: #162 Buck

That has already been shown to be not true.

If you cut taxes, and the problem under discussion is a deficit, you are, in fact, increasing the problem. Can you please show us all how you can cut taxes and not decrease revenue? I’m a little confused as to how less money coming in can have any effect other than, well, having less money.

Apparently this has already been shown to be false, as per your assertion. I’m just confused, because when I took math, if you take a number and subtract from it, it becomes a smaller number. Maybe math has changed since then. Please enlighten us.

168 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 11:53:58am

re: #166 Bulworth

And the right to bargain over wages is severely limited, as well.

169 dmon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:23:34pm

Deducting money from the employees check to pay into their 401k plan also costs money…..The average employee is likely putting several thousand into their 401k plan, therefor it is much more expensive (using your visa example). If the goal is simply to reduce costs, why is he not proposing to get rid of that deduction too? Or does it somehow cost less to program the payroll system to make one deduction than it does the other? If the answer is that the cost is the same, then the reason is simply political.

170 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:42:37pm

re: #167 Fozzie Bear

If you cut taxes, and the problem under discussion is a deficit, you are, in fact, increasing the problem. Can you please show us all how you can cut taxes and not decrease revenue?

Can you show me where Walker cut taxes for the budget year we are discussing?

Don’t bother using a quote from Rachel Maddow.

171 webevintage  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:45:15pm

We should be surprised that a Republican Gov. would talk to a billionaire from Kansas for more then 20 min while refusing to take calls from the Dems in his state…but we’re not.
and that is a sad commentary on the state of the TEAGop these days.

172 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:49:41pm

re: #170 Buck

We’re not just talking about that budget year, Buck. We’re talking about the deficit, which persists from year to year.

Obviously, cutting these jobs wouldn’t have any effect on that budget year, either.

173 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:53:04pm

re: #166 Bulworth

Right. They can continue to collectively bargain over wages but not health and retirement benefits. But this “limit” doesn’t extend to police and firefighters. I wonder why.

OK, please enlighten us… Why do you think it is? Walker says it is because of public safety reasons. Maybe you think it is because they endorsed him, and this is quid pro quo… well that is the left talking point, and it has already been shown to be not true.

Police and fire unions broke ranks on whether or not to support Walker. In fact a majority supported his opponent.

174 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:54:24pm

re: #165 Spocomptonite

What? Which “that” are you saying has already been proven otherwise?

a) Wisconsin already had budget problems, pre-Walker

b) Walker gave out tax breaks

c) those tax breaks greatly contributed to an already existing budget problem

B and C

175 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:57:08pm

re: #170 Buck

Can you show me where Walker cut taxes for the budget year we are discussing?

Don’t bother using a quote from Rachel Maddow.

Can you show me how removing collective bargaining rights from a group that has already accepted concessions helps the budget?

Seriously, there’s no point talking to you Buck, because you don’t engage with reality. I could have more fun arguing with my sandwich, and i’d likely learn more from the experience.

176 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 12:58:12pm

re: #169 dmon

Deducting money from the employees check to pay into their 401k plan also costs money…The average employee is likely putting several thousand into their 401k plan, therefor it is much more expensive (using your visa example). If the goal is simply to reduce costs, why is he not proposing to get rid of that deduction too? Or does it somehow cost less to program the payroll system to make one deduction than it does the other? If the answer is that the cost is the same, then the reason is simply political.

Not at all. The union is a different organization, and the state would like the right to pick and choose who they do it for. It is fine that you don’t think so, but it is not your decision alone, that is not how democracy work.

177 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:00:09pm

re: #175 Fozzie Bear

Can you show me how removing collective bargaining rights from a group that has already accepted concessions helps the budget?

Seriously, there’s no point talking to you Buck, because you don’t engage with reality. I could have more fun arguing with my sandwich, and i’d likely learn more from the experience.

Are collective bargaining rights being removed from the teachers? Are you as sure of your answer as you were the tax breaks one?

178 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:01:09pm

re: #177 Buck

Are collective bargaining rights being removed from the teachers? Are you as sure of your answer as you were the tax breaks one?

“This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining
over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index.”

[Link: legis.wisconsin.gov…]

It does not remove but it does noticeably limit them.

179 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:03:39pm

re: #177 Buck

Are collective bargaining rights being removed from the teachers? Are you as sure of your answer as you were the tax breaks one?

I never asserted that the tax breaks applied to this year’s budget. I’m not sure why you think I did.

It is absolutely undeniable, however, that cutting revenue while simultaneously claiming that there is a long term deficit problem is counterproductive.

180 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:05:24pm

re: #178 jamesfirecat

It does not remove but it does noticeably limit them.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. I also say there have been noticeable limits in the past, and there will be in the future.

Again, characterizing this bill as removing the right to collectively bargaining rights of teachers is an exaggeration at best. Will they be the same as before? No. However there was an election, and Walker won. You know how that works.

181 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:07:54pm

re: #179 Fozzie Bear

I never asserted that the tax breaks applied to this year’s budget. I’m not sure why you think I did.

It is absolutely undeniable, however, that cutting revenue while simultaneously claiming that there is a long term deficit problem is counterproductive.

Ya, you said:

Walker’s budget makes no sense from a priority standpoint. He just gave out huge tax breaks to greatly increase a problem that was already there,

He didn’t just give out huge tax breaks that increased the problem that was already there.

182 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:09:43pm

re: #180 Buck

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. I also say there have been noticeable limits in the past, and there will be in the future.

Again, characterizing this bill as removing the right to collectively bargaining rights of teachers is an exaggeration at best. Will they be the same as before? No. However there was an election, and Walker won. You know how that works.

It says that they can’t collectively bargain for anything but wages and wages can’t bargain for wages to go up more than the basic cost of living has gone up….


What does that leave them with the ability to effectively argue over collectively?

183 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:09:56pm

re: #181 Buck

A. I didn’t say that. You are quoting somebody else in your second quote.
B. He did, in fact, give a tax cut that does, in fact, increase the scale of the problem in the long term.

184 dmon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:15:15pm

re: #176 Buck

Not at all. The union is a different organization, and the state would like the right to pick and choose who they do it for. It is fine that you don’t think so, but it is not your decision alone, that is not how democracy work.

Now wait a minute…you said they didnt want to collect dues as a cost savings measure, i showed you where collecting unions dues is cheaper than collecting for a 401k plan….now you say they just want to be able to choose.

As I said, its strictly political.

185 Bulworth  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:15:30pm
Walker says it is because of public safety reasons.

But exempting cops and firefighters would certainly improve his lot with this group, would it not? The issue isn’t necessarily the union endorsement, it’s how cops and firefighters vote that matters.

Also, too, what does “public safety” have to do with bargaining rights? After all, the cops and firefighters wouldn’t be losing their right to collectively bargain at all. They could still collectively bargain over wages—just like teachers and other public sector workers. So why exclude them from this “shared sacrifice”?

186 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:16:22pm

re: #185 Bulworth

But exempting cops and firefighters would certainly improve his lot with this group, would it not? The issue isn’t necessarily the union endorsement, it’s how cops and firefighters vote that matters.

Also, too, what does “public safety” have to do with bargaining rights? After all, the cops and firefighters wouldn’t be losing their right to collectively bargain at all. They could still collectively bargain over wages—just like teachers and other public sector workers. So why exclude them from this “shared sacrifice”?

He was afraid to have them start protesting.

Which shows he’s an idiot because they started protesting anyway….

187 dmon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:17:58pm

BUck, why dont ya just come out and say you dont like unions and they shouldnt exist just because you dont like em? Because you are really getting torn up on here with logic. At least the I dont like em stance is honest

188 Bulworth  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:18:15pm

re: #186 jamesfirecat

He was afraid to have them start protesting.

Which shows he’s an idiot because they started protesting anyway…

His idiot status further enhanced when he stupidly took a call from someone he thought was one of his very rich, out of state agitator, donors.

189 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:19:19pm

re: #183 Fozzie Bear

A. I didn’t say that. You are quoting somebody else in your second quote.
B. He did, in fact, give a tax cut that does, in fact, increase the scale of the problem in the long term.

OK I see that now, was going back through the thread and got confused, I am sorry.

To answer your question, it has been shown that you can give a tax break, and actually see increased revenue. One theory is called the Laffer curve.

Basically raising taxes can slow down the economy, and cause a lower total tax income. Lowering rates, if they are too high, can stimulate the economy and cause revenues to be actually increased higher (from other sources) than what you lost from reducing.

You can disagree with it, but it has been shown to have merit.

190 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:20:05pm

re: #186 jamesfirecat

He was afraid to have them start protesting.

Which shows he’s an idiot because they started protesting anyway…

No, they did not stop or reduce service. They did support the teachers, but did not join the illegal strike.

191 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:20:07pm

re: #189 Buck

Curve. not line.

Curve.

192 dmon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:20:32pm

re: #189 Buck

Your right about the Laffer curve…..the problem is that we are at a point on laffer curve where a reduction in tax rate reduces income

193 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:20:35pm

re: #189 Buck

OK I see that now, was going back through the thread and got confused, I am sorry.

To answer your question, it has been shown that you can give a tax break, and actually see increased revenue. One theory is called the Laffer curve.

Basically raising taxes can slow down the economy, and cause a lower total tax income. Lowering rates, if they are too high, can stimulate the economy and cause revenues to be actually increased higher (from other sources) than what you lost from reducing.

You can disagree with it, but it has been shown to have merit.

It has merrit… but the problem is that America already has some of the lowest taxes its ever had.

Its the “Laffer CURVE” not the “Laffer Line” which says every tax cut will be rewarded with more revenue…

194 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:23:02pm

re: #184 dmon

Now wait a minute…you said they didnt want to collect dues as a cost savings measure, i showed you where collecting unions dues is cheaper than collecting for a 401k plan…now you say they just want to be able to choose.

As I said, its strictly political.

Nope… I said the union was a separate organization. There is no reason to spend any money bill collecting for them. There is a very good argument that people saving for their retirement is a benefit to the state.

195 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:26:08pm

re: #193 jamesfirecat

It has merrit… but the problem is that America already has some of the lowest taxes its ever had.

Its the “Laffer CURVE” not the “Laffer Line” which says every tax cut will be rewarded with more revenue…

Did I call it something other than the Laffer curve in my #189?

Clearly Walker thinks the rate is too high.

196 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:26:52pm

re: #195 Buck

Did I call it something other than the Laffer curve in my #189?

Clearly Walker thinks the rate is too high.

Yes, but history argues that he’s wrong.

197 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:27:58pm

re: #196 jamesfirecat

Yes, but history argues that he’s wrong.

Actually the history which was a recent election argues that he is right.

198 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:29:13pm

re: #197 Buck

Actually the history which was a recent election argues that he is right.

No.

That only shows that people were willing to vote Republican.

The history I’m talking about is how America Prospered under Clinton and Stagnated under Bush….

199 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:30:40pm

re: #192 dmon

Your right about the Laffer curve…the problem is that we are at a point on laffer curve where a reduction in tax rate reduces income

OK, where did you get your economics degree, and how do you know that exact point? Most people can’t calculate it exactly. Walker, for example, won an election recently saying that they are too high in his state, and were causing a slow down. His opponent would have loved to hear your perfect calculation.

200 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:31:12pm

Most economists place the peak of the Laffer curve somewhere around 60%-70% taxation rates. If you are going to invoke the Laffer curve, you should have some understanding that it would only imply revenue increases resulting from tax cuts if you are to the right of the curve, or at taxation rates above the peak.

We are nowhere near the peak of the curve in the US, as it is generally understood by economists.

201 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:31:34pm

re: #197 Buck

Actually the history which was a recent election argues that he is right.

Winning an election doesn’t make you an economist.

202 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:31:47pm

re: #199 Buck

OK, where did you get your economics degree, and how do you know that exact point? Most people can’t calculate it exactly. Walker, for example, won an election recently saying that they are too high in his state, and were causing a slow down. His opponent would have loved to hear your perfect calculation.

Buck, the fact that people say taxes are too high doesn’t make it so.

The fact that they voted for it doesn’t make it so.

Only the fact that if you can show us an increase in revenue after lowering taxes will make it so…

203 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:36:47pm

re: #189 Buck

OK I see that now, was going back through the thread and got confused, I am sorry.

To answer your question, it has been shown that you can give a tax break, and actually see increased revenue. One theory is called the Laffer curve.

Basically raising taxes can slow down the economy, and cause a lower total tax income. Lowering rates, if they are too high, can stimulate the economy and cause revenues to be actually increased higher (from other sources) than what you lost from reducing.

You can disagree with it, but it has been shown to have merit.

If you really were familiar with the Laffer Curve, you’d know it takes TIME to have an effect, on a scale perhaps longer than Walker could even be in office.

It’s dangerous to bank on long-term benefits like that when you are confronted with an immediate short-term problem, and downright stupid to propose that something as unrelated and financially insignificant as teachers et al be the stop-gap until you’re back in the black.

204 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:40:52pm

You guys are so smart. Well, it does not matter. It is not relevant to the issue at hand. You have your opinion, and you should just know that it is your opinion. The reality is that the opinion of the elected officials is what will count NEXT budget year when the tax breaks will take place.

Yes, they people who were elected are responsible for the budget, and tax rates for the state that elected them.

You are all so smart, and are so sure you know better.

1. Collective bargaining rights are NOT being removed from the teachers.
2. The HUGE tax break referred to are NOT causing the current budget shortfall, and it is only speculation that they will cause a budget shortfall in the future.

205 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:42:47pm

re: #204 Buck

You guys are so smart. Well, it does not matter. It is not relevant to the issue at hand. You have your opinion, and you should just know that it is your opinion. The reality is that the opinion of the elected officials is what will count NEXT budget year when the tax breaks will take place.

Yes, they people who were elected are responsible for the budget, and tax rates for the state that elected them.

You are all so smart, and are so sure you know better.

1. Collective bargaining rights are NOT being removed from the teachers.
2. The HUGE tax break referred to are NOT causing the current budget shortfall, and it is only speculation that they will cause a budget shortfall in the future.

Can you find a time for me when the Laffer curve has ever had the effect is was predicted to?

That lower taxes created more revenue?

206 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:49:23pm

re: #205 jamesfirecat

Can you find a time for me when the Laffer curve has ever had the effect is was predicted to?

That lower taxes created more revenue?

First of all it is the Laffer curve, not Laffer line…. Sheesh.

It is impossible to say with 100% accuracy, but many believe that reducing taxes can increase revenue. A paper that explains how it worked for more than 50 countries is here [Link: www.econlib.org…]

I remember specifically it being tried in Ireland. Can it be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Very few economic theories can.

207 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:51:03pm

re: #204 Buck

You guys are so smart. Well, it does not matter. It is not relevant to the issue at hand. You have your opinion, and you should just know that it is your opinion. The reality is that the opinion of the elected officials is what will count NEXT budget year when the tax breaks will take place.

Yes, they people who were elected are responsible for the budget, and tax rates for the state that elected them.

You are all so smart, and are so sure you know better.

1. Collective bargaining rights are NOT being removed from the teachers.
2. The HUGE tax break referred to are NOT causing the current budget shortfall, and it is only speculation that they will cause a budget shortfall in the future.

LOL

The tax cut was on corporate taxes. Corporations only pay taxes on profits (net), not gross. They aren’t going to get more profitable if they don’t get to keep as much profit.

If anything, increasing corporate tax rates (on profits) increases the incentive for corporations to invest, and to hire.

There’s a double edge to tax policy that wingnuts don’t like to discuss: Taxes on corporate profits increase incentives to hire and invest.

208 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:51:36pm

re: #206 Buck

First of all it is the Laffer curve, not Laffer line… Sheesh.

It is impossible to say with 100% accuracy, but many believe that reducing taxes can increase revenue. A paper that explains how it worked for more than 50 countries is here [Link: www.econlib.org…]

I remember specifically it being tried in Ireland. Can it be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Very few economic theories can.

Can you at least show me a reasonable correlation of when it worked?

You know like how Massive Government Spending in WW2 showed how Keynesian economics works by ending the great depression?

209 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:52:04pm

re: #203 Spocomptonite

If you really were familiar with the Laffer Curve, you’d know it takes TIME to have an effect, on a scale perhaps longer than Walker could even be in office.

It’s dangerous to bank on long-term benefits like that when you are confronted with an immediate short-term problem, and downright stupid to propose that something as unrelated and financially insignificant as teachers et al be the stop-gap until you’re back in the black.

I have read that the changes, specifically the teachers increasing the portion they pay towards benefits will save the state $30 million. I don’t think that is “unrelated and financially insignificant” at all.

210 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:53:32pm

re: #209 Buck

I have read that the changes, specifically the teachers increasing the portion they pay towards benefits will save the state $30 million. I don’t think that is “unrelated and financially insignificant” at all.

Teachers are willing to give that up in exchange for not loosing any collective bargaining rights.

Do you support that compromise?

211 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 1:56:03pm

re: #205 jamesfirecat

Can you find a time for me when the Laffer curve has ever had the effect is was predicted to?

That lower taxes created more revenue?

Y’know, I think some people forget Laffer’s curve is a Gaussian function and instead think it’s a reciprocal function. As taxes approach zero, revenue does not, in fact, approach infinity.

And Buck, since Laffer’s curve is an abstract concept instead of an actual, definable curve, did you ever think that maybe we are on the other side of the curve than you think we are, and thus cutting taxes will only drop revenues—permanently?

212 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:08:21pm

re: #210 jamesfirecat

Teachers are willing to give that up in exchange for not loosing any collective bargaining rights.

Do you support that compromise?

I have been a member of a union. I have been on strike as a public sector employee. Frankly the experience led me to believe that the unions hold to many of the cards, and the power is not equally divided. In the same way that there should be limits and controls over the employer, I think there should be limits and controls on the unions.

I have read the bill, completely.

In this case limiting the wages to be linked to inflation might be a good idea, and might even help the entire state. Would something like this have helped California 8 years ago? Maybe. Would it have helped GM?

However it just doesn’t matter what I think. I do not support extortion and fraud. I support democracy. I do not think the unions, or the 14 democrats are acting democratically.

213 Spocomptonite  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:22:59pm

re: #209 Buck

I have read that the changes, specifically the teachers increasing the portion they pay towards benefits will save the state $30 million. I don’t think that is “unrelated and financially insignificant” at all.

$30 million. Dude. What is the amount of the budget shortfall Walker is trying to close up? How many orders of magnitude difference is there?

214 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:30:05pm

re: #213 Spocomptonite

$30 million. Dude. What is the amount of the budget shortfall Walker is trying to close up? How many orders of magnitude difference is there?

$137 million is the current budget shortfall. The deficit is much more ($3 billion? Not sure.). Are you suggesting that the only attempt at reducing state expenses should be when it can be done all at once?

215 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:37:46pm

re: #214 Buck

$137 million is the current budget shortfall. The deficit is much more ($3 billion? Not sure.). Are you suggesting that the only attempt at reducing state expenses should be when it can be done all at once?

I think people are saying that:
A. if you can achieve cuts through negotiation, you should take the deal, rather than charging forward in your efforts to break up unions solely on misguided principle.
B. If there’s a deficit problem, you shouldn’t make it worse by cutting corporate taxes.

216 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:50:52pm

re: #215 Fozzie Bear

I think people are saying that:
A. if you can achieve cuts through negotiation, you should take the deal, rather than charging forward in your efforts to break up unions solely on misguided principle.
B. If there’s a deficit problem, you shouldn’t make it worse by cutting corporate taxes.

Well, it is your opinion on how this elected official should go forward with his job, AND if he is misguided.

It is also your opinion that the tax cuts will make it worse.

On that I find it funny that a very short time earlier #167 you made it seem like the formula for tax credits/cuts and revenue was simply addition and subtraction. Later in your #200 the math was a bit more complicated. But you are still very sure that it will make it worse.

You simplify the effect of lowering corporate taxes. Leaving out the medium term effect of possibly getting more corporations to move to WI, and possibly create jobs. Is it possible that a company might consider the corporate tax rate in making a decision to be in one state over the other? Of course.

217 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:54:39pm

re: #208 jamesfirecat

Can you at least show me a reasonable correlation of when it worked?

You know like how Massive Government Spending in WW2 showed how Keynesian economics works by ending the great depression?

I linked to a paper that I said showed how it might have worked for 50 countries. You again asked me for more from me less than 5 minutes later. I suspect you didn’t read the first link before asking me for more.

218 dmon  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:57:30pm

OK Buck you win. If the state cuts taxes, reduces all workers wages to 5 dollars an hour, brings in companies to pay the 5 dollars an hour…..aWisconsin willl flourish….. theyll be the next Mississippi

219 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 2:58:27pm

re: #218 dmon

OK Buck you win. If the state cuts taxes, reduces all workers wages to 5 dollars an hour, brings in companies to pay the 5 dollars an hour…aWisconsin willl flourish… theyll be the next Mississippi

Not at all what I was suggesting, or what anyone has suggested.

Only you.

220 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:09:00pm

re: #217 Buck

I linked to a paper that I said showed how it might have worked for 50 countries. You again asked me for more from me less than 5 minutes later. I suspect you didn’t read the first link before asking me for more.

I read it.

The one graph it had only showed Tax Rates against time without showing the amount of income taken in.

I was unimpressed.

221 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:10:02pm

re: #220 jamesfirecat

I read it.

The one graph it had only showed Tax Rates against time without showing the amount of income taken in.

I was unimpressed.

Well, maybe you need to read more than just the pictures….and take more time.

222 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:15:50pm

re: #221 Buck

Well, maybe you need to read more than just the pictures…and take more time.

Okay just read it again.

It came off as a blunt hammer.

There was no nuance to exactly how high taxes could go without adversely affecting the economy or how low they could go without causing massive government debt….

223 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:19:25pm

re: #222 jamesfirecat

Okay just read it again.

It came off as a blunt hammer.

There was no nuance to exactly how high taxes could go without adversely affecting the economy or how low they could go without causing massive government debt…

BUT BUT BUT you were not looking for EXACTLY.

I said “It is impossible to say with 100% accuracy, “

and you reduced to a reasonable correlation of when it worked.

Read it again, and concentrate where it talks about the 20 fastest growing economies.

224 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:23:11pm

re: #223 Buck

BUT BUT BUT you were not looking for EXACTLY.

I said “It is impossible to say with 100% accuracy, “

and you reduced to a reasonable correlation of when it worked.

Read it again, and concentrate where it talks about the 20 fastest growing economies.

It says that economies grow fast when you cut high taxes, sometimes.

But can you show a period when the cutting taxes has ever worked in the US?

225 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:27:01pm

Actually just so we don’t go back and forth on this forever Buck let me make it simple for you….


Why did the economy do so poorly after Bush’s tax cuts if we’re on the side of the Laffer Curve where tax cuts help make more revenue?

226 theheat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:27:49pm

If this is a complete and unedited recording, I hope it buries Walker and his cronies in their own shit, especially with the public.

It’s hard to survive when you’re buried in your own shit. But what a fitting end.

227 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:39:01pm

re: #225 jamesfirecat

Actually just so we don’t go back and forth on this forever Buck let me make it simple for you…

Why did the economy do so poorly after Bush’s tax cuts if we’re on the side of the Laffer Curve where tax cuts help make more revenue?

Well, many think that the economy was doing well in 2004-2006. The tax cuts were in 2001 and 2003. In 2006, in fact, the tax revenue was at the 2000 level.

I suspect you were very young in late 1999/ early 2000. There was a huge crash in the stock market, and the economy was going south. Some people felt that the USA was heading for a recession.

Of course what happened in 2006 that effected 2008 can be debated… but I believe it was the Democratic support for the unregulated Fannie mae/ Freddie Mac and the idea that everyone can afford to own a home.

228 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:41:52pm

re: #227 Buck

Well, many think that the economy was doing well in 2004-2006. The tax cuts were in 2001 and 2003. In 2006, in fact, the tax revenue was at the 2000 level.

I suspect you were very young in late 1999/ early 2000. There was a huge crash in the stock market, and the economy was going south. Some people felt that the USA was heading for a recession.

Of course what happened in 2006 that effected 2008 can be debated… but I believe it was the Democratic support for the unregulated Fannie mae/ Freddie Mac and the idea that everyone can afford to own a home.

You raise arguable points. However Buck at this point I’m tired and the thread has moved on.

Our arguments are only interesting when placed in the greater context of LGF so that I can see what other people think of your statements and my own.

Politics is too complicated a sport to play one on one.

Feel free to start posting on the living threads any time you wish.

229 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 5:31:38pm

re: #227 Buck

Of course what happened in 2006 that effected 2008 can be debated… but I believe it was the Democratic support for the unregulated Fannie mae/ Freddie Mac and the idea that everyone can afford to own a home.

LOL forever at the fact you’re:

a) Dumb enough to believe this
b) Dumb enough to believe that we’re dumb enough to believe it

Analysis: Fannie and Freddie Didn’t Cause the Financial Crisis

Indeed, Fannie and Freddie didn’t go nearly as far out on a limb as other lenders, and they hadn’t actually created derivative products themselves…“Quants” on the street — many of them former physicists or other math geniuses — were always finding complex new ways to repackage assets…The key was to take junk or crap…and disguise them well enough so that pension investors or insurance companies or others thought they were buying investment-grade stuff denominated in dollars.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent…One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

Pathological liar troll is pathological :)

230 Buck  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 8:43:51pm

re: #229 publicityStunted

Oh no you found links on the internet that disagrees with my opinion…

And calling me a liar for having a different opinion and stating it? Well that is just strange.

231 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 8:51:51pm

re: #230 Buck

Oh no you found links facts on the internet from reputable sources that disagrees with reveal my opinion pretty much amounts to a steaming pile of crap

Fixed :)

232 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:15:48pm

re: #231 publicityStunted

Fixed :)

Oh dear, the resident wingnut giving you heartburn again?

233 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 23, 2011 9:16:19pm

re: #225 jamesfirecat

Actually just so we don’t go back and forth on this forever Buck let me make it simple for you…

Why did the economy do so poorly after Bush’s tax cuts if we’re on the side of the Laffer Curve where tax cuts help make more revenue?

Too much math and logic for him there…

234 Stephen T.  Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:57:36pm

re: #55 BishopX

I don’t know if my state has recall, or not (I live in Maine). I do know that we currently have a governor that doesn’t represent 62% of our population. (He won a three way race with only 38%). I worry that his plans for our state may be the same as what Walker is doing to Wisconsin.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
4 hours ago
Views: 30 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
7 hours ago
Views: 85 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1