Could this happen in California? (Montclair: foreclosures, insurance, credit rating)

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Except in California, hmm! Guess that means it's so expensive to live there and the economies so bad that the people can't afford to keep their cable service, huh?

True, California is an outlier like a few other states. I think California will go down the path of Illinois and start jacking up taxes and fees on the tax payers. Brown will not touch the unions or public workers and just stick it to the citizens until the state actually defaults. Then he won't know what to do because he is an idiot and the federal government won't be able to help at that point. At some point in the process the lifelong democrats will finally come to their senses and turn on the liberal California government because even liberal tax payers can only take so much. The problem is it will be too late and California will be in a deep depression.
I will be long gone by then and living on a lake in Tennessee.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

So here I am citing the Huffington Post. Pigs are flying overhead at this time This is an old article but it delivers the point: Fox News Claims 9 Of Top 10 Cable News Programs In Q1 Now, the article does say "Fox News Claims", but they don't dispute it.

Here is yesterday from a different "non Fox" source: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...-24-2011/83797

That being established, there is a somewhat logical reason for this besides concluding that America is overwhelmingly conservative. If you are a liberal you have numerous viewing options. You could therefore expect liberal slanted news to receive less viewers. There is more competition for the liberal viewers. If you are a conservative, who else are you going to watch? That said, I did read somewhere that they also have a lot of independent viewers.

[EDIT] Since I'm dancing with the devil (citing Huffington Post), here is yet another Huffington Post article: Cable News Ratings: Top 30 Programs In Q1 2010 (PHOTOS) . They kinda sorta don't like Fox, so it should mean something when even they concede Fox dominates cable news by a good margin. As I said above though, there is a reason to explain this.

Liberals also claim that the media is bias so this doesn't prove anything nor explain anything.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

And how is this discussion about unions and Wisconsin's possible impact on California???

That question makes no sense.

[nullgeo]

If anyone reading this is truly interested in the core issues, --
PBS MacNeil / Lehrer tonight aired a commentary segment with Shields and Brooks in which David Brooks -- the more conservative voice -- expressed his disapproval of Governor Walker's timing and agenda in the controversy over unions ... I don't often cite PBS in my forum postings, though it is my preferred news source ... but in view of earlier comments in this thread, allow me to include this from Public Broadcasting -- and note the conservative view position in the exchange.

In the exchange, an interesting statistic came out, that was agreed upon:
MARK SHIELDS: There are nine states where there's no collective bargaining at all, none. They have a higher indebtedness than the states who have collective bargaining, OK?
DAVID BROOKS: Right. That's right.
MARK SHIELDS: OK? So, it isn't the collective bargaining, it isn't the unions who forced us...

Shields, Brooks on Collective Bargaining's Future, Shutdown Chances, Libya | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 25, 2011 | PBS


Also significant, this from Forbes.com (credible and unbiased enough for you all?) ... more evidence of the political motivations, rather than budgetary motivations, behind the Wisc. controversy.
The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

"... While the governor of Wisconsin is busy trying to shift the blame to the workers in an effort to put an end to collective bargaining, the reality is that it was the state who punted on this – not the employees.
Further, by the state employee unions agreeing to the deal proposed by Walker on their benefits (as they have despite Walker’s refusal to accept it) they are taking on much - and possibly all – of the obligation out of their own pockets.
As a result, the taxpayers do not contribute to the public employee pension programs so much as serve as insurers. If their elected officials have been sloppy , the taxpayers must stand behind it. But if the market continues to perform as it has been performing this past year, don’t be surprised if the funding crisis begins to recede. If it does, what will you say then?"


For the umpteenth time: the public union burdens on budgets are out of bounds in many states, and very much so in California ... they need to be reassessed and adjusted ... that problem, however, is NOT the same issue as any need for "union busting".

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Don9

True, California is an outlier like a few other states. I think California will go down the path of Illinois and start jacking up taxes and fees on the tax payers. Brown will not touch the unions or public workers and just stick it to the citizens until the state actually defaults. Then he won't know what to do because he is an idiot and the federal government won't be able to help at that point. At some point in the process the lifelong democrats will finally come to their senses and turn on the liberal California government because even liberal tax payers can only take so much. The problem is it will be too late and California will be in a deep depression.
I will be long gone by then and living on a lake in Tennessee.

What???

If Ca. goes into "deep depression" as you say, you honestly think it will be a California only problem? Think about California's economy for a moment and ask yourself if you can really escape it by moving to BFE.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

If anyone reading this is truly interested in the core issues, --

You're still not dealing with the "core issues".

Also, tax payers contribute 100% to public workers pay and benefits. Whether the contribution "comes out" of their pay check or is given on top of their pay check makes no difference, its tax payer money in either case. Hence the title to the second article is ridiculous...

[CarawayDJ]

I had forgotten until I heard it today, that the federal government has done what WI is trying to do since 1978. Here is a snippet from a WSJ article:

For this enormous flexibility in managing his work force, Mr. Obama can thank his own party. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

The article is here: Strassel: Union Power for Thee, But Not for Me - WSJ.com

So this does make people like me curious. The federal government does much of what WI is trying to do. It's OK for the feds, but not for the states? Where is all the outrage over the federal restrictions? What exactly is different? Why would federal employee unions be severely restricted from collective bargaining? I'm not talking about strikes; something that could wreak havoc. I'm talking about the ability to even bargain over wages? Not even WI is going that far.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

The article is here: Strassel: Union Power for Thee, But Not for Me - WSJ.com

For paid subscribers...

[williamj67]

This is an article that my cousin e-mailed me, I can't verify how true it is but it is interesting.

12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin | AlterNet

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

You're still not dealing with the "core issues".

You're still not dealing with a full deck, slick
I am dealing with the issues ... you are dealing with a personality disorder ... and the more you post the more obvious it is to everyone reading that you have no interest in issues or discussions -- only in being argumentative for its own sake ... I am hardly the only person making such observation. You have chalked this up to "anti-intellectualism" in past posts ... No, sir, it's anti-pseudo-intellectualism. You are no intellectual ... just another Wikipedia addict without the common sense or experience to apply knowledge to real life.

Originally Posted by user_id

Also, tax payers contribute 100% to public workers pay and benefits. Whether the contribution "comes out" of their pay check or is given on top of their pay check makes no difference, its tax payer money in either case. Hence the title to the second article is ridiculous...

Well, I am sure that Forbes will be humbled by your observation ... perhaps they'll post a retraction and apology and name you new editor-in-chief.

Except we all know (including you) the meaning of the article title. (Are you aware that headline writing has a very specific role and execution in journalism ... that virtually all newspapers and journalistic magazines have specially convened sessions attended by specific individuals to review, suggest, and create their headlines? And how do I know? Part of my professional experience. Headlining is a specialty function in which many in the business take particularly great pleasure ... but you know better how to communicate ideas to all of us, no doubt!) Further, you don't address the content of the article itself ... yet another indication of your personality compulsion to find opportunities to create your own reality where you have none.