Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, you will have some lunatics out there sigining multiple times and yes, you will have some smartasses sigining fake names in order to make a mockery out of the process - but you must understand that it is statistically impossible that you would have hundreds of thousands of cases of fraudulent behavior.
Face it. There are one million Wisconsinites who disapprove of Walker so much that they took time out of their day to sign a petition against him. Why is that so hard to believe?
Nothing "convenient" about what I said, and nothing evil intended, so put your paranoia away. Disenfranchisement is totally different from anything to do with collective bargaining, expanding or limiting. If the public unions had had their ability to vote taken away that would have been disenfranchisement. They can still vote, as witness the effort to recall Gov Walker.
Assuming your information about the unions agreeing to the concessions is correct, then are they now going back on their word in agreeing to the concessions? Will they keep paying the percentages of retirement and helth expenses they agreed to? Couldn't they simply have worked to roll back the sections of the law they did not agree with?
No, this about to the unholy alliance they had previously. You know, wink, wink. "We get you elected, you agree to sweet contracts and outsized benefits."
Quote:
Originally Posted by south-to-west
You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the public employee unions agreed to these concessions before Walker decided to limit their collective bargaining rights. Limiting their collective bargaining rights had nothing to do with balancing the budget and everything to do with disenfranchising a block of voters who mostly vote Democrat.
If you look back at my post, then you will see that I was responding to stateisota's post, in which he said in part..."despite what right wing propaganda tells you, and our state is losing jobs." To which I responded...unemployment is not a right or left wing propaganda, or some such.
You are absolutely correct. I was off on the figure I picked up from a news article. The preliminary figure for Dec is 7.3%, which is some 15% below the national average of 8.5%. Relatively speaking, Wisconsin is doing good, heading in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
No sure what point you're trying to make, but for the record the Wisconsin unemployment rate was over 7% in December.
Yes, you will have some lunatics out there sigining multiple times and yes, you will have some smartasses sigining fake names in order to make a mockery out of the process - but you must understand that it is statistically impossible that you would have hundreds of thousands of cases of fraudulent behavior.
Face it. There are one million Wisconsinites who disapprove of Walker so much that they took time out of their day to sign a petition against him. Why is that so hard to believe?
We will see when the final count comes out, and no I really don't think there 1 million people who physically live in WI, that signed that petition. Just like, all those protester that were bused in from outta state "that were from WI."
If you look back at my post, then you will see that I was responding to stateisota's post, in which he said in part..."despite what right wing propaganda tells you, and our state is losing jobs." To which I responded...unemployment is not a right or left wing propaganda, or some such.
You are absolutely correct. I was off on the figure I picked up from a news article. The preliminary figure for Dec is 7.3%, which is some 15% below the national average of 8.5%. Relatively speaking, Wisconsin is doing good, heading in the right direction.
Technically, only 1.2% better, your 15% is fuzzy BS math.
Funny, the report I read, said they shed several thousand jobs in December, a month where retail jobs increase, so I question if Wisconsin is doing as well as you claim.
I am embarrassed for you to have to do this in front of everyone, but you set yourself up, so here goes: basic percentage lesson; 7.3/8.5=85.88%, or a 14% difference. I was off a digit earlier, because I did the calcualtion quickly in my head. Subtracting one number from the other does not yield the percentage gain or loss. Your error is not fuzzy math, it is incorrect percentage difference calculation.
Next, the 7.3% is A DECREASE FROM NOVEMBER, .4 DECREASE FROM NOVEMBER . Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. I'm using BLS which is what the link is too. I'm not claiming, I'm citing. There is a difference. Please present your sources. I am more than happy to acknowledge any factual or math errors on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Technically, only 1.2% better, your 15% is fuzzy BS math.
Funny, the report I read, said they shed several thousand jobs in December, a month where retail jobs increase, so I question if Wisconsin is doing as well as you claim.
Nothing "convenient" about what I said, and nothing evil intended, so put your paranoia away. Disenfranchisement is totally different from anything to do with collective bargaining, expanding or limiting. If the public unions had had their ability to vote taken away that would have been disenfranchisement. They can still vote, as witness the effort to recall Gov Walker.
Assuming your information about the unions agreeing to the concessions is correct, then are they now going back on their word in agreeing to the concessions? Will they keep paying the percentages of retirement and helth expenses they agreed to? Couldn't they simply have worked to roll back the sections of the law they did not agree with?
No, this about to the unholy alliance they had previously. You know, wink, wink. "We get you elected, you agree to sweet contracts and outsized benefits."
They tried to negotiate with Walker, but if you remember the prank phone call from the fake Koch brother, he admitted that he wasn't interested in negotiating.
And yes, the point of stripping away their batgaining rights was all about disenfranchisement by weakening the very organizations that lobby on their behalf and support candidates who would represent their interests.
Don't know about the prank call, but if you say so. By representing one group's interest, the tax payers' interest, as a whole are not represented. A progressive in talking about some legislation that favored a corporation would call them a special interest. I see no difference between this and public unions, as in this context, both are special interests.
Sort of the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by south-to-west
They tried to negotiate with Walker, but if you remember the prank phone call from the fake Koch brother, he admitted that he wasn't interested in negotiating.
And yes, the point of stripping away their batgaining rights was all about disenfranchisement by weakening the very organizations that lobby on their behalf and support candidates who would represent their interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
