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.
Gov. Walker may alienate a lot of people in Wisconsin, while endangering his U. S. presidential run. This is because Republicans, like Walker, absolutely demand that people believe it's true that taxes must be cut, and he did so for Wisconsin, because it works as a highly effective means to force tax revenues to skyrocket. But doing that didn't work in Kansas. It didn't work in Oklahoma. Now it's not working in Wisconsin. Will adopting Right to Work rush in and force tax revenues to skyrocket in Wisconsin as Right to Work hucksters hope? I doubt it.
Republicans quite passionately stand for wanting to make government smaller. So why should Republicans be unhappy if cutting taxes or Right to Work fail to make state tax revenues go up? With lower tax revenues to work with, Republicans are in an excellent position to do what they want to make happen, which is to make government smaller. But a lot of people in Wisconsin may disagree with making state government smaller.
Walker believes the blue collar workers in Wisconsin are getting paid too well. With this legislation workers in Wisconsin can expect Alabama and Mississippi-level benefits and wages. Walker believes if this passes Wisconsin can be as successful and prosperous as those two red states..
Gov. Walker may alienate a lot of people in Wisconsin, while endangering his U. S. presidential run. This is because Republicans, like Walker, absolutely demand that people believe it's true that taxes must be cut, and he did so for Wisconsin, because it works as a highly effective means to force tax revenues to skyrocket. But doing that didn't work in Kansas. It didn't work in Oklahoma. Now it's not working in Wisconsin. Will adopting Right to Work rush in and force tax revenues to skyrocket in Wisconsin as Right to Work hucksters hope? I doubt it.
Republicans quite passionately stand for wanting to make government smaller. So why should Republicans be unhappy if cutting taxes or Right to Work fail to make state tax revenues go up? With lower tax revenues to work with, Republicans are in an excellent position to do what they want to make happen, which is to make government smaller. But a lot of people in Wisconsin may disagree with making state government smaller.
You flail around like a little baby, talking about how bad walker is, yet your own article state that this year the started with a surplus:
Quote:
The state began this year with a positive general fund balance of $516.9 million
And before you go flailing again, your own article states that the prior budgets were also projecting a deficit....if all that is true how did walker start off this year with a surplus?
ie. "I still have no comeback at all, so now I'm just going to be obtuse.
BTW, incompetent people remain at non-union employers all the time.
Show me the question, I'm not going back through this thread to find one question you say I did not answer...
Or as you say, translation, I had a question for someone else, I going to say it was for you, but you are going to have to go find that particular question in this thread of 500 postings...
Be a man, step up and lets see the EXACT question you want me to answer...if you can...
BTW, dope smoker (who were caught) still work at a union...
Show me the question, I'm not going back through this thread to find one question you say I did not answer...
Or as you say, translation, I had a question for someone else, I going to say it was for you, but you are going to have to go find that particular question in this thread of 500 postings...
Be a man, step up and lets see the EXACT question you want me to answer...if you can...
BTW, dope smoker (who were caught) still work at a union...
I'm talking about your limp wristed response in post #482.
There are no dope smokers or others who are still working at non-union shops?
I'm talking about your limp wristed response in post #482.
There are no dope smokers or others who are still working at non-union shops?
No there are no dope smokers who were caught in non-union shops, they were fired, and that's the point, there ARE dope smokers in UNION shops, that WERE caught...
Great, now that we established that, what question are you talking about? There was not question in post 480 (your post), and now that you were called out on it, trying to flex your preverbal internet chest by saying there was a question for me and calling me obtuse and stuff, we find out your lied...
Here is post 480, in which I responded to in post 482:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
That's usually the conservative answer though, to similar situations: "Move somewhere where there are better jobs," or "Get some skills!"
Unions only represent about 10% of the total workforce, so the idea that someone can't find a job without being "forced" to join a union is pretty laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I'm not arguing that....you partner is....so you agree that no skills, it's better to be in a union so you don't/cannot get fired...
And your second sentence, what's your point?
So where is the question in post 480? I'll wait...
"Unions only represent about 10% of the total workforce, so the idea that someone can't find a job without being "forced" to join a union is pretty laughable."
You responded with:
"And your second sentence, what's your point?"
Your comebacks haven't gotten any better since then, so I guess you agree that no one has actually been "forced" to join a union ever in the United States.
The boss at my unionized place wasn't afraid to call employees together to make it clear that coming to work drunk would mean you'd be automatically fired. No hint of a problem like that afterwards.
The other party required to sign a union labor contract is the company. It should know better than to sign a contract where drunks are allowed on the job without getting fired.
Your boss is not the union rep. The boss can threaten, and even go so far as "fire" someone. But the union will step in and do what they want.
"Unions only represent about 10% of the total workforce, so the idea that someone can't find a job without being "forced" to join a union is pretty laughable."
You responded with:
"And your second sentence, what's your point?"
Your comebacks haven't gotten any better since then, so I guess you agree that no one has actually been "forced" to join a union ever in the United States.
You very clearly stated I did not answer your post:
I answered your post and you don't like it...to bad...See bold before These are quotes 494 and 505 Your quotes MM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
Oh yeah, because stuff like that NEVER happens anywhere else that doesn't happen to have a union, right?
BTW, your failure to answer my earlier post, and instead deflect, is pretty telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
ie. "I still have no comeback at all, so now I'm just going to be obtuse.
BTW, incompetent people remain at non-union employers all the time.
When you can keep up with your own lies, get back with. ^^ This is the quote you provided when I asked you what question...
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.
