Yes. It is the solution. These union thugs have taken advantage of taxpayers too long. And the budget suffers every time. The people who pay the bills are sick of these jerks.

Is that why a clear majority in Wisconsin say that Scott is the one being the jerk?

We the taxpayer didn't ask the government to bail them out, the government went and did it on their own.

That's because "we" don't really own this country, and neither does the government. Follow the money, and you'll see where the real power and ownership lays.

Which is exactly what a representative government is supposed to do. Through our elections we empower our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, but not necessarily in agreement with one of our opinions.

"A Representative owes his people not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion" - Sir Edmund Burke

And they did it because the last time we got into this deep a financial mess the government did nothing at all. Inaction that has been blamed for making the Great Depression far worse than it had to be.

I dunno if I buy the theory that throwing money at the problem will fix the problem but I could easily see a lot of blame being cast if they had done nothing.

That's been the justification for all kinds of abuses of power.

Burke should have added a corollary that going against the peoples opinion had darn well better yield good results or the Representative was wrong for doing it.

That is one of the disadvantages of a Representative Government. :yep:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/...get/index.html

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10...pt=T1&iref=BN1

Evidently they were able to get a vote despite the dishonourable behaviour of the Democratic representatives. I understand why the Democrats did what they did, and I recognize that what they did was legal. However they should not have done it. Fleeing the state is not how a democratic government should work. :nope:

These sound like reasonable decisions to me.

I applaud the Governor for trying to solve the problem. This must have been a tough decision and will be an unpopular one with many people. It will probably cost him re-election if he is eligible. But being the governor means sometimes making the tough decisions.

I hope this works out.

That's a key point I think. It is reasonable. As we move into the post event phase of endless critique and examination that fact is going to undercut the unions argument at every turn.

http://www.wisdems.org/news/press/vi...duffy-to-toast

And if you didn't know..

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/bet...assembly-vote-

Why do the "little people" support this, again?

EDIT: I know some of you will attack the messenger, but if Wisconsin's public utilities are sold for a fraction of their worth to the Koch brothers, what will you say than?

It just seems stunning that the entire party apparatus of the GOP except for one or two guys mobilized to:

A) make TWO already fabulously wealthy men even richer at the expense of

B) THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of others who

C) VOTED CONSERVATIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE

Bill Maher mentioned that since 1980, 85% of all new wealth in the United States went to the top 1% But if we try even spread a LITTLE bit of it around, it's "OH NOES, SOCIALISM!!!"

sigh

Well now Scott Walker will be able to give the rich/big business their tax cuts. Those silly teachers with their fancy health and dental plans who do they think they are?

This ^

It's an incestuous relationship the American taxpayer can no longer afford to fund.

Unions belong in the private sector only.

you're kidding? The same can be said of corporations who pay off politicians for favorable laws, or pet projects that always seem to go over budget, and never really deliver.

its funny how the world goes both ways

.

The corporate donor is not an employee. A public sector union has access and interaction with their politician employers that even corporate donors do not enjoy.

You sure you want to go there? "Union" and "Over Budget" are about as synonymous as it gets.

Unions do not belong in the public sector. End of story.

so you feel bad about unions having more access? A union is an interest group, like AARP or NRA, it serves to better its members. A company is out for its own interest, out to make money. Unions Should have more access than than a company for just this reason, they are an association of citizens, not a business.

also, I can even turn that around...because a corporate donor is the same thing as an employee when the government is paying their contract. why do you think companies give money to senators in the first place? so the government trows them nice juicy contracts probably when they shouldn't.

maybe in your mind. I bet you ignored all the cost plus contracts in Iraq, and all the buildings we built...but didn't actually build, or the Commanchie, the JSF, etc etc...

this is just one of those reactionary things whenever republicans get into office...they spin some yard that unions are ruining this country and go on a crusade to get rid of them. Why are they doing this? well duh, their buddies in the private sector want a piece of the Pie. But luckily for them politicians love to overpay private sector than they do public.

Thank you for proving my point Gimpy. A government official that gets caught unethically pandering to a company looses his seat and the company looses it's contract. Where are the ethics violations when it comes to pandering to public sector unions?

Also a private company that is hired by the government has competition to get and keep that contract. Public sector unions with mandatory membership have eliminated their competition and are scared to death they might not bet to keep their monopoly. That's why they oppose annual re-certification and voluntary union dues.

Bottom line is the unions are going to loose this battle. Fiscal realities cannot be ignored or shouted down, and the longer the Democrats continue to ignore it the worse it's going to hurt them next year.

I predict the Dems will abandon unions much the same way the GoP abandoned the religious right.

what about paying off the government don't you get? Look at the TARP bill for instance. Those companies didn't deserve a bailout for their crooked business...but they got it. Why? because congress was in their pocket. Again look at iraq. we were "unethically pandering" the whole time there did anyone lose their seat? no. even after countless millions were wasted.

Nice try but Iraq has nothing to do with public sector unions, TARP, or the price of tea in China. You are just casting randomly about hoping to muddy up the waters sufficiently that attention will be directed away from the excesses of public sector unions, but it just ain't gonna work.

What do you have against keeping public sector worker wage increases limited to cost of living unless approved by the voters?

What do you have against letting public sector workers decide whether they want a union to represent them?

Why do you support punishing a cash strapped town for using private plow trucks to take up the slack for the unions inability to get the job done in an emergency?