Kill Scott Walker?

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:26 pm

Aestu wrote:

Eturnalshift wrote:

If they can't be bothered to follow whatever steps necessary to vote (or drive, or own a company, or buy a house, or take a shower, or to prepare a meal) then they just don't do any of those things. If voting to keep your government subsidized benefits matters to the poor, you'd think they'd have a bit of motivation to get off their asses and do what's needed to ensure they keep their lifeline. Not my problem if they don't. (Sounds like you're saying the 'working poor' and 'democrats' are lazy. I knew it!)

To get a driver's license or state ID, it is necessary to have two of the following:
-Social security card
-Birth certificate
-Proof of permanent address
-Other form of government proof of residency

In practice, for many people, especially those from marginal backgrounds, this is actually extraordinarily difficult. Particularly since, in order to get any of those things, you have to have a driver's license or state ID. Catch-22.

Eturnalshift wrote:

Both Walker and Barrett had funding from outside the state... it's just Walker had more of it. Since it's an issue for some, if you look at that Piechart on the first page and remove out of state donations, Walker would've raised $10m to Barrett's $3M, which is over 3X the money. Barrett was going to lose the money war anyways, with or without out of state funding. And for the "as long as you're rich" comment - A large majority of the out of state donations that Walker received were small sums of $50 or less. Super rich!

You did not answer my question. Have you ever donated to another state campaign? When and why?

And do you have proof of the italicized portion? If so, link it.

Eturnalshift wrote:

Obama doesn't have problems raising money... but this last month, Romney was able to beat Obama.

At what? A poll? Or what are you talking about?

Eturnalshift wrote:

I guess it's only reason for concern when your political affiliations are slipping in the money grab.

If we assume that the GOP is having more success with fundraising - where do you think the money is coming from, and what does that say about their agenda?

1) I have donated to PAC/Super PACs before. Why? Because the people who I politically disagree with are doing it. If one side bankrolled PACs then there would only be one side. Fortunately, both sides can play that game... so I play.

2) I've got the proof in a spreadsheet. I'll play with it tomorrow when I have a bit more time. I'll even make a pretty graph if you want...

3) Obama doesn't have problems raising money... but this last month, Romney was able to beat Obama. (If you haven't figured it out, Romney beat Obama for the month of May in terms of raising cash.)

4) Money comes from businesses and individuals (Edit: Federal Government, too, if the candidate opts for it). It's always been that way? As far as agenda, I imagine it's very similar to that of the candidate they're supporting, or that the candidate they're supporting will somehow benefit the individual or company. This is nothing new. A person who advocates the right for gays to get married will donate to the candidate that shares a similar view. A union will donate to the candidate that is supportive of unions. A company will donate to the candidate which is, most likely, to help the company by creating a better environment for business (by maybe reducing regulation?)...

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:41 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

1) I have donated to PAC/Super PACs before. Why? Because the people who I politically disagree with are doing it. If one side bankrolled PACs then there would only be one side. Fortunately, both sides can play that game... so I play.

Then you no longer count as a "small donor" (because the donation to any candidate would come from the PAC) and your point is moot.

Eturnalshift wrote:

2) I've got the proof in a spreadsheet. I'll play with it tomorrow when I have a bit more time. I'll even make a pretty graph if you want...

Uh huh. Where's that data from? Or is this going to be some lame attempt at satire?

Eturnalshift wrote:

3) Obama doesn't have problems raising money... but this last month, Romney was able to beat Obama. (If you haven't figured it out, Romney beat Obama for the month of May in terms of raising cash.)

1. Why?
2. So what?

Eturnalshift wrote:

4) Money comes from businesses and individuals (Edit: Federal Government, too, if the candidate opts for it). It's always been that way? As far as agenda, I imagine it's very similar to that of the candidate they're supporting, or that the candidate they're supporting will somehow benefit the individual or company. This is nothing new. A person who advocates the right for gays to get married will donate to the candidate that shares a similar view. A union will donate to the candidate that is supportive of unions. A company will donate to the candidate which is, most likely, to help the company by creating a better environment for business (by maybe reducing regulation?)...

I see. And do you think that business is interested in the good of the country, or only their own self-interest?

Consider that China is what the corps consider a "better environment for business" (and fwiw, China has FAR more regulation than the US) because the Chinese government allows corps to abuse their people, destroy their environment, and steal land and property.

If that's what the corps consider a business-friendly environment, why would we want that for this country?

Throwing it at you from a different angle, how does the National Guard and education subsidies thereof benefit the corps? If they could get more tax savings and access to cheap labor by axing it, why wouldn't they? And where would you be?

Weena · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:45 pm

Seriously though, what part of the Act 10 reforms were anything other than modest?

Also, why do we let public sector employees to unionize?

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:54 pm

Quote:

Um, Aestu said some stuff here.

1) k
2) Um, it's from http://cfis.wi.gov/Public/ViewConduitContributions.aspx
3) The Why/So What... well, because Mayo was concerned about Romney getting money from super rich people but I just wanted to show him that Obama is plenty capable of raising his own money so it shouldn't be that much of a concern.
4) Less Regulation != No Regulation... but, if China has more regulation but let's companies beat their workers, then less regulation means the workers must be treated better... so, join me in advocating for less regulation, won't you?

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:06 pm

Weena wrote:

Seriously though, what part of the Act 10 reforms were anything other than modest?

Hmm. Have you read it?

Quote:

Governor: Provide $165,000,000 of general obligation refunding bonding for the purpose of restructuring $165,000,000 in outstanding principal on GPR-supported, general obligation debt that would otherwise be paid off in May, 2011. The bill would authorize this bonding by increasing a current refunding authorization from $309,000,000 to $474,000,000 (an increase of $165,000,000) of state public debt that may be issued to refund any unpaid indebtedness relating to tax-supported or self-amortizing facilities.

So he's increasing the public debt to balance the budget in the short run.
Smart long-term policy or short term politics? You tell me.

Quote:

(b) limiting switching from private health insurance to MA programs

(b) authorize providers to deny care or services if a program benefit recipient is
unable to share costs, to the extent allowed by federal law or waiver

More changes for the HMOs to gouge the poor and deny medical care to children and the seriously ill is always a good thing.

(and no private healthcare is not more efficient - it is far less efficient. it provides worse care, for far greater cost. if you want to believe otherwise you are willfully ignorant)

Quote:

Permit DHS to promulgate any rule under this provision as an emergency rule, using the
procedures for emergency rules established in Chapter 227

"Emergency rule" means circumventing the state and federal Constitution. It's a direct challenge to democracy, and such rules are invariably and without exception used by dictatorships.

Is that what you want?

Quote:

In order to address the total deficit ($30,082,600), the budget adjustment bill would
provide increased funding of $19.5 million and transfer $10.5 million from other appropriations
with identified surpluses. The table below identifies the appropriation changes as a result of the
bill.

2010-11
Adult General Program Operations $27,944,200
Services for Community Corrections 2,138,400
Energy Costs -5,362,500
Contract Bed Funding -2,825,300
Pharmacological Treatment for Child Sex Offenders -10,700
Earned Release Review Commission -100,200
Serious Juvenile Offender Program -2,209,400
Juvenile General Program Operations -36,600
Total Change to Base Funding $19,537,900

TLDR: Increase govt debt and throw kids behind bars (and put pedos on the streets), instead of trying to fix social problems.

Where do you think this will lead in 20 years, when reformable kids instead become hardened criminals with no recourse in life?

Mad Max may be a cool movie, but I wouldn't want to live in that world. Would you?

Quote:

Governor: Allow the Department of Administration (DOA) to sell any state-owned
heating, cooling, or power plant or contract with private entities for the operation of any such
plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount the Department determines to be in the
best interest of the state.

LOL

If that's not corruption then I don't know what is. So this bill says, Walker can just GIVE AWAY stuff to the corps, for whatever price he thinks is okay (Nuclear power plant for $1? Sure why not?) so they can profit. Not even an auction, not even fair market value; he can just give shit away.

And why do you think the corps are pouring money into his campaign? It couldn't possibly be because he's going to give them BILLIONS of dollars in assets for basically nothing, could it?

The real irony here is that you, Weena/Eturnal, think that by supporting this guy you're taking a stand against regulation defeating the free market and propping up businesses that aren't viable, when the very bill you support does just that.

So why do you support it? Why do you think it's good?
Why don't you believe you're being manipulated? Answer me.

Weena wrote:

Also, why do we let public sector employees to unionize?

Let me turn that around for you.

Why should corps be allowed to bargain collectively, but individuals should not?

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:08 pm

So let me ask you Weena. Why are you unequivocally in support of a bill that you haven't read and provably does the exact opposite of what you think it will do?

When those power plants your taxes (or, to be more accurate, your parents' taxes) paid for are sold off for basically nothing and then you're gouged for power because of this bill - do you think that's "fair" or good policy? Is that the "free market working as it should"? Or are you supporting a bill that makes an unfair system even more unfair and helps no one but the rich who will gouge you for power?

What put the idea in your head to support it? Isn't it possible you're being manipulated?

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:14 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

3) The Why/So What... well, because Mayo was concerned about Romney getting money from super rich people but I just wanted to show him that Obama is plenty capable of raising his own money so it shouldn't be that much of a concern.

Only if you want the rich and few to run this country and not the poor and many.
Is that what you want?

And you are the latter even if you refuse to recognize it. If the government did not give you a handout yesterday, you would be living on government handouts today.

Eturnalshift wrote:

4) Less Regulation != No Regulation... but, if China has more regulation but let's companies beat their workers, then less regulation means the workers must be treated better... so, join me in advocating for less regulation, won't you?

Chinese regulation is very onerous. It requires that, amongst other things, corporations that do business in China must be at least 51% Chinese-owned (e.g., Blizzard-Activision sells C-WoW via a Chinese-owned contractor for this reason), that they build backdoors into everything for the secret police, and that they buy and sell through state-owned firms.

None of this, however, prevents the corps from passing bad debt or mucking up rivers or abusing workers or stealing property from citizens who can't defend themselves or poisoning their children with lead, mercury, and dioxin or out-and-out refusing to pay them. Which is where the real money is.

The point is that businesses don't have a problem with "regulation" except when it prevents them from profiting at the expense of stupid voters like you.

Weena · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:23 pm

I wasn't.

Poor wording, but it was more of an honest question than a rhetorical one.

The question about public unions was more rhetorical, and ironically sounds more honest.

I read parts of the long version. Forgot about the summary version. But even there it has parts that I can't figure out.

Quote:

Governor: Provide $165,000,000 of general obligation refunding bonding for the purpose of restructuring $165,000,000 in outstanding principal on GPR-supported, general obligation debt that would otherwise be paid off in May, 2011. The bill would authorize this bonding by increasing a current refunding authorization from $309,000,000 to $474,000,000 (an increase of $165,000,000) of state public debt that may be issued to refund any unpaid indebtedness relating to tax-supported or self-amortizing facilities.

If you have a more lay-man way of explaining this, for example.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:30 pm

It's pretty simple - works just like in Sim City 2000.

These bonds would be paid off this year. Instead Walker wants to issue more bonds for one-time cash so he can claim the state didn't run a deficit.

Weena · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:46 pm

Whenever I played SimCity, I just loaded up a map with a large city on it and cause as many disasters as possible.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:47 pm

Weena wrote:

Whenever I played SimCity, I just loaded up a map with a large city on it and cause as many disasters as possible.

Sounds like Scott Walker.

Zing!

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:49 pm

Whenever I played Sim City, I tried to create a utopian ant farm.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:53 pm

Aestu wrote:

Whenever I played Sim City, I tried to create a utopian ant farm.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:55 pm

I bought a copy (and of SimFarm) the other day from a secondhand store for $1 ea.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:56 pm

I did last year too, $1.00 for SimAnt which I enjoyed at a friends house when I was a kid. I was ecstatic until the CD "could not be read" on my computer.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Kill Scott Walker?

Who is online