Mike, why does he have to compromise? He was put into office and has the majority in the state senate. That IS the will of the people. Yes or no? He is doing nothing that is considered unconstitutional is he?
When O'Bama had the majority in Congress did he compromise on every last detail? NO. Guys, these politicians are sharks, both Democrat and Republicans. Many of them are real SOB's behind closed doors. I have no sympathy for any of them.
Steve...Imagine if they would of went along with the rest of the sheep?? The Lies, Injustice and Distrust of the corrupt Scott Walker would not of been exposed....job well done!
If you are against the Wisconsin 14....Please don't watch this.......you wont like it! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41898399#41898399
IMO, elected officials should compromise. Just becasue an elected official has a 51% support base doesn't mean he should only push that 51% agenda. He still represents that 49% too.
Big, I understand what you are saying in theory, but in practice NOTHING binds them to compromise once a bill is discussed, constructed, and then put to a vote. These are big boys and are playing big boy games. There are many "regime" changes where the balance of power shifts in Congress. That constant change of power forces each side to ram their agendas down the throats of the unfortunate minority because one does not know what the next election will bring.
BHF, I can understand where you are coming from in this post. Makes me think about politicians being held accountable one way or another.
You remember the old cowboy movies......where the sheriff would have the outlaw in the jail when the lynch mob came to get him? The sheriff would come out onto the porch of the jail with his rifle. It would be him against 20+ men. The men would say......"You can't get all of us, sheriff"! The sheriff would always reply......"I know I can't kill you all. But, I'm gonna kill a few of you before you kill me. Who wants to be one of 'em"? Gov. Walker's sending out the layoff notices, today. This is going wonderfully for the union, huh? Congratulations! You've had your cronie senators leave town to thwart a vote. You're winning the war! You "might" wanna think about the 1,500 teachers who are gonna be casualties in the battle, though. You/they are definitely gonna lose that. Is that OK with you union supporters? What if it was your job? Still OK? When I worked for a corp., if my employer had come to the employees and said "Folks, we're experiencing hard times. I need you to take a 5% pay cut.....or, I'm gonna have to lay several of you off". I wouldn't try to organize a strike. I wouldn't think only of myself. I wouldn't want to put my employer in dire straits. And, I wouldn't want my employer to take money from other people (citizens - via taxes) to prop us up. I said it pages and pages ago. F'em all. Fire every one of them and hire new teachers. Just tell them....."Any teacher not at their classroom in the morning is considered to have voluntarily resigned from their position. See ya @ 7"!
Here is the problem with each one of these "supposal" wins of the union protests. Each time it happens, other companies takes notes. After each one of these "wins", what company on earth would want to open a business, and have union labor? What company would want to put thier facility in a state that has a reputation for striking, protesting, no matter what quality of the work? One thing I have learned in marriage. Sometimes, you may win a battle, but ultimately you lost the war.
Glen Beck layed it out for me yesterday, I now know. Jeff you have to be certified to teach in Wisconsin and with no child left behind a teacher has to be "Highly Qualified" What's your brilliant plan after you fire them all to hire replacements?
Hire replacements - duh. How many teachers do you think are out there.....unemployed? Give them 2yrs to gain their certification and let's get them rug rats back in the desk chairs!
Abraham Lincoln Jumped Out of a Second-Story Window to Stop a Vote <LI class=timestamp name="timestamp">2/24/11 at 1:03 PM 17Comments Photo: Wikipedia The "don't show up for work" strategy being used by Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats to deny Republicans a quorom is nothing compared to what Abraham Lincoln did to stop a vote in the Illinois legislature in 1840. On December 5, 1840, Democrats "proposed an early adjournment, knowing this would bring a speedy end to the State Bank. The Whigs tried to counter by leaving the capitol building before the vote, but the doors were locked. That's when Lincoln made his move. He headed for the second story, opened a window and jumped to the ground!"
Brilliant, it's so simple it may just work. Never mind most cannot sell their homes to move to Wisconsin do to the recession, if they could sell are they really going take a 25% lost, or do they just leave and make the bank eat the loan? Hiring teachers out of college may work, but the best you hire(At least half) will be gone within in 5 years to work the private sector(make more money). So now what are you going to do, yes yes pay teachers more. Wait there is no money, and you won't raise taxes on anyone. Now Wisconsin will rank in the bottom instead of in the top ten. Some have them at number 2 in the nation, some at 9. Who will want to come teach in Wisconsin after the abuse they have taken? Good work and brilliant plan, I can tell you thought this one out
As I stated In my previous post I don't care what political party It Is that's crawling In the hole, It's BS. How can a person/group compromise when the whole group Isn't there?
And what did this Lincoln stunt do? What was accomplished? Ward Hill Lamon, The Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1872, pp. 216-8 This session (the session of 1840-1) had been called two weeks earlier than usual, to provide for the January interest on the debt. But the banks had important business of their own in view, and proceeded to improve the occasion. In 1837, and every year since then, the banks had succeeded in getting acts of the Legislature which condoned their suspension of specie payments. But, by the terms of the last act, their charters were forfeited unless they resumed before the adjournment of the next session. The Democrats, however, maintained that the present special session was a session in the sense of the law, and that, before its adjournment, the banks must hand out "the hard," or die. On the other hand, the Whigs held this session, and the regular session which began on the first Monday in December, to be one and the same, and proposed to give the banks another winter's lease upon life and rags. But the banks were a power in the land, and knew how to make themselves felt. They were the depositories of the State revenues. The auditor's warrants were drawn upon them, and the members of the Legislature paid in their money. The warrants were at a discount of fifty per cent; and, if the banks refused to cash them, the members would be compelled to go home more impecunious than they came. The banks, moreover, knew how to make "opportune loans to Democrats;" and, with all these aids, they organized a brilliant and eventually a successful campaign. In the eyes of the Whigs they were "the institutions of the country," and the Democrats were guilty of incivism in attacking them. But the Democrats retorted with a string of overwhelming slang about rag barons, rags, printed lies, bank vassals, ragocracy, and the "British-bought, bank, blue-light, Federal, Whig party." It was a fierce and bitter contest; and, witnessing it, one might have supposed that the very existence of the State, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, depended upon the result. The Democrats were bent upon carrying an adjournment sine die; which, according to their theory, killed the banks. To defeat this, the Whigs resorted to every expedient of parliamentary tactics, and at length hit upon one entirely unknown to any of the standard manuals: they tried to absent themselves in sufficient numbers to leave no quorum behind. "If the Whigs absented themselves," says Mr. Gillespie, a Whig member, "there would not be a quorum left, even with the two who should be deputed to call the ayes and noes. The Whigs immediately held a meeting, and resolved that they would all stay out, except Lincoln and me, who were to call the ayes and noes. We appeared in the afternoon: motion to adjourn sine die was made, and we called the ayes and noes. The Democrats discovered the game, and the sergeant-at-arms was sent out to gather up the absentees. There was great excitement in the House, which was then held in a church at Springfield. We soon discovered that several Whigs had been caught and brought in, and that the plan had been spoiled; and we — Lincoln and I — determined to leave the hall, and, going to the door, found it locked, and then raised a window and jumped out, but not until the Democrats had succeeded in adjourning. Mr. Gridley of McLean accompanied us in our exit. ... I think Mr. Lincoln always regretted that he entered into that arrangement, as he deprecated every thing that savored of the revolutionary."
Germ, sometimes you just have to let the cards play and not make concessions to everyone. This world is not fair and all of us have been kicked in the balls a few times. If people keep making concessions, just like our current welfare state, then there will NEVER be an end to this bureaucratic/expanding federal government nightmare that we are experiencing. There has to be a stop to it on some level for any kind of Laisse-Faire type of capitalism to re-establish itself just like our founding fathers wanted. WE cannot keep going on and on propping up industries/jobs/etc just well...just because. That being said I wish there was a more gradual route these politicians would have thought of years ago in order to slowly contract certain budgetary concerns so that people and their families would not feel like they are being b-slapped.
