Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Can we stop talking about police and firefighters, they were not part of the bill that passed, and have retained there colective bargining rights.
You're kidding
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Can we stop talking about police and firefighters, they were not part of the bill that passed, and have retained there colective bargining rights.
You're kidding
Walker's original reforms specifically exempted public safety unions. But his later budget allowed local governments, at their discretion, to impose some changes to their public unions - such as paying a greater portion of their health insurance, etc.
It's important to remember, as Democrats cope with their failure to topple Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Tuesday's recall, that this was a fight they chose.
Unlike the vast majority of elections, which occur on a regular schedule, the recall was a fight the left picked on purpose. They picked it because they thought they could win. And they were wrong.
It wasn't even close. In the final tally, Walker led his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by 53 percent to 46 percent.
The idea behind the recall effort was to send a message: a warning to conservatives across the country that there was a line not to be crossed when it came to messing with the hard-earned gains of public worker unions. By losing, however, the consortium of unions, progressives and Democrats that worked so ardently to send Walker packing may have sent the opposite message. If Walker can survive, what's to stop any other right-leaning governor from pushing the envelope?
Tactically, I think the left had a good fight, at least initially. There was popular opposition to Walker's reforms. But then the recall process dragged on, well into the actual reforms that Walker pursued. When people saw the sky wasn't falling, they may have had a change of heart.
The union protestors acting like children certainly didn't help.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/06 19:06:59
Tactically, I think the left had a good fight, at least initially. There was popular opposition to Walker's reforms. But then the recall process dragged on, well into the actual reforms that Walker pursued. When people saw the sky wasn't falling, they may have had a change of heart.
The union protestors acting like children certainly didn't help.
The sheer lopsided monetary contributions did more than any other factor to contribute to walker retaining his position. More then any personality conflicts, silly branding, or lack of a falling sky. It's likely that without a seven to one ratio of campaign funding when compared to his opponent he would have lost. He's not on a good track to maintaining his seat in the coming actual election, but who knows how strongly this dispirits the democratic voterbase. It could be a totally different race by then.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Can we stop talking about police and firefighters, they were not part of the bill that passed, and have retained there colective bargining rights.
You're kidding
Walker's original reforms specifically exempted public safety unions. But his later budget allowed local governments, at their discretion, to impose some changes to their public unions - such as paying a greater portion of their health insurance, etc.
I was being facetious.
AustonT wrote:attempting to link Police and Fire Fighters to the issue is disingenuous at best. The Legislation Walker presented exempted Public Safety Workers who retain collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin with the exception of Capitol and University police.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 19:31:04
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 19:42:37
"The Imperium is nothing if not willing to go to any lengths necessary. So the Trekkies are zipping around at warp speed taking small chucks out of an nigh-on infinite amount of ships, with the Imperium being unable to strike back. feth it, says central command, and detonates every vortex warhead in the fleet, plunging the entire sector into the Warp. Enjoy tentacle-rape, Kirk, we know Sulu will." -Terminus
"This great fortress was a gift to the Blood Ravens from the legendary Imperial Fists. When asked about it Chapter Master Pugh was reported to say: "THEY TOOK WHAT!?""
Spending eight times as much money as the other guy = win.
Fun times for all, I wonder if I'll ever get rich enough to buy myself a governorship? Okay, not of Texas as the Texas governor is weak as hell, but maybe the Lt Gov.... I could use it to reform our mentally challenged board of education and kick out a the idiots in it and replace it with people who aren't trying to push through revisionist history. Seeing as our government doesn't give a damn about the BoE blatantly lying to our children, it might be one of the only ways to force a change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 20:03:26
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Easy E wrote:You won't become that rich because you are a liberal.
Sorry.
Maybe if I get in to hollywood. They're liberal and rich.
Of course they're also nutty for gun control at times. It's a pity we only have two real parties, both of whom suck.
And it's a pity that our libertarian party's leader is more of a conservative federalist; certainly Ron Paul isn't an actual libertarian.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/06/06 20:05:12
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Spending eight times as much money as the other guy = win.
I remember when liberals were upset about money in politics in '08...good times man, good times.
Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote:My reaction to this thread:
Yeah, "Please God no, don't let the people of Wisconsin (re)elect the Governor they want. They should have elected the guy I want."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 20:53:16
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
It was four to one, and that's about half of the disparity this time around (walker outspent his opponant about 7-1). Is uneven political spending on an accelerating curve? Is the 2020 election going to involve one of the candidates buying a car for everyone on earth? Nothing buys politics quite like loads and loads of money!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/06 21:02:30
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
AustonT wrote:Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Who?
In 2008's presidential elections, the Dems spent about 57% of the money raised for the last election, while the Reps spent about 42%-- and that was the biggest difference I could find in recent history, the average being about 54-45 for one side or the other. And I don't think any time in recent history has the latter part of your statement been true. In 2008, a total of ~5.2 billion was spent, 3.0 by the dems while in 2004, a total of 4.2 billion was spent. And that was about the biggest difference I could find.
Unless you're referring to congressional or something?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/06/06 21:03:19
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
AustonT wrote:Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Who?
In 2008's presidential elections, the Dems spent about 57% of the money raised for the last election, while the Reps spent about 42%-- and that was the biggest difference I could find in recent history, the average being about 54-45 for one side or the other. And I don't think any time in recent history has the latter part of your statement been true. In 2008, a total of ~5.2 billion was spent, 3.0 by the dems while in 2004, a total of 4.2 billion was spent. And that was about the biggest difference I could find.
Unless you're referring to congressional or something?
Of course, this is ignoring things like SuperPACs which in the 08 cycle were largely conservative tools and reeeaaallly helped to even out the actual dollars spent in advertising between the candidates. Those wacky PACS threw out an obscene amount of money.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/06 21:05:38
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
AustonT wrote:Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Who?
In 2008's presidential elections, the Dems spent about 57% of the money raised for the last election, while the Reps spent about 42%-- and that was the biggest difference I could find in recent history, the average being about 54-45 for one side or the other. And I don't think any time in recent history has the latter part of your statement been true. In 2008, a total of ~5.2 billion was spent, 3.0 by the dems while in 2004, a total of 4.2 billion was spent. And that was about the biggest difference I could find.
Unless you're referring to congressional or something?
Of course, this is ignoring things like SuperPACs which in the 08 cycle were largely conservative tools and reeeaaallly helped to even out the actual dollars spent in advertising between the candidates. Those wacky PACS threw out an obscene amount of money.
As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008.
If all PACs spent "greatly" less than 46M in 2008 and not all PACs were aligned with McCain they didn't close the gap by much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 21:45:53
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
If all PACs spent "greatly" less than 46M in 2008 and not all PACs were aligned with McCain they didn't close the gap by much.
I was under the impression that PAC funding was difficult to accurately gauge.
Won't claim to be all knowing but I believe the issue with PACs is where it comes FROM not where it goes TO. IIRC the issue is they don't have to disclose their contributors.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
biccat wrote:
According to NPR, he was the first governor to survive a recall election.
Since only 2 (3 if you count Mecham) governors have ever faced recall elections, as distinct from recall votes, I'm not sure that's terribly important.
Easy E wrote:I am expecting "Walker for President in 2016" anyday now.
Won't happen. His home state is too...we'll say conflicted regarding him vis. the present Democrat.
Manchu wrote:The same forces that demolished labor have now turned their sites on the government itself. Unsurprisingly, the first target is the confluence of labor and government.
Funny, because those forces have really only pushed more labor to the government. I make a very good living because of this, and many like me do the same. Of course, in the past I would have been employed by the state, rather than by an independent contractor (fun fact: Reagan had more employees than Obama), but the end result is a person drawing a cheque from the political process; whether local, state, or federal.
mattyrm wrote: I agree with Frazz like, I fething hate the Unions.
Mother fethers are like the mafia.
That's the point. Sort of like how you fight wars with armies, and not men. Or win elections with the body politic, and not voters.
Frazzled wrote:
My house has volunteer firefighters actually...
And if they're like most volunteers they suck at what they mean to do.
Also, going into mortal danger without monetary compensation breeds cowardice.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2012/06/07 00:49:16
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Redbeard wrote:Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
Not going to throw my politics in the ring here, just commenting on science and statistics. This graph is absolute bull
This is a correlation. It shows the relationship of two variables in relation to one independent variable. In this case, it is union membership and middle class income in relation to time.
Correlations do not prove there is any relationship between the two Y axis variables. Correlations just show that both variables are being influenced by a common variable.
Correlation example:The earth and the moon orbit the sun.
Correct, both do, so both share a common variable(orbit of the sun).
A REGRESSION is when one thing directly influences one other thing.
An incorrect regression to draw about my previous correlation would be this.-The moon causes the earth to orbit the sun. This is of course nonsense, as both are being influenced by the gravity of the sun, and the moon is locked in orbit around earth by the gravity of earth. The correlation provided no logical argument for the regression, and the regression is therefore non sequitur. Gravity is not even mentioned in the correlation.
Another quick one(made up) People who wear red hats are more likely to go swimming. If this was a true correlation, this by no means proves the regression-Wearing a red had will cause you to go swimming.
To say that union membership and middle class wages are both in decline is correct based on the graph. To say that over time union membership and middle class wages are decreasing is correct. To say that the decrease of middle class wages is caused by the decline in union membership is a completely false statement.
Just had to point that out.
The most important rule of 40K-Page XVII of the 6th edition rulebook, the figure at the top right of the page. "Shake hands with your opponent and thank them for a good battle and fun experience." Then go out for a beer.
Shine bright like Iyanden
Close correlation still does not prove causation. It is arguable, but is not provable fact.
Yes, a regression can be presented as a hypothesis, but is by no means absolute truth.
The most important rule of 40K-Page XVII of the 6th edition rulebook, the figure at the top right of the page. "Shake hands with your opponent and thank them for a good battle and fun experience." Then go out for a beer.
Shine bright like Iyanden
Manchu wrote:Thanks to billions of lobbying dollars over the course of decades, there is basically no popular sense of how important labor institutions are to the commonwealth. The same forces that demolished labor have now turned their sites on the government itself. Unsurprisingly, the first target is the confluence of labor and government. It is pretty well obvious that this issue is not about budget deficits, its not about economic recovery, it's merely political positioning based on a "divide and conquer" premise. Walker's "divide and conquer" rhetoric will send a chill down the spine of anyone with meaningful knowledge of the struggle to unionize. What is going on in this case is politics for the sake of politics, and the people be damned.
I'm well aware of why Walker went on his attack on the unions, and know it had nothing to do with ensuring a balanced budget.
But ultimately you have to look at how much outrage over his attack on the unions was sustained - not much. Now you can claim that's because people have spent money to convince people that unions are bad, but you can only sell something people have some chance of buying (after all, there was plenty of money spent advertising New Coke). Convincing people that unions are corrupt and deal largely in luxurious deals for a connected purple circle, while delivering little to the general membership is not such a hard sell, because it's frequently true.
Now, there's always fertile ground in unfair working conditions, I'm not saying the left should surrender that issue at all. I'm saying it's adding a second part to that 'there's unfair working conditions and unions are part of the solution' is a much harder sell, in large part because unions haven't been a part of the solution in many industries for a long time. So maybe it is time to look at other possible solutions, industry committees, arbitration panels and the like.
Of course, I'm only speaking generally, and I realise the difficulty of actually uncoupling the political left from the unions, given how important union money is to the Democrats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
That graph is very misleading, as it looks only at the US. Elsewhere in the world the same decline in union memberships have been exhibited, without the same decline in middle class incomes (which is a particularly American phenomenom). It's really not that different to the infamous pirates and world temperature graph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Will the state let me hire someone to protect my house against it burning into the ground? Or will they maintain that public fire departments are the only ones allowed?
Are you actually, honestly arguing that private fire departments are a practical, sensible consideration. Have ever, ever read any history at all?
You're like this tiny little ball of ideology that exists in a complete vacuum of knowledge of how the world actually works.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/06/07 04:07:55
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Frazzled wrote:My house has volunteer firefighters actually...
I've been a volunteer firefighter, actually. And it's a good system when you're dealing with small scrub fires in open bushland, because it's the only system that's cost effective.
But when you increase the population density, and so increase the number of house fires, you really, really need people who know what the hell they're doing, because they do this for a living. And you need that core of professional fire fighters for when a scrub fire gets really big, and you need professional people on the ground controlling volunteer groups, calling in helicopter drops and aircraft drops.
So if you're making the argument that you could just do with volunteers and save some taxpayers dollars... just don't. It's a silly argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Remember, as the ancient Budha said: you will not be missed.
Police and firefighters are one thing frankly, the mouth breathers in the rest are something else entirely. Regardless, states can't afford them any more.
And here we see 'starve the beast' reaching it's final stage. It's all a complete lie, of course. As I've posted here before government spending is pretty much bang on it's historical average, at about 21%. It's just that government revenue is down, at about 18.5% compared to a historic average around 20.5%.
So yeah, you can afford all the government services you've always had, if you were willing to man up and pay the tax bill previous generation were willing to pay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/07 04:14:57
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Frazzled wrote:
Evidently the actual citizens - the ones who have to pay for government worker-politican collusion and shared legal bribery - disaqgree with you.
Worker politician collusion!?! In my democracy?!? Never!
The entire system that we live in is based on collusion between workers and politicians.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
biccat wrote:Pricing is competitive whether it's in the public or private sectors. As long as there exists any private sector the public has to compete against it; whether it's for equipment, employees, or any other resources. The only difference is public sector employees are generally unconcerned with the cost. There's no reason to save money - the taxpayers will always* pick up the tab.
This is, of course, a complete and utter load of nonsense. Governments that see costs drift out without any improvement in services are voted out, in exactly the same way as a board of directors will be. In both cases they look to control costs in their organisations using almost exactly the same mechanisms.
I know this because I happened to have worked in both corporate and government organisations, and used almost identical methods of control in each.
You don't know this because you just like to make up silliness that matches your ideology, and never bother to check if any of it actually reflects how the world works.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Frazzled wrote:People work at a position because: 1) they like the salary and benefits; 2) they like the environment including security of a position; 3) there's no comparable position somewhere else that offers better factors.
Its a big reason there's heavy burnout.
No, while those are reasons why someone might work at a position, but in this enlightened age you must plan for such conditions; which means you must want such conditions. Wanting being a thing connected to emotion, once must consider the emotional reasons someone would want a job. For example: prestige, honor, satisfaction, etc.
The followup will, of course, be that emotion doesn't matter; from the single most emotional man on this board.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:Sure it is. How do you think we know what the speed of light is?
You're basically taking the same line of argument that Young Earthers do, which reduces the concept of proof to nonexistence.
Hmmm... I really don't want to come in on the same side of the argument as the guy who got the meaning of regression wrong, but...
The point is that establishing causation needs more than a single point of evidence. For correlation to prove causation you would need to study other countries, and determine whether a correlation existed. So, look at the UK, Australia and some others, and see if declining union memberships led to similar falls in the middle class income share.
The problem is that while we've also had declining union memberships, we haven't had the same fall in middle class income share. Studies will show are middle classes were paid much less than yours back then, but have since caught up to be more or less where yours is today. The issue might just be that the US in the 1970s saw a unique, ahistoric height for middle class incomes, and that it is unlikely they'll be matched again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I'm wondering where people are prevented from hiring their own fire protection services.
They're prevented from doing so by common sense and reason. These are things that have rarely had any place in biccat's theories about the world and why it's unfair to rich people, so it's no surprise he missed it in his complaint.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/07 04:34:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:So yeah, you can afford all the government services you've always had, if you were willing to man up and pay the tax bill previous generation were willing to pay.
I wonder if I should sig this...
But basically, yes, this. The constant attack on the tax rate has lowered government income to the point where the difference between income and spending becomes noticeable
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Shine bright like Iyanden 