The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?



Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.


If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

Poor wording on my part.  The budget deficit is going to be higher than thought a few months ago, much of that difference is due to Walker.  Its also not just spending increases, but more tax cuts for wealthy corporations.

I thought you guys considered tax cuts as spending? That is what I was doing here for your sakes.


There are three items that I have seen, totaling about 150 million to 200 million or something like that. How does that double a 2 billion dollar deficit?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While Illinois is in good hands, some of their neighbors seem to want to move back to the Haymarket times. This is about making sure that corporations have the power to do whatever they want.

[krazen1211]

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

Why do you think John Kennedy allowed federal public sector unionization in the first place?

[krazen1211]

Party line ramming is only for the Democrats who get elected with support of the AFL-CIO and other unions..


http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/02/22/sponsor_of_ohios_1983_collecti.html?cxtype=feedbot&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+StatelineorgRss-Ohio+(Stateline.org+RSS+-+Ohio)

Branstool, a retired farmer from near Utica, said his experience as a member of a local school board was one of the reasons he sponsored the bill back in 1983. The local board voluntarily recognized a bargaining unit for teachers, but the need existed for a formal system, said Branstool.

The 1983 legislation, signed into law by Democratic Gov. Richard F. Celeste, passed the Senate on a party-line vote, 17-16, with all Democrats supporting it and all Republicans opposed.

[Person Man]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

Now I know we have come full circle if liberals are making comparisons to Rome.

Rome had other issues with sovereignty beyond that, ones which I doubt you would want to make a comparison on to today's US.


They also had a flow of wealth out of Gaul, Italy and Iberia towards the Middle East, and the Han Empire of China. Gold for Silk (I realize its oversimplification of the trade system of 250-400 AD ) eventually leads you with a lot of useless fine clothing and no money. Plus the clothes wear out. Kind of like dollars for oil, today. This is why in 1000 AD the two centers of world finance (and ironically two ends of the same trade route) was China and the Middle East.

[Person Man]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

Now I know we have come full circle if liberals are making comparisons to Rome.

Rome had other issues with sovereignty beyond that, ones which I doubt you would want to make a comparison on to today's US.

They also had a flow of wealth out of Gaul, Italy and Iberia towards the Middle East, and the Han Empire of China. Gold for Silk (I realize its oversimplification of the trade system of 250-400 AD ) eventually leads you with a lot of useless fine clothing and no money. Plus the clothes wear out. Kind of like dollars for oil, today. This is why in 1000 AD the two centers of world finance (and ironically two ends of the same trade route) was China and the Middle East.

For the first point, I guess a conservative could make an argument against immigration though the US is more structurally equiped to deal with it than Rome. ...and of course, there are slight similarities between terrorist attacks and German, Iranian and Arab raiders...mainly being that they are transient, short-lived and expensive events orchestrated by very desperate people.

Oil Shieks....Chinese silk traders?...Well, I guess this is another comparison with Rome that's in order, then?

[LBJ Revivalist]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

WE'RE GOING BACK TO 1880!
LIBERALISM IS DEAD, FOREVER.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Food service department at a historical attraction.

So how do you survive?  And don't you find your poverty would tend to serve as an argument near-at-hand in favor of unions?

I actually like making money, so I show up to work.  And I'm not exactly in poverty.

Still living off parents.

Yes, I still live with my parents... for another couple of years... what's your point?

[Franzl]

I imagine his point is you'd find it hard to survive on your own with your current work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

Now I know we have come full circle if liberals are making comparisons to Rome.

Rome had other issues with sovereignty beyond that, ones which I doubt you would want to make a comparison on to today's US.

They also had a flow of wealth out of Gaul, Italy and Iberia towards the Middle East, and the Han Empire of China. Gold for Silk (I realize its oversimplification of the trade system of 250-400 AD ) eventually leads you with a lot of useless fine clothing and no money. Plus the clothes wear out. Kind of like dollars for oil, today. This is why in 1000 AD the two centers of world finance (and ironically two ends of the same trade route) was China and the Middle East.

For the first point, I guess a conservative could make an argument against immigration though the US is more structurally equiped to deal with it than Rome. ...and of course, there are slight similarities between terrorist attacks and German, Iranian and Arab raiders...mainly being that they are transient, short-lived and expensive events orchestrated by very desperate people.

Oil Shieks....Chinese silk traders?...Well, I guess this is another comparison with Rome that's in order, then?

Not against immigration but against Balkanization.

Yes the US is structurally equipt to deal with it but we aren't able to for a variety of reasons. One is racial tension, while another is the hightened sensitivity that scares politicians from touching this issue. When we have certain places in the US where the mere presence or sight of the US Flag is feared to risk a riot, I would say that we are far less united then America could be and far more vulnerable then a country founded the way America was should be. We need a non-racial, non-religious, and even for the most part non-cultural assimilation.

Rome was inherently incapable of addressing such a problem of diversity by the very nature of its structure. You had a city dominating the continent and claiming superiority over the continent and all of its people's. Yet as early as 100's AD you had Iberians and other non Roman and even non Italians on the throne. The US can address such a problem because its not founded on the basis of racial/ethnic superiority but on common values and principles that we should hope transcends all such divisions.  This isn't too say the US didn't have flaws (a lot of liberal posters are saying "ah damn, he had to put that in there and prevent my opening for attack" ). Of course the biggest problem is that the flaws clouded the message. And thus we have this potential, for a country that shouldn't ever have had to face such a problem, to potentially have to face it now.

As for the barbarians crossing the border in massed hordes. One must account for technology. A terrorist crossing the border, or coming in on a shipping container with a dirty bomb would be the equivalent of the Huns or Goths coming in the tens of thousands.

Yes, except also that Mercantilism is false so that there is a potential for dealing with such an outflow and that is for internal wealth creation to occur. This is something that an agrarian/merchant/craftsman based society of Ancient times couldn't achieve to a large enough extent, especially when you left vast terrorities empty except for co-opted barbarians (Goths) and you haven't developed any real technological advances that produce gains of efficiency.

[Sbane]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.

It's not simply a political power issue, its a sovreignty issue. Basically the government is surrending sovreignty to the large private estates that share ownership in the corporations. Its what was called the Latifundia in the Late Roman Empire and was the basis to start whittling away at the sovreignty and territorial integrity of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D.

Now I know we have come full circle if liberals are making comparisons to Rome.

Rome had other issues with sovereignty beyond that, ones which I doubt you would want to make a comparison on to today's US.

They also had a flow of wealth out of Gaul, Italy and Iberia towards the Middle East, and the Han Empire of China. Gold for Silk (I realize its oversimplification of the trade system of 250-400 AD ) eventually leads you with a lot of useless fine clothing and no money. Plus the clothes wear out. Kind of like dollars for oil, today. This is why in 1000 AD the two centers of world finance (and ironically two ends of the same trade route) was China and the Middle East.

For the first point, I guess a conservative could make an argument against immigration though the US is more structurally equiped to deal with it than Rome. ...and of course, there are slight similarities between terrorist attacks and German, Iranian and Arab raiders...mainly being that they are transient, short-lived and expensive events orchestrated by very desperate people.

Oil Shieks....Chinese silk traders?...Well, I guess this is another comparison with Rome that's in order, then?

Not against immigration but against Balkanization.

 When we have certain places in the US where the mere presence or sight of the US Flag is feared to risk a riot, I would say that we are far less united then America could be and far more vulnerable then a country founded the way America was should be.

That is absolutely ing ridiculous. There is a US flag flying on top of the damn school that caused the controversy in the first place.

Stop being a dumb and realize that those kids were trying to rile up people on Cinco De Mayo. They were the ones starting the ethnic tensions, not the kids trying to celebrate Cinco De Mayo (which apparently isn't even celebrated that much in Mexico making the situation even more amusing).

[Sbane]

I mean really when people have a problem with Mexican immigrants celebrating their culture one f'in day out of the damn year, it's the people getting offended by it who are causing the divisions, not the immigrants.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You have a very short time to retract your factually incorrect statements and grandstanding before my opinion of you resorts to that of what it was a year ago for the following reasons:

1. WRONG INCIDENT!!!!!!!!!
2. unfair judgement and bias
3. Failling to notice who I actually laid blame for the racial tensions on (it wasn't the immigrant).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And this is why America is screwed people. We can't even discuss the damn issue without immature responses and over hyper-sensitivity based gotcha moments. Part of the problem is the arrogance of some many on this damn forum. And I even mentioned this in the original damn posts. Grow up people, and get this thread back on topic.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

And this is why America is screwed people. We can't even discuss the damn issue without immature responses and over hyper-sensitivity based gotcha moments. Part of the problem is the arrogance of some many on this damn forum. And I even mentioned this in the original damn posts. Grow up people, and get this thread back on topic.

Nah, I just think you're an idiot for thinking that the amount of racial tension there is, is somehow abnormal. When it comes to anti-immigrant tension, in the modern world this is completely normal. Nearly every western country on Earth besides Canada has or has had a culture of immigrant scapegoating and inflamed tension because of legal and illegal immigration. It's a pretty natural reaction but this time,as long as immigration doesn't stay so politicized which it probably will, the tensions should go away much quicker than historically because of mixed race marriage and rapid cultural diffusion.

When it comes to Blacks, well that takes absolutely no explanation. If anything relations are remarkably good for what has been done to their ethnic group over the centuries, it's only been a decade or two since rampant racist attitudes from whites have died out and yet we have a Black President. Strides are happening there. Black culture might be a little too insular but that's to be expected.

So overall, America is doing pretty average to well for a nation with our myriad cultures. It's still not the optimal situation and in an economic crisis without effective leadership they'd become violent and ultra-politicized very quickly. Oh wait, that situation is probably happening we're all f'ed!

[Marokai Backbeat]

And this is why America is screwed people. We can't even discuss the damn issue without immature responses and over hyper-sensitivity based gotcha moments. Part of the problem is the arrogance of some many on this damn forum. And I even mentioned this in the original damn posts. Grow up people, and get this thread back on topic.

Nah, I just think you're an idiot for thinking that the amount of racial tension there is, is somehow abnormal. When it comes to anti-immigrant tension, in the modern world this is completely normal. Nearly every western country on Earth besides Canada has or has had a culture of immigrant scapegoating and inflamed tension because of legal and illegal immigration.

You're absolutely right on your broader point, but Canada has had their fair share of racial tensions too. Quebec, for instance, is given special self governing powers in immigration to Quebec because of a history of racial tensions in the province and a hostility to outsiders by the french population. Not to mention the long history of conflict between the french and english population in itself.

Of course, they always dealt with these things and have crafted a relatively peaceful society given a very multicultural country, but I just thought it should be noted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And this is why America is screwed people. We can't even discuss the damn issue without immature responses and over hyper-sensitivity based gotcha moments. Part of the problem is the arrogance of some many on this damn forum. And I even mentioned this in the original damn posts. Grow up people, and get this thread back on topic.

Nah, I just think you're an idiot for thinking that the amount of racial tension there is, is somehow abnormal. When it comes to anti-immigrant tension, in the modern world this is completely normal. Nearly every western country on Earth besides Canada has or has had a culture of immigrant scapegoating and inflamed tension because of legal and illegal immigration. It's a pretty natural reaction but this time,as long as immigration doesn't stay so politicized which it probably will, the tensions should go away much quicker than historically because of mixed race marriage and rapid cultural diffusion.

When it comes to Blacks, well that takes absolutely no explanation. If anything relations are remarkably good for what has been done to their ethnic group over the centuries, it's only been a decade or two since rampant racist attitudes from whites have died out and yet we have a Black President. Strides are happening there. Black culture might be a little too insular but that's to be expected.

So overall, America is doing pretty average to well for a nation with our myriad cultures. It's still not the optimal situation and in an economic crisis without effective leadership they'd become violent and ultra-politicized very quickly. Oh wait, that situation is probably happening we're all f'ed!

I don't disagree with practically anything in that damn post, yet somehow you managed to squeeze in a personal insult. Just typical. You people need to read, not skim, and think instead of guessing.

I realize I ask far too much for this is a forum and people want to extract discussions where things really don't need to be including even sometimes, false paradigms and disagreements which is what half of these past few posts are. The others just a result of a failure of comprehension. And in the process we have a page and a half of stuff which nothing related to Wisconsin. I shouldn't have responded on all three comparisons about Rome but I felt oblidged to do so in a quick fashion to avoid any confusion about my first response on the matter, ironically to avoid this type of reaction later when some leftist inevitably stumpled acrossed it, read two words and went nuts.

[Sbane]

You have a very short time to retract your factually incorrect statements and grandstanding before my opinion of you resorts to that of what it was a year ago for the following reasons:

1. WRONG INCIDENT!!!!!!!!!
2. unfair judgement and bias
3. Failling to notice who I actually laid blame for the racial tensions on (it wasn't the immigrant).

1. Ok, fair enough, wrong incident. What are you talking about then and was it more of a big deal than the incident I am referring to? Otherwise I don't see how I was wrong in assuming this is what you were talking about. Maybe I was wrong in assuming at all, but one would have to assume given the lack of information in that post.

2. If you weren't talking about the incident I was referring about, obviously I have no right to call you a dumb (and calling anyone a dumb is well...dumb but if people were still bringing that little incident up....), and thus I unequivocally take it back. Though now I'm curious what you were referring to.....

3. Uh...you said the US has flaws. Is that where you were trying to lay the blame?

Actually one would think you are implying that the fact that there are places in the country where a US flag could cause a riot is symptomatic of  the problem and the people responsible for that situation should be blamed. I am still curious what the hell you are talking about but let me just say that I doubt there is any place in the US where the sight of a US flag will cause a riot. That is a ridiculous statement and I stand behind my words there.

[Sbane]

By the way what was your opinion of me a year ago and why did it change? Have I been pissing you off less lately or something?

Also sorry for the threadsh**t but I wasn't the one talking about Rome and racial tensions in America in a thread about Wisconsin.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You have a very short time to retract your factually incorrect statements and grandstanding before my opinion of you resorts to that of what it was a year ago for the following reasons:

1. WRONG INCIDENT!!!!!!!!!
2. unfair judgement and bias
3. Failling to notice who I actually laid blame for the racial tensions on (it wasn't the immigrant).

1. Ok, fair enough, wrong incident. What are you talking about then and was it more of a big deal than the incident I am referring to? Otherwise I don't see how I was wrong in assuming this is what you were talking about. Maybe I was wrong in assuming at all, but one would have to assume given the lack of information in that post.

2. If you weren't talking about the incident I was referring about, obviously I have no right to call you a dumb (and calling anyone a dumb is well...dumb but if people were still bringing that little incident up....), and thus I unequivocally take it back. Though now I'm curious what you were referring to.....

3. Uh...you said the US has flaws. Is that where you were trying to lay the blame?

Actually one would think you are implying that the fact that there are places in the country where a US flag could cause a riot is symptomatic of  the problem and the people responsible for that situation should be blamed. I am still curious what the hell you are talking about but let me just say that I doubt there is any place in the US where the sight of a US flag will cause a riot. That is a ridiculous statement and I stand behind my words there.

1 Notice I didn't say cause a riot, I said "fear of causing of riot". Meaning nothing actually happen but a response was taken to the presence of a flag based on the fear (and somewhat irrational at that) that something (as in a riot) would happen. Clearly different from the events of the incident which you cited and slow, careful reading should have let you know that.

2. I am glad you recognize what your actions were.


3. No actually, the next part

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If it were a thread about racial tensions, I would have gone into detail, alas this is a thread about Wisconsin, not Rome, racism and rebellion.  Unfortunately that kind of has the effect of the business man "eliminating your position" for those such as yourself who would (and this case did) seek to extract details at any price. Perhaps I should say something controversial about Wisconsin as a sort of make work project for you poor deprived posters.

Your confidence in people is reassuring. If there are places where just looking at someone can cause a riot, I wouldn't say the presence of a flag definately would not in any place at any time in the US. One can never undestand fully what makes another tick.

By the way what was your opinion of me a year ago and why did it change? Have I been pissing you off less lately or something?

Also sorry for the threadsh**t but I wasn't the one talking about Rome and racial tensions in America in a thread about Wisconsin.

You don't want to know. Time and improvement in actions can heal "most" wounds.

Neither was I. I was just engaging in CYA to prevent something like this. I put more effort into wargamming a forum discussion then Walker did into what would happen in Wisconsin.  And I still got the protestors in Madison.

[Tender Branson]

Look at the red circle:



LOL.

[Lief 🗽]

At least 70,000 protesters today, many more than last Saturday, despite the fact that temperatures are in the 10s and it's snowing: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_19c56fb6-41d7-11e0-820b-001cc4c03286.html

[Lief 🗽]

The number of protesters today was over 100,000 and police are allowing a few hundred to remain in the capitol after refusing to follow Walker's orders to kick them out.

Also, rumor is that one Republican State Senator (Dale Schultz) now opposes the bill: http://twitter.com/#!/wisaflcio/status/42024963183480834

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

The number of protesters today was over 100,000 and police are allowing a few hundred to remain in the capitol after refusing to follow Walker's orders to kick them out.

Also, rumor is that one Republican State Senator (Dale Schultz) now opposes the bill: http://twitter.com/#!/wisaflcio/status/42024963183480834

Then need 2 more Republicans if that is the case.