Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 14)

We're not talking about being stiffed.  We're talking about fundemental changes to a negotiated employment contract. I can only talk about what's happening in Fla. 

Again, this wasn't a gamble, this was a negotiated terms of employment.  The State and the public employees engaged in a quid pro quo.  The State wanted to save money up front.  And durring the "good" economic times, the State chose to pay it's employees a lower salary compared to private sector workers. (No one in the public complained about this when this was happening) and in exchange for the concession of lower pay they offered certain benefits, including retirment and health care.

This wasn't a gamble.  This was a term of my employment contract.  I detrimentally relied upon this specific and articulated term of my employment contract in that I did not seek higher paying private sector work based upon this specific term of employment.

Now, the State want's to say:  We paid you less for years ( in my case 16 years) and the portion of your contract that was agreed to to compensate for that lower pay we now aren't going to pay you.

Here pay more taxes...how's that. Problem solved.... Everyone is talking that the only solution is changing the pension payouts....Not true, another solution is to increase taxes.  Why isn't that being discussed on this board?

Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.

I've been thinking it over and wondering if I should ask the mods to freeze this thread or have it removed, or let it continue on in its civil manner?  Tough decision.

There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules.  The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum.

Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress?

Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster?

I think google can tell you the answer to that.  Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting?

I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules.

Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do.

So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly?

I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that.

I've been thinking it over and wondering if I should ask the mods to freeze this thread or have it removed, or let it continue on in its civil manner?  Tough decision.

Still a non-answer.  

Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not?

There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules.  The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum.

Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress?

Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present.

In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote.

Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion.  Is that a good thing?  Or a bad thing?

I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.

Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present.

In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote.

Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion.  Is that a good thing?  Or a bad thing?

I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.

I've been thinking it over and wondering if I should ask the mods to freeze this thread or have it removed, or let it continue on in its civil manner?  Tough decision.