Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 18)

My apologies TS (thanks for bringing it up) and to all the others who have posted and those following this thread.

To CD, you've gotten the best answer you are going to get from me on your what if question.

Carry on.

Luby162 - 2011-02-21 1:22 PM

Birkierunner - 2011-02-21 1:34 PM

Luby162 - 2011-02-21 11:47 AM
So, you beleive that cops, Firefighters and teachers are no longer needed and have outlived their usefellness ???

I'm sorry...who in this thread has even REMOTELY suggested this?!?!?!?!?   Give.   Me.    A.     Break.

Would you like to borrow my reading glasses ???

I had the same question, people, including myself have expressed their opinion of the unions, I've not seen anyone say we don't need, want or value those providing the serices we've talked about here. If you can show where someone has expressed their desire to do away with them please point it out.

I guess I don't understand why you are so scared to answer with a yes or no.  I had the courtesy to answer your questions directly and not equivocate.  I was hoping you would have the same respect.  ( referring to your "answer this and I'll answer you" post... )

Perhaps to you this is more an opportunity to score political gotchas, than you're interested in having a discussion on the issue.  In which case, your reticence to answer directly is certainly understood.

Actually you didn't answer the question I asked, here is the question I asked.

Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants?

Your reply "Then indeed they should face such penalties as are provided."

I asked you a question based on how you feel about them breaking the rules/law, stating the obvious doesn't quite answer the question asked.
I asked you a question based on what is actually happening and still don't really have an answer as to how you feel about it or why breaking the rules for these elected officials is ok, which appears to be your stance from what I can deduct from your writings.

You asked a hypothetical question of meand I have answered it honestly and completely the best I can for a "What If" question. It's not the answer you want, I don't know what more I can say about it. Have you ever heard me cry foul when either of the corrupt political parties in DC have done the same thing with a filibuster?

Edited to add the following,,,,, Maybe this is more direct, It's not the delaying of the voete that I find contempt with, it's the manner in the way they are doing it.

Here's SAT results and trends.

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/2010-sat-trends.pdf

The numbers do appear to be accurate.  Mean scores around ~500 for the states without CB, and ~600 for the states with CB.

2010 Scores

State Reading Math  Writing

Wisconsin 4% 595 604 579

Texas 53% 484 505 473

North Carolina 63% 497 511 477

South Carolina 66% 484 495 468

Georgia 74% 488 490 475

Virginia 67% 512 512 497

However, it's important to note that there are many other factors that can influence student success ( school funding levels, curriculum, etc. ).  There is a definite correlation, but that's not necessarily causation.  The studies are inconclusive, so it's also neither been disproven that there is a causation.

The salient thing is all of the things that Wisconsin does in terms of education certainly seems to be doing things better, when measured in terms of student achievements on the SAT/ACT than other states.  It ranks as one of the highest states in the nation.

If the proposed anti-union measures go through, and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings (granted, this is not guaranteed, but it's definitely a possibility), is that really the direction that those in favor of the bill as-is want to see the state going?  Is that really change for the better?  Would you rather have Texas' results, or Wisconsin's?

The governor has stated that without the changes to benefits that are in the bill, layoffs would happen.

The unions have agreed to all of the benefit changes.  If layoffs happen it is not because the unions were unwilling to "share in the pain" and take a benefit cut.

I certainly am not stating that future negotiations in benefits and pay will not be needed as *future* budgets are developed, just that the immediate threat of having to layoff 6,000 workers or cut benefits is resolved with the current cuts in benefits that have been accepted by the unions.

The portion of the bill that impacts bargaining rights has no impact on the current budget crisis.  Certainly it plays a role in future budgets, but has no impact on the present one.