If voters in Wisconsin could repeat the 2010 gubernatorial election, the majority would support defeated Democratic nominee Tom Barrett over Republican Scott Walker, according to a report [PDF] by Public Policy Polling.
more Buyer’s Remorse: Wisconsin Voters Wouldn’t Elect Scott Walker Today Evidence of just how much of a political hornet’s nest Gov. Scott Walker has stirred up with Wisconsin voters was revealed in the latest Public Policy Planning poll of the state. If voters were able to do it over again, Walker would lose the election to Democrat Tom Barrett, 52%-45%.
Same thing happened to Mitch Daniels when he took on the unions in Indiana. His approval went down to 35%. But the economy reacted the way he promised and jobs were created and now it is back up over 60%. As long as the jobs roll in and the budget gets balanced (deficit diminished) then his approval will go up too. Walker knows this.
nope! You do know FOX won a lawsuit stating they have the right to lie about their reporting right? they have no credibility
Well you liberals love PolitiFact right? http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/
And we saw Mitch Daniels pull back a similar bill in Indiana because he saw Walker getting his ass handed to him. Scott Walker is no Mitch Daniels
I am referring to this in 2005: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1409 I am not sure what you are referring to, but the circumstances for both governors are very similar.
I know this is going to blow your mind, but PolitiFact is made up of genuine investigative journalists - the fact that it exposes the lies of your favorite politicians doesn't make it "liberal." But I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you about anything. You're just another ideologue who is willing to take shortcuts in his thinking by letting politicians do his thinking for him. I mean seriously ... you really don't think at all, do you? Maybe you think just enough so that no one will suspect that you don't think at all. So anyway - you go ahead and continue licking the balls of the wealthiest members of this country, and I'm gonna go back to thinking.
thadeus, if you ever need someone to talk to, there are lots of people on this board who will be willing to listen (such as myself). That being said, if you want to talk about the validity of PolitiFact then start a new thread. I will gladly throw my two cents in.
This was brought up earlier in the thread. You are correct that the deficit exist and predates Walker but Walker's actions have made it more difficult to address the long term deficit and does exactly what he (Walker) argues against by creating further problems down the road. From the link you provided. [rquoter]There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.[/rquoter] Anyway this is a somewhat tangential point as the unions had agreed to the financial cuts that Walker had proposed to address the current deficit. This bill wasn't about balancing the budget but about union busting.
I was simply explaining to mark and drexlerfan why their information was wrong. If you no longer have to negotiate with some union then of you are going to save money. To quote you: "the unions had agreed to the financial cuts". This is not even an issue for the state of Wisconsin anymore. They can offer whatever they want to teachers and don't have to get some unions approval. Of course this will save money. How much it will save is indeterminable.
Always been a big supporter of labor unions and worker's rights.... but teacher's in Wisconsin shouldn't average 88K ... any moron with a bachlors can teach.... not to mention the pension.
Actually you need post graduate education to be a teacher, and if you think the salary and benefits of teaching are so wonderful, and high paying, then why aren't the doors being beat down for people lining up to be teachers? Please recognize the facts. Teachers are paid less in salary and benefits than people with the same amount of education in the private sector, and often do a more important job. Those greedy, money grubbing, selfish teachers. How dare they try and make a decent wage.
You are wrong. But why would would you want to only have morons teaching your children? The smart people would avoid the job if it didn't pay. (just like all those Bank CEO's if you took their bonuses) My wife had a masters of Health education and she work very hard. I guess all those talking heads on Fox have never seen teachers grading papers every night and writing lesson plans on the weekend.
Know quite a bit about teachers, have had to work with them quite often... and know that it is a job that is difficult to get fired from, and does not require a great deal of effort.... not worth 88K, or close to it. 9-10 months a year, with major holidays AND pension... 88K? NOPE... For what they do, 88K is more than a decent wage.
I am glad that your wife works hard.. I am sure she is a wonderful woman.... but if she is a primary education teacher, and gets pension, and 2-3 months off a year and averages 88K a year?... then she is over paid. As far as the "best" argument... since Wisconsin pays their teacher's twice the appropriate wage, I would hope Wisconsin would have far higher scores, college graduates etc. than similar states.
Teachers do take their work home with them. Alot more then other professions. That being said, this wouldn't be an issue if the education system was privatized......... Just another debate that could be easily resolved if the government got out of the way.
people on the left love to b**** and moan about the wealthiest people, but oh god no we can't end the banking cartel. that's be crazy!
