Fact-Checking Wisconsin

JBeukema

Rookie
Apr 23, 2009
25,613
1,746
0
everywhere and nowhere
Says Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker "has threatened to call out the National Guard if workers protest against" changes to bargaining laws.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Monday, February 14th, 2011.
Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details
rulings%2Ftom-false.gif
"The alternative" to higher state worker pension and health care payments "is to look at 1,500 layoffs of state employees or close to 200,000 children who would be bumped off Medicaid-related programs."

Scott Walker, Friday, February 11th, 2011.
Ruling: False | Details
rulings%2Ftom-true.gif
Most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums and it would still be half the national average

Scott Walker, Tuesday, February 1st, 2011.

PolitiFact | A firestorm in Wisconsin
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?


When the "renegotiating" resumes it will ultimately lead to the same place WI is in now.
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.

We do want to treat them like private sector workers don't we?:eusa_angel:
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.

We do want to treat them like private sector workers don't we?:eusa_angel:

Oh my, of course not. We would never want those teachers to be stressed out all day by the possibility of them getting fired for being crappy teachers. We want them to have a free pass to fuck up our little child's mind with their political indoctrination passed down to them from their daily injection of how to think from the union.
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.

But its totally okay for companies to spend my money towards republican candidates?

Either none are allowed or both are allowed. Can't have it both ways.
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.

But its totally okay for companies to spend my money towards republican candidates?

Either none are allowed or both are allowed. Can't have it both ways.

How is a company's money, your money?

Edited to add:

I don't necessarily agree with the premise that these unions are getting taxpayer money. They are getting the teachers money.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.

But its totally okay for companies to spend my money towards republican candidates?

Either none are allowed or both are allowed. Can't have it both ways.
it wont be your money
 
The thing is that the Union has agreed to these sacrifices

so long as they retain the right to renegotiate when the situation improves

what could be more reasonable?
There is nothing reasonable about having gubmint bureaucrat unions spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to get politicians elected, who will in turn decide which union demands are deemed "reasonable".

In the real world, we refer to such things as collusion, anti-trust and conflict of interest.

But its totally okay for companies to spend my money towards republican candidates?

Either none are allowed or both are allowed. Can't have it both ways.
False dichotomy.

Yes, it's totally OK for businesses to pay money to the election campaigns of republicans, or democratics, or libertarians, or greens, or whathaveya.

What's collusion/anti-trust is bureaucrat unions like AFSCME, taking taxpayer money via the dues from their members, to finance the political campaigns of people who will end up determining "just compensation" for union employees.

Bernie Madoff 's scam was amateur hour in comparison.
 

Forum List

Back
Top