Scott Walker - Handicapping the GOP hopefuls

[JoeB131]

The third in a series.

Scott Walker-

Qualifications- Governor of Wisconsin.

Pros- Blue State governor with a record of winning tough races. Took on the powerful unions and won.

Cons - Has earned the enmity of unions. Doesn't have a college degree. Has a few scandals rattling around in his closet.

My own opinion, I really don't like what he did with the unions up there. His view is that gosh darn it, some unions actually managed to hold on to a Middle Class lifestyle and we can't have that.

But he did have to make some tough choices. If I had to vote for a Republican, it would probably be this guy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not a chance!

He is lacking in way too many crucial areas of leadership in my opinion. As an Independent I am looking at Kasich as being a viable GOP candidate right now. Way better choice that Walker in my opinion.

 

[martybegan]

The third in a series.

Scott Walker-

Qualifications- Governor of Wisconsin.

Pros- Blue State governor with a record of winning tough races. Took on the powerful unions and won.

Cons - Has earned the enmity of unions. Doesn't have a college degree. Has a few scandals rattling around in his closet.

My own opinion, I really don't like what he did with the unions up there. His view is that gosh darn it, some unions actually managed to hold on to a Middle Class lifestyle and we can't have that.

But he did have to make some tough choices. If I had to vote for a Republican, it would probably be this guy.

He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.

 

[Rozman]

My first choice John Kasich.
Second Scott Walker.

 

[JoeB131]

He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.

The Public Sector needs unions for the same reason the private sector does.

Otherwise the boss's drinking buddy get promoted even though you have seniority.

 

[martybegan]

He's taken on PUBLIC unions, and note that even FDR, the progressive Washington, thought they were a terrible idea.

The Public Sector needs unions for the same reason the private sector does.

Otherwise the boss's drinking buddy get promoted even though you have seniority.

That's what civil service rules are for, not unions. And it the case of unions its the shop steward's drinking buddy that gets promoted.

Public unions are the bane of local governments, state governments, and federal governments. The people who are paid by the government cannot have undue influence on who is elected to the governments, or the actions they take in the name of the people.

 

[Votto]

Jeb?

 

[JoeB131]

That's what civil service rules are for, not unions. And it the case of unions its the shop steward's drinking buddy that gets promoted.

Public unions are the bane of local governments, state governments, and federal governments. The people who are paid by the government cannot have undue influence on who is elected to the governments, or the actions they take in the name of the people.

What do you consider, "undue"? Actually having a say in what policy is? I think we call that "Democracy".

You guys keep claiming that the Koch Brothers dumping billions of dollars into our politics has no effect, but union money does?

 

[martybegan]

That's what civil service rules are for, not unions. And it the case of unions its the shop steward's drinking buddy that gets promoted.

Public unions are the bane of local governments, state governments, and federal governments. The people who are paid by the government cannot have undue influence on who is elected to the governments, or the actions they take in the name of the people.

What do you consider, "undue"? Actually having a say in what policy is? I think we call that "Democracy".

You guys keep claiming that the Koch Brothers dumping billions of dollars into our politics has no effect, but union money does?

The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.

We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.

 

[Votto]

 

[JoeB131]

The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.

We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.

Guy, there was no problem with pensions for government workers when we used to have pensions for private secotr workers and a middle class.

the real problem was, the governments never set aside the money to pay for the pensions. they were too busy spending it on wars and bridges to nowhere and bailouts for the rich.

 

[martybegan]

The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.

We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.

Guy, there was no problem with pensions for government workers when we used to have pensions for private secotr workers and a middle class.

the real problem was, the governments never set aside the money to pay for the pensions. they were too busy spending it on wars and bridges to nowhere and bailouts for the rich.

State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.

The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now.

Its a racket, nothing more, nothing less.

Scott Walker gets my support for trying to get a start at ending this shit. Granted he went after the low hanging fruit of the teachers unions, but every effort has to start somewhere.

 

[JoeB131]

State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.

The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now.

Its a racket, nothing more, nothing less.

Scott Walker gets my support for trying to get a start at ending this shit. Granted he went after the low hanging fruit of the teachers unions, but every effort has to start somewhere.

Guy, we are talking about federal unions, too, right. Unless you are just trying to limit the argument.

Now, yeah, I think there ought to be SOME pension reform. But to keep the state solvent, not to give more tax cuts to rich people...

 

[martybegan]

State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.

The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now.

Its a racket, nothing more, nothing less.

Scott Walker gets my support for trying to get a start at ending this shit. Granted he went after the low hanging fruit of the teachers unions, but every effort has to start somewhere.

Guy, we are talking about federal unions, too, right. Unless you are just trying to limit the argument.

Now, yeah, I think there ought to be SOME pension reform. But to keep the state solvent, not to give more tax cuts to rich people...

State unions are worse because of the smaller resources, and the larger impact the union members have on elections, but federal ones are bad as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kasich before Walker, and Paul, Bush, Christie before either of the first two.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Kasich before Walker, and Paul, Bush, Christie before either of the first two.

I no longer trust Christie's judgment when it comes to hiring people. Paul is ahead of him in my opinion and Kasich is probably tied with Paul.

Bush is a wildcard because I am torn between the fact that he is by far the best of the clan but he will still have to deal with those who belong to the Bush camp and that includes scum like Cheney, et al.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My main concern with Bush is his connections to the neo-cons who would keep our people in continual war if they get the chance.

 

[Toro]

The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.

We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.

Guy, there was no problem with pensions for government workers when we used to have pensions for private secotr workers and a middle class.

the real problem was, the governments never set aside the money to pay for the pensions. they were too busy spending it on wars and bridges to nowhere and bailouts for the rich.

State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.

The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now.

Its a racket, nothing more, nothing less.

Scott Walker gets my support for trying to get a start at ending this shit. Granted he went after the low hanging fruit of the teachers unions, but every effort has to start somewhere.

I've worked around public pensions most of my career, and I generally agree with Joe that the problem is that governments have not funded what they've promised, at the state level anyways. There are certainly some abuses in public pensions, and there are some politicians who have over-promised, but governments have often made the choice not to fund when they could have, instead spending money on other things or giving tax cuts because it was politically expedient when things were good.

Ironically, Wisconsin has one of the most innovative public pension plans around. One of the criticisms of public plans is that all the market risk falls on the government. In Wisconsin, that risk falls on both the retiree and the government.

FTR, I'd seriously consider supporting Scott Walker.

 

[Toro]

Kasich before Walker, and Paul, Bush, Christie before either of the first two.

I no longer trust Christie's judgment when it comes to hiring people. Paul is ahead of him in my opinion and Kasich is probably tied with Paul.

Bush is a wildcard because I am torn between the fact that he is by far the best of the clan but he will still have to deal with those who belong to the Bush camp and that includes scum like Cheney, et al.

I could be completely wrong, but I don't think that Jeb would have picked Cheney and his ilk had he been elected President in 2000 instead of his brother.

 

[martybegan]

The people working for the government cannot have extra influence over who becomes part of the government. That is the problem with public sector unions. When you combine that with the supposed unlimited kitty of from taxation powers, you get what will soon become unsustainable government spending on people who are no longer working.

We have had this debate before. Public unions are idiotic and only serve to kill the governments they serve.

Guy, there was no problem with pensions for government workers when we used to have pensions for private secotr workers and a middle class.

the real problem was, the governments never set aside the money to pay for the pensions. they were too busy spending it on wars and bridges to nowhere and bailouts for the rich.

State governments spend $$ on wars? The bridge to nowhere was one aberration. And your class warfare blah blah, slurp slurp is still as tiring as when you did it months ago.

The real problem is democratic politicians working with democratic union leaders to fleece taxpayers out of money now and 30 years from now.

Its a racket, nothing more, nothing less.

Scott Walker gets my support for trying to get a start at ending this shit. Granted he went after the low hanging fruit of the teachers unions, but every effort has to start somewhere.

I've worked around public pensions most of my career, and I generally agree with Joe that the problem is that governments have not funded what they've promised, at the state level anyways. There are certainly some abuses in public pensions, and there are some politicians who have over-promised, but governments have often made the choice not to fund when they could have, instead spending money on other things or giving tax cuts because it was politically expedient when things were good.

Ironically, Wisconsin has one of the most innovative public pension plans around. One of the criticisms of public plans is that all the market risk falls on the government. In Wisconsin, that risk falls on both the retiree and the government.

FTR, I'd seriously consider supporting Scott Walker.

its not just pensions, but that is a major issue. Its arcane work rules, the inability to get rid of non performers, and the basic problem in employees having the ability to influence their employers in a situation where it is not the employer's money that is being negotiated over.

In a non governmental industry, the unions know they can only push so hard before whatever service or product they provide becomes non-viable. With government both sides see the taxpayer as a bottomless cookie jar, an cookie jar that can be ignored.