talkpolitics | Recall Elections

The Republicans retained the State Senate in Wisconsin yesterday:

Democrats won two state Senate seats in Tuesday's historic recall elections, but failed to capture a third seat that would have given them control of the chamber.

By keeping a majority in the Senate, Republicans retained their monopoly on state government because they also hold the Assembly and governor's office. Tuesday's elections narrowed their majority - at least for now - from 19-14 to a razor-thin 17-16.

Consider me very surprised, as I assumed we'd see at least 3-4 switch over. Of the losses, one was from a Republican in Democratic territory, and the other was immersed in a number of scandals.

What does this say about Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin? About the local impact of the changes in how the public sector deals with unions? Heck, about the popularity of the arguments put forth about the unions at all?

There are two recall elections for next week for Democratic incumbents, as well. I haven't seen polling for them yet.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So it is your position that taxes are universally a good thing?

They have no negative reprecussions what so ever?

Taxes are just the representation of the social contract, and the easiest way to facilitate it without forcing people into performing labor against their will.

Some taxes are good, some are bad, it depends on the context- What is being taxed and what is the money being used for? For example, sin taxes. I would consider these 'bad' taxes, because even though they go toward a good cause (for example, cigarette taxes go toward health care), they're a regressive tax. It's one of those things that produces less and less revenue and now the program that it's being paid for doesn't have enough funding. There's even been proposed an increase in the federal cigarette tax because it isn't pulling in enough revenue anymore.

Sin taxes don't socially engineer bad habits away, they just make the users destitute. This usually disproportionally affects poor people because they tend to rely on these things just so they're not completely miserable.

There are good taxes as well, and they're usually progressive. Your premise is too black-and-white to be taken seriously.

Some taxes are good, some are bad, it depends on the context- What is being taxed and what is the money being used for?

But you just rejected the idea that taxes could be bad out of hand, which is it?

Sin taxes don't socially engineer bad habits away, they just make the users destitute. This usually disproportionally affects poor people because they tend to rely on these things just so they're not completely miserable.

Exactly ^ but making people destitute and miserable is just fine as long as it's in the name of the greater good correct?

Go back and read the whole reply with this in mind.

But you just rejected the idea that taxes could be bad out of hand, which is it?

Taxes in general are not bad. This was part of your premise, no?

Exactly ^ but making people destitute and miserable is just fine as long as it's in the name of the greater good correct?

I just explained how I am not in favor of certain taxes, to counter your accusation that I thought they were all good. It's a case by case basis.

I just explained how I am not in favor of certain taxes, to counter your accusation that I thought they were all good. It's a case by case basis.

Good point, but now lets return to the initial argument, specifically that of people voting (as you put it) against thier own interests.

Your assumption as I understand it is that the majority of "un-rich" right-wing voters have been duped into voting Republican by evil corporate interests, correct?

Yep. I would say greedy corporate interests, not evil, but to each his own.

Ok, now let us parse some examples.

1: Let us suppose for a moment I worked on an oil rig, and that profits for Texaco means a fat paycheck and generous pension for me.

If my votes favor "Big Oil" am I not looking out for my own interests?

Likewise why should I vote for someone who's executive order put me out of a job? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/obama_administration_will_ban.html)

2: Apply the above argument to any other major industry.

3: Let us suppose for a moment for a moment that oversized national debts lead to civil instability. (A cursory review of recent European and South American history provides plenty of evidence to back this claim)

Would not a vote to "cut costs" not be a vote in favor of stability?

4: Progressives don't give a shit about the rural poor, as long as you get your "Cap & Trade" the people who grow your food and transport your goods are expendable (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1119289.html?thread=89457721#t89457721).

Befor you ask "When did that happen?" consider Cap and Trade when viewed from a rural american point of view.

Caps on energy production result in fewer jobs and higher prices.$4.00+ a gallon hits the guy driving a truck or tractor a lot harder than it does an urban commuter who rides the bus. Because modern industrial farming is an energy intensive activity food prices will climb accordingly. The push for more public transportation does little to benefit those effected because it's limited to major population centers. The rich will continue to get rich and the poor will get even poorer all in the name of saving the planet.

The message many on the left have embraced seems to be "fuck about those ignorant slope-heads in the flyover states?"

Those "Ignorant slope-heads" telling the left "Go fuck your selves!" is an entirely predictable reply.

If my votes favor "Big Oil" am I not looking out for my own interests?

This example is not the type of person I'm talking about. Rich people voting to stay rich is a given. Poor people voting to stay poor is odd.

Would not a vote to "cut costs" not be a vote in favor of stability?

What the hell? Are you implying that I just want to raise costs? If I wanted to do that, I'd vote for tax cuts.

4: Progressives don't give a shit about the rural poor, as long as you get your "Cap & Trade" the people who grow your food and transport your goods are expendable.

I never said I supported cap & trade.

Your examples rely on too many naked assumptions about me.

This example is not the type of person I'm talking about. Rich people voting to stay rich is a given. Poor people voting to stay poor is odd.

Who said anything about being rich? I'm talking about the Roughknecks, Crane Operators, and Cooks.

What the hell? Are you implying that I just want to raise costs?

Based on a broad range of positions held by many progressives it would not be an illogical conclusion.

I never said I supported cap & trade.

But many Democrats do, which is a good reason for the rural poor to vote Republican.

Recall Elections

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject