It's not really a concession when you force the district to agree to 3 steps forward before you agree to take one step back.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there was a $3.4 billion structural budget deficit under Doyle. Walker took that to a surplus in a single budget cycle.

All without cuts in essential services. You cannot possibly argue with those results. The guy from Hudson told me that part of their budget fixing involved increasing fees on the parents for athletics and other extra-curricular activities. The union position in the past whenever there were budget holes to be fixed involved eliminating sports programs and extra-curricular activities.

Countless school referendums (tax increases) have been passed in recent years because the schools threaten that unless it goes through, the football program or after school art classes had to be cut.

In the past, the students or the taxpayers took the hit every time a budget hole needed to be closed. Finally the time has come where the teachers take the hit, and all hell broke loose. It's just really pathetic imo.

Just making more stuff up? Cool story brah.

Link me to anything saying teachers were pro cutting programs. They get paid to staff programs like that.

By the way, the district's plan for fixing their budget hole involved cutting programs, clearly the opposite of what you're trying to put forward here.

But feel free to keep making **** up, you've got a solid 8 month record of doing it ITT.

orly?


And here's one from Rhinelander: (also 2009)

http://www.rhinelander.k12.wi.us/cms...20revenues.pdf


I'm sure I could find more, but these are just the two that popped up with 10 seconds of googling.

I'm not seeing where the teacher's union was pro cut in that stuff. Care to point that out?

Then you're blind.

lol wat?

They're eliminating staff positions, unions generally aren't okay with that. Feel free to provide some actual proof (hint: not just you asserting it) that they backed the cuts or I'm going to just assume you're making **** up again, as usual.

Or maybe you could show the ability to do some critical thinking.

I looked at the salary/benefit data for Brodhead district in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

On average, the teachers got 2.1% raises in salary/benefits from 2009 to 2010, and 3.2% increases from 2010 to 2011. I wonder what the average private sector raise was?

The adminstrators did even better. They got themselves a 5.6% raise during the height of the economic collapse.

And they are going to sit there and ask the taxpayers of the district to give them more money or they have to cut jobs? **** that. How about instead of handing yourselves raises, you suck it up for a year like the rest of us and make due without a raise this time around and let the librarian and extra-curricular teachers keep their jobs?

SOLIDARITY! Unless it means I won't get my raise, in which case don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

So you don't have any proof that the teachers backed the cuts? Just say so brah.

There are tons of other options they could have endorsed. Ranging from cut admin's pay to even backing the referendum and going from there if it fails. To jump to 'omg teachers want to cut their own pay and numbers rather to fill budget holes' seems pretty silly. It's not just about 'solidarity' for people that might be gone, a whole lot of people lose money if they cut after school programs and such that teachers do so I highly doubt they want to get rid of them.

It's not surprising that you took my 'keep making **** up' line seriously though, wtg.

They had the power to prevent the cuts by having the group make some concessions. They didn't, so I think it's safe to say that they supported them.

Edit: But then again, maybe those 3% and 5% raises were supposed to be 8% and 12%. These are the kinds of "concessions" we usually see in union contracts around here.

At least you're sort of admitting that you're making **** up this time.

Some day you should sit down and actually get educated on the issue you seem so passionate about arguing. The last rounds of offered concessions were a 10% cut in take home pay basically.

50,000 signatures collected in Walker recall effort in 48 hours

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c03286.html

Poll shows 58% in favor of recalling Walker

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/133929948.html

They're going to get the required signatures IMO. If you thought there was a lot of money thrown at the last round of recalls you haven't seen anything yet

Walker was crying to Hannity last night or the night before about how this recall effort is "going to cost the taxpayers of Wisconsion at least $10 million." No word on whether or not he will go ahead and resign and save the taxpayers that money.

Yeh I still think its a longshot to recall Walker. remember the reason that anti-union bill was rejected in ohio was because they succeded in getting a 'yes' vote to mean you were for the bill.

Generally speaking things like this start off polling with a lot of 'yes's but as election nears it doesnt pass. Example was Washington state income tax which polled at 66% yes and it ended up failing huge.

If it had been yes to repeal you think it fails?

This has been polled for nearly a year and it hasn't changed much.

lol

You'd like that wouldn't you?

Walker will not be recalled. There will be way too much time between now and an actual recall election for people to not see this for what it is.

This entire thing is about the public unions being a bunch of crybabies because someone dared to finally stand up to them after 50 years of getting whatever the hell they wanted. The democratic party is hitching their wagon to the cause for no other reason than to get back in power.

This is going to be a massive fail because when the recall inevitably fails, Walker will be more emboldened and untouchable than ever.

I do worry about losing control of the senate and bringing all further reforms to a grinding halt, however.

If I'm wrong and Walker loses to some twit like Tammy Baldwin, I will be extremely disappointed in my fellow Wisconsinites. But I don't see it happening.

Let's bet on this also

We can break it up into different stages if you want, ie they get the sigs required, they get the election, he gets recalled, etc.

There's been a ton of time between now and the reason for the recall (started in feb/march) and it's still a pretty hot issue, I'm not sure why you think 2-3 months or so would cool that down so much if it hasn't yet.

Should be one hell of a fight. Are you going to be working on the recall in any direct way at all? Also, I am wondering what out of staters can do to help Wisconsin fire their corrupt governor.

Best way to help is donate money. I'll prob be up there helping get sigs at some point, if they need it, otherwise it'll be for gotv during election.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal for non residents to collect signatures. Don't let pesky things like laws stop you though.

I'm pretty sure you've been wrong on most the posts you made ITT.

http://www.recallscottwalker.info/in...#axzz1e5zFpfcf

This site does not say the circulator of the petition has to be from the state. Circulator does have to put down his/her location information though.

I almost put 'if it's legal' behind that because I thought I remembered adios or someone saying out of state people couldn't do it.

But, keeping in tradition with this thread, Inso0 is wrong again.

Just called the WI GAB and spoke to one of their 'recall specialists'. To circulate petitions you have to 'meet all the voting requirements EXCEPT residency'.

Yeah I made that call too since I posted that comment from my phone and then couldn't find any specific Wisconsin rules online. I was confusing it with the story about some girlscouts getting busted for passing around recall petitions for Alberta Darling. They were under age which was the issue there.

Wisconsin has some ****ed up rules for recalls. We're one of the few states that allows this kind of crap.

Well a lot of states don't allow recalls at all.

to his credit he shows real perservence; no matter how many times he's shown to be wrong; he never lets it slow him down or change his tune.