$cott Walker has told us all he balanced the budget. He took the money from the poor and middle class, but he did say he balanced the budget.
'
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46406592#46406592

Let me just make sure I understand things correctly...

A bunch of Wisconsin citizens of all income levels bought homes that they could not afford and financed them with loans they could not repay. I would call such people as selfish, greedy, egocentric, and down right dumb. Ken refers to them as the "poor and middle class."

Now these formentioned people get forclosed on. It was bound to happen THEY BOUGHT A HOME THEY COULD NOT AFFORD! I say they got what they deserved. I bought a home I could afford, in fact I bought a home below what I could afford. Why, so I would have reserve in times of trouble. So I could repay what I'm obligated to, and promised to. Why should I, or other taxpayers, bail-out these people who got forclosed on due to thier own poor decisions.

Now the state of Wisconsin, due to the legislature's decison, is going to be giving these people ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN MILLION ($115,000,000) DOLLARS for mortgage forclosure relief. That's right, these people who Ken refers to as the "poor and middle class" are getting a bail-out for their own stupidity from the State.

So......this is what Ken has summed-up as Govenor Walker stealing from the poor. Such a statment is absolute absurdity.

River Rat,

In general, I agree that the people that bought those homes deserve nothing. However, those people also shouldn't bring down everyone else, which is what is happening. A lot of people are simply stuck now. You might change your tune about trying to help restore the housing market if you suddenly got a job opportunity elsewhere in the state or country and when it came time to sell your home you realized you can't afford to because the housing market is so bad it's worth less than what you owe on it.

It isn't a problem for people that will be in the same home for the next 20 years, but a large number of people who need to be able to sell are being punished as well. Many of these people don't have any option other than to simply allow their home to foreclose as well. Now you've got a situation where it goes on for even longer.

How about we help those out who were trying to do the right thing? The people that are still in their homes now probably weren't the ones that got us into this mess (they lost their homes a long time ago).

What you've said makes some sense, only some.

If we do as you suggest, and as a society decide to spend taxpayer money to improve the housing market that's fine. We can do it in many and better ways than giving a bail-out to those who have defaulted on a loan they could never repay. We can address the issues you posed directly. We could use that money to establish a relocation fund for people who are caught-up on thier mortgage but need to move and are having difficulty selling thier home. We use the money to establish a fund for people who are caught-up on thier mortgage and have to sell thier house at a loss because of the down-turn in home values. We could offer rebates to home buyers to stimulate the demand side.

ALL of these would address your concerns directly. The problem we're faced with now is what will happen when this $115,000,000 bail-out is spent by the defaulters. They could still be sitting in the same house they still can't afford, do we then give them more money? or should we at that point let them default? We have really solved nothing. I guess we'll find out when the time comes because that is the decision we have made. I hope, as a taxpayer, that I'm not giving any more of my hard earned money to these people again.

BTW, an educated debate on these topics is gratifying. The silly, senselesss statments like those by the OP i.e. "walker steals from the poor" are pure bafoonery.

River Rat,

I didn't watch the video but I'm assuming the OP is talking about the settlement from the banks. I wouldn't call that a bailout since that's not government money. That money was SUPPOSED to be used to directly help those affected by the mortgage issues that were pushed by the lenders. That money is basically a fine on the banks.

Unfortunately, Walker feels the best use of that money is to once again "balance" the supposedly "balanced" state budget. I think that's what the OP was trying to get at...

A fine? We the taxpayers lent the banks the money in the first place to prevent a colapse of the banking industry. The fear such a collapse was induced by these idots who bought homes they couldn't afford. Yes, lending practices were lax, but have since been reformed.

This "settlement" is more of a reimbursment then anything else. It's money the taxpayers fronted. It should have allowed full discretionary use to the people who fronted the money (us), through our elected representatives.

The fact is people who can't afford the homes they bought will be getting millions upon millions of dollars from the government to help them with their poor decision making. If you dont wan't to call that a bail-out that's fine. I'm calling it not right. The OP is defining it as stealing from the poor.

"Ken refers to them as the "poor and middle class.""

I was not refering to the people that were mortgage trouble. I was refering to the people that $cott Walker used to get his budget balanced. BUT, his balanced budget is a $140,000,000 budget deficit. He still has spent millions on commercials touting that he balanced the budget.

Perhaps the Walker supporters who claim the budget is balanced can explain why if it is balanced Walker and the Republicans are taking money from the Federal Mortgage Fund relief for Wisconsin "to balance" it. Is it balanced or not? By the way, all governors have "balanced" the budget for what that is worth.

Correct Nimble!
Why does $cott Walker need to shift MILLIONS from Federal mortgage relief funds to "balance" his budget that he claims is already balanced?! All his commercials claim he already balanced the budget?! If the state has a $140,000,000 MILLION deficit where is all the millions $cotty say`s he saved by taking away the rights of the middle class, having the poor and middle class pay for his cuts, and millions in tax breaks for rich to "create" the jobs that we don`t have?! Would little $cotty lie?



$cott Walker - An evil little man, with evil little thoughts

This just keeps getting better......what "RIGHTS" have been taken away from the middle class of Wisconsin citizens?

I guess you better define "right" before you start. Because if you belive that sittin' around on your *** waiting for your next government check, stamp, or coupon is a right then you've got a strange view of "rights." See that, I can make mudslinging, rhetorical statements not supported by any basic of fact too.

The right and freedom of Collective Bargaining. Which started with state employees, but is spreading to other workers.

Collective bargining is alive and well in our state. Remember president O'bama was just visiting a union plant in Milwaukee a few weeks ago, praising the work being done there, saying it was a model to be looked up to.

However, collective barginging of State employed PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, is not a right. In fact, in many cases was a front to shunt taxpayer money into PAC's and political campaigns. It was a system frought with deciet; truely a confilct of intrest. If the public unions had reformed themselves, instead of dealing in back-room, old boys-club deals, and taxpayer deciet this would not be an issue. Manditory union membership, dues collecion, and automatic allotment of taxpayer money into the political system doomed public unions. It needed to end. Ironicly, I would support bringing it back, but only if serious reform occured. If the politcal ties were truly severed, membership and dues were volintary, and the union's only focus was the worker, I think the issue would have much more support.

Would you like that drafted in unicorn or leprechaun blood?

If unions were only interested in protecting workers, they would represent workers in fast food, big box stores and farm workers. They only focus on workers who can afford to pay dues. People complain about "big business" but then rave about "union pride". It's rediculous. As long as unions are able to collect large quantities of dues in a timely fashion they don't care what happens to the workers.

_________________
"There are two parties in politics: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have bad ideas, Democrats have no ideas." - Lewis Black

Nuep99,

Unions would love to represent those people. The employees have to vote to unionize first. A Walmart and Target have both had votes to unionize (and I believe both didn't pass). Jimmy Johns (fast food) had a vote to unionize, etc...

Remember that unions got their start representing the little guy that didn't have a voice...

I generally don't agree with a lot of unions, but they certainly have their place!

Kerry that's not true for most state paid workers! (prior to the elimination of the flawed system)

No vote. MANIDITORY that you belong, MANDITORY that your dues be removed from your check, and AUTOMATIC diversion of taxpayer money, labeled and earmarked, for stuffing into PAC's and political campaigns.

How this fleecing of the Wisconsin taxpayer lasted so long is a mystery to me. I guess cover-ups and backroom handshakes kept things quiet. Big politics at work diverting public monies, again. This time however those monies were going back to the politicans themselves. I think it's disgusting that the public unions did this to the wisconsin people, and to the workers they represented. Quite frankly, if I were a state paid worker I'd be more flipped-off at my ex-union than anybody else.

River Rat,

I think you need to check up with how Union's work. Being a union member isn't optional at most private organizations either. Heck, at one job I had I was nearly required to become a union member just to work in the building 50% of the time (only one site was unionized).

The way the unions were configured at the state wasn't anything unusual...

And employees did vote, they did it once when they chose to unionize. That's the same way it works elsewhere...

I think they've got you brainwashed too Kerry. I'm talking about PUBLIC unions, unions that represent public sector workers - that is the issue we are discussing.

Please review how federal workers are represented, and how that compares to wisconsin.

In additon, no private sector union has the ability to collect taxpayer money and stuff it into PAC's.

I don't have the exact percentages for you but this is close: If a school district collected a million bucks from taxpayers for wages, then roughly $8,000 of taxpayers $$ would be directly shunted from the taxpayers into PAC's and political campaigns. it was a kick-back scheme pure and simple. If you don't beleive me you have not read enough on the issue.

River Rat,

I don't think you're reading my response. If you get a job at a union private business, you are typically required to join the union. The union actually has a court backed ability to fine you for going against a union strike, etc.

You said the unions forced employees to join in Wisconsin public unions. I was simply pointing out that that was not an unusual situation and probably not any different than the paper mills or Harley. And there was a vote, it may have been before any current employee joined, but there was a vote. The union didn't just form out of thin air, the employees have voted at one point to form the union.

Also, if we want to talk about being forced to do something... As a public worker (who has never been, and would prefer not to ever be union) why is it mandated that I have to contribute at a specific level toward my retirement? At a private company i'm allowed to choose my contribution level and the company will match up to a certain percentage (typically). I however have no choice even at a time when money is tight. I also am required to purchase mandated life insurance.

Finally, a couple other points. Union members can get out of the union. They simply would have had to request a vote (and follow any required signature rules, etc.) and could have disbanded the union at any time. I suspect you'll find most union members would have been against this. Much like an election, it's majority rule so you need more than 50% of the voters to agree to disband.

And last point. Stop saying it was filtering public money to to PACs. The moment that employee EARNED the money, it became theirs. Their money was diverted, not yours!!! No part of anything on my paycheck belongs to you or anyone else (other than the taxes). I find it offensive that you would even begin to consider it otherwise!

Ok - they earned it. They earned something they could never collect. Thats like me saying I won the super bowl a year ago because I'm a packers owner. Wheres my super bowl ring? I don't have one.

As far as the worker was concerned that money was nothing but a rubber stamp on a peice of paper. Something for the crooks to save face with. Noone pocketed that money except the PAC's.

That fact is the money was going from the taxpayer to the PAC, with a few rubber stamps inbetween, and nobody could stop it. You can call that a teachers salary if you want, you can say they earned it if you want too. Whatever you call it, it does not change that fact that it was happening, and it was wrong.

If this is normal and commonplace as you contend why have so many states outlawed this exact practice through workers paycheck reform acts. Wisconsin has not.

I said it was manditory and I understood what you wrote perfectly. I think your not understanding that this is NOT a proper situation for a public employee. The federal government has outlawed this practice for federal workers because it creates a conflict of interest. That system is entirely voluntary, both in terms of overall workplace barganing, and individual workers choice to join or not. The federal government has identified the inherant political coruption that can occur in public employee unions, Just like what happened here. They put in place refoms that eliminated the chance of corruption, and removed the conflict of interest. Why did Wisconin allow this to occur and the feds put a stop to it long ago?

I know this will be hard for you to believe but only about 31% of federal employees choose join the union. Despite that their benefits and salries outpace much of the private sector. This all happens without shunting federal taxes to the unions and PACs through some corrupt automatic deduction of taxpayer dollars.

As a non-union state employee working in the legislature from 1970-73 (for the Democrats), I never could understand why Wisconsin allowed both unions AND civil service. It had always been my understanding that civil service was designed to cover all issues of fairness in employment. I believe it was 1952 that the state made it legal for public employees to unionize. A number of states (I think it's 17) still don't allow it.
Kerry, it is a fact that tax money pays your salary. If you belong to a union and union dues automatically come out of your check to be used for political purposes, that is our tax money, just as are FICA. federal, state, school and county taxes. You don't see it and you have no choice in it so, while it technically comes out of YOUR paycheck, realistically, you can't really say it's yours.
I don't really understand why ANY employee should be dictated to concerning things like health insurance and retirement. We offer them at the Leader but no one is required to take them. I belonged to a union (which I helped form) and there was no such requirement to our members.
Finally, my long-time saying: "Unions exist only because of bad management."

I 100% agree that tax payers pay my salary, no doubt about it. But again, I find it offensive that ANYONE think's any part of the salary I earn belongs to them. If my job requires I pay union dues, so be it, but it is still coming out of money I've EARNED which means it is MY money! The moment you hired me to work those hours, you gave up any say in how that money is spent.

Based on the logic being applied, it is Harley's money that is being spent on their employee's union dues. Again, it is not. When you hire an employee you offer to pay them X. They choose to accept or reject that offer. If being part of a union is a requirement for that position, it is still up to the employee to choose whether they accept the offer because the money is being drawn from THEIR salary.

Larry, based on your argument if you ever win on one of those lottery tickets you like to buy that money must be shared with everyone that currently contributes to social security because based on your argument, that is the social security payers money. How is that any different???

Even the IRS agree's the money belongs to the employee, which is why some of union dues and fees are tax deductible. Note that any portion of dues that is withdrawn for political purposes is not tax deductible...

As far as civil service vs unions. Here's a description...
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8b5ef68c-4606-11e0-80b5-001cc4c03286.html

A couple key pieces...

Okay, it's "your" money. Why can't you decide what happens to that money? You can't. The politicans took it before it appeared on your paystub. It went to a PAC that you may or may not agree with. If you worked for a refomed agency, like the federal government, you could make that decision. You need to appriciate the flawed system that was in place in Wisconsin. No one would try to attach you personally. You need to take a step back and view this from a more analitical viewpoint.

Why isn't there a spell cecker on this forum? larry, i need an editor LOL.

Hey Ken, where are you? I'd really like to to read you take on these issues. Please give me something other than "walker sucks" LOL.

River Rat,

First, remember, I wasn't part of what you describe as the "flawed" system. I never have been a union member. I was simply one of the state employees who apparently were the sole cause and only possible fix for the budget problems in the state... Never mind that I was offered a position for about 13% more pay and better benefits than before the state made the changes and the position I was offered was a reduction in responsibility and required less education. I stayed at my current job because they nearly matched the pay (although the benefits are still worse) and I happen to like what I do and think it's important.

The politicians didn't take the money for the PAC. The unions did. The union members had voting rights and control over what the union does. Much like we, the voters, had rights over our local school boards who long ago could have simply told the teaching unions no during contract negotiations. This was a union that didn't have the ability to strike, what were they going to do, picket the parent teacher conferences???

Even better, your statement that the politicians took the money would have been illegal. The politicians can't specifically collaborate with a PAC, it's a violation of the law.

I won't argue that changes weren't needed. However, the way it was done was wrong and as far as I'm concerned immoral. Remember that the Oshkosh Northwestern has Walker on video shortly before the election stating he would work with the unions to negotiate changes. So much for the whole, anyone that didn't see this coming was blind idea.

I'm not even going to comment on the federal government being enlightened. I'm pretty sure that's the funniest thing I've seen all week...