It's morning in Wisconsin

[The Brain]

School vouchers are great. We've had them 20 years in Sweden and they seem to work.

[Berkut]

There are lots of states that are NOT dominated by very powerful public sector unions, and I don't buy your assumption that they must therefore all be in the pockets of "crony capitalism". That is a pretty difficult claim to evidence I think.

The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent because the ONLY alternative is this undefined "crony capitalism" might be the weakest argument I have ever seen for maintaining unions.

There aren't strong arguments for maintaining public employee unions, because they are a terrible thing.  As for crony capitalism, the term is very-well definited, actually.  Google it or read it on Wiki.

Nothing there that tells me how we can measure it and see if in fact less powerful public sector unions results in more of this though.

Of course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.

Except, maybe, lack of enough fat cats to actually hand over these billions.

Convince the existing fat cats to hand it over to them instead. Or better yet, change the system so that the fat cats can't give as much to anyone.

  Just because there is nothing stopping me from earning aa $50 million salary doesn't mean that I'm likely to actually get that much.

The same holds true for everyone.

This is a case where the political parties alignments have resulted in the Republicans being on the right side of the issue, and the Dems on the wrong side. That helped the Dems for a very long time, and now it is not.

They may be on the right side of the issue, but they are on the right side of it for the wrong reasons.  If that's were Republicans stop, then we shouldn't care much about whether they're right for the right or wrong reasons, but we know that they're just warming up for more radical moves.

Uhh, right.

What might those be, again?

[derspiess]

I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.

Hell, nothing prevent us from being forced to participate in your psychotic performance art, either.




Pfft, Languish on the iHipster sucks.

Sucks on my Android phone as well (at least the full site-- haven't bothered with the mobile version).  Tiny little box to type in & try to edit, and sometimes you don't know if your 10-paragraph post actually made it or not, but somehow I keep doing it.

[Valmy]

School vouchers are great. We've had them 20 years in Sweden and they seem to work.

See this is all you have to do freak out Republicans on school vouchers.  Claim 'we need to have a Swedish-style educational system'.

[Grey Fox]

Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.

Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection.  The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.

You are a fucking moron.

See above post.

I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.

OTOH, the good thing about public Unions is that as long as they are around it guarantees that government services will be extremely shitty and ineffective, undermining the Democrats call for ever greater government.

While that may be so, the solution cannot be to give them even more of our trust after they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

[DGuller]

I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.

Ask your wife for some coping tips.

[DGuller]

Convince the existing fat cats to hand it over to them instead. Or better yet, change the system so that the fat cats can't give as much to anyone.

First Amendment, dude.  Read the constitution some time.

Uhh, right.

What might those be, again?

Turn the clock back 140 years ago in general.  There weren't public employee unions back then, but there weren't a whole lot of other things back then too that people in civilized world have come to expect.

[Valmy]

First Amendment, dude.  Read the constitution some time.

I was not aware the First Amendment said that the Congress could pass no law regulating the exchange of money nor could they pass any law regulating how elections to government posts were supposed to be carried out.

But strangely it appears I was wrong.  But then I also thought the Fourth Amendment said I could not be searched without a warrant and clearly that is not what it says.

[Hansmeister]

I can see why that pisses you off.  With vouchers, inner city black students might actually get a chance to get a decent education and leave the vicious cycle that keeps them voting Democratic.

Inner city black kids: A plague that has rocked Wisconsin for years!

By the way how has the voucher thing been going?  I was never very optimistic about its prospects but surely it has been going in a few states by now.

It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system.  That's right, a 100% voucher system.  I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction.  And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition. 

[Hansmeister]

First Amendment, dude.  Read the constitution some time.

I was not aware the First Amendment said that the Congress could pass no law regulating the exchange of money nor could they pass any law regulating how elections to government posts were supposed to be carried out.

But strangely it appears I was wrong.  But then I also thought the Fourth Amendment said I could not be searched without a warrant and clearly that is not what it says.

Since the media is controlled by fat cat corporations does that mean Congress has the power to prohibited them from endorsing or critizising politicians?  After all, those are simply "contributions in kind".

[Valmy]

It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system.  That's right, a 100% voucher system.  I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction.  And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition. 

Heh...no things can always get worse especially when Louisiana is involved.

But thanks for the update I will watching with interest.

[Berkut]

Convince the existing fat cats to hand it over to them instead. Or better yet, change the system so that the fat cats can't give as much to anyone.

First Amendment, dude.  Read the constitution some time.

Well, there are two ways to look at that.

If in fact you buy into the idea that the First Amendment guarantees the right of people with incredible amounts of cash to have an undue influence on elections, then what is the problem? The system is working as intended, and just because YOUR tribe is not as good at attracting the guys with vast quantities of cash doesn't mean much other than that your guys should get better at sucking up to the super rich.

The other way to look at it is that all rights, including First Amendment ones, are limited in their scope, and the idea that an individuals First Amendment rights extend to the extent that we must tolerate the degradation of other people right to have their voices heard through the elective process is simply not true.

Personally, I would support campaign finance reform at the Amerndment level, if necessary, to start dealing with campaign finance reform.

Uhh, right.

What might those be, again?

Turn the clock back 140 years ago in general.  There weren't public employee unions back then, but there weren't a whole lot of other things back then too that people in civilized world have come to expect.
[/quote]

So you think this is all part of a plot to "turn the clock back 140 years", and that is why the Republicans are moving against public sector unions? It can't be because they think they are bad on their own merits, as they claim. Rather they have some ulterior motive. I thought you didn't like it when people assigned ulterior motives to others, rather than just accept their reasons at face value?

The handy thing about this conspiracy theory of yours is it justifies just opposing everything that any Republican ever does, because you can just claim it is all part of the attempt to fulfill this fundamental motive of turning back the clock.

It is a lot like people who claim that Obamacare is all part of the left wing plot to turn the USA into "socialism".

I am not sure that is much of an improvement over just opposing them because they are wearing those silly purple headbands instead of the really nice green ones.

[Valmy]

Since the media is controlled by fat cat corporations does that mean Congress has the power to prohibited them from endorsing or critizising politicians?  After all, those are simply "contributions in kind".

Oh right.  Speech is commerce.  I keep forgetting.

Then yes they have the ability to regulate commerce.  Since it seems there is no distinction to be made.

I think I should get out of sales taxes by paying 1 cent for something and then giving the rest to show my support for their fine pricing of goods.  After all nobody has the right to exclude me from my free speech rights.

[DGuller]

And here we go, Berkut is on his high horse yet again.  I should've known that the polite tone was just a trap, and he was poised to shovel more of the same "tribe" shit at the first opportunity.  I'm done.

[Valmy]

Personally, I would support campaign finance reform at the Amerndment level, if necessary, to start dealing with campaign finance reform.

That is probably the road we will have to do down next.