Democrats & Liberals Archives

Can You Unite if You're So Far Right?

Bachmann Says She can be “Unifying” U.S. Candidate

Michele Bachmann, the Conservative candidate for the GOP nomination, believes that she understands where Independents are coming from because she’s “been there, done that.”

She used to be a Democrat. She believes this is what makes her understand Independents.

She went from being a Democrat to someone who is far right compared to other members of the GOP. Honestly, how would she understand an Independednt when she skated right past them to almost the end of the opposite spectrum? She didn't even stay and chat for a while.

Let's take an example of an Independent voter that I've run into a lot. Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal. Being in CA, I've run into these kind a lot in California. Someone like this would find her voting record with taxes and spending attractive. No on TARP, No on Stimulus, No on Tax Hikes for Capital Gains, No VAT. On issues like abortion and gay rights, this is where she might turn the Independent voter off. She is not just anti abortion, she doesn't make the exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. She voted no on prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation and supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

That type of voter would love lower taxes on the gains from their investments. Would they be willing to vote for the candidate that agrees but wants to see abortion illegal even if the mother was dying? I don't think so.

If you want to lasso in Independents, it would be a lot easier to do when you're closer to the herd than at the opposite end of the ranch.

Posted by Spinny Liberal at June 30, 2011 9:59 PM
Comments
Comment #325156

Ho-hum, here we go with the same old liberal attacks on a conservative woman.

SL; evidently you didn’t get the memo; Romney is the man:

“Alec Baldwin recently waded into the world of Twitter, and he’s already using it as a platform for talking politics. Weighing in on the 2012 presidential race, the “30 Rock” actor declared Friday that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney “has the best chance” of beating Obama.

“Unwarranted fear/loathing of Obama is sad, but real. Romney has that Plymouth Rock last name… and Ken doll appeal that a lot of right-wingers go for,” Baldwin tweeted.

“I mentioned Romney because if he can overcome the Mormon issue with the Christian right, he could win it,” Baldwin wrote. “His contradictions re: Health care can be ironed out by clever GOP and conservative think tank types.”

http://firedoglake.com/2011/06/05/yes-we-get-it-already-a-republican-could-beat-obama-in-2012/

“Mitt Romney still ahead in polls “

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/16/romney_bachmann_poll/index.html

Why aren’t you socialists attacking the leader, instead of a woman who is way down in the pack?

Are we going to have to listen to a new set of personal attacks and character assassinations if Rick Perry gets into the race?

I’ve come to the conclusion that the only candidates the socialist want to attack are those who are supported by the Tea Party. But there is no need for you to worry; the Tea Party is just a fad:

“Reid Predicts the End of the Tea Party”

January 10, 2011

“In an interview on Meet the Press, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted the Tea Party would disappear after the economy recovers.”

http://www.newsy.com/videos/reid-predicts-the-end-of-the-tea-party

Why, we even have RINO’s predicting the demise of the Tea Party:

“Sen. Graham Predicts Tea Party Movement Will Die Out”

7/1/2010

“(RTTNews) - In a move that could lead to a backlash from the conservative grassroots groups, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has said that the Tea Party movement is “unsustainable” and “will die out.”

“The problem with the Tea Party,” Graham said in an interview with New York Times Magazine posted online Thursday, “I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country.”

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1349650

Another liberal telling the Republican Party how to win an election…what is that smell, Oh it must be more bullshit.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 30, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #325157

Don’t socialist just hate it when they have no control over life’s events? He’s a dead man walking and then guess what; you got it, he gets to answer to God for his murderous, corrupt, thieving life. Welcome to Hell for an eternity…

“Venezuela’s Chavez says he was treated for cancer”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-venezuela-chavez-idUSTRE75T5YI20110701

Speaking of Bachmann being anti-abortion; I wonder what excuse pro-abortionist will give to God over the murder of millions of babies, when He says, “you supported what?’

Oh, I forgot, you socialists don’t believe in God, which means you probably don’t believe in Heaven or Hell either…

The mentor of socialist, Carl Marx, said that “religion was the opium of the people”. Kind of like when Obama said, the people just “cling to their guns and religion”.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 12:00 AM
Comment #325158

Conservativethinker,

“Ho-hum, here we go with the same old liberal attacks on a conservative woman.”

So all of that bulls**t about Pelosi, and Boxer, and others was just a mirage, right?

Ho-hum, here we go with same old fascist hypocrisy.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 1, 2011 11:28 AM
Comment #325159

Actually, it’s not the ‘same old’ because there are just now more conservative women testing the waters and being let out to play by the rest of the bunch. Just happens that the two who have managed to break the bonds and search the …….. are not wrapped real tight. If nothing else, it almost makes one ‘want’ to hear what they have to say to find out how much more absurd they can get.

Posted by: jane doe at July 1, 2011 11:48 AM
Comment #325160

jane,

Is it really an attack if you use their own words, in context?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 1, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #325161

conservativethinker: Please show me where I attacked her in my post.

And thank you for the memo.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 1, 2011 1:53 PM
Comment #325162

I agree with conservativethinker (Damn that makes me laugh) We need to support the palin’s and bachmann’s of this world. We need to show them as the standard bearers of the right. I for one am going to donate to her campaign it’s a dream come true. So fellow liberals open up your check books lets get this women nominated for the republicans.

Posted by: Jeff at July 1, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #325163

“conservativethinker: Please show me where I attacked her in my post.

And thank you for the memo.”

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 1, 2011 01:53 PM

Spinny, you open the door for a litany of remarks (not complimentary by the way) from those on the left. But perhaps you could explain what you mean by this next statement, show me where she made the statement, and provide an example of when this has happened in America? If you can’t, then I will assume it is more of the same old liberal talking points:

“Would they be willing to vote for the candidate that agrees but wants to see abortion illegal even if the mother was dying?”

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 4:52 PM
Comment #325164

Conservativethinker,

“…then I will assume it is more of the same old liberal talking points…”

We can all assume than that you will not be using the “same old conservative” talking points from now on?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 1, 2011 5:12 PM
Comment #325165

conservativethinker - Interesting. First you said I “attacked,” and now I “opened the door.” And since you quickly changed the subject, here you go:

1. Michele Bachmann at the debate: “I am 100 percent pro-life…I stand for life from conception until natural death.”

2. Keeping it from happening is the point of voting for people who aren’t pro-life (with and without exception).

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 1, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #325166

Spinny Liberal, I read an article which impressed me very much and it brought something to my remembrance, so I checked through the achieves and I believe this may have been your first post on WB:

“One Bite at a Time”

And in that post you said:

“Scott Walker and his GOP senators declared war on the working class. The people they want to silence by taking away their ability to collectively bargain are the ones who do jobs many of us aren’t willing to do. Prison guards and teachers are the first on the chopping block….

Posted by Spinny Liberal at April 19, 2011 01:00 AM

There were several comments made on your post, and there were several other posts written about the same time, concerning the doom of unions, school systems, states, and cities. Needless to say the responses from the left on WB were right out of the talking point play books. Things similar to the gloom and doom predictions from the left on what will happen to America if the debt ceiling is not raised. Anyway, I read this article and was very impressed that Gov. Walker of Wisconsin is being vindicated and I was just wondering about your take on the article and what effect it will have on the recall elections and the re-election prospects of Walker.

“Union curbs rescue a Wisconsin school district”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/union-curbs-rescue-wisconsin-school-district

There are several things in the article, which I did not know. I find the WEA Trust union insurance issue very interesting. This school district went from a $400k deficit to a $1.5 million surplus. How do you think the parents feel about the hiring of more teachers, smaller classes, and the surplus funds? The gloom and doom predictions of the union leaders did not happen. This fight was only few months ago, but we are already seeing positive results and it remains to be seen what will happen in the future, but if this is a trend, I can see why union bosses and democrats would be afraid. What is your take on it? Many times we see and write on the here and now events, but perhaps it’s good to follow up.

Posted by: Mike at July 1, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment #325167

Spinny Liberal said:

conservativethinker - Interesting. First you said I “attacked,” and now I “opened the door.” And since you quickly changed the subject, here you go:

No, I’m not. Your stated that Bachmann said, “Would they be willing to vote for the candidate that agrees but wants to see abortion illegal even if the mother was dying?”

And your answer was:

1. Michele Bachmann at the debate: “I am 100 percent pro-life…I stand for life from conception until natural death.”

2. Keeping it from happening is the point of voting for people who aren’t pro-life (with and without exception).

This does not answer the questions I asked you:

“But perhaps you could explain what you mean by this next statement, show me where she made the statement, and provide an example of when this has happened in America?”

If Bachmann did not say what you claimed she said; then you are making a false statement for the purpose of falsely attacking her…

I look forward to you proof of the statement, “Would they be willing to vote for the candidate that agrees but wants to see abortion illegal even if the mother was dying?”

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #325168

CT,

Bachman made it very clear in the Republican debate that she was an absolutist about abortion when she stated: “I am 100 percent pro-life.” That was in response to a question as to whether she agreed with Tim Palwenty’s exceptions for rape, incest and if the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. How else would you interpret the answer other than she doesn’t agree with those exceptions.

As for an example of when this [life of mother choice]has happened in America, http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-nun-excommunicated-after-abortion-to-save-mother-decision-93880384.html

Posted by: Rich at July 1, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #325169

If Bachmann did not say what you claimed she said; then you are making a false statement for the purpose of falsely attacking her…

I don’t understand what you’re not understanding about being 100% pro life without exception. She wants abortion illegal. In all cases. That would mean even if a woman is dying, and she had her way, the woman could not get an abortion.

???

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 1, 2011 7:04 PM
Comment #325170

Rich, thanks for the info, but it appears the medical procedure took place and thereby saving the mother’s life. This was a Catholic hospital, run by Catholics, and even if the hospital had refused to do the procedure, there were many private medical centers who would have done it. I asked for an example of a woman who had died as per SL’s claim that Bachmann said no to abortion, even if it meant the death of the mother.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment #325171

Spinny Liberal:

“I don’t understand what you’re not understanding about being 100% pro life without exception. She wants abortion illegal. In all cases. That would mean even if a woman is dying, and she had her way, the woman could not get an abortion.

???”

DO YOU HAVE A QUOTE FROM BACHMANN, WHERE SHE SAID NO ABORTION EVEN IF THE MOTHER DIES?

Or are you making the assumption that she said this?

It’s not a difficult question…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 7:12 PM
Comment #325172

Simmer down Conservativethinker. She said 100% pro life. What else do you need? Seriously. I think you need to relax.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 1, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #325173

I am not assuming that she said this. I did not say she said that. If she did, I would have wrapped quotes around it.

When you’re 100% pro life without exception that means that if a woman is dying, and to save her requires an abortion, you don’t believe she should get one.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 1, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #325174

I am 100% pro life, but recently a woman friend of mine had to have a procedure to basically abort a baby who had attached itself in the fallopian tube, the baby and or the mother’s life was at risk. So a procedure was used to remove the baby; it was not a typical abortion, but it had the same results. As traumatic as it was for my friend, it had to be done. But this incident does not change the fact that me and my friend are still 100% pro life. There are also operations that can be done to remove the baby by Caesarean section. Did Bachmann also say she opposed C-section? Many late term babies that have been aborted could have been removed by C-section. But this would allow the child to live, and that is just not acceptable.

You have no quote of what you say Bachmann said; therefore your assumption is false.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 7:56 PM
Comment #325175

CT,

All you are doing with this thread is reinforcing Spinny’s point. Most people who take a pro-life position are not truly 100% against abortions. Most people recognize exceptions. Bachman had the clear opportunity to agree with Tim Palwenty’s pro-life position which provides for exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. She chose not to. Perhaps, she was attempting to separate herself from Palwenty as the most ideologically pure. Whatever the motive, she logically put herself into an absolutist position. The fact that you keep arguing about this demonstrates Spinny’s point that extremist social positions are a liability for an otherwise acceptable candidate.

Posted by: Rich at July 1, 2011 10:01 PM
Comment #325176
it was not a typical abortion, but it had the same results. As traumatic as it was for my friend, it had to be done. But this incident does not change the fact that me and my friend are still 100% pro life.

Uh, if you condone what your friend did then you are not 100% pro-life. Maybe you are 95% pro-life or 99%, but you aren’t 100% pro-life. 100% means absolute, no exceptions.

There’s nothing to fret about not being an absolutist on this issue. It’s actually relatively common for people to see shades of gray and decipher nuance in issues such as this instead of the typical rightist knee-jerk reaction to see things in black & white terms.

BTW, thank you for the Byron York opinion piece. There’s a reason I didn’t join in when others piled on Govs Walker and Kasich. Unless we pass campaign finance reform, public sector unions will always be a peculiar breed due to their ability to control both sides of a bargaining table that doesn’t include the taxpayers who have to foot the bill.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 1, 2011 10:14 PM
Comment #325177

WR, then you agree with FDR concerning public workers being unionized.

Wr and Rich, evidently you are unfamiliar with a fallopian tube pregnancy. It is impossible for the baby to live, and could possibly cause the death of the mother. It does not require an abortion; meds cut the baby’s connection with the mother loose. so it has the same effect as an abortion, but is not.

What does it matter what a presidential candidate believes, the president has no power one way or the other to change Roe vs. Wade. It is simply a red herring. And most american voters are smart enough to understand this. The left uses abortion like they use SS and Medicare. Scare tactics…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 11:25 PM
Comment #325178

WR, the article about Walker was from Mike, but I also found it interesting, wesespecially the part about the HC Ins being owned by the unions, and a contract that did not allow any competition.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 1, 2011 11:36 PM
Comment #325179

Ct, get over yourself. When a pregnancy is ended, it’s aborted…ending the life of the fetus, most often in this case to allow the possibility of a future pregnancy. The next time you get pregnant you can come on here and testify at length about the entire process…….
The extremist ‘righties’ have been playing fast and dirty with clinics all over the last couple of days, to the point of interfering with established law of Roe v Wade.
The insanity coming from the ultra-idiotic righties is more testament to their goal of controlling all facets of life as we know it.

Posted by: jane doe at July 2, 2011 12:23 AM
Comment #325180


Keep in mind that there are disaffected Democrats and independents that are not going to vote for Obama the next time. Especially after Obama signs the budget agreement. The Democrats are planning to surrender significant cuts in social spending in return for the elimination of a few subsidies for corporations.

The Republicans, think they have enough Democratic votes in the Senate to get the spending cuts without the revenue enhancements in an agreement to prevent default. I somewhat doubt this, but it would not surprise me if it were true. It wouldn’t suprise me if Obama signed it.

Posted by: jlw at July 2, 2011 1:48 AM
Comment #325182

Has anyone noticed that the right has all these talking points like less spending but when they are in control of the white house they spend more than previous administrations. They want to work on the deficit by protecting lower tax rates for the wealthy ?? hows this work? They talk about national security and start conflicts that sap the economy and then blame the liberal white for the economy and how to end what their administration started. Its like these people set this country up for failure to further their own agenda. They are not all to blame for this mess but they are the least rational in their arguments for why we should support them. Sometimes it can border on delusional or at least complete denial of what the truth is. They remind me daily why I am firmly seated on the left and no I don’t support abortion yes I do love my country I am not a fascist no I do not support recovery on the backs of the middle class and the poor in this country and if social programs are so evil then why the h#!! do the majority of the conservatives in this country participate in them by using medicaid, medicare, social security and so on.

Posted by: robert Macklin at July 2, 2011 8:59 AM
Comment #325183

jane


“Ct, get over yourself. When a pregnancy is ended, it’s aborted…ending the life of the fetus, most often in this case to allow the possibility of a future pregnancy.”


and your proof of this is where? most people can accept that there are times when abortions are necessary, what people object to is abortion as a form of birth control. killing a healthy baby out of covenience is disgusting, and selfish just to name a couple.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2011 9:23 AM
Comment #325184

“BTW, thank you for the Byron York opinion piece. There’s a reason I didn’t join in when others piled on Govs Walker and Kasich. Unless we pass campaign finance reform, public sector unions will always be a peculiar breed due to their ability to control both sides of a bargaining table that doesn’t include the taxpayers who have to foot the bill.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 1, 2011 10:14 PM

Warped, I was hoping to get a response from SL on this subject, since she was the one who wrote the original argument. But alas, SL is not willing to recognize she was wrong or that Walker may have been correct. One commenter on SL’ s original post even stated that Walker was the talking point of the day, but that next week the left would move on to something else. I guess the talking point for today is how ignorant conservative women are; but we must remember, Pelosi is still shown to be one of the most disliked women in America. It’s always popular to get fanatical about the latest talking points and never mention the actual results. In this case, Gov. Walker could become as popular as Gov. Christy in NJ, even though they have both been attacked and ridiculed by the left and by the unions. The problem with public sector unions is their need for politicians to increase their pay and benefits, which are in turn used to pay for the elections of the politicians who vote for the increased pay and benefits. It is an everlasting cycle; and the taxpayers are the ones paying for all of it. Not to mention the fact that this policy is driving these states deeper and deeper in debt.

Posted by: Mike at July 2, 2011 9:34 AM
Comment #325185

CT,

WR, the article about Walker was from Mike, but I also found it interesting, wesespecially the part about the HC Ins being owned by the unions, and a contract that did not allow any competition.

Woops! Thank you for the correction. Mike, thank you for sharing the article.

Mike,

Gov. Walker could become as popular as Gov. Christy in NJ

I don’t know how those governors will turn out, but I do know that Gov Christie’s approval ratings are nothing to be proud of. And this is reflected in multiple polls.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 2, 2011 10:34 AM
Comment #325187

Not unwilling. It doesn’t have to do with the subject of this post, but since we meandered there, here we go.

Disclaimer: I’m a union daughter (private sector), and my mom and dad are living on my dad’s pension. He worked so hard for that. Anyway, I’m obviously pro-union, so apply the appropriate discount.

Kaukauna Surplus

So how did they do this?

Based on the article

1. Having teachers contribute more to health care and pension. Decreases teachers’ net pay.

2. Cut sick days from 10 to 5. The savings is based on the assumption that all teachers took all their sick days.

3. This is the part of the article that I found weird.

“‘These impacts will allow the district to hire additional teachers (and) reduce projected class sizes,’ School Board President Todd Arnoldussen wrote in a statement Monday.”

How do you save if you are spending by hiring additional teachers?

4. Part of the savings happened before the bill took effect. So the bill can’t get the credit for that.

The school board eliminated 14.49 full-time equivalent positions last month to help close a projected $3 million budget gap. At the time, Arnoldussen said several staff members could be called back if Act 10 took effect.

5. The union also proposed an alternative that could have generated a surplus anyway.

“In April, the school board rejected a proposal from the Kaukauna Education Association to extend the union’s contract and incorporate pension and healthcare concessions along with a wage freeze, a move the union projected could save the district about $1.8 million next year.”

Now, I gotta bail. Saturday is clean the house and give the dog a bath day.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 2, 2011 1:18 PM
Comment #325189

dbs, my proof of what, is where?
Of course, if you were a woman, and actually had better knowledge of what you were talking about, that question wouldn’t be worthy.
Your assumption that I condone abortions as a method of birth control is completely baseless, because I absolutely do not. There are far too many other methods to responsibly prevent unwanted pregnancies. That is one of the issues that makes it so assenine and absurd to attack Planned Parenthood and other agencies who will provide birth control. And you talk about ‘us’ wanting to dictate and control.
And I believe that it is far easier for you and others to magnify the truth to serve your own purposes and push your own demands and agendas.

Posted by: jane doe at July 2, 2011 3:29 PM
Comment #325190

jane

“dbs, my proof of what, is where?
Of course, if you were a woman, and actually had better knowledge of what you were talking about, that question wouldn’t be worthy.”


as to the first. your proof that the majority of abortions are performed out of medical necessity, and not for convenience.
as to your second. because i’m male my question is some how invalid? really? so what you’re saying is if i were a female i would realize that question isn’t worth asking? how so? seems pretty straight forward to me.


“Your assumption that I condone abortions as a method of birth control is completely baseless,”

where did i assume that? i don’t remember saying you believed the act of abortion out of convenience is ok. i said what most people object to is abortion as a form of birth control.


“That is one of the issues that makes it so assenine and absurd to attack Planned Parenthood and other agencies who will provide birth control. And you talk about ‘us’ wanting to dictate and control.”


the main objection to planned parenthood is that the gov’t funds provided to them can be used to provide abortions. if it were possible to seperate the facilities performing abortions from those just perscribing birth control and regular female services there would probably be less resistance. you will never make everyone happy, but you can eliminate the reasons for most reasonable objections such as someone not wanting thier tax dollars used for abortions.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #325191

Spinny Liberal said,

“Not unwilling. It doesn’t have to do with the subject of this post, but since we meandered there, here we go.”

You posted on this subject almost 3 months ago, from a union point of view, but now that Walker has been able to implement the law that was passed and upheld by the courts, I was wondering if you still had the same feelings.

“Disclaimer: I’m a union daughter (private sector), and my mom and dad are living on my dad’s pension. He worked so hard for that. Anyway, I’m obviously pro-union, so apply the appropriate discount.”

I was also a union employee for almost 40 years and so was my father, but I have never liked the way unions did some things; “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Large unions have grown beyond the ability of the rank and file to have any say or control over what happens.

Your link is almost identical to the article written by Byron York. I’m not sure why you posted it.

Let’s take a look at your responses to the article:

1. “Having teachers contribute more to health care and pension. Decreases teachers’ net pay.”

For almost 40 years I was required to invest at least 15% of my income to a retirement fund. Although in the early years my HC was free or part of my contract, during the last several years I was also required to pay into my healthcare. The reason was; it was costing my employer too much to maintain the HC Ins. This did not upset me; I understood the situation.

Today we no longer have the luxury of getting free HC; the private sector does not have it, and the public sector certainly should make concessions, since it is taxpayer money paying their wages.

2. “Cut sick days from 10 to 5. The savings is based on the assumption that all teachers took all their sick days.”

I never had sick days. If I was sick; I did what most people did and took a vacation day or lost pay for that day. In almost 40 years of employment, I doubt if I ever took more than 2 days off sick a year at the most, and most years I took no sick days. A drop of 10 days to 5 does not seem like a big sacrifice to make, when we are looking at the alternative of becoming Greece, Spain, or Portugal. Everyone has to do their part, don’t they? At least this is what most progressives believe.

3. “This is the part of the article that I found weird.”

“These impacts will allow the district to hire additional teachers (and) reduce projected class sizes,’ School Board President Todd Arnoldussen wrote in a statement Monday.”

“How do you save if you are spending by hiring additional teachers?”

I would assume a $400K deficit to a $1.5 million surplus (which even your link says), would allow money to be used elsewhere; such as bringing down the size of the classes and hiring more teachers. The goal of the school system was not to make money, but to abolish the deficit. The school systems goal is not to create a bank account full of money; it was to use the funds they have to the best potential, which they have done. It don’t seem tha hard to understand.

4. “Part of the savings happened before the bill took effect. So the bill can’t get the credit for that.”

“The school board eliminated 14.49 full-time equivalent positions last month to help close a projected $3 million budget gap. At the time, Arnoldussen said several staff members could be called back if Act 10 took effect.”

I believe you misunderstand what was taking place; the school system faced a $3 million budget gap and when the full time positions were eliminated, they were still left with a $400K shortfall; this was turned to a $1.5 million surplus when Act 10 was passed. And the result being that some of these people, who were fired, would be called back to work.

4. “The union also proposed an alternative that could have generated a surplus anyway.”

“In April, the school board rejected a proposal from the Kaukauna Education Association to extend the union’s contract and incorporate pension and healthcare concessions along with a wage freeze, a move the union projected could save the district about $1.8 million next year.”

The school board President Todd Arnoldussen said that it wasn’t just about the money:

“The monetary part of it is not the entire issue,” says Arnoldussen, a political independent who won a spot on the board in a nonpartisan election. Indeed, some of the most important improvements in Kaukauna’s outlook are because of the new limits on collective bargaining.

In the past, Kaukauna’s agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust — a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. “It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them,” says Arnoldussen. “Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor.” This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.

Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. “With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, ‘We can match the lowest bid,’”


http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/union-curbs-rescue-wisconsin-school-district#ixzz1QzYS8SS7

If the rules had not been changed, the school system would have faced the exact same problems each time a contract was negotiated. The union was only willing to make concessions after they knew that Act 10 was going to pass. If the shift of power in WI would pass back to democrats, the same problems would arise all over again and the system would again be financially bankrupt. This does not take into account that only a cancelled contract allowed the school board to negotiate with other HC providers. The current HC provider , WEA Trust, was union owned and continually raised the rates; but miracles do happen; the WEA Trust was able to lower their rates and become more competitive, only as a result of the contract being nullified. Talk about corruption. If Act 10 had not passed, the school board would still be paying the increased rates, because the union contract did not allow HC bidding from other companies.

The point is Spinny Liberal; this is only a few months into the new law. What can we expect after say, 2 years? I predict we will continue to see great savings in WI, NJ, OH, and other states, who will adopt the same laws.

Posted by: Mike at July 2, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #325192

Warped Reality, it remains to be seen how Christy will do in the next election, and whether the economy of NJ improves. President Obama has figured out that if the economy don’t improve, neither will his chances of re-election. Bill Clinton was re-elected, even though he had all kinds of things against him, simply because the economy was good. The same thing holds true in States; if the economy has improved, voters will forgive a multitude of problems. Your link actually shows Christy with the same or better poll numbers than President Obama.

Posted by: Mike at July 2, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #325193

I bet jane does husband is one happy man, if she’s married.

Posted by: Bobby L at July 2, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #325194
I was hoping to get a response from SL on this subject, since she was the one who wrote the original argument. But alas, SL is not willing to recognize she was wrong or that Walker may have been correct.

So Mike is it your point that because in the short term you have deemed those against Walker wrong, therefore any other opinion by the same people must be wrong as well? Or are you just attempting to divert attention from the nonsensical Bachmann quip that she can be a uniter?

Speaking of Bachmann being anti-abortion; I wonder what excuse pro-abortionist will give to God over the murder of millions of babies, when He says, “you supported what?’

Perhaps Con they will ask your God why would there be a procedure such as abortion in his universe if he didn’t want abortions performed. Perhaps they will ask how so many people were killed in his name, with his people’s blessing, throughout the centuries. Perhaps they will ask why pro life doesn’t extend to those on death row. Or perhaps they will ask why the self appointed “chosen ones” interfered with those that performed abortions as he had a plan. After all death comes to everyone, why would you guys think to interfere with it.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 2, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #325195

dbs, when you truly can relate to what you’re talking about, then you may be taken more seriously. The type of pregnancy being discussed is rare, but quite possibly lethal for the mother, and rarely results in a live and healthy birth.
Abortions should only be considered as a measure of last resort, and not as a form of birth control. I agree completely with that.
And to Bobby L….. what the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: jane doe at July 2, 2011 9:22 PM
Comment #325196

The problem for Republicans is while the idea of budget cuts is popular, the reality of what occurs as a consequence isn’t.

The Republican assumption is that domestic spending can perpetually go down, and nobody’s going to mind. But that’s simply not the case, and they’ll find that out in short order, if the poll numbers about the governors tell us anything.

I’m not proposing that endless deficits or rises in spending are that acceptable to the public, either.

Here’s what I think: the system is supposed to work by a balance being present between what people are willing to spend in taxes to support government spending, and what people are willing to give up in order to pay less taxes. That produces a nice negative feedback loop- not negative as in bad, but negative as in self-correcting. Taxes should work to temper demand for government, and the value of government for people should work to push the other way.

What Republicans have done by engaging in their tax cuts and deficit spending schemes is actually undo the corrective effects of this system. The fact that we’re in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the great depression makes things worse, both in terms of the demand and need for government intervention, and the difficulties in applying austerity measures to close up budget matters.

The Republicans have chosen the worst time to get holier than thou about the budget. A big portion of our budgetary outlays deal with the economic downturn, and the emergency measures taken to deal with it. An even greater portion of our budgetary shortfalls are the result of the economy’s effect on the revenues. But worse than that, if their policies harm the economy, that rebounds on the revenues. Jobs lost means taxes lost, and spending made necessary to support those people.

If we ran businesses the way Republicans try to run government, they’d run into the ground. You can’t simply be so shortsighted about your current position that you don’t think about or invest in your future. Plenty of businesses, plenty of average Americans take out loans in order to make more money later.

The question is, are we being so concerned about solving our current economic problem that we’re forgetting that our long term budget problems mostly rest on the fact that we have a crap economy? We cannot afford weak growth and slack productivity for the long term. That’s not letting the economy heal naturally, that’s letting a new, worse normal take hold.

There isn’t just one way an economy can run. Allowing for changes in technology, laws and regulations, and culture, an economy can function in any number of ways. The question is what kind of consequences we can accept.

Republicans are apparently willing to let the economy remain weak for the long term, let the sclerotic status quo remain, keep this nation dependent on an undependable fuel source that’s not getting much cheaper. And apparently, despite the deep and terrible wounds it inflicted, they’re willing to let the folks on Wall Street continue to play their dangerous games with our economy.

All in the name of saving capitalism. Well, let me tell you, it wasn’t socialism that almost killed Capitalism, it was criminal behavior, in spirit, if not in the letter of the law. It was behavior that saw risky investments, yet rated them as sound. It was a system that allowed a derivatives market to distort the housing market, among others, distorting market incentives with it.

And it’s a system that allows people to create artificial shortages on the oil market to keep prices up, despite what it does to our economy.

We have to realize, folks, that the system is not working, and the people who set it up are not the wise folks we were led to believe. Most of them are no smarter than the rest of us, and they took our economy in a direction that is more parasitic than productive.

The real question for the average American is why we’re expecting somebody else to stand up for our interests. We really have to stand up for our own. Capitalism only works when it works for the common good.

Yeah, I know, talking about the commons is a sin for the Republicans. I don’t care. My notion of capitalism doesn’t requires the extinction of our interests as a people, as a nation. I can think of myself both as an individual and a member of a group, not fanatically insist on just the individual interpretation of everything.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2011 9:39 PM
Comment #325197

jane

i have said many times i believe that abortion should not be illegal.

“The type of pregnancy being discussed is rare, but quite possibly lethal for the mother, and rarely results in a live and healthy birth.”

IMO this is an exception, and should be allowed.


“Abortions should only be considered as a measure of last resort, and not as a form of birth control. I agree completely with that.”

i appreciate your honesty, and agree completely. have a good 4th.

Posted by: dbs at July 2, 2011 10:47 PM
Comment #325198

Stephen Daugherty; what the heck are you talking about? When did the US last have a national debt of $14.5 trillion and rising? When ever did a president of the US spend $3.5 trillion in 2 1/2 years, and ask for more? Stephen, have you ever seen the Geico insurance commercials. The one with the two guys living under a rock; well SD you are the one living under the rock. You get on here and blather on and on about nothing. If everyone on WB doesn’t believe SD is brilliant; just ask him and he will tell you. Absolutly everything you accuse the republicans of; can and is applied to liberals. See Stephen, it can all be said in only one paragraph.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 2, 2011 10:54 PM
Comment #325199

“Perhaps Con they will ask your God why would there be a procedure such as abortion in his universe if he didn’t want abortions performed. Perhaps they will ask how so many people were killed in his name, with his people’s blessing, throughout the centuries. Perhaps they will ask why pro life doesn’t extend to those on death row. Or perhaps they will ask why the self appointed “chosen ones” interfered with those that performed abortions as he had a plan. After all death comes to everyone, why would you guys think to interfere with it.”

Posted by: j2t2 at July 2, 2011 09:19 PM

Thank you j2t2 for your words of wisdom. We get the picture; you are an athiest and don’t have a problem with killing babies.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 2, 2011 10:59 PM
Comment #325203

Mike - Thank you for your responses. This is what I don’t get. People say it’s tax payers paying for all this union benefits Aren’t the union workers tax payers themselves?

For me, it comes down to two things:

1. They are doing jobs a lot of us aren’t willing to do.
2. Just because I don’t get benefits like theirs doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get them. Mainly because of #1. They’re doing jobs I’m not able/willing to do.

Of course, that’s my opinion. Your prediction may come true, and the states may save money. Teachers, firefighters, police officers will have to deal with a smaller paycheck. Since they’re the heroes, I think they deserve better. YMMV.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 3, 2011 1:31 AM
Comment #325204

spinney

what jobs are public employees doing that others are not willing to do?


“Aren’t the union workers tax payers themselves?”

yes they are. gov’t is responsible for providing certain services. services paid for with tax money, therefore those services should be provided at the lowest cost possible to the tax payer. gov’t is a necessary parasite, it creates nothing. it consumes what is created by the private sector, and when it consumes to much it hurts the very economic engine it relies on. while those workers may be taxpayers thier labor is producing no economic boost for the economy, like it would if they were working in the private sector.

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 8:54 AM
Comment #325207

Historically, the inducement for public sector employees, i.e., police, fire, teachers, etc., has been in the long term benefit packages, not in salary.

This was the case well before unions became entrenched in the public sector. Cops, firemen and teachers haven’t been working all those second jobs to support vacation homes. They have been staying on the job for the promise of a good retirement and secure health benefits.

Demonizing unions for the fiscal problems created by such pension and health care benefits is unfair. School boards, municipalities and state governments may have taken a penny wise and pound foolish approach to their employment inducement structure for many decades. Skyrocketing health inflation, the cumulative impact of retirement pension obligations and most importantly the down turn in revenues due to the recession have taken their toll on government budgets.

However, are unions entirely to blame for this problem? It is galling to hear the school board spokesperson in the cited article stating that it was the union contract that prohibited bidding on the health insurance contract. Sure, but who negotiated that contract? There are two sides to the negotiating table. What concessions did the union make on salary or other benefits in exchange for the no-bid insurance contract? Are we to believe that the school board was so inept in negotiating that it was virtually powerless in negotiating a fair contract? I doubt it. Scapegoating the unions is the easy way out.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 9:41 AM
Comment #325208

“…while those workers may be taxpayers thier labor is producing no economic boost for the economy, like it would if they were working in the private sector.”

Nonsense! They are providing the infrastructure supporting the private economy. Try living in a society without police, fire, road and transportation services, health and emergency services, building codes, business licensing and regulatory control, garbage and sanitation services, water and sewer systems, environmental and recreational land management, financial and capital regulation, etc.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 9:54 AM
Comment #325209
Thank you j2t2 for your words of wisdom. We get the picture; you are an athiest and don’t have a problem with killing babies.

Con, your picture is wrong, I am not an atheist and I do have a problem with killing babies. As a “100% pro lifer except when it is us” do you have a problem with killing death row inmates or other forms of life? Certainly your “100%pro-life” stance includes all life if it includes the unborn.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2011 10:23 AM
Comment #325210

dbs,

I might add that it is not only basic infrastructure that the public sector provides for the private sector, it is also massive national investments in infrastructure that have made possible a vigorous private economy. What would the west be like today if not for the water management and electricity provided by the Hoover dam? What would some areas of the the east be like without the TVA? What would our transportation system be like without the investment in the national highway system in the late 50s? Would we have sufficient electrical power for the private sector if not for the investment in atomic power by the federal government? What would our quality of life be like without the massive investment in the national park system? What would our export-import system be like without investment in deep water ports? The list goes on and on. The truth of the matter is that national investment in infrastructure has paid off big for our national economy. The reluctance in recent years to invest in new and modern infrastructure will come to haunt in the coming years.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 10:27 AM
Comment #325211

rich

“They are providing the infrastructure supporting the private economy.”


the taxpayers and the revenue from the private sector are providing the infrastructure. the public employees are merely implements utilizing that revenue to produce that infrastructure.


“Try living in a society without police, fire, road and transportation services, health and emergency services, building codes, business licensing and regulatory control, garbage and sanitation services, water and sewer systems, environmental and recreational land management, financial and capital regulation, etc.”


try producing the infrastructure without the private sector to fund it. gov’t is a necessary parasite, but should draw as little blood from the host as possible so as not to kill its source of life.

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 10:33 AM
Comment #325212

rich

follow the money. where does the money to fund all those things you mention come from? i haven’t said that the infrastructure is not needed, merely pointed out what makes it possible. the gov’t should use our tax money in a way that gives us the best value for our dollars. IMO that is not what they are currently doing. public employees unions do not have the tax payers best interest in mind when lobbying our elected officials. IMO public employees should not have the right to collective bargaining. there is a definite conflict of interest there.

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #325216

dbs - police and firefighters. They put themselves in harm’s way. Getting stranger dangers and putting out fires. Not a lot of people are willing to put their lives on the line. LAPD was recruiting up here in the Bay Area. They have ongoing active recruitment. It’s understandable because I’d rather not hang out in neighborhoods like Boyle Heights or Watts even if I was paid to do so.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 3, 2011 12:43 PM
Comment #325223

spinney


“It’s understandable because I’d rather not hang out in neighborhoods like Boyle Heights or Watts even if I was paid to do so.”


as a dump truck owner i worked on light rail projects and other jobs in those types of areas, and never thought twice about where i was. i worked many nights in the lincoln heights area hauling dirt being excavated for tunnels and road beds for the goldline project. while bad things happen there it’s not always as bad as people make it out to be. a little common sense goes a long way.

when we talk about public employees and benefits i think it helps to categorize them. law enforcement, and firefighters are IMO in thier own category. i lived in so cal. the better part of my life, and knew many who wanted to persue law enforcement careers. the problem now is that the majority of applicants are white males. with the focus now on diversity of sex and race sometimes those who want it the most never get a chance. instead the depts go out and try and recruit others, ie trying to convince those that maybe never thought about that career path to do so. i’m always amazed when the prospect of cutting public employees benefits and pay is mentioned the first thing we hear is police, and fire when there many other less saftey sensitive jobs that could be eliminated or cut back.

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 2:19 PM
Comment #325225

Spinny Liberal, you’re welcome. While it is true that union workers are tax payers, but they do not pay enough taxes to pay their own salaries and benefit packages, therefore the private sector must be taxed to pay for it.
1. “They are doing jobs a lot of us aren’t willing to do.”

dbs is correct, public sector jobs are a necessary evil and they actually create nothing that improves GDP. They siphon off what others have created. I am not saying their jobs are useless; I‘m saying they create nothing that adds to the wealth of the country.


2. “Just because I don’t get benefits like theirs doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get them. Mainly because of #1. They’re doing jobs I’m not able/willing to do.”

Public sector jobs were set up with good benefit packages to supplement the lower pay, but over time, with the help of unionization, their pay and benefits have far surpassed the private sector. It is a catch 22 situation; the politicians agree to their pay and benefit contract demands and in turn the unions support the same politicians who give the pay and benefit increases. It’s a never ending cycle of taking care of each other. As for jobs that no one else would do; I have to disagree. A septic tank cleaner is a job no one else wants to do; but who would not want to have a job, where you are accountable to no one, a job where 5 or 6 guys are standing around watching one person do the work. This is called government waste.

“Teachers, firefighters, police officers will have to deal with a smaller paycheck.”

The teachers are not dealing with less pay, but what they are asked to do, is pay for some of their own HC and pension plans; which the private sector has been doing for years. Police and firefighters have the best retirement plans; most can retired with 20 to 30 years of service, draw a good pension and benefit plan, then go right back to work (since they are only in their 40’s) and double dip. Some draw a pension and at the same time work for the city or state, allowing them to build another pension. Which is called double dipping. A person on SS cannot draw a state or city pension, without being penalized. Add to that, the fact that public workers are not required to pay into SS. You don’t see politicians depending on SS for their retirement; but they have no problem forcing the private sector to be on it.

Rich said:

“However, are unions entirely to blame for this problem? It is galling to hear the school board spokesperson in the cited article stating that it was the union contract that prohibited bidding on the health insurance contract. Sure, but who negotiated that contract?”

Well Rich, it is not the school boards, by themselves, who are negotiating the teacher’s contracts. Who do you think is doing the negotiating? Many times the contracts are forced upon the school boards, through politician controlled Labor Relation Boards.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2011 2:30 PM
Comment #325226

“i’m always amazed when the prospect of cutting public employees benefits and pay is mentioned the first thing we hear is police, and fire when there many other less saftey sensitive jobs that could be eliminated or cut back.”

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 02:19 PM

dbs, why would this surprise you? Whenever the subject of cutting entitlements arrises, the first thing the out of the mouth of the left is old people will lose their SS and Medicare and will be forced to live on the streets. Ryan’s plan effected no one over the age of 55 years, but it didn’t stop the left from lying to seniors.

When the cost of education is spoken of; the first thing the left talks about is starving children do to the loss of school meals.

So nothing ever changes.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #325230

“Ryan’s plan effected no one over the age of 55 years, but it didn’t stop the left from lying to seniors.”

The left didn’t need to lie to seniors. Seniors fully understood the proposal. Do you think seniors are stupid? They understood the ploy and didn’t fall for it. Its not going to hurt you, so keep quiet and play along. Well, if seniors understand anything, its the importance of medical insurance during the senior years. They are not going to sit on the sidelines knowing that future senior are going to get screwed by the proposal. They also understand that if Republicans can take that approach with future seniors, they can do it with current seniors at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #325231

“Whenever the subject of cutting entitlements arrises, the first thing the out of the mouth of the left is old people will lose their SS and Medicare and will be forced to live on the streets.”

What do you think are the consequences for cuts in entitlements the size of the Ryan proposal for Medicare? Do you have any concept of what those cuts will mean to seniors? If the federal government can’t afford to pay the health inflation increases, how in hell do you think the average senior is going to able to? It just doesn’t make sense. Transferring the inflation cost to seniors is truly rationing of health care in a crude economic manner. It is class warfare. The rich won’t be seriously effected. The middle and poorer classes will have their health care options limited dramatically. That’s exactly what the Ryan proposal means and that is the reason that it was DOA.

If runaway health cost inflation is the problem, deal with it. If you can’t deal with it, then there had better be some equitable means of rationing health care or there will be a revolution in this country.


Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #325240

“Well Rich, it is not the school boards, by themselves, who are negotiating the teacher’s contracts. Who do you think is doing the negotiating? Many times the contracts are forced upon the school boards, through politician controlled Labor Relation Boards.”

Come on Mike, be realistic. The school boards are the party to the negotiations, nobody else. Labor relations boards may arbitrate contractual disputes between the parties but they don’t negotiate or dictate the contracts themselves. The very article you cited pointed out that not all Wisconsin school contracts had the no-bid insurance provision.

“dbs is correct, public sector jobs are a necessary evil and they actually create nothing that improves GDP.”

Well, you need to contact the statisticians compiling GDP data because they apparently are not aware of that fact. Actually, government consumption on goods and services is indeed a major component of GDP. The drop in private sector consumption during during this recession has been offset by increased government consumption (deficit spending). In the absence of increased government spending, the drop in US GDP would have been much more dramatic and impactful.

“Add to that, the fact that public workers are not required to pay into SS.”

Not true in general. Most public sector workers do participate in the Social Security system. The entirely independent pension systems are becoming a thing of the past. “Most state and local government workers were eventually brought into the Social Security system under “Section 218 Agreements.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Online

However, I do agree with you that the double dip opportunities resulting from unpenalized draw down of full benefits before a standard retirement age is a problem.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 7:23 PM
Comment #325242
Public sector jobs were set up with good benefit packages to supplement the lower pay, but over time, with the help of unionization, their pay and benefits have far surpassed the private sector.

The problem is that private sector wages have been stagnant for years as unions have declined in membership and corporate America has shipped many jobs overseas. In some cases public sector wages have surpassed the same type of private sector job. “Far surpassed” is a stretch except when the conservatives are comparing the service economy jobs (Mcjobs) of the private sector with engineer and scientist jobs of the public sector. The conservative approach to the problem only drags more of the middle class down the tubes and while it helps in the short term, long term it is just part of the South Americanization of our country by the extreme right wing.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #325243
Well Rich, it is not the school boards, by themselves, who are negotiating the teacher’s contracts. Who do you think is doing the negotiating?

Where I live it is. The union here is at the mercy of the school board and do not have the help of the politicians as you claim. The board has increased administration salaries by 16% recently while cutting teachers salaries.

Many times the contracts are forced upon the school boards, through politician controlled Labor Relation Boards.

So your story Mike is the politicians, all dems of course because the unions support the dems, control labor boards at the local level? The school boards are local yet are forced by state labor boards to accept contracts they have been bribed to pad by politicians? Dems of course because there are no repubs … Wait I am confused Mike, have repubs politicians been complicit in this scheme the past 30 years as well? It sounds like just more conservative conspiracy theory with no factual basis in reality to support it.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2011 8:47 PM
Comment #325252

rich

“Actually, government consumption on goods and services is indeed a major component of GDP.”


the public sector cannot consume without private sector funding.

Posted by: dbs at July 4, 2011 12:24 AM
Comment #325282

“while bad things happen there it’s not always as bad as people make it out to be. a little common sense goes a long way.”

You’re right about using common sense in those neighborhoods. After college, I lived in lower Hollywood. Terrible neighborhood, but I still walked around and managed to leave there unscathed.

“The teachers are not dealing with less pay, but what they are asked to do, is pay for some of their own HC and pension plans;”

More of their gross income goes to their HC and pension. Less take home pay.

dbs is correct, public sector jobs are a necessary evil and they actually create nothing that improves GDP. They siphon off what others have created. I am not saying their jobs are useless; I‘m saying they create nothing that adds to the wealth of the country.

I would argue that they help protect the wealth of the country. Fighting fires and crime help businesses and the employees that add to the GDP.

Anyway, I hope everyone is having a nice 4th of July! Happy Birthday, America!

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 4, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #325287

spinney


“I would argue that they help protect the wealth of the country. Fighting fires and crime help businesses and the employees that add to the GDP.”

gov’t doesn’t add to the gdp, it siphons from it to operate.

i think we all agree police and fire are necessary gov’t provided services. now let’s talk about why liberals always claim they are the first to be cut, any time budget cuts are proposed.

Posted by: dbs at July 4, 2011 9:45 PM
Comment #325289

dbs - I don’t know about “always,” but here cities in the Bay Area, police and fire fighters are in the spotlight - San Francisco and San Jose, especially. They’ve been in negotiations. There have been lay offs.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 4, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment #330901

genuine sheepskin lining.It is the shortest jordan sneakersin all boots and famous for its lovely outline and low price.all materials are soft devoting to comfort your feet the most.The thick wool inside will warm you this winter.moreover we have different colors and patterns,some contain the concept of fashion to meet your need.When you are back from work,you can throw away the heavy,sharp high-heeled shoes,and enjoy your comfortablenew jordan sneakers household life with these 5825

Posted by: t6y7ui at October 22, 2011 4:22 AM
Post a comment