Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Madison, WI - Arrest Order for AWOL Democrats

Published on: March 3, 2011 02:27 PM
By: AP / FOX News
Change text size Text Size  

A protestor is handcuffed by law enforcement after he stormed the Assembly chamber doors at the Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison, Wis., Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011.Madison, WI - Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate passed a resolution Thursday calling for police to take 14 Democrats into custody for contempt after they fled to Illinois to avoid voting on a bill that strip public sector unions of nearly all their collective bargaining rights.

Advertisement:

The vote taken Thursday comes two weeks after the Democrats left, effectively delaying the vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said the action is legally different from an arrest, but “definitely a shift from asking them politely.”

The resolution says the absent Democrats are determined to be guilty of contempt and disorderly content. It gives the sergeant at arms the authority to take any and all steps, with or without force and assistance from police, to bring the senators back



More of today's headlines

Israel - Former New York mayor and potential Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani called on the Obama Administration "to be more supportive of Israel" and... Washington - President Barack Obama insisted Thursday that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi leave office, declaring he had lost his authority to lead. Obama also announced...

 

Total38

Read Comments (38)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Mar 03, 2011 at 03:28 PM InformedConsent Says:

The winner in this Wisconsin battle will extrapolate in so many ways throughout the country.

If conservatives win, and unions lose their suffocating grip on the state budget, it opens the door for more of their power to dwindle throughout the country, in each state, each municipality. It would change the fundamentals of negotiating budgets everywhere.

If liberals win, budgets will continue on the same track they always have - unsustainable deficits.

It seems clear to me, we are buying things we can't afford and the question is:

Do we have the courage, character and morality to stop?

Let's hope that the right side wins.

2

 Mar 03, 2011 at 03:37 PM Anonymous Says:

The police cannot enforce their order outside of Wisconsin and they've already told their Republican colleagues to take their resolution "to where the sun doesn't shine" before they will return to the Capitol. The unions have offered to agree to all the budgetary demands but thats apparently not enough for the Republicans so the stalemate will continue.

3

 Mar 03, 2011 at 03:47 PM anonymous Says:

Reply to #1  
InformedConsent Says:

The winner in this Wisconsin battle will extrapolate in so many ways throughout the country.

If conservatives win, and unions lose their suffocating grip on the state budget, it opens the door for more of their power to dwindle throughout the country, in each state, each municipality. It would change the fundamentals of negotiating budgets everywhere.

If liberals win, budgets will continue on the same track they always have - unsustainable deficits.

It seems clear to me, we are buying things we can't afford and the question is:

Do we have the courage, character and morality to stop?

Let's hope that the right side wins.

Germany has powerful unions and Siemens is outselling GE in medical equipment, scanners and ultrasound machines, including power station system in China and the parking lots are full of Audis, Mercedes and BMW including Hitler's braichild the VW. In Winsconsin will win the governor's billionaire friend and he will go on national stage for higher [political office, it is guile, fake and lies

4

 Mar 03, 2011 at 03:51 PM peretz2 Says:

Reply to #2  
Anonymous Says:

The police cannot enforce their order outside of Wisconsin and they've already told their Republican colleagues to take their resolution "to where the sun doesn't shine" before they will return to the Capitol. The unions have offered to agree to all the budgetary demands but thats apparently not enough for the Republicans so the stalemate will continue.

The Police haven't even been enforcing the Governor's orders to force the protesters to leave -- the dem legislators aren't who should be going to jail in Wisconsin -- the Koch Brothers should --- far at least as long if not longer than the falsely convicted Shalom Rubashkin

5

 Mar 03, 2011 at 04:03 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #1  
InformedConsent Says:

The winner in this Wisconsin battle will extrapolate in so many ways throughout the country.

If conservatives win, and unions lose their suffocating grip on the state budget, it opens the door for more of their power to dwindle throughout the country, in each state, each municipality. It would change the fundamentals of negotiating budgets everywhere.

If liberals win, budgets will continue on the same track they always have - unsustainable deficits.

It seems clear to me, we are buying things we can't afford and the question is:

Do we have the courage, character and morality to stop?

Let's hope that the right side wins.

Okay, answer this if you can:
Reagan takes office- deficit $1 trillion.
Bush Sr leaves office- deficit $3.75 trillion
Dubya takes office: Deficit 5 trillion
Dubya leaves office: deficit 9 trillion
factor in the 2009 Obama budget which was actually a 2008 Bush signed budget:
deficit 11 trillion.
So how in the world can you call deficits "liberal?"

6

 Mar 03, 2011 at 04:28 PM mythoughts Says:

Reply to #2  
Anonymous Says:

The police cannot enforce their order outside of Wisconsin and they've already told their Republican colleagues to take their resolution "to where the sun doesn't shine" before they will return to the Capitol. The unions have offered to agree to all the budgetary demands but thats apparently not enough for the Republicans so the stalemate will continue.

I agree. The undemocratic democrats should stay away and continue to show the citizens of Wisconsin that they are willing to sacrifice them for the sake of the Unions.

7

 Mar 03, 2011 at 04:38 PM Nobody Says:

Reply to #5  
Anonymous Says:

Okay, answer this if you can:
Reagan takes office- deficit $1 trillion.
Bush Sr leaves office- deficit $3.75 trillion
Dubya takes office: Deficit 5 trillion
Dubya leaves office: deficit 9 trillion
factor in the 2009 Obama budget which was actually a 2008 Bush signed budget:
deficit 11 trillion.
So how in the world can you call deficits "liberal?"

Spending is the constitutional function of congress. Rerun your numbers on who was in power in congress when. You will draw different conclusions.

8

 Mar 03, 2011 at 04:39 PM Nobody Says:

Reply to #4  
peretz2 Says:

The Police haven't even been enforcing the Governor's orders to force the protesters to leave -- the dem legislators aren't who should be going to jail in Wisconsin -- the Koch Brothers should --- far at least as long if not longer than the falsely convicted Shalom Rubashkin

So your criteria of who should go to jail is entirely if you agree with them?

9

 Mar 03, 2011 at 04:41 PM Nobody Says:

Reply to #2  
Anonymous Says:

The police cannot enforce their order outside of Wisconsin and they've already told their Republican colleagues to take their resolution "to where the sun doesn't shine" before they will return to the Capitol. The unions have offered to agree to all the budgetary demands but thats apparently not enough for the Republicans so the stalemate will continue.

The idea that unions agreed to anything is a lie, as they have been busy this whole time negotiating nice pay raises for themselves at the local level.

So is your view that as long as the police can't reach you, it's fine to do illegal things?

10

 Mar 03, 2011 at 05:00 PM anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
Anonymous Says:

Okay, answer this if you can:
Reagan takes office- deficit $1 trillion.
Bush Sr leaves office- deficit $3.75 trillion
Dubya takes office: Deficit 5 trillion
Dubya leaves office: deficit 9 trillion
factor in the 2009 Obama budget which was actually a 2008 Bush signed budget:
deficit 11 trillion.
So how in the world can you call deficits "liberal?"

The fact is what you wrote but it does not fit in the Ayn Rand type of philosophy survival of the fittest. The Wisconsin governor's patron is a libertarian advocate who would dismantle everything the U.S. government ever did for public benefit. The governor smells the money and hopes that this will propel him on national political stage and that his patron will fund his future political ambitions. The fact is the economic locomotive of the EU is Germany and all the major industries, automobile and others have union members on their board of directors and outsell the United States. Siemens has the best nuclear scanners, ultrsounds and electrical turbines and automobiles. Finally I survived concentration camp and I am not philo-German. It has nothing to do with liberal it has to do with redistributing money to their supporters, military industrial complex, giving tax cut to a certain group and designating wall street and a "product" instead of shuffling money

11

 Mar 03, 2011 at 05:11 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #5  
Anonymous Says:

Okay, answer this if you can:
Reagan takes office- deficit $1 trillion.
Bush Sr leaves office- deficit $3.75 trillion
Dubya takes office: Deficit 5 trillion
Dubya leaves office: deficit 9 trillion
factor in the 2009 Obama budget which was actually a 2008 Bush signed budget:
deficit 11 trillion.
So how in the world can you call deficits "liberal?"

You are correct. It was Cheney who famously said "deficits don't matter".

As a Conservative, I can assure you he was wrong, and REAL Conservatives tried to hold the administration's feet to the fire... but the Republicans and their phony primetime "news" staff at Fox News kept singing the praises of deficits. There are countless hours of video of everyone from Hannity to Beck talking about how deficits don't matter.

The problem is liberals are equally as bad.

It is time for a GENUINE Conservative revolution in this county... which does NOT include phonies like Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, etc.

12

 Mar 03, 2011 at 05:24 PM InformedConsent Says:

Reply to #5  
Anonymous Says:

Okay, answer this if you can:
Reagan takes office- deficit $1 trillion.
Bush Sr leaves office- deficit $3.75 trillion
Dubya takes office: Deficit 5 trillion
Dubya leaves office: deficit 9 trillion
factor in the 2009 Obama budget which was actually a 2008 Bush signed budget:
deficit 11 trillion.
So how in the world can you call deficits "liberal?"

It's quite simple.

Liberals wish to spend more. Conservatives wish to spend less.

And if a liberal tells you otherwise, it's just 'til he gets elected.

The problem may not have been as prominent 20-25 years ago. And Bush was not a fiscal conservative.

Deficits are largely created when government spending eclipses tax revenue. But in a more insightful approach, today's deficits are so much more monstrous. Whereas in the past, our exceptional industriousness and creative ingenuity would have easily pulled us out of standard recessions, currently those national characteristics have eroded. They have been replaced by cradle to grave reliance on social programs. The sense of safety, a reliance on others, that -"it'll all be okay without my needing to exert any effort" has permeated our culture. It doesn't help that many other countries have caught up economically and each industry has more and more competition.

Yes, these deficits are so different. They won't solve themselves away. It's time to recognize that.

Liberals don't or won't act.

Conservative will and do.

13

 Mar 03, 2011 at 05:35 PM shredready Says:

Reply to #1  
InformedConsent Says:

The winner in this Wisconsin battle will extrapolate in so many ways throughout the country.

If conservatives win, and unions lose their suffocating grip on the state budget, it opens the door for more of their power to dwindle throughout the country, in each state, each municipality. It would change the fundamentals of negotiating budgets everywhere.

If liberals win, budgets will continue on the same track they always have - unsustainable deficits.

It seems clear to me, we are buying things we can't afford and the question is:

Do we have the courage, character and morality to stop?

Let's hope that the right side wins.

if the budget was so bad in Wisconsin that they need to destroy the unions why did the governor just give a tax gift to the ultra rich?

In addition many benefits that we have today whether child labor laws 8 hour works day and so is just because of the unions. (

It seems many people want to go back to Americas glory days when the rich had all the power and the workers where at their mercy.

The good old days.

also America economy was booming when union membership was at its peak.

14

 Mar 03, 2011 at 05:39 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #10  
anonymous Says:

The fact is what you wrote but it does not fit in the Ayn Rand type of philosophy survival of the fittest. The Wisconsin governor's patron is a libertarian advocate who would dismantle everything the U.S. government ever did for public benefit. The governor smells the money and hopes that this will propel him on national political stage and that his patron will fund his future political ambitions. The fact is the economic locomotive of the EU is Germany and all the major industries, automobile and others have union members on their board of directors and outsell the United States. Siemens has the best nuclear scanners, ultrsounds and electrical turbines and automobiles. Finally I survived concentration camp and I am not philo-German. It has nothing to do with liberal it has to do with redistributing money to their supporters, military industrial complex, giving tax cut to a certain group and designating wall street and a "product" instead of shuffling money

yes that is the kock brothers who want to be able to produce energy with no environmental overbite and just will stick the tax payers with the bill to clean up their mes.

Forgot, when it come to helping them they love the government

15

 Mar 03, 2011 at 05:51 PM anonymous Says:

It is true that Congress has some power on the pursestring but the President has the veto power and the Republicans were the majority

16

 Mar 03, 2011 at 06:23 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #12  
InformedConsent Says:

It's quite simple.

Liberals wish to spend more. Conservatives wish to spend less.

And if a liberal tells you otherwise, it's just 'til he gets elected.

The problem may not have been as prominent 20-25 years ago. And Bush was not a fiscal conservative.

Deficits are largely created when government spending eclipses tax revenue. But in a more insightful approach, today's deficits are so much more monstrous. Whereas in the past, our exceptional industriousness and creative ingenuity would have easily pulled us out of standard recessions, currently those national characteristics have eroded. They have been replaced by cradle to grave reliance on social programs. The sense of safety, a reliance on others, that -"it'll all be okay without my needing to exert any effort" has permeated our culture. It doesn't help that many other countries have caught up economically and each industry has more and more competition.

Yes, these deficits are so different. They won't solve themselves away. It's time to recognize that.

Liberals don't or won't act.

Conservative will and do.

What you say is quite simply -- False.

Conservatives do not wish to spend less; at least there is no record of this. The fact remains that is under Republican administrations that the government has grown the most.

The "problem" was not prominent until Reagan came into office and cut taxes to obscenely low rates, tripled the national debt and piled up 8 straight years of deficit spending just like his friend Dubya.

Your nonsense about "cradle to grave" welfare has nothing to do with the budget deficits. Medicare (1965) and Social Security (1935) have been around for a very long time and there were little to no deficits until the 1980's. Other welfare programs don't come even close to just the increased defense spending over the last 10 years. There are countries all over the world with much broader welfare systems such as S. Korea, Singapore, Finland, Australia, Germany etc who do not find themselves in the same kind of economic mess because they have much higher taxes. Talk radio is turning your brain into jelly.

17

 Mar 03, 2011 at 06:33 PM anonymous Says:

The unions and collective bargaining are not responsible for the Wisconsin budget deficits. I (non-union) receive a higher salary for my job, have money deducted from that for my 401k retirement plan, but don't receive a pension. My friends, with the same job but working for the government (union) make substantially lower salaries, but will get pensions later. This is just another way of being paid for your work. It's like buying a lottery ticket - you get to choose a lump sum or to have your winnings paid over 20 years. If the proposal is to get rid of their right to collectively bargain and to eliminate their pension, then their salaries should be raised to those of the private sector.

18

 Mar 03, 2011 at 06:33 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #7  
Nobody Says:

Spending is the constitutional function of congress. Rerun your numbers on who was in power in congress when. You will draw different conclusions.

"You will draw different conclusions." Not likely.

1981-1987 (Reagan) Republicans controlled the Senate .
1995-2007 (Clinton/Bush) Republicans controlled the Senate.

All spending is ultimately dictated by the Senate and signed by the president, so it is clear that Republican-led Senates and Republican presidents are responsible for the lions share of the debt we have today. Of course the only time Republicans were able to balance a budget in the last 30 years was after Bill Clinton had raised taxes.

Nice try.

19

 Mar 03, 2011 at 08:14 PM the_maivin Says:

Reply to #5  
Anonymous Says:

Okay, answer this if you can:
Reagan takes office- deficit $1 trillion.
Bush Sr leaves office- deficit $3.75 trillion
Dubya takes office: Deficit 5 trillion
Dubya leaves office: deficit 9 trillion
factor in the 2009 Obama budget which was actually a 2008 Bush signed budget:
deficit 11 trillion.
So how in the world can you call deficits "liberal?"

the Democrats controlde congress when the budget is thrugh the roof (Reagan Bush, Obama first 2 years), and the republicans controled it when the budget was down (Clinton, and W. Bush's first term)

20

 Mar 03, 2011 at 08:28 PM puppydogs Says:

At this stage of the game who cares who is responsible? It’s about correcting past errors and disbanding the union is a good start.

21

 Mar 03, 2011 at 09:38 PM InformedConsent Says:

Reply to #16  
Anonymous Says:

What you say is quite simply -- False.

Conservatives do not wish to spend less; at least there is no record of this. The fact remains that is under Republican administrations that the government has grown the most.

The "problem" was not prominent until Reagan came into office and cut taxes to obscenely low rates, tripled the national debt and piled up 8 straight years of deficit spending just like his friend Dubya.

Your nonsense about "cradle to grave" welfare has nothing to do with the budget deficits. Medicare (1965) and Social Security (1935) have been around for a very long time and there were little to no deficits until the 1980's. Other welfare programs don't come even close to just the increased defense spending over the last 10 years. There are countries all over the world with much broader welfare systems such as S. Korea, Singapore, Finland, Australia, Germany etc who do not find themselves in the same kind of economic mess because they have much higher taxes. Talk radio is turning your brain into jelly.

Try to refrain from name calling.

Conservatives preach: Limited government, individual responsibility, fiscal discipline.

The country functions best when individuals are free and equal. Reward hard work, not government reliance. Don't spend more than you earn.

Conservatives wish to spend less, they say it every day. Whenever they can. They implement, when they have legislative or executive power to do so.

Your wish to turn this debate into "but you guys did it too" seems inconsequential.

There is a fiscal problem we cannot ignore. The liberal solution is tax more. Socialism. Conservatives believe that such an approach leads to government reliance, apathy - not excellence. Conservatives still believe in the human spirit. Not that everyone can be wealthy, but that fluctuating classes, a possibility that anyone can be successful leads to volition, innovation, invention, ingenuity - lends prosperity.

Until now, republicans and democrats have shared and traded power to legislate. Conservative principles have long not been a majority. Until now.

To bend the conversation towards fault seems pointless to me.

22

 Mar 03, 2011 at 09:49 PM Informed Consent Says:

Reply to #13  
shredready Says:

if the budget was so bad in Wisconsin that they need to destroy the unions why did the governor just give a tax gift to the ultra rich?

In addition many benefits that we have today whether child labor laws 8 hour works day and so is just because of the unions. (

It seems many people want to go back to Americas glory days when the rich had all the power and the workers where at their mercy.

The good old days.

also America economy was booming when union membership was at its peak.

Giving tax gifts to the rich is against conservative principles. Conservatives do not believe in giving out freebies, rather they espouse hard work and keeping as much as you earn as possible.

It seems you may have a misunderstanding as to what Gov. Walker wishes to take away from the unions. He wants to limit their COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS. He does not, and cannot remove child labor laws or the 40 hours work week.

He wishes to cap their ability to bargain for more than the State can afford to pay them. He wishes to force a person to join a union in order to be a State worker.

They still have the right to unionize, and use that power for their own betterment. No one will have harsh working conditions due to the loss of Collective Bargaining Rights. They simply will no longer get benefits above and beyond standards of the private sector.

That is hardly the "good old days".

23

 Mar 03, 2011 at 10:02 PM InformedConsent Says:

Correction to #22. He wishes to NOT force a person to join a union in order to be a state worker.

24

 Mar 04, 2011 at 02:06 AM anonymous Says:

Reply to #21  
InformedConsent Says:

Try to refrain from name calling.

Conservatives preach: Limited government, individual responsibility, fiscal discipline.

The country functions best when individuals are free and equal. Reward hard work, not government reliance. Don't spend more than you earn.

Conservatives wish to spend less, they say it every day. Whenever they can. They implement, when they have legislative or executive power to do so.

Your wish to turn this debate into "but you guys did it too" seems inconsequential.

There is a fiscal problem we cannot ignore. The liberal solution is tax more. Socialism. Conservatives believe that such an approach leads to government reliance, apathy - not excellence. Conservatives still believe in the human spirit. Not that everyone can be wealthy, but that fluctuating classes, a possibility that anyone can be successful leads to volition, innovation, invention, ingenuity - lends prosperity.

Until now, republicans and democrats have shared and traded power to legislate. Conservative principles have long not been a majority. Until now.

To bend the conversation towards fault seems pointless to me.

You are confusing definitions, perhaps because this is what you hear from Limbaugh, Beck or Fox.. Socialism and liberalism have absolutely nothing to do with tax structure. Socialism is an economic system that promotes common ownership of means of production and a fair allocation of resources. Liberalism is a political belief in equality and freedom. Conservatism is a belief in maintaining traditional systems with minimal change. Capitalism is the belief that the means of production should be privately owned and run for profit. Unless you live in a country with no central government, like the libertarian paradise of Somalia, someone needs to pay for the commons, like roads, police, electrical grid. The real question is WHO pays. After WWII, taxes on the wealthy were extremely high and we had the best economy in US history. Bush cut taxes on the rich and the economy crashed and burned. The top 20% now control 85% of the country's wealth and they want more (disclaimer, I'm in this bracket but am a tax paying liberal). Do you really think that 80% of this country is lazy, unmotivated and lacking in ingenuity? I don't. I want to live in a fair country, not an oligarchy.

25

 Mar 04, 2011 at 08:32 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #21  
InformedConsent Says:

Try to refrain from name calling.

Conservatives preach: Limited government, individual responsibility, fiscal discipline.

The country functions best when individuals are free and equal. Reward hard work, not government reliance. Don't spend more than you earn.

Conservatives wish to spend less, they say it every day. Whenever they can. They implement, when they have legislative or executive power to do so.

Your wish to turn this debate into "but you guys did it too" seems inconsequential.

There is a fiscal problem we cannot ignore. The liberal solution is tax more. Socialism. Conservatives believe that such an approach leads to government reliance, apathy - not excellence. Conservatives still believe in the human spirit. Not that everyone can be wealthy, but that fluctuating classes, a possibility that anyone can be successful leads to volition, innovation, invention, ingenuity - lends prosperity.

Until now, republicans and democrats have shared and traded power to legislate. Conservative principles have long not been a majority. Until now.

To bend the conversation towards fault seems pointless to me.

I agree that conservatives "preach" fiscal discipline, but in function that's not what they do -- or at least there is no evidence for it.

Let me let you in on a little secret: almost no politician, Democrat or Republican has any intention on limiting any government. Government programs = government spending = massive corporate contracts = massive campaign contributions = politician stays in power. That's how government works, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

26

 Mar 04, 2011 at 10:12 AM anonymous Says:

The spending is based on the budget submitted by the White House just check who was in charge. The Dept. of Justice stated that some indictments will be forthcoming from the massive stealing, fraud committed by the some wall street excutives, none have been indicted. The Gov. of Wisconsin is the lackey of a libertarian billionaire who would like to scuttle all financial regulations so he can continue sell worthless derivatives and not pay taxes. This is an Augeus stable and these fine conservatives have been able to conserve all of their ill gained profits . What is needed honest politicians who wish to govern instead of robbing and becoming billionaires

27

 Mar 04, 2011 at 10:39 AM anonymous Says:

This scene reminds of the Ghetto Lodz where on one side of the street a Jew carried a deliciously smelling big cake and on the other side of the street another Jew cried out ich bin hingrig rattet mich and fell down dead from hunger. Lehmann brothers investors committed suicide and the Spiegel correctlly {Lehmann had a big branch in Berlin and Heidelberg] identified them as German Jewish immmigrants. All these fine conservative are blasting the leftist, liberal, socialistic program but at the moment the liberal trough is pulled away from the it is antisemitism. Jews have been at the forefront of the ganeive. Learn chumash

28

 Mar 04, 2011 at 12:14 PM InformedConsent Says:

Reply to #24  
anonymous Says:

You are confusing definitions, perhaps because this is what you hear from Limbaugh, Beck or Fox.. Socialism and liberalism have absolutely nothing to do with tax structure. Socialism is an economic system that promotes common ownership of means of production and a fair allocation of resources. Liberalism is a political belief in equality and freedom. Conservatism is a belief in maintaining traditional systems with minimal change. Capitalism is the belief that the means of production should be privately owned and run for profit. Unless you live in a country with no central government, like the libertarian paradise of Somalia, someone needs to pay for the commons, like roads, police, electrical grid. The real question is WHO pays. After WWII, taxes on the wealthy were extremely high and we had the best economy in US history. Bush cut taxes on the rich and the economy crashed and burned. The top 20% now control 85% of the country's wealth and they want more (disclaimer, I'm in this bracket but am a tax paying liberal). Do you really think that 80% of this country is lazy, unmotivated and lacking in ingenuity? I don't. I want to live in a fair country, not an oligarchy.

Because I'm so benevolent, I'll help you get back on track.

Let's review.

The problem which can't continue be ignored: The government spends more than it takes in.

The three competing solutions: Do nothing / raise taxes / cut spending.

Which do you prefer?

Now for some opinion:

There are many many reasons that the US is in it's current social and economic status. My belief is that liberals and progressives have acutely and chronically destroyed our values and our individual spirits by attacking the bedrocks of religion, family and success.

Conservatism is not capitalism. Conservatism is not Republican. Conservatism doesn't mean things should stay the same. Conservatism isn't a white male.

Conservatism promotes self reliance, duty to country, and belief in the power of the individual. Conservatives help those, who cannot help themselves. Conservatives, ideally, are honest, faithful and reliable. They care about their neighbor but can't tolerate a freeloader.

Hmm, I always wondered what Torah Judaism has to say about the fellow who can work, but won't. Is society obligated to feed him?

29

 Mar 04, 2011 at 12:49 PM anonymous Says:

The greastness of this country to which I emigrated is first that the founding fathers were not holy rollers but deists despite the attempt to remake them. The second great things is that this country always had a safety net for those who either by inability, neglect or any other reason could achieve an economic upward mobility and for this reason this country avoided the political and social upheavels of Europe. Being a chazer and grabbing as much you can will not contribute to the social stability and stability of the Jewish community and particular the frum , torah community.Oh yes, and I learned and I am able to master the English language and few more. I davened in concentration camp without attendance of the higher institutions of talmudic sophistry, learning. Finally I worked and raised children on my cheshbon not yenems

30

 Mar 04, 2011 at 01:04 PM anonymous Says:

The generational problem with Yidden they always look and discover a pseudo-moshiach, Trotzki and Luxemburg had Marx, and now the latest savior Ayn Rand alias Rosenberg. The savior is shmiras shabbos, Ani maamim and Pirke Avoth, don eyz kol adom lkaf tzichus and lo maflig chol dover

31

 Mar 04, 2011 at 02:16 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #28  
InformedConsent Says:

Because I'm so benevolent, I'll help you get back on track.

Let's review.

The problem which can't continue be ignored: The government spends more than it takes in.

The three competing solutions: Do nothing / raise taxes / cut spending.

Which do you prefer?

Now for some opinion:

There are many many reasons that the US is in it's current social and economic status. My belief is that liberals and progressives have acutely and chronically destroyed our values and our individual spirits by attacking the bedrocks of religion, family and success.

Conservatism is not capitalism. Conservatism is not Republican. Conservatism doesn't mean things should stay the same. Conservatism isn't a white male.

Conservatism promotes self reliance, duty to country, and belief in the power of the individual. Conservatives help those, who cannot help themselves. Conservatives, ideally, are honest, faithful and reliable. They care about their neighbor but can't tolerate a freeloader.

Hmm, I always wondered what Torah Judaism has to say about the fellow who can work, but won't. Is society obligated to feed him?

1) "Do nothing" is not a solution, it is impossible to cut spending in order to balance the budget (even the Tea Party folks are only demanding 100 billion in cuts with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit), and raising taxes in of itself would not be able to close the gap either. What is needed is much larger spending cuts along with much higher taxes. That's the truth. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

2) The economic problems the US has today has nothing to do with liberalism, family values, or religion. In fact, within the Jewish community, there is an almost perfectly inverted correlation between religiosity and reliance on the government. The more religious, the more they tend to rely on welfare. Those are the facts. Liberal countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Germany, Singapore etc are in far better shape economically than religious countries like Serbia, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia.

3) You have obviously been brainwashed. The brilliance of supposed "conservatives" is that they managed to convince uneducated and unassuming Americans that the countries problems are rooted in "free loaders" and not their own unending greed and hypocritical behavior.

32

 Mar 04, 2011 at 02:51 PM anonymous Says:

Reply to #28  
InformedConsent Says:

Because I'm so benevolent, I'll help you get back on track.

Let's review.

The problem which can't continue be ignored: The government spends more than it takes in.

The three competing solutions: Do nothing / raise taxes / cut spending.

Which do you prefer?

Now for some opinion:

There are many many reasons that the US is in it's current social and economic status. My belief is that liberals and progressives have acutely and chronically destroyed our values and our individual spirits by attacking the bedrocks of religion, family and success.

Conservatism is not capitalism. Conservatism is not Republican. Conservatism doesn't mean things should stay the same. Conservatism isn't a white male.

Conservatism promotes self reliance, duty to country, and belief in the power of the individual. Conservatives help those, who cannot help themselves. Conservatives, ideally, are honest, faithful and reliable. They care about their neighbor but can't tolerate a freeloader.

Hmm, I always wondered what Torah Judaism has to say about the fellow who can work, but won't. Is society obligated to feed him?

There is your belief, and then there are the facts. There is no factual nexus between religion, family and the current economic status. There are religious people who work very hard and those who go to kollel and accept welfare. There are athiests who found giant companies and athiests who are on welfare. In 2008, the Government Accounting Office (note - under Bush administration) said that most US and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales. I, and my equally liberal friends, work extremely long hours and are professionally successful. We pay our taxes and give to charity. By contrast, the current proposals by the conservatives in Congress would do the following: Cut 1 Billion from Head Start for poor kids, 1.3 B from community health clinics, 1.5B from Social Security, delaying benefits for 500000 Americans. So who, exactly, is helping those who cannot help themselves? BTW, are you suggesting that society should not feed the working poor who don't earn enough to support their families? What about conservative, religious kollel students who refuse to work - is that ok?

33

 Mar 04, 2011 at 03:27 PM anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
anonymous Says:

There is your belief, and then there are the facts. There is no factual nexus between religion, family and the current economic status. There are religious people who work very hard and those who go to kollel and accept welfare. There are athiests who found giant companies and athiests who are on welfare. In 2008, the Government Accounting Office (note - under Bush administration) said that most US and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales. I, and my equally liberal friends, work extremely long hours and are professionally successful. We pay our taxes and give to charity. By contrast, the current proposals by the conservatives in Congress would do the following: Cut 1 Billion from Head Start for poor kids, 1.3 B from community health clinics, 1.5B from Social Security, delaying benefits for 500000 Americans. So who, exactly, is helping those who cannot help themselves? BTW, are you suggesting that society should not feed the working poor who don't earn enough to support their families? What about conservative, religious kollel students who refuse to work - is that ok?

There is another factor lack of a better mousetrap or better industrial innovation. The economic workhorse in Europe is Germany and as a survivor of concentration camp I certainly have no love for Germany. However ,Siemens has the best ultrasound and nuclear scanning equipment and unsere feine Yidden some even with velvet kipas not sruga drive BMW, Audis and Mercedes,. The reason is the quality . I am happy with a Buick. Israel has the best generic drugs on the market made by TEVA and part-owner is none other but Merck. What we need better export products. Wallstreet may be profitable but it is not a product

34

 Mar 04, 2011 at 04:24 PM anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
anonymous Says:

There is your belief, and then there are the facts. There is no factual nexus between religion, family and the current economic status. There are religious people who work very hard and those who go to kollel and accept welfare. There are athiests who found giant companies and athiests who are on welfare. In 2008, the Government Accounting Office (note - under Bush administration) said that most US and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales. I, and my equally liberal friends, work extremely long hours and are professionally successful. We pay our taxes and give to charity. By contrast, the current proposals by the conservatives in Congress would do the following: Cut 1 Billion from Head Start for poor kids, 1.3 B from community health clinics, 1.5B from Social Security, delaying benefits for 500000 Americans. So who, exactly, is helping those who cannot help themselves? BTW, are you suggesting that society should not feed the working poor who don't earn enough to support their families? What about conservative, religious kollel students who refuse to work - is that ok?

Sir it is whose ox you gore , of course Medicaid is a liberal leftist socialistic scheme but not when it supports the kollel; edifice then it is kashered and mehadrin min hamehadrin. The hypocrisy of the conservatives you illustrated very well and Jews forget that the conservatives have a more conservative wing bordering on rishes e.g. the holy rollers in South. If not for the GI bill some of these knackers' father would not have been able to attend insitutes of higher learning and today would be shleppers. Don't forget Mr. Gingrich already his hat in the ring stated that the President's health bill pays for euthanasia

35

 Mar 04, 2011 at 04:54 PM InformedConsent Says:

And it's time to complete the circle. My original post (#1) stands.

The battle in Wisconsin is epic and the outcome will have many local and national ramifications.

I hope conservatives overcome. I hope the playing field levels out so that there isn't the possibility of taking advantage of tax payers through unionization to gain wages which are unsustainable and exorbitant.

And I hope such solutions are adopted in every state.

It's a good start.

36

 Mar 04, 2011 at 05:02 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
anonymous Says:

There is your belief, and then there are the facts. There is no factual nexus between religion, family and the current economic status. There are religious people who work very hard and those who go to kollel and accept welfare. There are athiests who found giant companies and athiests who are on welfare. In 2008, the Government Accounting Office (note - under Bush administration) said that most US and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales. I, and my equally liberal friends, work extremely long hours and are professionally successful. We pay our taxes and give to charity. By contrast, the current proposals by the conservatives in Congress would do the following: Cut 1 Billion from Head Start for poor kids, 1.3 B from community health clinics, 1.5B from Social Security, delaying benefits for 500000 Americans. So who, exactly, is helping those who cannot help themselves? BTW, are you suggesting that society should not feed the working poor who don't earn enough to support their families? What about conservative, religious kollel students who refuse to work - is that ok?

As per kollel students, I'm quite surprised at your misunderstanding of their purpose. Kollelim and their members are the life blood our nation. It is their learning which sustains us. Without them our education system would fail. We support them? No! They support us! The gemara refers to them classically as batlanim (idle people) only in the sense that they are idle from all other things other than Torah study. The vast majority are truly dedicated to Torah ethic the best they know how. The ones that are not, eventually, if not quickly, realize that kollel is not their purpose and move onto the other pursuits.

It would be curious if someone eligible did not take advantage of all the public assistance programs. Some call it the definition of a shoteh, a halachic imbecile - someone who throws away money.

I was more curious about the Torah view regarding someone who neither learns nor works, but can. He does this knowing he can rely on tzedakah. A pure free-loader. Is the community still obligated to feed him? Might it be forbidden to feed such a person?

37

 Mar 04, 2011 at 05:11 PM InformedConsent Says:

Reply to #34  
anonymous Says:

Sir it is whose ox you gore , of course Medicaid is a liberal leftist socialistic scheme but not when it supports the kollel; edifice then it is kashered and mehadrin min hamehadrin. The hypocrisy of the conservatives you illustrated very well and Jews forget that the conservatives have a more conservative wing bordering on rishes e.g. the holy rollers in South. If not for the GI bill some of these knackers' father would not have been able to attend insitutes of higher learning and today would be shleppers. Don't forget Mr. Gingrich already his hat in the ring stated that the President's health bill pays for euthanasia

I agree that the core of the programs are of the "leftist socialistic scheme", even when they support kollel families.

If they are available, as things are, they should be used. Not to, is dumb.

I support cutting these programs even if they effect kollel families.

Torah guided communities would fill the void to kollel famlies, as we need them for our nation like we need air to breath.

38

 Mar 04, 2011 at 06:03 PM anonymous Says:

Reply to #33  
anonymous Says:

There is another factor lack of a better mousetrap or better industrial innovation. The economic workhorse in Europe is Germany and as a survivor of concentration camp I certainly have no love for Germany. However ,Siemens has the best ultrasound and nuclear scanning equipment and unsere feine Yidden some even with velvet kipas not sruga drive BMW, Audis and Mercedes,. The reason is the quality . I am happy with a Buick. Israel has the best generic drugs on the market made by TEVA and part-owner is none other but Merck. What we need better export products. Wallstreet may be profitable but it is not a product

You raise an excellent point, and one that was also raised by the founders of this country. Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures in 1791 discussed how we should encourage U.S. manufacturing by imposing tariffs on imports and supporting our local industries. We followed those recommendations and built the world's greatest economy. Until the Reagan administration, we were the world's biggest importer of raw materials and exporter of finished goods. Reagan and the following presidents (both parties) reduced the import tariffs and have let our companies avoid taxes by incorporating abroad, like in the Cayman Islands. Since Reagan, we have become the world's largest exporter of raw materials and importer of manufactured goods. The multinational corporations (execs and investors, not employees) and Wall Street make more money, China becomes the leader in manufacturing, and the only thing "Made in America" is American Cheese. Let's go back to what worked for 200 years. Gut Shabbos from the West Coast!

39

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:
Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!