Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Breaking POLL: Walker up 8 in WI, 50-42

Posted 1 year ago on May 24, 2012, 2:41 p.m. EST by tupacsugar (-136)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Breitbart News has received an exclusive first-look at a poll to be released tomorrow morning by Reason. The Reason-Rupe Poll, conducted May 14-18, shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker moving into a commanding lead in his recall race. Walker now leads his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett, by 8 points, 50%-42% among likely voters. Public sector unions have spent tens of millions of their members' dollars attacking Gov. Walker and his budget reforms. This union effort has clearly failed, as the Reason poll finds strong support for many of Walker's key reforms. From the report to be released tomorrow morning: The Reason-Rupe poll finds voters overwhelmingly support many of the key changes Gov. Walker and the legislature implemented on public sector pensions and health care last year. Reason-Rupe finds 72 percent favor the change requiring public sector workers to increase their pension contributions from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of their salaries. And 71 percent favor making government employees pay 12 percent of their own health care premiums instead of the previous 6 percent. Taxpayers actually wish state lawmakers had cast an even larger net with their reforms. Police and firefighters were exempted from the pension and health care adjustments but 57 percent of taxpayers say they should not have been. The Wisconsin recall is shaping up to be a disaster for the public sector unions. The entire purpose of the recall was to reverse course on Gov. Walker's collective bargaining reforms. As these reforms have been implemented, without the doomsday scenarios predicted by BigLabor, and taxpayers realize savings of at least $1 billion already, they now command overwhelming support from voters. Any future governor would be hard-pressed to reverse course. The recall fight also seems to be taking a toll on Democrats and President Obama specifically. Obama now holds just a four-point lead over Romney among likely voters, 45-41. It is hard to envision of path for Obama's reelection that doesn't include Wisconsin's electoral votes. Holding just a four-point lead, well under 50%, in a state he won handily in 2008 is an ominous sign for his campaign. Full results can be found at Reason here.

24 Comments

24 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 1 year ago

All the above statistics are not the point.

The reason why Walker is ahead is very, very simple. The Democratic Establishment handed him a win. How? The DNC does not support the recall. The corporate masters of the Democratic Party are as afraid of worker power as is the Republican Party leadership.

If the Workers had a real candidate to vote for, and not a corporate stooge like Barrett, Walker would have been done.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Always nice to see new faces on the old forum.Let us remember lyers figure and figures lie.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And the koch brothers, etc gave walker 25,000,000 +

[-] 0 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 1 year ago

" Breitbart News " That may be even a less credible news source than Fox pretend News.

That being said Walker wont get recalled. Wisconsin is ripe with voter fraud and always has been. Just Google Kathy Nickolaus, Waukesha County... And she is one that has been caught multiple times.

[-] -1 points by 22250flatshot (-18) 1 year ago

OWS people thoroughly misunderstand thsi issue. There are good unions and bad unions. Good unions are private unions. Private unions bargains against corporations for a larger piece of the pie. I could never find fault with that.

Public employee unions bargain against the 99%,with the complicity of elected officials. OWS made a huge error in backing the Public Employee unions.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Public employee unions are no different in that they are made of hard working americans. Nothing wrong with negotiating to get a better deal. The taxpayer needs to know that budget problems should not be corrected by firing working americans but by raising taxes on the wealthy. Especially when the problem we have is high unemployement and therefore low revenue.

[-] -1 points by 22250flatshot (-18) 1 year ago

I am sorry but raising taxes is simply not the solution for increasing the pie for Public Employee Special interests.

We absolutely do not have a revenue problem in America, we have a spending problem. I will simply choose to civilly disagree with you.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 1 year ago

It depends were you raise taxes. Raising taxes on Working people would continue and deepen the depression.

Raising taxes on unearned income would have a stimulus effect. As an example, raising taxes on hedge fund transactions would have little effect on how these markets function, to any great extent.

In turn, if we could have a series of taxes on the 1% that would allow for universal health coverage, and free university education, the result would be a strong middle class with more disposable income.

In addition, taxing the 1% will change their lifestyle very little. Increasing the income by a small fraction to the 50% of us living in poverty would have a tremendous effect on the economy.

[-] -1 points by 22250flatshot (-18) 1 year ago

The rich, whomever that is, simply do not have enough money to fund your proposals. Its a simple math problem. If you took the entire wealth of the rich, the top 10%, left them utterly destitute, took their land, their money, their stocks, their toys, left them without a cent, we still would be well well short of covering our spending.

If you do not understand that, you need to become better informed.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 1 year ago

Having in the past, worked in the Finance Industry, I think I am very well informed as to how economics work. BTW, it is also in my academic background, since you are seemingly seeking pedigree in your last statement.

I will make this as brief as I can. The objective is not to make the 1% destitute. I have no idea why anyone would want to make anyone destitute. We all have a right, in my opinion, to housing, education, health care, food and a safe environments to accentuate our own unique abilities. I learned this sentiment initially from studying Abraham Lincoln's Economic Chief Henry Carey, who incidentally argued for traiff protection, outlawing wage labor, and government intervention in the economy to stop depressions and support people in need, among other things that today would seemingly make him a Communist in the eyes of some today.

By now I am getting off my point, which is that the 1% and the wealth would not be where they are without government intervention in the economy. Simply put, everyone that owns a house, has a retirement package, credit cards and all the financial investments all have the TRAP bailouts to thank for those privileges, which many, such as my self, do not have. The bailouts saved their asses.

Now thanks to Rep. Paul, Senator Sanders, and Rep Grayson, we know that the initial portion of the TRAP bailouts was 16 Trillion. But that is only part of the story, Bernanke continues to bailout banks around the world. The total bailouts is more likely in the 10's of trillions, and according to Der Spiegel in the 100's of trillions.

Now all the above programs, free education, free health and dental care, guaranteed housing, safe food, and so on, what would all this cost? About Five Trillion in total.

So the government bailout out the 1%, actually less than 1%, and let the rest of us holding the bag. Enough.

I see the finance numbers are up. It is time to start taxing those profits, and redirecting them to programs, like we did in the 1930's, to help the Working Class.

I think your confusion with my argument stems from the difference in tax, or lack there of, income, and wealth. I other words, when a individual owns things, there is tremendous wealth capacity in those things, like a factory. That is where the revenue should be raised.

At a point in his life, one of my relatives owned a tool and die company valued at 14 million. Now he was never worth that much on paper per say, and lost value in the company after NAFTA, but that is another story.

My point being, we need to raise the money to help the Working Class get back on its feet. So, in the partitive sense, and to a small extent a real sense, we need to tax the rich. They got bailed out, we got sold out. It is time to tax their wealth, because we the people are broke.

One final point. Iceland is doing fine, and once Greece gets rid of the bankers, with Italy and Spain hopefully next, and an institution of the above process, it will work out. Iceland after they threw the bankers out, changed the tax laws, re-floated their currency, and they are doing great. This is when it first happened, Britain threatened to invade. The only recourse the wealthy have is violence. But if the military and the police will not support this, as is happening in Germany, then they are shit out of luck.

So to reiterate my point, I am not simply suggesting increasing their marginal income tax rates, though I am. I am saying we need a wealth tax, and a redistribution and reconstruction of how wealth is distributed.

I can understand how if you have inherited a lot of money and did not have to work for it, you might be opposed to this. When someone inherit money, they are getting the fruits of someone else's labor. When I was a child during the cold war we were told this is communism, and in the case of inheritance it is nothing more than "private" communism.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 1 year ago

How is taxing the 1% going to allow for universal health coverage, free university education?

Do you really understand just how much money taxing the 1% would generate? Not enough to pay for everyone to go to college that's for sure.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, yes it would. I am not simply arguing for taxes on income.

80% all wealth is inherited from at least two generations back. The majority of that money comes through tax free instruments, the most well known of which is life insurance.

Also, a tax on stock transactions along could generate 1 trillion a year.

If the money is distributed correctly to wage earners, the result would be a large economic boom.

So, using simple market economic thinking, taxing wealthy people would work very well.

During the depression of the 1930's, all income above 360,000 was taxed at 94%. If you eliminate the loopholes, even more money would be found.

As an example. Here is a scam wealthy people run all the time. Let say you have a business that is involved with credit cards. All you do is not charge the account in the US. You have an offshore office that does it. Companies skim huge amounts of money with much more complicated operations. All this type of income would not be open to being taxed.

Also, corporations in the US, pay about 9.8 % in taxes. Last year, Exxon generated 500 billion in income. They did not pay taxes. If you eliminate the loopholes, and they had to pay the 35% that is on the books, that along is 175 billion. This is just one company.

So yes, increasing taxes on the 1% is the way to get the economy going again. There is three times the money in this country, in current unadjusted dollars, as compared to the 1950's. The money is there, the 1% simply do not want to part with it. Take it from them.

When I first started working, nobody paid for health care. I had a 100 deductible for year. No monthly payments, no co-pay crap. All the money we pay for health care and education is the money my grandparents saved for retirement or an emergency.

We need to allow people to make enough money to save. Reducing education and health costs is how to do it.

[-] -1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 1 year ago

All unions, both public and private, can be bad when they grow and become to powerful. The auto workers union is a perfect example of that. Because of the Auto Workers Union they had guys making $60 + an hour to screw in one bolt on a car. On the flip side, with out the unions it would have been one child screwing in 40,000 bolt's for $60, or less, per year.

Unions are both good and bad and it doesn't matter much if they are public or private... That's just my opinion.

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 1 year ago

Your numbers are completely wrong.

When GM fell apart, the average worker was making $18.00 an hour, $27.00 with long term benefits. That is it. The idea that auto workers as a whole are making 60 an hour is not correct.

However, in Germany the average auto workers makes $67.00 an hour. The Germans also have the highest standard of living in the world.

In this country, Union or not, we need high paying jobs. Unless we have high paying jobs, we are going to be a poor country.

I am at a loss as why someone would not be happy that a worker is making what they are worth. Right now, workers in America are the most productive in the world, and they do not get paid what they are worth.

When GM fell apart, the workers salaries and benefits only amounted to 10% the cost of the car. Yet the salaries for management with their benefit packages amounted to 20% the cost of the car. Why should management make these ridiculous high wages when they do not do the work. It makes no sense.

Also,

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 1 year ago

All unions, both public and private, have the right to collectively bargain.

Everything else is BS.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 1 year ago

I never said that they didn't. I'm all for unions ! It's just they can become to powerful and stifle a business or industry. The Auto Workers Union is a big part of the reason why American car companies went under and needed a bail out... That's the point i was trying to make. I'm not advocating against Unions.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 1 year ago

I'm sorry, the UAW had little to do with what happened to the "big 3".

Mismanagement, poor design, abysmal quality control, WallStreet's demands for more and more profit, and a refusal to adjust quickly to changing market conditions, did that.

Unions need to be as big and powerful as the entities they have to bargain with, or else it's no longer good faith bargaining.

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

You nailed it. Public unions represent a structural corruption of the employees electing their own bosses and then cleaning out the cupboard. Government should operate for the benefit of the people, not just the people that work there. OWS is against corporate control of government, but then for some fucked up reason supports union control instead.

Even a Milwaukee newspaper endorsed Walker. Hilarious too is how Democrat primary turn-out fell way short of the petitions submitted and the union favored Democrat got buried. Walker in a virtually uncontested primary got about as many votes as all the Democrats combined. Walker wins.

[-] -2 points by 22250flatshot (-18) 1 year ago

If one pays attention to the election, the unions no longer argue about union issues because overwhelmingly the electorate agrees with the way Walker handled the unions. They have switched to arguing against his accomplishments, knowing they are losers on the disbanding of PE unions. Its an end run, with their real goal re affirming the monopoly unions had over the people, the 99%.

Walker will be re elected and the PE unions will be on the run and weakened, as they should be. Collective bargaining should be restricted to workers vs.a Halliburton or a Exxon or an Apple, not neighbor vs neighbor.

[-] 1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

True. It's just bizarre how liberals line up behind them. Let's see, tax people so that an entrenched minority that works for government can be insulated from job and retirement insecurity. Let's pad the employees and crowd out what government is supposed to be doing. What kind of idiot could support that sort of thing. I'll be optimistic and think more people are starting to get it. Walker wins.

[-] -1 points by Rockyj (2) 1 year ago

I call BS!

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

recalls generally don't fail

as so many others want in

[-] 1 points by tupacsugar (-136) 1 year ago

The recall fight also seems to be taking a toll on Democrats and President Obama specifically. Obama now holds just a four-point lead over Romney among likely voters, 45-41. It is hard to envision of path for Obama's reelection that doesn't include Wisconsin's electoral votes. Holding just a four-point lead, well under 50%, in a state he won handily in 2008 is an ominous sign for his campaign.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago