Forum Post: Walker wins with a blow to the head of democracy
Posted 11 years ago on June 6, 2012, 3:41 a.m. EST by rickMoss
(435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've been trying to tell you. Learn how to fight back or get used to getting your butts kicked.
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at (http://revolution2.osixs.org ) FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
Actually it was an example of people outside of Wisconsin exercising their unfair right to manipulate an election. Thanks to Citizens United, the bulk of Walker's campaign contributions came from out of state.
Democracy means rule by the people, with the inference that the people residing under that government are the sole deciders of it's direction.
When a Government allows people outside of their jurisdiction to participate in it's internal affairs, it ceases to be a Government of the people and must be overthrown.
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/06/05/9111/walker-survives-recall
You make a great point, and I believe the point also applies to national politics. Multi National Corporations have an unfair advantage in our national politics. Also it seems like Banking cartels with influence across the globe are able to defend their global interests with use of our national political apparatus. For this reason alone, I believe our whole political process is nothing more than a public auction.
When any group is so intent on achieving a goal that it cannot see the most basic principles of justice they trample in it's pursuit, their vision of that goal must also be equally clouded.
Can you cite any examples of international influence in American politics?
Though I have no evidence that foreigners are influencing our politics, i will say that having Corporations using foreign direct investment (FDI), while dictating our political futures, Is a recipe for disaster. FDI investment has been a growing trend, and even though foreign investment is minority controlled, their influence is still greater than the average American.
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/fdiesaissuebriefno2061411final.pdf
http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Documents/The_Scientific_Solution_of_the_Problem_of_Government
The average voter is a moron. He believes what he reads in newspapers, feeds his imagination and lulls his repressions on the cinema, and hopes to break away from his slavery by football pools, cross-word prizes, or spotting the winner of the 3:30.
He is ignorant as no illiterate peasant is ignorant: he has no power of independent thought. He is the prey of panic.
But he has the vote. The men in power can only govern by stampeding him into wars, playing on his fears and prejudices until he acquiesces in repressive legislation against his obvious interests, playing on his vanity until he is totally blind to his own misery and serfdom.
The alternative method is undisguised dragooning. In brief, we govern by a mixture of lying and bullying.
-- Aliester Crowley
Even if you're not one for mysticism or occult, I think Crowley's observations were as true in the 1800s as they are today. Tragic but funny...
Actually, this is not a democracy. That's why our leaders don't listen. They don't have to. This is a republic. If you want a real democracy you will have to earn it and deserve. Good Luck!
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM OsiXs (Revolution 2.0 - The Smart Revolution)
Actually, life ain't fare and neither or the republicans.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM OsiXs (Democracy 2.0)
The soap opera will continue - Will Walker face prosecution for past misdeeds - will he be sought cross border to pay love child support - will he continue to wage war on Wisconsin.
Inquiring minds want to know.
What misdeeds?
Google his defense fund.
[Removed]
[Removed]
The American people have been brainwashed, plain and simple. They worship the wealthy because they don't want to let go of the "dream" that they, too, can be rich someday. This is what you get when you live in a materialistic, superficial society. What they don't realize is that with declining wages that will never happen. The wealthy and corporations only laugh at their view of themselves as rugged individuals because it enables them to run off with all the profits.
True, but let's face it, every body can't get rich. Not even close. Can you imagine 7 billion rich people. It's all a suckers game like the casinos.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Democracy 2.0)
Please explain something. If the American PEOPLE,, as you say,, are brainwashed, why do you think YOU are not? If the American people are,,,, then you are too. Oh, unless you are sitting at a "non-material" computer and you much smarter than everyone else is posting all day.
Very good point. I'm forced to live in this material world like everyone else, but I'm not going to go around with all the hubris and think my country is better than every other country especially when half of Americans earn less than $26,000 per year and workers' rights continue to erode, while they continue vote in people who don't look after their interests. Something is going on here. We can either ignore it or try to get to the root of it. Any ideas, AmericanMan? I'm all ears.
When you say half of all Americans earn less than $26,000, does that include people that choose to work only part time. Looking at full time workers the figure is over $39,000. The average for men is about $43K, for women $33K. There is still a lot of income inequity, but you seem to be engaging in a little light brain washing propaganda of your own to make things look worse then they really are.
Some people take part time jobs because they can't get full time work!, And the salaries you listed are not enough to support a family, fund college, provide healthcare, buy a home, prepare for retirement!. We can do better. We should find those numbers unacceptable, and work to improve the situation for all working families!
That may very well all be true, and we should work to improve incomes for those at or below the median. That isn't my point. My point is that choosing to use a number that makes things look artificially worse is dishonest. Dishonesty doesn't help get us any positive changes, it can only make change more difficult.
The median household income in the US is $50K. I'd be guilty of the same dishonesty if I tried to get you to believe that it doesn't matter if that figure is the result of one person working or three in the same household.
The numbers are tedious distractions. The important reality is that the 1% have enriched themselves by rigging the system to engineer the greatest transfer of wealth from the rest of us. We must undo the damage the 1% has created by stealing our government.
I agree, the numbers are a distraction. The inequity is there and it needs to be dealt with. The big question is how can that be done? In real terms, in a practical way, how?
Get the middle class back to work, infrastructure bank, green jobs, state aid to rehire state workers. ( you dont fire people during an unemployment crises), Cut taxes for middle class, raise on 1%, Penalties for outsourcing, rewards for onshoring, Cut interest rates on cr card/student loans/mtgs! Forgive at least half the cr card/student loan debt for the middle class. (punishment for the banks that crashed our economy) expand Social sec deduction to income over 200k. That would be a start
Exactly.
$26,000 per year is the median income in the U.S. That means that half of all Americans are living on less than $26,000. You're only 19 according to your profile so you might be able to make it on that little amount of money. But, do you really think a family can live on that kind of money. You are talking about one-half of all American workers. No one is trying to make things look worse than they are. That is a fact. Part-time, full-time, it doesn't really matter. That is how little money people are living on.
It certainly does matter. If you are including anyone like me that would refuse to work full time, then you are painting a distorted economic picture. You artificially make things look worse then they really are if half the families are not trying to live on the amount you state.
Median household income is just over $50K according to the Census Bureau, not $26K. That may include families where more then one person works, it paints an artificially rosy picture. The number you chose to use goes to the other extreme. Showing a median made lower by including students or individuals that may choose to work only part time. Another site shows the figures I wrote above, it identifies those as the median income for full time workers ($43K for men, $33K for women, $39K for all).
I'm not saying the $26000 figure is untrue, just misleading. Part time workers shouldn't be included in your consideration unless they are supporting a family on that income. You're using them to lower the median and make your point seem more dramatic. It doesn't seem honest.
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I think the median income is important because it shows the actual income that people are living on and what they have to put back into the economy. And, if $26,000 is the median income, what is the 3rd quartile living on? I wonder how low the income is of the bottom 75% of Americans? I used to have a good chart on income disparity between the rich and the poor. I'll see if I can find it again.
Then use the household median or $50,000, or the individual full time median of $39. I'm not living on my $5000 2011 income, my brother isn't living on the $450 he made bussing tables last christmas for the Moose Lodge, but both those incomes from our W2's play a part in lowering the national median.
The income inequity between rich and poor is there. You shouldn't need to overstate it. Make an honest representation of what real families are actually living on.
It is completely honest to state the fact that the median income in this country is $26,000. That means that half of Americans earn less than $26,000. I do not see anything dishonest about that. It is a fact. I do not know what percentage of those are young people, but young people are a drain on their parents higher earnings, no? So, it all evens out.
It's dishonest if you intend to say that people are living on that $26000. The median household income, what people are actually living on is $50000. Your number is misleading.
I understand why you use it, but I believe it has the opposite effect from what you wanted. The only outrage you're going to get will be from people that already believe as you do. People opposed to your point of view will point out your number's inadequate representation of reality and weaken your argument. Anyone that hasn't decided what to believe yet will find your conclusions suspect if they bother to check on what the number actually represents.
The 2010 median household has 2.73 people living in it. So that person with a median age of 37 years who makes just $26,000, is supporting another person with $7700, and really lives on just $18,300 a year.
If you're going to talk households, shouldn't you use the median household income. Don't cherry pick the statistics to draw the possible picture.
The median household income of about $50,000 was used, divided by the median household size of 2.73. Do you come up with a figure other than $18,300 a year per household member?
That 2.73 people all live under one roof, so it's not like each needs to provide it's own place to live, they share one dwelling. Actually though none of it matters, I don't care how you use the numbers.
My original point was that the use of the median wage number to represent conditions is misleading. To say conditions are bad because of a of a misleading statistic is deceitful.
Then what is an honest statistic to use?
Come on. Do you know what a median is? A median in statistics is the middle point. It's not an average it is the middle as if everyone has been lined up from lowest paid to highest paid. It is not misleading in any way, shape or form, that is why the labor department reports this information. It is useful information. When the median income (not wage, I never said wage) is $26,000 it means what it means, that one-half of working Americans earn less than that and one-half earn more. The unemployed are not even considered in this number.
less than $15,000
The median income is the median income. I'm not trying to misrepresent anything, nor is the number itself. Household income can also be construed as misleading. How many people are living in each household? How can you measure that accurately? Both numbers are imperfect, yet relevant to any discussion of decreasing wages in the United States.
I wish NPR would stop using GDP
as it measures flow of money and not goods and services
and median income is skewed by very few with high exponential income at the top
Median wage is skewed by part time workers, as beautifulworld says, the numbers are imperfect. It's probably best to look at income groups rather then trying to use one number to represent the nation.
or minimum wage
$8.50*40=$340/week=$1,360/month=$16,000 a year
That number is accurate for a minimum wage job, working only 48 weeks, but doesn't mean a thing in the context of this discussion. Unless you're saying that a very large percentage of the population earns that. There must be some and they obviously bring down the median, but so would part time workers earning just a few thousand for extra spending money.
Of course household income ($50K), median full time income ($39K), or your number, median wage ($26K) can all be misleading, it all depends on someone's personal agenda. I suppose to be as fair as possible about it, if you're going to talk about income then use several measures or mention the limitations of the ones you do use.
Your decision to use that number makes me think you want things to be as bad as possible so you picked the lowest number you could find. Even though that number is low, in part, because it includes part time workers that are not living on that income.
The 2010 median household has 2.73 people living in it. Divide 2.73 people into $50,000. So that person with a median age of 37 years who makes just $26,000, is supporting another person, and really lives on just $18,300 a year.
Your drifting into a sort of apples and oranges kind of comparison. For starters those 2.73 people you only have to pay for 1 dwelling, it's not like every person in a family has to rent or buy their own place to live.
Not apples or oranges at all. You are the one who said that personal income was misleading. Now you say household income is not correct either. Provide a statistic that you will accept.
How do you know all part-time workers are not living on their part-time income? Surely, many are and many wish they had full-time jobs. And, for the part-time workers not living on that income, then who's income are they living on? Someone else's income I imagine. So, it all evens out. While I understand what you're saying I don't appreciate your accusation that I am purposefully being misleading.
Ran out of replies. The same page you linked to states the average hourly wage is $19.70 an hour. It's a low income, but using the average number of hours worked (34.4) it comes to $33K. Lower then the 2010 Census data, due to the recession probably, but not near your $26K.
If what matters is how much money each person is earning, why not use the per capita income number then? It's $27K according to the Census Bureau ( http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html ). There is something wrong with your $26,000 figure.
The $26,000 figure is all over the place. I think it's actually $26,363. There are many links to it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-median-us-wage-in-2010-was-just-26363-government-reports/2011/10/20/gIQAdabX0L_blog.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html
I agree it's a devastatingly low number, but I fear your problem is more with me than the number. LOL. And, if you are more comfortable with the $27,000 number that's fine. I'll agree to that. We'll use $27k.
Neither of us know if those workers are teens with no living expenses and an income of a couple thousand that artificially brings down the median or if they are struggling single parents, scraping by on $20000.
The point is you are misusing the median wage number when you interpret it to mean "half of all Americans are living on less than $26,000". The burden of proof would seem more correctly placed on you to justify the use of that number with your statement.
I don't know if it's intentional of not, I just get the feeling that it could be because you seem so determined to stay with the worst possible number. It certainly could be an error or misunderstanding of the number's meaning on your part.
JenLynn, you are the one who seems determined to skew the numbers to match your conservative point of view. Sorry, but most Americans live on the money they make. If half are bringing home less than $26,000 per year, then, sorry, as hard as this may be for you to comprehend, they are living on that amount of money. There's no way around this. It matters not about household income or how many people live in a home or whatever. What matters in total is how much money each person is earning in this country.
Take a look at this Department of Labor document:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Here's an excerpt from it: "The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) edged up to 8.1 million over the month. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job."
You are being dishonest when you do not take into consideration the single parent households.
I'm not taking anything into consideration and I'm not representing any of these numbers as anything meaningful. I started simply by calling attention to a discrepancy. She was referring to a number that is identified as median wage, I think she confused it with median income. I don't think you can accurately or honestly represent 114 million households with a single number.
It is called an average. Depending on you data collection you can have many differing answers. But 26,000.00 is a fairly consistent number from different sources for a mean average of nearly 150,000,000 people in this country.
not among the people I know is less, a lot less
More?
Less?
Neighborhood/area?
She identified the number as the median, similar to the mean I know but not quite the same thing. I also think it's the median wage not the medial income. There are aver 308 million people in the country, but there are 114 million households (making a median income of $50000 each) according to the US Census Bureau.
Middle income goes up over 200,000.00
When they are all added together then divided out it gives an average amount but does not reflect distribution.
You are trying to teach reason to someone who is un-reason-able. She'll continue to use whatever numbers she thinks proves her point. And the rest of us will continue to view her point as ridiculous.
[Removed]
[Removed]
the citizens voted in Wisconsin and Walker won. So please give me a break with your 'blow to democracy' garbage.
Don't be a fool your whole life. The election was bought and paid for like your politicians. I like arrogant smug people like you. What until you're affected. Your nonchalant attitude will disappear. Have a great day.
“Be Smart!” - FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Democracy 2.0)
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
America is a Constitutional Republic NOT a Democracy!!!
Representative democracy maybe? I have no clue.
Thank you my friend for enlightening all the suckers. Stop griping about your rights and your democracy. You don't have either.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )
Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )
That is an incorrect statement. America is (or was before it became a fascist police state) a constitutional republic, yes. But a constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy and therefore not something that is other than democracy.
Try on Monarchy see how that feels.
To have a Monarchy you must first have a Monarch. Who do you allege that to be?
much history? Royalty is a class not a person, they fight for the prize, but no one wants the target on their back, Monarchy is inherited power/wealth, most power in America is inherited power, we must restrict the power of money or we will completely lose any say in what goes on at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/
"Monarchy" and "Royalty" are neither synonyms nor interchangeable terms. To have a Monarchy you must have a Monarch. And although there may be many people in the class or family considered Royalty, only one of them at a time can be the Monarch. So answer my original question, please.
so you tried it on didn't feel good to you, OK.
When power is inherited, the form of government you have in monarchy, when money is inherited and power is money, you have monarchy wither by one King or a board of directors the key element is power flowing down with the family name and fortune. Money is power, not freedom and to restrict the use of it is freedom.
The issue here is you used words you did not understand incorrectly. Blathering in circles as you have here does not change that.
I see your point more important to talk about semantics than policy, it is safer for the 1% if we do that, you’re earning your money today. Thanks for clearing that up, I was wondering what your point was with all these posts now I understand.
All redirection, doubletalk and gibberish, which is where you run every time your partisan spin and lies are exposed, Factsrfun.
Do you really think all those people are in the park because I misused a term? I should be more careful.
Why don't you just start quoting lines from Jabberwocky, Factsrfun? Equally meaningless, but far more entertaining.
This is not a fail of democracy, this is a beautiful example of democracy. A fair election and a fair recall vote. Don't act all pissy because you lost. Walker is exactly what Wisconsin needs so they do not drown in debt.
When people outside a Democracy are allowed to influence it's outcome, it has already failed.
cause they don't know what taxes are
Huh? Huge turn-out and Walker buries the guy. Democracy failed? If all the pissy petition signers voted, you side would've won.
This election should've never happened. Recalls are for extreme cases, not just venting a temper tantrum by a union.
Funny, but it's the union that's trying to harm democracy. The entire point of the union is conflict of interest. The only reason they vote is to rig their labor relations and to twist government into placating them rather than serving the people. This time, the people stood up to them in a big way.
Hopefully, this courage spreads to places like Illinois that are growing fed up with the conflict of interest and the looting.
This was a perfect example of "we the people" execising their right to vote and making their voice heard. It seems to me to be an outstanding example of democracy.
Actually it was an example of "we the people outside of Wisconsin" exercising their unfair right to manipulate an election. Thanks to Citizens United, the bulk of Walker's campaign contributions came from out of state.
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/06/05/9111/walker-survives-recall
The entire point was for the union to manipulate the process. They called the election because they wanted a more compliant boss at the office. It was the ultimate expression of union conflict of interest to fuck ordinary citizens.
Excuse me! This is a republic. Not democracy. There is nothing democratic about buying elections. That's called fraud. Only in a republic will crap like that fly. And believe me, republicans are working the hell out of it.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )
Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )
what where the numbers?
radical means root
unions give workers power over their work place
unions give special interests priority over the 99%.
understood
so do private business
at least the union represents the business as people
36% of union workers voted for Walker. What were they thinking?
I don't know. But they're going to get what they asked for.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Revolution 2.0)
Maybe,,,,,, just maybe,,,,, they dont like the Unions they are FORCED to join? Just thinking....... But you are much smarter, they should have listened to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NOT.
Maybe the 36% value liberty more than money. Maybe they are willing to sacrifice personal benefit for something that they believe is a basic human right.
Now we know where Obama stands in the election!!!! hahahhahah by Obama bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Yes we do. Obama stands for Wall Street and the War Machine, just like Romney does. We did not need Wisconsin or Walker to clarify that.