Democrats expect to win control of Wisconsin State Senate

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Oakminster

nm

Yes, that is the easier thing to do.

[BrainGlutton]

Boy, this got hijacked fast! And inheritance tax is not even a state issue in Wisconsin, AFAIK.

[BobLibDem]

@BrainGlutton

Boy, this got hijacked fast! And inheritance tax is not even a state issue in Wisconsin, AFAIK.

I regret participating in a hijack. Perhaps Oakminster will make a new thread to debate what he terms the “death tax”.

[Lobohan]

I blame myself. Sorry, the Deth Taxxxxx™ issues is so vapidly stupid it sets me off.

[Rhythmdvl]

I blame Lobohan.

It’s the American Way.

[Bricker]

@kaylasdad99

I saw what you did there.

I may change my location to “Sunnydale, CA.”

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Money doesn’t buy elections on a 1 to 1 basis, it sways elections.

I can think of no better rebuttal than the words of a wise but under-appreciated analyst, who said:

If there was ever an election that wasn’t bought, this was it. The story of Walker and the Democratic opposition have been nearly the entirety of the news since his first budget (yeah, WI is THAT boring a state). Almost no one here is ignorant of the people or the issues involved. What happened is that the people of Wisconsin decided that Walker’s actions, even if they disagreed with them, did not merit the extraordinary process of removing him from office before his normal term.

I generally agree with that. I did not sign the recall petition. I did vote against Walker yesterday, because I decided to treat the election like any other and I voted Democrat because I favor their policies. Many people also voted as they would in a “normal” election – which is one reason Walker won – as he also won the 2010 election against the same opponent under normal circumstances. Another reason he won, which I think the exit polls bear out, is that many people voted for Walker over process issues, not policy ones. IOW, they didn’t think it was fair or reasonable to prematurely throw him out of office for governing, even bad governing, over policy disputes and not any specific malfeasance.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

I can think of no better rebuttal than the words of a wise but under-appreciated analyst, who said:

I’m not sure how you think that rebuts what I said there.

If I point to a specific person smoking without cancer, does that rebut that smoking doesn’t cause cancer?

Not to mention that that was an opinion.

[Marley23]

@BobLibDem

Shove your condescending attitude up your ass.

This is abusive and doesn’t belong in this forum. I’m giving you a formal warning and instructing everybody else to cool it - and take the estate tax discussion to a separate thread, preferrably in Great Debates.

[NDP]

@Omg a Black Conservative

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve read this line on HuffPo, Daily Kos or any other of the left leaning blogs/websites. If money buys elections, then why isn’t Meg Whitman governor of California? If money buys elections, then surely you can agree that Obama bought himself the 2008 election?

(Rhetorical questions, of course.)

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Good point. Please make sure that any money imbalances which favor the Republican candidate are submitted to the Democrats in future, so as to ensure future republican victories. I’m sure you’d be happy with that, since money doesn’t influence victory, and so would I.

This is getting off-topic but probably the most pernicious effect of having one side pour an unlimited amount of money into an election is that it drives up the overall cost of campaigning and ultimately deters qualified people–both liberals and conservatives–from running. Over the last 20 years, the cost of seeking office was risen so much that fund-raising is an activity that consumes more and more of a candidate’s or incumbent office-holder’s time. Most people find the constant scrounging for dollars to be a tedious activity that, in many instances, gives the appearance of unseemliness. One of the bad results of the Citizens United decision is that it removed many of the weak restraints against excessive monetary contributions thereby making campaign fund-raising even more of a 24/7/365 job and discouraging many potential office-holders who don’t want to prostitute themselves to a big backer or backers.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Oakminster

I value a more moderate approach to solving problems. Progressives are too far left, just as the Tea Party is too far right. My ideal candidate would support getting our fiscal house in order while also supporting civil liberties and smaller government.

…whereas I favor getting our fiscal house in order while also supporting civil liberties and a larger government (except for the military, which I want to be much smaller). We’re on the same side on the majority of issues, therefore, as are you and most progressives.

Yeah, I want a larger government. That’s a highly moderate position, relative to the industrialized world as a whole. As I see it, the US is right now way too far to the right.

And the idea that anyone wants to punish success is a contemptible idea bespeaking hopeless ideology, profound ignorance, or a blithe disregard for speaking honestly. I’d appreciate it if you’d do your part to raise the level of rhetoric around here, and I hope you don’t respond to that request with a tu quoque.

[gamerunknown]

@Oakminster

Typical Democrats/progressives want to punish success and redistribute wealth.

How is an estate tax related to wanting to punish success? The successful person is dead, the recipient of the fund has not “earned” the money in a voluntary association, unless they were paid to end the dead person’s life. Mulct is a form of wealth redistribution - from individuals to government, which then, in a representative democracy, has the responsibility of spending the funds as the majority wish. Opposing wealth redistribution means opposing a government with the power to levy fees - in other words, minarchism or anarchocapitalism.

Here’s the socialist Sanders on the estate tax.