Scott Walker recall takes an unexpected turn.

That lefty rag, The Nation has done an analysis on the signature collecting so far in Wisconsin’s governor recall effort and has found that:

.

The reason for this unexpectedly large rural response, according to The Nation:

Could it this be the beginning of the end of the Tea Party madness? Will they all now learn that cutting taxes and services will not signal the return of the 50’s social values but instead lead to less money and less services? Or will all the Tea Partiers in every state have to live through less money and less services to understand exactly what that means?

There is a soft economy right now. That means that spending has to be prioritized in government since revenue is down.

The vast majority of schools everywhere in the country have had to make cuts. Now, these have been deeper in certain places, and I think there are policy differences and local conditions that can account for this.

But your simpleheaded analysis doesn’t account for any of this, and the Nation doesn’t account for it either. It’s just policies -> cuts -> signatures and maybe -> recall. I don’t think it is nearly as simple as that.

Maybe they want cuts but not on the stuff they like…

Can you understand that more cuts to taxes = more cuts to services?

spooje has it right. It’s all great to talk about cutting taxes, and cutting that “bloated government”, and eliminating “waste”, but when the rubber hits the road, actual services that people use will be eliminated. When the tax dollars decrease, people will find out that there is no fat to be cut - there is only meat and bone. And they won’t like it.

Why simpleheaded, Moto? Are you getting emotional because your man in Wisconsin is going down?

I see Mr. Moto is going with option B: not understanding what less money and less services actually mean.

I am always amused by politicians proclaiming “We need jobs!” and then a few moments later stating “We need to cut government!”

…um…so, which is it? Do they not understand that cutting government will mean laying off (government) workers?

The people have been fed bull on the amount of government waste for so long that somewhere deep inside they must think that the government can give them all their services for no money. As an example, one of the nitwits who write into our paper about taxes being too high just wrote in to complain that he had to wait a whole hour at the DMV!

One small favor - can someone add to the petition a clause that the schmuck gets tarred and feathered after he is recalled? Thanks in advance.

Government jobs aren’t Jobs[sup]TM[/sup]. Jobs[sup]TM[/sup] can only be provided by millionai- … I mean Job Creators[sup]TM[/sup], who, of course, require tax rates near zero and every loophole available to create said Jobs[sup]TM[/sup] … while also affording boarding school for Muffy and the spring trip to Gstaad for the little woman.

What are you, a communist or something?

Ironically, in the past couple of years there has been a pretty substantial increase in private employment. Unfortunately, it’s been balanced, or more than balanced, by huge cuts in public employment on the state and local level.

Those who want to cut government spending should be proclaiming this as a huge success. They should own 9% unemployment. They should say “hey, I love 9% unemployment! It means we’re cutting evil public sector employment!”

Oh, I understand pretty well. And for the record I think Walker could have obtained many of his stated goals in a less confrontational fashion. There was wide agreement that Wisconsin had to become more competitive with regard to their tax structure and their business environment.

I think its the notion that the folks working at the DMV are really no better than the guy who takes my order at McDonalds but we overpay them and therefore can afford fewer of them because evil government unions force taxpayers to overpay them and because their unions protect their jobs, they halfass it all day.

Basically they think government workers are bloodsuckers who provide little value for a lot of pay all at the taxpayer’s expense.

Cite?

Here is one. It does not say that government cuts are equal to industry growth, but it is clear that government cuts are hurting the recovery.

There was a story on NPR this morning (sorry, no link, I heard it on the way to work) that about 44% of the jobs lost in the past month were government jobs.

It got me wondering if the people screaming about “cut the government!” realize that those lost jobs are now part of the unemployment rate that they’re ALSO screaming about.

Math isn’t their strong suit.

You might want to sit down for this shocking news, but there seem to be conservative dirty tricks afoot:

Nice of these people to discuss their plans on Facebook considering that:

Oh, I’d be pretty amused to see these fools in jail.

This graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shows federal gov’t jobs declining and private sector jobs increasing in the last couple of years.

I found it through a Slate.com story entitled, “How America Ditched Socialism Under Barack Obama”.

They’re right in that governments at every level have to cut spending. That’s a fact that everyone’s going to have to learn to live with. What the leaders have to decide is what cuts to make and how to do it that causes the least pain. It would be decent of the tea party types to accept that raising taxes would help to alleviate some of the pain which they will no doubt feel themselves.

That hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction. What one person considers inappropriate government spending, another might consider essential services. Plus, the major government expenditures (such as the military budget) are NEVER on the table in the discussion of cutting government spending. Cutting small programs that help people seems to be the focus.

On this point, we are in agreement.