I don't know why the chart lists only most state, but check the AP article (on Fox!):
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news...-in-jobs-losses-between-march-2011-march-2012
That clear enough?
Something seems a bit off with this info graphic. I'm a bit skeptical with only 29 states listed.
Also, this doesn't really seem to take into account public sector jobs being cut due to bloat I would guess.
MADISON (AP) - Wisconsin lost more jobs in the past year than any other state, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The bureau's figures show the state lost 23,900 jobs from March 2011 to March 2012. No other state lost more than 3,500 jobs, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Of those 17,800 were government jobs.
The loss of 6,100 private-sector jobs was also tops among the 50 states and Wisconsin was the only one of those that saw a decrease in total non-farm jobs, which includes both the public and private sector.
Tuesday is the big day for Badgers.
Boot Walker and have a chance at saving not only Wisconsin from the disaster of the Republicans but also put Wisconsin the win column for Obama.
Keep Walker and it spells the coffin for Wisconsin with no hope of ever recovering from Republican destruction as well as helping to cement the same disaster for the country handing Wisconsin and the country to Romney in November.
Keep Walker and it spells the coffin for Wisconsin with no hope of ever recovering from Republican destruction as well as helping to cement the same disaster for the country handing Wisconsin and the country to Romney in November.
Tuesday is the big day for Badgers.
Boot Walker and have a chance at saving not only Wisconsin from the disaster of the Republicans but also put Wisconsin the win column for Obama.
Keep Walker and it spells the coffin for Wisconsin with no hope of ever recovering from Republican destruction as well as helping to cement the same disaster for the country handing Wisconsin and the country to Romney in November.
Disaster being a balanced budget, a state facing a future surplus and a estimated 6% unemployment rate all because public unions had to be forced to pay a few percentage points more into their own retirements rather then leaving a bill for the tax payers to shoulder.
Dishonesty isn't a good argument. If Walker's claims had happened, there would still be problems with it - but he got what he wanted and is still last in jobs, a disaster.
This. Too. Shall. Pass.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/30/new-poll-gops-walker-keeps-single-digit-lead-ahead-tuesdays-recall-election/#ixzz1wS07Qit6The attempt to recall Walker began shortly after he took office in January 2011 and gained steam when he and Republican lawmakers eliminated most collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. The effort, which aimed to cut the state’s $3.7 billion deficit without raising taxes, resulted in large, rancorous protests at the State House that reverberated across the county.
The vast majority of people I know are voting for Walker. I hate that the Dems more or less told me my vote didn't count because they lost the election. If the Dems don't win the recall, I think the Repubs are going to make a big deal out of the lost time and money wasted on the recall. My feeling is this will end up backfiring on the Dems (assuming they do not win the recall).
Gray Davis was recalled after three or so years.... He was blamed for the Electricity crisis and the dot com bubble burst...
Maybe it was because he was Jerry Brown's chief of staff
It was not his fault or at least maybe just a bit.
Walker, it seems, is far more to blame for the efforts against the people with his Budget reform bill that really went after collective bargaining... Wisconsin needs rid of him or let him stay and everyone else leave...
Yes I agree and I don't understand why you insist on using it (dishonesty) over and over again.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...tend=1333436400000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&icfg
How long was Walker in office before the recall effort started? That way we can see if the unions and the dems allowed Walker to actually try to fix the problems before they blamed him for not fixing them?
EDIT: Oh Yeah, I already posted that info. Here it is again:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/30/new-poll-gops-walker-keeps-single-digit-lead-ahead-tuesdays-recall-election/#ixzz1wS07Qit6
So the unions and the dems started the recall effort almost immediately after Walker took office. Seems like their only complaint against him was that he won the election. Wisc. needs to fix their broken system.[/QUOTE]
You keep ignoring the fact that Walker went after collective bargaining by the public unions the moment he took office. Only after he and his rubberstamp legislature started going after the public unions and basically gutted their right to collectively bargain in a blink of an eye did those Wisconsinites who felt tricked and betrayed by him start the recall effort.
Why you keep ignoring this FACTUAL history to push your agenda has become rather comical of late.
So what keeps you and the vast majority of people you know here?
That's a lot of people that hate America. You are all free to leave.
The man should have his term in office and then we'll vote again. I don't understand why the WI governor election should be any different.
Not sure what you mean... Since Walker took office the budget has been fixed. And I now have a concealed carry license (which never would have happened before). I don't see how these are bad things.
I don't know that I agree with all of Walker's policies. But I don't think there has been a politician that I've ever agreed with 100% of everything they did. Walker is a better option than Barrett. He also won the election, he should finish out his term. This whole recall seems to me be a group of sore losers. I didn't vote for Obama, and don't care for a lot of his policies. The majority of the country did vote for him. The man should have his term in office and then we'll vote again. I don't understand why the WI governor election should be any different.
So the unions and the dems started the recall effort almost immediately after Walker took office. Seems like their only complaint against him was that he won the election. Wisc. needs to fix their broken system.
You keep ignoring the fact that Walker went after collective bargaining by the public unions the moment he took office. Only after he and his rubberstamp legislature started going after the public unions and basically gutted their right to collectively bargain in a blink of an eye did those Wisconsinites who felt tricked and betrayed by him start the recall effort.
Why you keep ignoring this FACTUAL history to push your agenda has become rather comical of late.
Oh the horror !!
Disaster being a balanced budget, a state facing a future surplus and a estimated 6% unemployment rate all because public unions had to be forced to pay a few percentage points more into their own retirements rather then leaving a bill for the tax payers to shoulder.
Not sure what you mean... Since Walker took office the budget has been fixed. And I now have a concealed carry license (which never would have happened before). I don't see how these are bad things.
I don't know that I agree with all of Walker's policies. But I don't think there has been a politician that I've ever agreed with 100% of everything they did. Walker is a better option than Barrett. He also won the election, he should finish out his term. This whole recall seems to me be a group of sore losers. I didn't vote for Obama, and don't care for a lot of his policies. The majority of the country did vote for him. The man should have his term in office and then we'll vote again. I don't understand why the WI governor election should be any different.
Because the public unions can be the only people in charge.
According to Walker and his supporters, only some public unions should be restricted... just happen to be the ones who never support the GOP.
Maybe he will go after the unions which cannot strike (and are popular with both dems and reps) after successfully smacking down the other unions. It does make sense to go after the less popular ones first, which also happen to be the ones which can strike. EDIT: From a political standpoint, going after firemen and police and such makes you an easy target for your opponent. Showing cops crying at a funeral of one of their own with a caption of "He gave the ultimate price to keep you safe, but So and So wants to ensure his family gets paid less". I am not sure if it will ever be politically possible to curb their unions any further. They already cannot go on strike.
If he wins, he very well might not have enough time left to do much about the other unions. When is the next normal election?