Scott Walker's personal finances

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:59 am
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:24 pm

dogmeat wrote:He didn't have millions of his own money to spend.


So if it costs millions for lawyers then who paid for it? If he had a legal defense fund then that shouldn't affect his personal finances, right? You say he may be in debt because of the lawsuit, then say he wouldn't be able to pay for it. Which is it? He should be in far greater debt if it was his own money.

dogmeat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:27 pm

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby dogmeat » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:53 pm

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

He didn't have all the money that it cost for the lawyers. That is where the legal defense fund comes in. I don't know how much money the legal defense fund ended up having. Someone mentioned $650,000. Years of lawyers cost much more than that. It's not that difficult to understand, but I suspect you don't care to understand. You'd rather argue any imagined point you think you've found.

In the end his financial situation is not the red herring some here are pretending it to be. Do you really think undecided voters will decide against Walker because he's not rich? So far in this election cycle a lot of the negative focus has been on how some candidates are very wealthy.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby kurt_w » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:55 pm

In the end his financial situation is not the red herring some here are pretending it to be.

Um, OK...

dogmeat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:27 pm

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby dogmeat » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:50 pm

It's not. Has debt held Debbie Wasserman Schultz back? She's been in Congress for a decade and has been chair of the DNC the past four years. Oh ya, she also has a net worth of something like negative $1 million, which includes $50,000 in credit card debt. She wasn't the focus of years of legal battles either. She did it the Congressional way, spending far more than can be supported by funding.

Tell me how that debt has kept her from having a career as a high-profile politician?

If you're going to claim that personal finances is your red line, then you should also be calling for Schultz to resign. We both know that you're a loyal DNC voter.

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4605
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby bdog » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:56 pm

Apples and oranges. Spend spend spend yourself into debt just proves yourself worthy as a Democrat but it's a bad thing for a Republican.

No one here has mentioned Walker's wife. She might be the reason.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 15094
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:42 pm

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby snoqueen » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:59 pm

The president is responsible for signing the federal budget and makes a great many decisions regarding the use of our tax dollars. We need some assurance the president has a basic grasp of financial management. A good place to start might be looking for evidence our presidential candidates have managed money well in other situations.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz does not make any decisions regarding the use of our tax dollars. I don't care if she can't balance her own checkbook. It's not my money. I don't care if Reince Priebus can't balance his checkbook either.

I can't believe you don't grasp the difference.

Actually, I think you do but just wanted to be argumentative.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby kurt_w » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:00 pm

If you're responding to me, dogmeat, then you're way off track. I don't have any particular interest in Walker's personal finances. I just think you don't quite grasp the meaning of the expression "red herring". That's all.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:59 am
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:02 pm

Is she Wasserman for president?

What I want to understand is how he paid millions for lawyers as you claim.

How someone conducts their personal finances is a direct connection to their economic policy. I don't care if he's rich, but I do care if he's reckless. How is Wisconsin's economy? God can't fix that shit.

bdog wrote:Spend spend spend yourself into debt just proves yourself worthy as a Democrat but it's a bad thing for a Republican.


Good talking points, but the economy has done better under Democrat presidents.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby kurt_w » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:14 pm

I think Walker should be judged on his record in office. If he did a terrible job managing his own finances but was being a prudent, wise, effective leader of state government, that ought to be good enough for anyone (outside his own immediate family and friends). Contrariwise, if he is mismanaging the state and doing harm to its future, then you ought to vote against him no matter how admirable his household finances are.

As much as I hate to contradict dogmeat, I think this is basically just a red herring, a distraction. What matters is Walker's performance as governor.

That said, if people just are curious and think there's something odd going on, and want to try to figure it out ... knock yourselves out. But don't leap to the conclusion that there's some problem there.

dogmeat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:27 pm

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby dogmeat » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:35 pm

snoqueen wrote:The president is responsible for signing the federal budget and makes a great many decisions regarding the use of our tax dollars.


Debbie Wasserman Schultz does not make any decisions regarding the use of our tax dollars.

I suggest you read the Constitution. She does have a role in spending decisions. The President may choose to sign the spending bills that Congress approves. That's how it works. The President doesn't get to spend a dime that wasn't approved by Congress.

Not only does she have her vote on spending as a member of Congress, she was previously on the Appropriations Committee. Maybe you should look up what that committee does.

As always sno, you amaze me with your ignorance.

kurt_w wrote:If you're responding to me, dogmeat, then you're way off track. I don't have any particular interest in Walker's personal finances. I just think you don't quite grasp the meaning of the expression "red herring". That's all.

A red herring is something that distracts. I don't think his personal finances will have any sort of sway in the election. I can't recall a candidate being poor or in debt ever having any real impact on any election.

So I will repeat....

His financial situation is not the red herring some here are pretending it to be.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 15094
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:42 pm

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby snoqueen » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:53 pm

I'm not leaping to any conclusions. I'm saying all presidential candidates have to withstand scrutiny of their personal finances (whether you think that's fair or not is a separate matter) and Walker's financial statement raises obvious questions.

I do think how someone manages his personal finances says something about both his character and his financial acumen. It's certainly not the only thing we look at in evaluating fitness for high office, but it is both customary and reasonable to take a good hard look.


Dog, for crying out loud. A representative is not equal to a president. Calm down. I can't figure out either why the people of Florida's 23rd keep electing this woman, who does not seem to choose her words well on a regular basis. But considering some of the other representatives who get elected to Congress, lots of districts do far worse. Who was that new guy who tried to negotiate his own foreign policy, for instance? There is a reason we need lots of people in Congress: they kinda dilute the worst parts of each other.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby rabble » Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:26 pm

dogmeat wrote:
kurt_w wrote:If you're responding to me, dogmeat, then you're way off track. I don't have any particular interest in Walker's personal finances. I just think you don't quite grasp the meaning of the expression "red herring". That's all.

A red herring is something that distracts.

No. What you're thinking of is called a "distraction." A red herring is something else.

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby penquin » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:24 am

dogmeat wrote:I guess if you don't understand that lawyer fees easily go into millions of dollars for cases that last several years

I do understand lawyer fees. I also understand how the legal defense fund works in relation to a campaign fund, hence why your explanation doesn't make any sense.
then there's nothing I can write to convince you.

Not true at all! I'm a reasonable fella when folks are being reasonable. You could write "Here is a link which shows the total lawyer fees for Scott Walker was X-amount", and that would go a long way towards convincing me your guess is a reasonable one.
Didn't just the legal representation for the prosecutors of the John Doe case cost the taxpayers $1 million?

Yes, $1.1 million for lawsuits filed against seven different people represented by at least seven different lawyers. Scott Walker is only one person.

All due respect, but your theory doesn't seem to add up...

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby penquin » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:35 am

dogmeat wrote:That is where the legal defense fund comes in. I don't know how much money the legal defense fund ended up having. Someone mentioned $650,000. Years of lawyers cost much more than that.

As stated earlier, he could easily have put millions and millions more into that fund, merely by transferring it from his campaign fund. (Something he did on two different occasions...tho it was tens of thousands rather than millions and millions)
Do you really think undecided voters will decide against Walker because he's not rich?

It has nothing to do with him not being "rich" and everything with him being financially irresponsible. Anyone who is floating THAT much on THAT high of an interest rate these days is a total idiot when it comes to money. It really appears that he can't even handle his own household budget and we're supposed to trust him with the state budget? That is something voters should be informed about, hence one of the reasons for financial disclosures for elected officials.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Scott Walker's personal finances

Postby kurt_w » Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:21 am

dogmeat wrote:
kurt_w wrote:If you're responding to me, dogmeat, then you're way off track. I don't have any particular interest in Walker's personal finances. I just think you don't quite grasp the meaning of the expression "red herring". That's all.

A red herring is something that distracts. I don't think his personal finances will have any sort of sway in the election. I can't recall a candidate being poor or in debt ever having any real impact on any election.

So I will repeat....

His financial situation is not the red herring some here are pretending it to be.


People in this thread and elsewhere are suggesting that Scott Walker's management of his personal finances is important or meaningful.

Now, if you say that someone is "pretending Walker's finances are a red herring" that statement conveys the following information about your worldview:

(1) Scott Walker's finances actually are an important or meaningful issue in the campaign; and

(2) The people you're calling out are falsely claiming that Scott Walker's finances are not important or meaningful.

My understanding is that you actually believe the opposite of both of those statements. In that case, you probably should not accuse snoqueen et al. of "pretending" that Walker's finances "are a red herring" in the campaign. You are using the expression "red herring" in a way that is not standard and not likely to effectively communicate your actual beliefs.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests