RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Wisconsin’s political pawns
The governor is “using human beings as political pawns,” said Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller in response to the layoff notices Gov. Scott Walker sent to 1,500 state workers last Friday. He called the governor’s action a “new level of hostility.” These are serious accusations that take on a moral dimension and beg contemplation of Sen. Miller’s political philosophy. If Miller is right about Walker, we should all be concerned.
Political pawns are persons sacrificed for the sake of obtaining a political goal. In essence, Sen. Miller contends that Gov. Walker has been exploiting state workers to achieve his political goals—luring AWOL Democrat senators back to the capitol and balancing Wisconsin’s budget.
Has Walker been using state workers as political pawns? Is the issuance of layoff notices a hostile act? In short, has Walker been acting immorally?
Considering the reality of the situation, Walker has a giant financial problem on his hands and he knows that county and local governments do as well. Wisconsin has to cut expenses and, yes, some state workers will lose collective bargaining rights for benefits plans. But Walker, a past county executive, believes Wisconsin’s governments have run out of money and can’t be held as political hostages to union bargaining any longer.
The governor doesn’t appear to be acting immorally, using people as political pawns, or raising Wisconsin politics to a new level of hostility. Rather, he is trying to deal responsibly with a tough fiscal situation and keep Wisconsin’s government employees on the job.
In fact, it is Miller and the left who have been playing chicken with the livelihood of state employees while embracing Marxist-like class conflict rhetoric and tactics to deal with very real budget problems. Walker represents the bourgeoisie, state workers represent the proletariat, and Democrat senators have been content to determine Wisconsin’s future by fomenting conflict rather than legislating responsibly.
Yes, human beings are being used as political pawns. But it’s Miller, not Walker, who has been playing them like a Russian chess champion.
back to top216 Comments to “Wisconsin’s political pawns”
The governor is “using human beings as political pawns,” said Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller in response to the layoff notices Gov. Scott Walker sent to 1,500 state workers last Friday.
—
This is from a man who in stead of doing his job. Is hiding with 13 in other to a void doing what they are elected to do. Cast votes.
Report comment to moderator
Something about your commentary, Lee, strikes me as too two dimensional. It’s been no secret that I (like the American majority) don’t find Walker to be acting in good faith. If he were mere trying to deal with a tough budget, then why the $100,000 in tax cuts to large corporations? And why the fixation on bargaining rights that have no impact on the budget?
We’ve been told that he’s taking away bargaining rights to fix the budget, but that’s a hollow line if you look at the budgets of other “right to work” states. If being right to work were such a simple budget fix, then why are California and Texas running such large deficits?
And while you quite mockingly suggest that Walker sits with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat (I’m sure words you use in jest), they ring a little bit true. Large tax breaks to big corporations while asking school secretaries to double their health insurance premiums AND give all rights to say band together as a group and say, “Gee, We’d really like it if you did something about the black mold in our school.” To the majority of Americans (including in Rassmussen polls) “the bourgeoisie against the proletariat” is exactly what that sounds like–and getting favorable reviews in World is not going to make it good politics.
And we would be remiss to point out that the lack of political acumen shown by Walker has been tragic. He’s “martyred” 1,500 of the “proletariat” and the Democrats can sit back for 29 days while those 1,500 scream about Walker to the press! If they sweep in then and pass the budget, the budget laden down with a host of other social issues like a 3rd ban on same-sex marriages, they will seem the heroes and Walker will look like a monster. As a Republican, you shouldn’t praise bad political maneuvering by your party leaders.
And that wasn’t a joke, BTW, there really is a 3rd ban on same-sex marriages hidden in Walker’s attempt “to deal responsibly with a tough fiscal situation and keep Wisconsin’s government employees on the job.” As if. The GOP isn’t taking workers, the budget, or running the country seriously…and I am sorry for the pawns in their game, including Scott Walker.
Report comment to moderator
As a Republican, you shouldn’t praise bad political maneuvering by your party leaders.
–
Sorry but where is the bad political maneuvering, you are talking about? The last I look the Republicans are at work doing their job, while the Minority Leader Mark Miller and his people are AWOL and Hiding in Il to avoid doing their job.
I must asked, you honestly believe, these 14 cowards who are AWOL are doing a good political maneuvering?
Report comment to moderator
#2 Redwal
“f being right to work were such a simple budget fix, then why are California and Texas running such large deficits?”
CA is not a “Right to Work” state. I had to support a teachers union even though I disagreed with it. CA is running a hugh deficit because it is run by Democrats.
“… the budget laden down with a host of other social issues like a 3rd ban on same-sex marriages…”
Aha!
“And that wasn’t a joke, BTW, there really is a 3rd ban on same-sex marriages hidden in Walker’s attempt…”
I think you missed the boat, the Governor has to present a balanced budget. He is choosing to follow the law. As I understand it, the Democrats won’t let him lower the wages and/or benefits of state workers, SO, he has to lay-off state workers. This seems to be what the state law requires.
Have I got this wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Has Walker been using state workers as political pawns? Is the issuance of layoff notices a hostile act? In short, has Walker been acting immorally?
—
What is immorally is how the Unions and the AWOL Dem are acting putting people jobs on the line.
Report comment to moderator
If being right to work were such a simple budget fix, then why are California and Texas running such large deficits?
—
California – is control by the Democrats.
Texas – is facing a large group of people who are breaken our laws coming to this Nation. In which a Democrate Presdient called Obama will do nothing about it. but take States to court who try to stop those who are breaken our laws coming to this Nation.
Report comment to moderator
Redwal: Large tax breaks to big corporations while asking school secretaries to double their health insurance premiums AND give all rights to say band together as a group and say, “Gee, We’d really like it if you did something about the black mold in our school.”
Yep. That’s a “Christian view” according to WMB denizens.
There is no shortage of wealth in this country. America isn’t broke. Wisconsin isn’t broke. What’s happened is that much of the wealth has been quietly siphoned away from ordinary workers and into the bank accounts of investment bankers and the rich in the form of tax breaks. And now they demand that the workers be the ones to fill the gap when money comes up short to pay the bills.
What would Jesus do? Side with the wealthy and powerful, if this Christian site is any indication.
Report comment to moderator
Rather, he is trying to deal responsibly with a tough fiscal situation…
Didn’t he largely create the tough fiscal situation by passing a series of stimulus-oriented tax cuts upon taking office?
Report comment to moderator
What would Jesus do? Side with the wealthy and powerful, if this Christian site is any indication.
—
Jesus would tell the Governor to be honesty and treat people with respect. He would tell the Unions to stop stealing people money, he would tell the Dem to stop supporting the killing of babies and stop supporting sexual sins. He would call all 3 to return back to God.
Report comment to moderator
These are serious accusations that take on a moral dimension…”
Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller is simply doing what Democrats do–smearing his political enemy with a personal attack on his motives nad his character. Why take that seriously???
Report comment to moderator
What’s happened is that much of the wealth has been quietly siphoned away from ordinary workers and into the bank accounts of investment bankers and the rich in the form of tax breaks
—
Those Union Boss and the Founder of Moveon.org and Demms are making tons of money off of the ordinary workers.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – I hope the State AG look into who is paying for these Hotel Room and meals and if their were any email or communication between these 14 AWOL Dem and the Unions Boss. To see if any laws are being broken. An if laws are being broken, those who are breaking the laws need to be charged.
Report comment to moderator
#2 asked; “If he were mere trying to deal with a tough budget, then why the $100,000 in tax cuts to large corporations?”
Because he understands that heavy taxation kills the “goose” that lays the eggs that represent our recovery and our economic health. To cripple the private secot (the engine of our economy) and deprive job-creators of their resources with unjust higher taxes is to prevent any and all hopes for economic recovery. We have a spending prob, not a collecting prob.
“And why the fixation on bargaining rights that have no impact on the budget?”
Current public union bargaining terms in Wisconsin do indeed have a huge impact on the budget. They constitute an unjust conflict of interest whereby politicians and unionists are using taxpayer funds to please, enrich and placate each other.
Report comment to moderator
Roy (#14),
Today, I saw them referred to elsewhere as the “Fleebag 14″.
Good description, no?
Report comment to moderator
#7 – CONAN – “There is no shortage of wealth in this country.”
Beyond that, there is no shortage of greed and corruption either and greed and corruption are the tools Democrats exploit to confiscate wealth from those who earn it in order to reward their cronies and stay in political power over those who do the work of this nation.
Because the level of Democrat greed and corruption (and the power to use them) has surpassed the level of wealth in America, there is indeed a shortage of wealth for countless hard workers in America and many are hurting as a result.
Report comment to moderator
#7 – CONAN – “”America isn’t broke. Wisconsin isn’t broke.”
I disagree. One must cover their ears and eyes and keep screaming partisan talking points to miss the fact that our deficits AND our debts are beyond the pale and will cripple our children and grandchildren. It’s one thing to just be “broke.” It’s far far far far worse to be so deep in a hole of debt that simply being broke would be preferred.
Report comment to moderator
Conan is in for a rude awakening if he thinks states and the country isn’t “broke”.
Report comment to moderator
“Isn’t or “aren’t”?
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Aren’t.
They’re both broke!!
Report comment to moderator
The Federal government is broke to the tune of about $14 Trillion (debt clock), 40 States are broke to the tune of $125 Billion, and consumers are broke. Did you know that consumer debt is now about 350% of the GDP?
Can’t tell me this country isn’t broke. You’d have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
“Didn’t he largely create the tough fiscal situation by passing a series of stimulus-oriented tax cuts upon taking office?”
The cuts in tax rates are in the future, the deficit is current. Secondly a cut in the rate of taxation does not equate to a cut in tax revenue. In fact it very often (as in the Mellon tax cuts of the 20s, Kennedy’s tax cuts in the 60s and Reagan’s in the 80s, leads to increases in tax revenues.
Report comment to moderator
It is and it isn’t. First off, note that about 30% of that debt is money the government owes to itself. Or, to be more specific, to the SSA. Much of the rest of it is money the government owes to U.S. citizens.
Consider how lending works. Suppose I want to take out a mortgage. In theory a lender should evaluate my cash flow vs. the payments on the loan I’m seeking and calculate risk. Based on this calculation of risk the lender determines what rate it needs to charge. Higher risk = higher rate since there’s more chance of a default.
Now look at the credit ratings of sovereign states. The following states have a “Aaa” rating from Moody’s, meaning it estimates they have the lowest possible risk of default on future loans:
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
This rating takes into account political stability, expected economic growth and current debt level. The bar is pretty high to get the top rating. For instance, none of Israel, South Korea, Belgium, Italy, Japan, Spain or China qualify.
At the point when Moody’s analysts start to think the risk of U.S. default is high enough to merit a downgrade, they will downgrade the U.S.’s credit rating. When that happens U.S. creditors will charge a higher interest rate to the U.S. when they lend money, meaning new debt will become that much more expensive.
There have been rumblings that U.S. debt levels are too high and that the U.S. is in risk of a downgrade. Nobody (Democrats or Republicans) wants that to happen, so they will do whatever it takes to avoid it. Until we get to that point, though, their only motivation to cut the deficit is a political one.
In that arena nobody has to make real progress on reducing the deficit, they just have to appear to be tough on spending while avoiding any cuts that might tick off some constituency that elected them. For instance, significant cuts to social security, medicare or national defense.
Report comment to moderator
@Ken: The cuts in tax rates are in the future, the deficit is current.
Here’s what I was referring to. Klein cites a report from the Wisconsin state reporting agency. The report seems to say the budget is currently balanced, but that reductions in expected revenue over the 2011-2013 time frame will result in a deficit given expected spending. They claim that more than half of that deficit is directly attributable to tax cuts enacted by Walker during special session.
@Ken: Secondly a cut in the rate of taxation does not equate to a cut in tax revenue.
Possibly. Though, if this is the case, then the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau has overestimated their deficit projections since they calculate that Walker’s cuts will in fact reduce revenue. So either they’re right, and his cuts are the cause of much of the deficit, or they’re wrong, in which case the deficit isn’t nearly as bad as projected.
Report comment to moderator
Young people today and in the future are being crippled by inadequate social-democratic economic policies. Young people have greater chances for upward mobility in societies which have universal health care and unions that establish broad expectations of fair pay for hard work.
Debt that funds productive investment causes income growth.
Don’t forget the next generation will inherit both the liability and the asset of future debt. There is plenty of cash in America. The problem is that the rich have stolen more than their just share of it. 400 rich pigs own as much wealth as half the American population.
Report comment to moderator
“Debt that funds productive investment causes income growth.”
Well that’s just it. Debt isn’t funding production anymore. It’s funding consumption instead. Isn’t that nice?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: What’s the incentive for hard work?
Report comment to moderator
We’re not broke. Just borrow from the lock-box social security fund. Nothing to worry about.
Report comment to moderator
Assuming that Wall Street Bankers and Corporate Directors fleeced the public, what should we do with the politicians who promised much, but taxed us too little? Of course the public was a willing participant, but we’ve crippled future generations with an unpayable debt. Everyone’s greedy, everyone’s culpable, and the house of cards is tipping.
Report comment to moderator
The real issue is that our rebellion against God is almost complete. We’re reaping the results of attacks against the sanctity of life, families and the church. Add relativism and greed and you have the foundation for most problems. And the church is no less pagan then the culture, is it.
Report comment to moderator
When the top 10% already pays 80% of the tax and the bottom 48% pays 0%. Maybe some of the 48% should pay a little and not just get the free ride.
Report comment to moderator
#24 – Scroop Moth wrote; “There is plenty of cash in America. The problem is that the rich have stolen more than their just share of it. 400 rich pigs own as much wealth as half the American population.”
FINALLY, Scroop Moth is mostly bashing leftist Democrats!!!! Even though I disagree with greedy leftist Democrats, I do NOT condone the name-calling though.
Anyhow, score a victory for the responsible right.
Report comment to moderator
Walker has a giant financial problem on his hands and he knows that county and local governments do as well.
As Conan and Buddglass have already pointed out, this is simply not true. Follow Buddyglass’s links. The simple fact is Walker created the crisis and is not letting it go to waste
Wisconsin has to cut expenses and, yes, some state workers will lose collective bargaining rights for benefits plans.
No one has yet to demonstrate how eliminating some collective bargaining rights will lead to savings in this year’s budget above and beyond what the union has already agreed to.
But Walker, a past county executive, believes Wisconsin’s governments have run out of money
And he’s wrong. And if they are running out of money its because he cut taxes and thus lowered revenue (according to the state’s own budget office) follow the links in 21. Wisconsin, (and America) have a revenue problem as much as they have a spending problem.
he is trying to deal responsibly with a tough fiscal situation and keep Wisconsin’s government employees on the job.
Giving tax breaks is responsible?? Using the budget to eliminate collective bargaining rights? Within the budget bill is language allowing for the sale of Wisconsin public corporations without public tender? Is this responsible?
Report comment to moderator
#1 Pastor Roy
This is from a man who in stead of doing his job. Is hiding with 13 in other to a void doing what they are elected to do. Cast votes.
Really? that’s all you expect from your rep — cast votes? I have higher expectations.
#4 Bob
As I understand it, the Democrats won’t let him lower the wages and/or benefits of state workers, SO, he has to lay-off state workers. This seems to be what the state law requires. Have I got this wrong?
Yes you do. The unions have already agreed to the necessary cuts. And the Democrats will return if Walker removed the collective bargain strip from the bill.
#6 Pastor Roy
Texas – is facing a large group of people who are breaken our laws coming to this Nation. In which a Democrate Presdient called Obama will do nothing about it. but take States to court who try to stop those who are breaken our laws coming to this Nation.
Wow — scapegoat much?? Blame the Mexicans.
#9
Jesus would tell the Governor to be honesty and treat people with respect.
Thats going to be one long conversation — so far the Governor isn’t listening or hasn’t got the message.
He would tell the Unions to stop stealing people money,
Paying dues for services rendered is not theft. Not anymore than condo fees.
Report comment to moderator
11 Pastor Roy
Those Union Boss and the Founder of Moveon.org and Demms are making tons of money off of the ordinary workers.
On another thread, a poster provided a link to an article giving the salaries of several union national president. One national president made only $165,000. An executive (which is what he/she is) responsible for hundreds of thousands people’s collective bargaining rights should easily make more than that. When he/she is at the bargaining table sitting across from the CEOs you can be sure that his/her opponents are making at least 10x as much. The head of the Canadian Auto Workers is paid about $250,000. When the GM negotiating team found out his salary, they offered him a starting salary of million dollars to change sides. In their opinion he was vastly underpaid.
13 Joel
Because he understands that heavy taxation kills the “goose” that lays the eggs that represent our recovery and our economic health. To cripple the private secot (the engine of our economy) and deprive job-creators of their resources with unjust higher taxes is to prevent any and all hopes for economic recovery.
Successive tax cuts has shown very little return. If the Laffner curve actually exists they are far to the left of the bell curve. There is room to increase taxes without an economic penalty. At the nation level, the least they can do is cut the loophole which makes the cost of outsourcing tax deductible.
Current public union bargaining terms in Wisconsin do indeed have a huge impact on the budget.
is not proven by the following statement
They constitute an unjust conflict of interest whereby politicians and unionists are using taxpayer funds to please, enrich and placate each other.
This is a separate issue from the budgetary process.
Report comment to moderator
15 and 16 Joel
there is indeed a shortage of wealth for countless hard workers in America and many are hurting as a result.
exactly which is why the present tax policies needs to be reformed to encourage jobs to stay in America and to be more redistributive.
the fact that our deficits AND our debts are beyond the pale and will cripple our children and grandchildren. It’s one thing to just be “broke.” It’s far far far far worse to be so deep in a hole of debt that simply being broke would be preferred.
You need to listen to the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVdPnyJUu4
which I believe is Scroop Moth basis for his claim in 24
Report comment to moderator
Scroop’s #24 comments;
Young people today and in the future are being crippled by inadequate social-democratic economic policies. Young people have greater chances for upward mobility in societies which have universal health care and unions that establish broad expectations of fair pay for hard work.
is supported by the following link. Scroll until you see figure 3 and 4.
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
Debt that funds productive investment causes income growth.
which suggests its a question of management not ideology or absolute economic principles.
There is plenty of cash in America. The problem is that the rich have stolen more than their just share of it. 400 rich pigs own as much wealth as half the American population
I assume you heard a certain speaker in Madison over the weekend.
Report comment to moderator
28
Assuming that Wall Street Bankers and Corporate Directors fleeced the public, what should we do with the politicians who promised much, but taxed us too little? Of course the public was a willing participant, but we’ve crippled future generations with an unpayable debt. Everyone’s greedy, everyone’s culpable, and the house of cards is tipping.
throw the fraudsters in jail and confiscate their wealth as proceeds from crime.
tax the rich/fleecers who can’t be criminal prosecuted.
30
When the top 10% already pays 80% of the tax and the bottom 48% pays 0%. Maybe some of the 48% should pay a little and not just get the free ride.
If you’re not getting much of a ride why should you pay? For the bottom 50% there’s not much of a ride whereas for the top 10% they have alot to benefit from the maintenance of the American state.
Report comment to moderator
#24 – Scroop Moth wrote; “There is plenty of cash in America. The problem is that the rich have stolen more than their just share of it. 400 rich pigs own as much wealth as half the American population.”
Joel replies:
FINALLY, Scroop Moth is mostly bashing leftist Democrats!!!! Even though I disagree with greedy leftist Democrats, I do NOT condone the name-calling though. Anyhow, score a victory for the responsible right.
The Koch brothers (#19 in wealth) vote Democrat?? The Waltons (#6-8) vote Democrat?? Sure Warren Buffet is number 2 but he has publicly stated that the fact he pays less taxes than his secretary is ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
Oops forgot the link
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html
Report comment to moderator
Wow. This Wisconsin Governer has wrecked the state. How long has this Joker been in office?
Report comment to moderator
Hey, great idea on settling disputes. Let’s take a vote with web links that support our cases. May the most links win!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with HRW. Raise everyones – 100% of the electorate – and pay the $14 trillion dollar national debt and $50 trillion social security/medicare liability in the next 30 years – the length of a mortgage. That may wring out some civil virture for next November’s election. Talk about saving the world for prosterity.
Report comment to moderator
Absolutely correct on the rich, HRW. Tax ‘em at 90%. Make up the difference with middle class tax increases and token taxation ($25 to $100 per annum) for the poor. Then everyones got some skin in the game when they vote.
Report comment to moderator
Working in a union environment, I can attest to the hidden savings that accrue from the relaxation of stiffling work rules. At least it’s true in the private sector where efficiencies and profits are measured.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – thanks
LLOYD – As HRW points out, the bottom half doesn’t benefit from economic growth which all goes to the rich. Meanwhile, due to rate reductions and caps, a smaller smaller share of total income is subject to federal taxes and FICA. Don’t you think that those on the bottom would be delighted to be pay income taxes in exchange for a little piece of income growth? Your complaint sounds cruel to me.
MIM – You talk about “consumption” as if it’s TB and this is the 19th Century. Consumption is the principal function of life for humans who are young, sick, disabled, and old. They consume regardless of which party rules the government, but hoperfully more when social democrats run things, and consequently they thrive better and avoid unnecessary, preventable deaths. Let’s be proud of our social consumption.
Remember how top Republicans used to proclaim, “deficits don’t matter”? They talked that way because deficit financing transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. Recall the old conservative concept that spending is taxation. Republicans never recite this phrase anymore, but it’s still true. Bush et al (conservadems too) claimed to lower taxes, but they knew they were lying. They didn’t cut spending so they never actually cut any taxes. All that Bush et. al (Obama now too, tragically) did in cutting nominal taxes was shove more of the financing burden upon the poor.
Report comment to moderator
“If you’re not getting much of a ride why should you pay?”
There it is folks, this is about giving “rides”. As Michael Moore expounded in Wisconsin, it’s societies money. All of it.
and
“They constitute an unjust conflict of interest whereby politicians and unionists are using taxpayer funds to please, enrich and placate each other.
This is a separate issue from the budgetary process.”
How does one respond to this. It’s not budgeting?
Report comment to moderator
Interest payments on the debt are virtual tax rebates to the rich.
Report comment to moderator
How? You mean rich bankers?
Report comment to moderator
Nos 15-20 all quote or reference my comment by seizing on one sentence out of context and then ignoring the rest.
That might make you feel warm and tingly inside, but it’s lying all the same.
Report comment to moderator
When the rich finance government by buying T-bills (lending) instead of writing quarterly checks to the IRS, they get back interest payments. Some of the funds that the rich send to the government get labeled “loans” instead of “payments.” Since the proper way to finance government should be taxation, primarily, the rich are effectively evading taxes by resorting the the ruse of buying government paper. Further, the “interest “which the government pays on this paper is a virtual tax rebate for the tax payments the rich do make. This system of deficit financing deprives the American people of the full benefit of government. It’s a fatboy scam accomplished by paying off Republican politicians — especially Tea Party politiians.
Report comment to moderator
Grow up, Conan. If you want to parrot Michael Moore that’s fine. But don’t accuse someone else of lying just because you can’t make your case.
Report comment to moderator
I think those rich T-bill purchasers are asian.
Report comment to moderator
Grow up yourself Debra. I accuse them of lying because they misrepresent what I said.
So sorry you’ve been so thoroughly duped, but it’s really not hard to see the truth. If we hadn’t decided giving the country’s wealth to a handful of powerful people was a swell idea, we wouldn’t be in this situation. It’s not the fault of the people whose backs you are so eager to break.
Report comment to moderator
The majority of Americans are against Walker? Really?
The majority of Americans are taxpayers and are seeing their states go bankrupt.
The Left here doesn’t believe that a person should have control of his/her own life, shouldn’t keep the money he/she earns. They are communists at their cores. And as usual, they don’t live in reality.
Report comment to moderator
The rich don’t care who buys govt debt.
Report comment to moderator
So sorry you’ve been so thoroughly duped
from the guy who whined about being called “mistaken.”
Report comment to moderator
The people who are being thorough duped are those who won’t realize there will be a day of comeuppance and that it’s coming soon.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. This Wisconsin Governer has wrecked the state. How long has this Joker been in office?
since January — pretty incompetent eh
Hey, great idea on settling disputes. Let’s take a vote with web links that support our cases. May the most links win!
What would you suggest — we make up the facts as we go along or equate opinion with facts and engage in heated rhetoric when that doesn’t work?
Absolutely correct on the rich, HRW. Tax ‘em at 90%. Make up the difference with middle class tax increases and token taxation ($25 to $100 per annum) for the poor. Then everyones got some skin in the game when they vote.
Like the Eisenhower era?
Working in a union environment, I can attest to the hidden savings that accrue from the relaxation of stiffling work rules. At least it’s true in the private sector where efficiencies and profits are measured.
It always astounds me how management constantly blames unions for their incompetence. Unions are far more powerful and far more stifling in Germany yet the capitalists there managed to create an economy feature the second largest exporting country with high quality manufactured goods. Meanwhile in the US, companies require gov’t subsidies, even when they outsource. Their first reaction when faced with problems is to lay off workers and blame unions — America has the laziest ruling class.
BTW my list of top 400 richest Americans was old (2006) here’s the newest version (2010)
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list?page=1
1. Gates
2. Buffet
3. Ellison — Oracle
4. Walton
5. Koch
6. Koch
7. Walton
8. Walton
9. Walton
10. Bloomberg
It seems the Koch and Walton families have done quite well. Oligarchy not republic
Report comment to moderator
HRW: What would you suggest — we make up the facts as we go along or equate opinion with facts and engage in heated rhetoric when that doesn’t work?
Yes, that is how the right usually argues.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: The Left here doesn’t believe that a person should have control of his/her own life, shouldn’t keep the money he/she earns. They are communists at their cores. And as usual, they don’t live in reality.
The right here thinks we can give big tax breaks to the wealthy, put more of the burden on the middle, cut the spending that helps the poor, balance the budget on the backs of those who can afford it least, (”Christian views!”), and it’s we on the left who “don’t live in the reality.”
Come on.
Come on.
Report comment to moderator
Ha. Coming from a fellow who’s taking his cues from Michael Moore that’s almost humorous. Almost. Wake me up when you have a real argument. ‘Night all.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
The majority of Americans are against Walker? Really?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_governor_walker_43_approval_rating
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_poll_support_for_budget_cutting_not_for_weakening_collective_bargaining_rights
The majority of Americans are taxpayers and are seeing their states go bankrupt.
According to other commentators here, only 50% of Americans actually pay taxes
The Left here doesn’t believe that a person should have control of his/her own life,
rather amusing as its the right who favour the establishment of a security state and promote spending on the military, police and prisons. Moreover its the right who pass social legislation prohibiting various types of behavior.
shouldn’t keep the money he/she earns.
as opposed to the right who would rather insure the wealth belongs to only 2% of the country
They are communists at their cores. And as usual, they don’t live in reality.
Social democrats and they do live in reality since the evidence demonstrates that social democratic countries have fewer social problems, less crime, greater social and income mobility, better health outcomes, etc. Its the right who is trapped by ideological blindness which prevents them from seeing the empirical evidence.
Report comment to moderator
The people who are being thorough duped are those who won’t realize there will be a day of comeuppance and that it’s coming soon.
I agree … someday the Koch brothers and their friends won’t be able to dupe the poor and then the rich won’t be able to hide behind their gated communities, behind their private secuirty forces much longer. At least I hope …
Hopefully , this will occur soon and in a peaceful manner. Without a significant change in the structure of the US society and economy, the West will have a hard holding off the Chinese and/or corporate challenge.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t paid attention to Michael Moore in year, but I guess Debra finds it easier to smear me by (imaginary) association than to actually defend her position.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t paid attention to Michael Moore in years, but I guess Debra finds it easier to smear me by (imaginary) association than to actually defend her position.
Report comment to moderator
It’s pretty easy to smear a blatant hypocrite. You are accusing others of doing EXACTLY what you did to me in the last thread on this topic-taking one sentence of the post that you could criticize and blatantly ignoring the rest. It may make you “warm and tingly” inside, but it just makes you look like your position is weak.
Report comment to moderator
You wrote a long screed filled with invective and accusation and not much fact. There wasn’t much there that needed response, but if you really think I ignored something important, restate it and I’ll respond.
Report comment to moderator
Somehow I missed this the first time I read the thread…
@Roy: Texas – is facing a large group of people who are breaken our laws coming to this Nation. In which a Democrate Presdient called Obama will do nothing about it.
Know who just cut funds for border security? If you guessed House Republicans then you win a prize. Maybe they’re not so goofy after all?
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “The simple fact is Walker created the crisis and is not letting it go to waste.”
That is a simple statement but NOT a fact. It is blindly partisan and dead wrong. There was an election and the people of Wisconsin were fed up with the problem that already existed. They elected Walker to take serious measures to BEGIN to find realistic solutions. The serious financial problem on Walker’s hands was made much worse in 2009 when Democrats voted to irresponsibly expand collective bargaining terms again. Power-hungry Democrat politicians and greedy unionists have exchanged sweetheart deals at the expense of the American worker for far too long. The sand is not a good place for the head.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Really? that’s all you expect from your rep — cast votes?”
At the very least, they should be there to cast votes. That’s what they are paid by the people to do, at the very minimum. Higher expectations are fine for you to feel but they are worthless if the elected law-makers are not even in the state (living elsewhere off the gov’t) and are not engaging in the debate or the process and are not even casting votes.
Report comment to moderator
#24 – Scroop Moth wrote; “There is plenty of cash in America. The problem is that the rich have stolen more than their just share of it. 400 rich pigs own as much wealth as half the American population.”
Republicans tend to support the private sector, where wealth goes to those who work for it and earn it. Democrats tend to support the public sector where wealth comes FROM those who earn it. BIG difference. So, it is the the public sector doing most of the “stealing”, not the private sector.
I do regard the “rich” as those who control the public’s money and reward their cronies with it. The Democrats have been in power previously as this problem has exploded and they do that more than the Republicans have. The Democrat Party is indeed the party of the filthy rich and this trends has been rising for years now. And they get much of their money by forcing it from those who work for it.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “The rich don’t care who buys govt debt.”
Again, you are describing mostly Democrats. Conservatives certainly do care who buys gov’t debt.
Report comment to moderator
I sincerely believe the left wants to deconstruct America and break her beyond repair. In fact, it is obvious.
Report comment to moderator
Ok Conan, here. I made other points in that post, but this was my main question.
Why should we be fair (pay higher than average salaries and benefits) to government workers at the expense of being fair to the taxpayers? Those of us in the private sector can’t rely on “fairness”, so your argument seems to be that we should be “fair” to government workers since taxpayers can be COMPELLED to support government employees’ standard of living. How is that fair? If the private sector is hurting, WHY should government workers somehow be exempt from the effects of that?
Report comment to moderator
#73 — Joel Mark, I agree. They certainly don’t like individual freedom or responsibility. They like the idea of a permanent underclass with only a few elites — as long as those elites are them.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda: “, WHY should government workers somehow be exempt from the effects of that?”
You won’t get an answer to that question because it requires that the person you address adopt the concept of fundamental fairness. Right now, government workers in Wisconsin are like people who can’t face the fact that if they would change just a little bit, they could avoid shortsale, foreclosure or bankruptcy. Those people wait until it’s too late to help themselves because they refuse to deal with reality. These government workers are doing the same thing. The money isn’t there, their jobs can’t be sustained, and soon they will lose the jobs and the pensions.
Report comment to moderator
Any response from the Left to this nonsense by the Dems:
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/07/cbo-senate-dems-cut-only-87-billion-house-gops-61-billion
They evidently were not listening in November.
Report comment to moderator
“rather amusing as its the right who favour the establishment of a security state and promote spending on the military, police and prisons. Moreover its the right who pass social legislation prohibiting various types of behavior.”
There it is: the left is against the core constituents of government; maintaining civil peace and security; prohibitions against theft, murder, child-rape and all other behavior proscriptions. Or maybe this is just a wild, un-nuanced, generalized, ad hominem, straw-man, uncivil attack of a closet-conservative poster.
Report comment to moderator
Karl Rove’s opinion on the Dems and Obama:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/07/karl-rove-whopper-obama-white-house-budget/?test=faces
Report comment to moderator
“Social democrats and they do live in reality since the evidence demonstrates that social democratic countries have fewer social problems, less crime, greater social and income mobility”
That because they have fewer teenagers.
Report comment to moderator
No, Wagus, you are right — there it is.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda: Why should we be fair (pay higher than average salaries and benefits) to government workers at the expense of being fair to the taxpayers? Those of us in the private sector can’t rely on “fairness”, so your argument seems to be that we should be “fair” to government workers since taxpayers can be COMPELLED to support government employees’ standard of living. How is that fair? If the private sector is hurting, WHY should government workers somehow be exempt from the effects of that?
Nobody has said they should be exempt. Not even they are saying that. In Wisconsin, the governor said the government employees needed to do a few things that affect their compensation, amounting to a pay cut. They agreed to do so. (NJLawyer at #76 apparently remains in denial of this.)
So why is there a problem? Because the governor also demands they give up most of their bargaining power for the future. The workers are not stupid — they know that if they give up that ability, the next round of changes may not be so reasonable and they will have given up their right to do anything other than accept it or quit.
Why should they do that?
And, how does that help Wisconsin’s situation now? Remember, they’re not fighting the proposed changes to their compensation. But the governor is refusing to accept that.
If it is true that government workers are paid higher than average (I remain skeptical of that), why is your preferred solution to drag them down rather than raise the private sector up?
Report comment to moderator
Conan says (#7):
Michael Moore says:
What’s the leftist solution?
Nah, you don’t pay attention to Michael Moore. But revolutionary commie minds sure do think alike. And you should be ashamed for falsely accusing folks of lying in #49, but nobody’s holding their breath waiting for that to happen. Carry on, Mikey.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Republicans tend to support the private sector, where wealth goes to those who work for it and earn it. Democrats tend to support the public sector where wealth comes FROM those who earn it. BIG difference. So, it is the the public sector doing most of the “stealing”, not the private sector.
So even in a fiscal crisis, rather than ask those who can most afford it to contribute more, your solution will always be to take it out of the hide of the middle-income earners. Because apparently, you think they don’t “work for it and earn it” and deserve to keep it.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Well if he and I had the same thought, I can’t help that. He’s hardly the only person saying it, and it’s not a new idea. This has been going on, little by little, since at least the 1980s.
I’m not going to waste much time defending myself from accusations that you’ll continue to believe regardless. I did go read the blog entry from your link, and if he is right about this …
“Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined.”
… then it seems obvious that it is true that, as I said, America has plenty of money despite all the talk about being “broke.”
I do not agree with what seems to be a veiled call for revolution in that blog entry, but it would be nice if they right would stop trying to punish the hard-working ordinary people for problems they did not cause and can’t solve.
Report comment to moderator
And you should be ashamed for falsely accusing folks of lying in #49, but nobody’s holding their breath waiting for that to happen.
Uh huh. Read what I said in #7, and then tell me with a straight face that Nos. 15-20 fairly represent it.
I explained why I do not believe the country is truly broke; the responses acted as if I’d just said the first sentence and none of the rest.
Report comment to moderator
What a typical leftist position: you can’t even take responsibility for your own comments, without accusing those who disagree of lying. It’s dishonest to the core. But keep talking. It’s becoming clear that, given enough rope, you guys will hang yourselves for everyone to see–and count it as “winning”. How ‘Sheen-esque’.
Report comment to moderator
It has nothing to do with disagreeing. People disagree with me all the time. Often I debate, sometimes I don’t, but I never accuse them of being dishonest for simply disagreeing.
I’m sorry you’re not able to tell the difference between disagreeing and misrepresenting, but I don’t know what I can do about it.
Report comment to moderator
“You talk about “consumption” as if it’s TB and this is the 19th Century. Consumption is the principal function of life for humans who are young, sick, disabled, and old.”
This is the ignorant thinking that got us into this mess to begin with.
There’s nothing wrong with consumption. I never said there’s anything wrong with consumption.
The problem is that we’re BORROWING to finance our consumption. And to make matters worse, we’re not saving. We don’t have any savings. We have massive debt.
And to make matters even worse, we’re not even borrowing to make capital expenditures to begin producing product, to sell, to create wealth to pay back the debt.
That’s the problem with consumption- not consumption itself.
Report comment to moderator
And it’s laughable and even pathetic that folks like Conan says we’re not broke.
That’s just ignorance.
Report comment to moderator
Our federal debt is near $14 trillion. Unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities are around $50 trillion. Let’s not even talk about state and local government debt; it’s spit in comparison. This is the legacy we’ve levied on our children because we let our legislatively enacted aspirations exceed the resources we were willing to pay.
Let’s assume that there are 300 million taxpaying citizens, on average. We can pay this off with a $6K per year tax surcharge over the next 30 years. Seems to simplistic and too easy.
Report comment to moderator
And right now the service on that debt is manageable. If the interest rate goes up, things will quickly collapse, because just paying interest on the debt will consume more than 100% of all collected taxes. Any bets on how long interest rates will stay down?
Any bets on how long the dollar will remain the reserve standard?
Report comment to moderator
@Joel: There was an election and the people of Wisconsin were fed up with the problem that already existed. They elected Walker to take serious measures to BEGIN to find realistic solutions.
What was Wisconsin’s budget shortfall when Walker was elected? What was it projected to be for the upcoming two-year period? How did Walker’s actions during special session affect the projection?
The people of Wisconsin may have elected Walker because they thought him most capable to address a projected shortfall. They apparently did not elect him to worsen that shortfall by immediately issuing tax breaks, then making up for that by ending collective bargaining rights, slashing salaries and laying off teachers. Poll results seem to back this up.
@NJL: it requires that the person you address adopt the concept of fundamental fairness.
If you want fairness: private sector employees have collective bargaining rights.
@NJL: government workers in Wisconsin are like people who can’t face the fact that if they would change just a little bit, they could avoid shortsale, foreclosure or bankruptcy.
They agreed to what would essentially amount to a pay cut in light of the state’s budget situation. That offer was rejected. Walker’s goal isn’t to address the short-term budget problems; his goal is to end the collective bargaining rights. That may or may not be the right thing to do, but it’s abundantly clear that this fight isn’t just about Wisconsin’s immediate state budget woes.
@MakeItMan: And it’s laughable and even pathetic that folks like Conan says we’re not broke.
It really isn’t. The U.S. has enormous wealth, both in terms of natural resources and human capital, as well as a decent “platform” for production (rule of law, minimal corruption, well-developed infrastructure, etc.) Most of our debt is to ourselves. What will eventually impoverish us are three things, IMO:
1. We let our human capital decay. This translates to: a less well-educated and less skilled workforce. Having the largest prison population and divorce rate in the developed world are great ways to jump start this sort of decay.
2. We’ve become inhospitable to entire industries. This includes cost of labor, but also availability of skilled workers (see #1). There’s no good reason to start a manufacturing operation in the U.S. given the cost of labor. And it’s not because of unions; it’s because we’re so wealthy we demand premium wages relative to the world market. There are policies we might adopt to address this, but they’re not currently politically viable.
3. We continue to devote an inordinate amount of our wealth to maintaining an unnaturally high standard of living and level of personal consumption in lieu of spending it in ways that produce additional wealth.
4. We continue to devote an unnecessary amount of wealth to non-wealth-creating activities like supporting a ginormous military. If our military is in fact larger / more expensive than it need be (which many argue is the case) then this represents pure overhead. It’s like paying people to dig holes and fill them back up. Sure much of the money goes to the U.S. defense industry, but consider Bastiat’s broken window.
Report comment to moderator
“his goal is to end the collective bargaining rights”
Point of clarification: He wants to end collective bargaining rights for pension and healthcare. Negotiations over wages – up to a cost of living maximum – would continue. I’m not sure about work rules.
Report comment to moderator
The fact is the left turns a blind eye to the founder of Moveon.org who has funnel money into the Dem PArty.. This founder of Moveon.org worked with the Nazi’s at the age of 14, to take property from his Jewish Brother and Sister…. So please do not talk to us about Koch, when you have somoene who worked with the Nazi’s funding your groups.
Report comment to moderator
“We’ve become inhospitable to entire industries”
Point of clarification: It’s not only wages but federal and state regulation that also contributes a comparative disadvantage relative to developing markets.
Report comment to moderator
“We continue to devote an inordinate amount of our wealth to maintaining an unnaturally high standard of living”
Wow. Who determines this?
Report comment to moderator
I think we’ve too alarmist. Given the low confidence in the Laffer curve – among liberal WMB posters, government coffers will be filled once gasoline approaches the European level of $10 to $12 per gallon.
Report comment to moderator
#83 – Thanks DEBRA. It was clear already that Conan was parroting leftist partisan talking points but you gave a name to his source.
Report comment to moderator
Ok Conan. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say you’re right, that investment bankers have siphoned off money from the populace. I happen to agree with that in part. To be more accurate I would say they’ve siphoned off wealth from “shareholders” to line their own pockets. There are plenteous examples of this from Enron right on down to some of the smallest firms- and they’re still doing it to this day.
The “financial reform” bill didn’t.
But that’s a far cry from “not being broke”. The investment bankers didn’t spend all that debt that’s hanging over our heads. The investment bankers didn’t levy heavy regulations on businesses and cause them to go overseas. The investment bankers didnt’ borrow money to spend on consumption instead of production….
The US and most states are “broke” no matter how much you blame investment bankers. And a lot of the blame goes straight on the shoulders of those who should have been protecting our economy and instead have done their dead level best to ruin it- by telling us that we’re fighting deflation by increasing inflation and hiding it. Bernanke and Greenspan have continually and now drastically increased the supply of money. The original intent of the Fed was to expand and contract the money supply as the economy went through natural contraction and expansion- not try to continually “stimulate” the economy.
Report comment to moderator
Temporary agreements by the Wisconsin unionists related to salary (still much higher pay rates than the tax-payers earn) leave a crippling and corrupt system in power that will soon erase the temporary agreements. The conflict of interest embedded in PUBLIC union collective bargaining terms is corrupt and will destroy the state.
Look what the unionists have done with their bargaining rights in the past! Shameless greed was rampant and it created the crisis Wisconsin is now in.
The federal government does NOT even have the same sort of collective bargaining terms that the Wisconsin unionists are demanding. Their terms were irresponsibly EXPANDED by the Wisconsin Democrats in 2009 and they must be reduced if Wisconsin is to survive on solid fiscal grounds.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass: <i.They agreed to what would essentially amount to a pay cut in light of the state’s budget situation. That offer was rejected. Walker’s goal isn’t to address the short-term budget problems; his goal is to end the collective bargaining rights. That may or may not be the right thing to do, but it’s abundantly clear that this fight isn’t just about Wisconsin’s immediate state budget woes.
It’s revealing that no matter how often it is pointed out that the unions have agreed to every concession that was asked of them, the opponents keep trying to pretend they are fighting about those cuts.
We passed the point long ago where they could claim that to be an honest mistake.
Report comment to moderator
WAGUS,
I don’t disagree with you on most of your points. The problem is that human capital and monetary capital isn’t being spent on productive things- as you point out. It’s been spent on consumption. And the money has been borrowed. And there is less production and less savings than ever before.
So I disagree with you on the key point of whether we’re broke or not. We’re broke now, and we’ll be broke until the market is corrected and the standard of living goes down, and we spend within our means.
Report comment to moderator
#82 – Conan wrote; “If it is true that government workers are paid higher than average (I remain skeptical of that), why is your preferred solution to drag them down rather than raise the private sector up?”
Exhibit #54098 of a clueless leftist/socialist. Do you actually think that some messianic policy-maker(s), party boss(es) or politician(s) or party simply has the power to “raise the private sector up?” Do you have some incantation or formula for that, Conan?
I tell you what–let’s just raise taxes on the private sector and take more of the money they earn away from them! That ought to “raise the private sector up”, eh Conan!
Or we can do a dance in the rain to raise the private sector up!
Maybe–seriously–we could reduce the size and oppressive power of the gov’t. Now we are talking.
Conan, the whole point of this is that BIG gov’t and the public unions are precisely dragging down the private sector now. That is why employment stays low and the economy continues to drag.
Report comment to moderator
“If you want fairness: private sector employees have collective bargaining rights.”
A very small and declining percentage (7%)of the private workforce. Continuing efforts to organize have been rebuffed by the average worker. I wonder if this is why unions want card check?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks MIM. I’m only trying to argue ad absurdum. I accept each of your points.
Report comment to moderator
One wonders why the leftists haven’t learned what collective bargaining rights has done to the airline and automotive industries…
Is it hereditary?
Report comment to moderator
Is it contagious?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, It is dead wrong of you to falsely claim that Gov. Walker wants to end collective bargaining rights. He seeks to reduce them reasonably. You knew that too.
And laying off teachers is exactly what the Democrat legislater are seeking and getting by refusing to even step foot in the state to deal with this like adults.
And there was indeed an election and the people of Wisconsin were fed up with the problem that the Democrats created. Attempts to spin and twist that don’t pass the smell test.
Report comment to moderator
And Buddyglass, there are huge differences between private union and collective bargaining terms and public unions and collective bargaining terms. I will spell them out for you once again:
1. “Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
2. “Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
3. “Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
4. “Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
This explains why states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises.
It is interesting that all parties now agree that the Wisconsin state workers ought to pay more for their benefits. But not all are willing to admit that this problem resulted from the fact that the current collective bargaining system and the Wisconsin state-union relations are corrupt, dysfunctional and this problem will come back to bite us if we don’t fix it fundamentally.
_________
Report comment to moderator
“Walker’s goal isn’t to address the short-term budget problems; his goal is to end the collective bargaining rights”
and
“We passed the point long ago where they could claim that to be an honest mistake.”
The first statement is opinion or mudslinging – contrary to the subject’s protestations – regarding intentions. How can we accept this as fact?
We face the accusation of dishonesty in the second statement, presumably regarding the first statement as warranted fact. Readers can decide which argument is disingenuous, but it’s difficult to converse when there’s little agreement on terms or logic.
Report comment to moderator
In the private sector, workforce concessions arise from productivity and efficiencies. How is this measure in the public sector? How can you reward public sector employees without measuring productivity?
Report comment to moderator
The U.S. does have enormous wealth, but Demcorat greed (and some greed from other sources as well, including Republicans) clearly has outpaced America’s enormous wealth and countless hard-working people are truly hurting and many others who want to work, cannot find jobs. The corruption must be addressed!!! And if the newly elected Republicans don’t show good faith and put up a huge fight against the current spendy and greedy Democrats, they will also be judged harshly by conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: “Paying dues for services rendered is not theft.”
so if your neighbors vote that I come and paint all houses in your town pink that automatically gives me the right to knock with a gun on your door and demand payment even if you prefer yellow? it’s not theft if the majority says it’s not theft? isn’t there a limit to what should be decided democratically?
Report comment to moderator
Reader: That’s correct, because wealth is now the properly of society and subject to the whims/ministrations of the majority.
Report comment to moderator
HRW says: “the evidence demonstrates that social democratic countries have fewer social problems, less crime, greater social and income mobility, better health outcomes, etc. Its the right who is trapped by ideological blindness which prevents them from seeing the empirical evidence.”
You’ve got to be kidding me! I’m from one of those socially democratic countries: Canada. Let’s not talk about Canada’s socialistic regulations, gas prices, healthcare, or speech-denying legislation, eh?
In regards to paying union dues, taking my hard-earned money to support your choice of political candidates (almost always socialistic/democratic/left-leaning/abortion supporting/entitlement-mentality/politically correct – take your pick) is not taking my money for services rendered.
Report comment to moderator
When and why did the mindset originate that life can be lived without risk?
Report comment to moderator
Wagus at #111: We face the accusation of dishonesty in the second statement, presumably regarding the first statement as warranted fact. Readers can decide which argument is disingenuous, but it’s difficult to converse when there’s little agreement on terms or logic.
Not quite right.
The first statement you quoted is an opinion about Walker’s true motives. It’s one I happen to think is quite well supported, but it is merely opinion.
The accusation of dishonesty was NOT, as you suggest, about statement #1 at all. It was about the continually repeated claims that “government workers in Wisconsin are like people who can’t face the fact that if they would change just a little bit, they could avoid shortsale, foreclosure or bankruptcy.” (NJLawyer in No. 76.)
THAT is the dishonesty. The government workers in Wisconsin are quite willing to change, and more than “just a little bit.” They’ve said so clearly and repeatedly.
The sticking point is NOT their purported refusal to budge on benefits costs — because they are willing to do that — it’s Walker’s refusal to budge on crippling their future ability to negotiate.
This has been noted many times over. Continuing to assert that the unions’ obstinance specifically on benefits costs is the problem is dishonest.
They are being obstinate over surrendering their bargaining power (rightly so IMO); Walker is being obstinate in refusing to settle for anything less.
Report comment to moderator
You’re correct about healthcare and pension benefits. They would still negotiate wages up to a maximum cost of living threshold, I believe. As I stated in 94, I’m not sure about work rules.
I’ve personally been involved with two plant closures. In each case, union employees with the least seniority would unilaterally offer concessions, about a third of the workforce. Equally and oppositely adamant, the highest senior employees – also a third of the workforce – refused to consider concessions. In fact they really didn’t believe the plant would shutter.
In reality, the company would brook no re-consideration of its plan once the announcement was made. But the views above remained entrenched up to the day the doors closed.
Report comment to moderator
And then blamed the company for closing it’s doors I bet…
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes; the Company and senior union employees. Why does it take such catastrophic events to change attitudes?
Report comment to moderator
#118 “This has been noted many times over. Continuing to assert that the unions’ obstinance specifically on benefits costs is the problem is dishonest.”
No it is not. Union obstinance is what forced the Governor and legislature to have to act in the first place. It should NEVER take an act of the legislature to bring a government employee to reason. NEVER.
Government employees are public servants and the public puts a lot of reliance in their ability to handle the power entrusted to them. If they don’t want to serve the public’s best interest, then they should find jobs in the private sector where they are not expected to.
Report comment to moderator
Attitudes like that are exactly why public unions are necessary.
Report comment to moderator
And intellectual honesty would presume the converse?
Report comment to moderator
BOB DYLAN…
Attitudes like what?
1. the debate is not over the “necessity” of unions or even public unions, but over the specific harm they are currently doing to Wisconsin. Just like gov’t should be limited, the power of unions should too–especially when they abuse it with forced dues charged to workers who do not want to support leftists but must support them funancially anyhow. Also, the conflict of interest corruption currently at play is the point, not the alleged “necessity” of public unions. Necessary or not, they have gone too far.
2. I am grateful for the right to freely oppose the excessive power of unions in America, especially public unions.
3. The problem is that unions control the Democrat Party so firmly in Wisconsin that the Democrats cannot even step foot in the very state that elected them. That’s a form of tyrany. Unions may be “necessary” but tyrany is not. They have abused their power grotesquely and they must give some of it up for Wisconsin to survive financially.
Report comment to moderator
Very well stated.
Report comment to moderator
71 Joel
Republicans tend to support the private sector, where wealth goes to those who work for it and earn it. Democrats tend to support the public sector where wealth comes FROM those who earn it. BIG difference. So, it is the the public sector doing most of the “stealing”, not the private sector.
So the massive transfer of public wealth to the private sector in 2008 and onward wasn’t stealing?
The Democrat Party is indeed the party of the filthy rich and this trends has been rising for years now.
Did you check the 2010 Forbes 400 that I linked in a previous post? the Walmart and Koch families occupied most of the top 10? I doubt they vote Democratic.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda
Those of us in the private sector can’t rely on “fairness”, so your argument seems to be that we should be “fair” to government workers since taxpayers can be COMPELLED to support government employees’ standard of living.
So because the private sector exploits the worker (or in the very least is unfair) the gov’t should also exploit the worker? The gov’t could raise the standards and expectations of the working class forcing the private sector to follow suit to attract the necessary workers.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: So because the private sector exploits the worker (or in the very least is unfair) the gov’t should also exploit the worker?
That seems to be the gist of Barracuda’s argument, along with others here. Weird, I know.
Report comment to moderator
77
NJL
Reading the article you linked, both sides used the same “arithmetical”. Some of the leftist blogs I read also noted the Republican “math” and advocated the Dems follow the same “mathematical principals” — in other words both sides are more interested in the message not action.
80
Wagus
Although true demographic influence crime rates but they do not influence economic and social mobility.
94
Wagus
Point of clarification: He wants to end collective bargaining rights for pension and healthcare. Negotiations over wages – up to a cost of living maximum – would continue. I’m not sure about work rule
if you can only negotiate cost of living increases whats the point of collective bargaining?
Report comment to moderator
Joel 101
Look what the unionists have done with their bargaining rights in the past! Shameless greed was rampant and it created the crisis Wisconsin is now in.
If you want shameless greed, look at bankers who gave themselves bonuses only a year after threatening the world economy unless the people gave them billions of dollars — now thats shameless greed.
Wisconsin unions are not greedy, they’ve agreed to take a pay cut, pay a share of pension and benefits costs. And they don’t get paid nearly as much as a public workers where I live. If I transferred to Milwaukee I would take a 25% pay cut.
Make it Man
One wonders why the leftists haven’t learned what collective bargaining rights has done to the airline and automotive industries…
The Ontario auto industry almost completely unionized now produces more cars and auto parts than any other state or province. Although slightly weakened because of lower US demand, the auto plants have even gone on a slight hiring binge.
Report comment to moderator
110
Joel
This explains why states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises.
Than why does Canada not have a fiscal crisis despite having much stronger public sector unions? Better management perhaps? Or maybe higher income revenue?
114
Reader
so if your neighbors vote that I come and paint all houses in your town pink that automatically gives me the right to knock with a gun on your door and demand payment even if you prefer yellow?
If you live in a condo or have a mandatory housing association, you will be force to pay for services rendered if the majority of the members vote for it. The only way out is to move. The same argument applies to unions, private clubs, etc.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: If you want shameless greed, look at bankers who gave themselves bonuses only a year after threatening the world economy unless the people gave them billions of dollars — now thats shameless greed.
No no HRW, it’s ok if wealthy people and institutions do it. It’s not greed to pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses because [in some magic way I admit I don’t fully understand} it creates jobs and makes the economy all shiny.
Whereas paying hard-working employees a good wage and benefits will bankrupt us.
That’s how the math works. So I am assured.
Report comment to moderator
116
Least One
HRW says: “the evidence demonstrates that social democratic countries have fewer social problems, less crime, greater social and income mobility, better health outcomes, etc. Its the right who is trapped by ideological blindness which prevents them from seeing the empirical evidence.”
You’ve got to be kidding me! I’m from one of those socially democratic countries: Canada. Let’s not talk about Canada’s socialistic regulations, gas prices, healthcare, or speech-denying legislation, eh?
I’m not kidding
1) less crime — the US has the highest crime rate in the OECD, followed by the UK
2) income and social mobility – is highest in Scandanavia, Germany and the Netherlands and is lowest in the US
3)better health outcomes — the US has the highest infant mortality rate (higher than Cuba) and one of the lowest life expectancy rate.
One can also compare teen pregnancy rates, drug use, income inequality, communicable disease rates, and the list goes on.
As for you rant on gas prices — yes its higher here but so what …. its higher everywhere in the OECD than the US, the US subsidizes the automobile — spending more on auto transportation than it collects in automobile related revenue. And for health care — the single largest cause for personal bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses. Canadian health outcomes (infant mortality rate, life expectancy etc) are better than in the US. Gov’t run health care is better than private. As for speech denying legislation …. the reality is far less than the imagined fears of conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
119
Wagus
It always astounds me that the US capitalist can think of no other way to save a factory/company than by cutting worker’s wages and benefits. America has the laziest ruling elite in the OECD — the EU and especially Germany have managed to create a world class economy yet rarely has to resort to plant closures and worker cuts. There’s a real lack of imagination, creativity and hard work in the American ruling elite.
Report comment to moderator
If you want the government to take away power from labor unions, perhaps churches will be next.
While we’re taking away the legal protections for collective bargaining we could take away the deductibility of religious contributions, which are nothing but country club dues anyway.
There’s no Constitutional justification for prohibiting companies from entering into exclusive labor contracts with dues-collecting unions. Individual workers who don’t like unions have a perfect right to persuade fellow workers to de-certify the union and persuade employers to stop negotiating with unions and hire them as scabs. Labor relations law protects voluntary association.
The rhetoric about union “tyranny” over Wisconsin is self-deluded propaganda. Unions do nothing more than petition for redress of grievances and support or oppose politicians during elections, just like corporations, Catholic bishops, and Evangelical associations. We call this democracy.
None of the Democratic senators of Wisconsin were kidnapped. The voters of Wisconsin elected enough Democrats to prevent a quorum, and a substantial number of voters approve of the tactic. Where JOEL MARK et.al. see tyranny, I see democracy.
Watch the anti-abortion activist governor cave or watch the recall.
Report comment to moderator
Unions don’t pull the levers in voting booths – the voters do.
Report comment to moderator
@Roy: This founder of Moveon.org worked with the Nazi’s at the age of 14, to take property from his Jewish Brother and Sister…
Soros did not found MoveOn. Soros was not a collaborator by any reasonable definition of that term.
@Wagus: Who determines this?
I don’t have numbers to back up the claim; it’s mostly anecdotal. One might examine household savings rate, which you can do here, but that doesn’t capture exactly what I was trying to communicate. One might also consider the magnitude of recent deficits. If the U.S. were acting responsibly it would both raise taxes and cut spending. So far that hasn’t happened, meaning many people are either a) receiving more in benefits than they should or b) paying less in taxes than they should or c) both of the above.
@Joel: It is dead wrong of you to falsely claim that Gov. Walker wants to end collective bargaining rights. He seeks to reduce them reasonably. You knew that too.
Actually I didn’t. Every piece of analysis I’ve read (including some from folks who are generally supportive of ending collective bargaining) has concluded that’s what he’s really after. I took them at face value. If that’s incorrect then replace “end” with “reduce” in whatever I posted.
@Joel: And there was indeed an election and the people of Wisconsin were fed up with the problem that the Democrats created.
Sure there was. And they elected Walker. And now many of them are unhappy with what he’s doing. Basically 90% of Republicans agree with him, 90% of Democrats disagree with him, and about 60% of independents disagree with him. His level of support is markedly lower now than when he was elected. Though, I expect it’ll pick up later if he gets his way and it ends up not being the end of the world (which it won’t).
For what it’s worth, I agree that there are problems with the way public sector unions currently interact with elected officials. I’m not sure the right answer is to neuter public sector unions, though I’m not necessarily opposed to that either. Some other ideas:
1. Fix payroll by statute. Negotiations couldn’t raise or lower that total, only change how it’s spent.
2. Privatize various services then take bids. If a given private provider of formerly public services is too generous to its employees then it will not be competitive, will fail to win bids, and will fold. This provides incentive for unions to work with management to arrive at a reasonable level of compensation.
As various pundits have pointed out, there are plenty of right-to-work states whose public employees are not starving to death. Interestingly, these states’ lack of public sector unions hasn’t always allowed them to dodge the pension/benefits bullet. My current feeling is that if Walker gets his way it won’t that big of a deal for either side.
Report comment to moderator
I think those two points are worthy of consideration. I also believe we should cut spending and raise taxes, but only in tandem. Every worker’s taxes should increase, except for the incapacitated. Many of the prior posts pit the rich against the poor. We already have a progressive tax structure that exempts almost a half of the electorate. We need to eradicate the entitlement mentality that’s destroying our work ethic. There is an American right to pursue – and not provide – happiness.
Report comment to moderator
#137 Unions don’t pull the levers in voting booths – the voters do.
Yep. Dems (and their union supporters) are really ticked off about it in WI. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Scroop says: Unions DO NOTHING MORE than petition for redress of grievances and support or oppose politicians during elections, just like corporations, Catholic bishops, and Evangelical associations. We call this democracy.
If that is the case, why the fight to save colloective bargaining? Mandatory union dues often support candidates that the union employee themself wouldn’t vote for. My non-union bosses never took my money to support a politacal candidate/party.
HRW, companies are imperfect. Many of them become bloated with too many employees, etc. In other words, they aren’t lean enough. Are there more creative ways for companies to handle things? Sometimes, but I don’t often see employess (non-union and especially union) being very creative on their side either.
When you decide to praise socialistic countries and knock the U.S….please note how many of those citizens of socialistic nations are trying to get into the U.S. and than note how many are trying to leave the U.S. We don’t see anyone risking life and limb to take an overloaded boat to Cuba because Cuba’s mortality rate is lower than America’s. We don’t see anyone moving to Germany to home-school there (it’s illegal there). And where I’m from in Canada, 10% of the population does not have access to a personal physician but rather must use prompt care clinics or emergency rooms.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: The rhetoric about union “tyranny” over Wisconsin is self-deluded propaganda. Unions do nothing more than petition for redress of grievances and support or oppose politicians during elections, just like corporations,
No no. Corporations are just like persons, per the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Unions are parasites. Haven’t you learned anything here?
The Gospel According to World Mag says, the wealthy and powerful deserve more wealth and power; the humble and hard-working don’t deserve squat. They’ll get nothing and like it; it’s their just due for not being smart or lucky enough to be wealthy.
And with unions, whenever two or more are gathered in their name, the thug is there with them.
Report comment to moderator
Least One: Scroop says: Unions DO NOTHING MORE than petition for redress of grievances and support or oppose politicians during elections, just like corporations, Catholic bishops, and Evangelical associations. We call this democracy.
If that is the case, why the fight to save colloective bargaining?
Because that is how unions petition for redress of grievances. Unions typically represent workers who have no voice individually. Strength in numbers. And also, because they’re typically involved in issues that affect large groups of people. A garbage truck driver in your town can’t negotiate a change to the compensation structure that will affect all garbage truck drivers. All of the truck drivers together, agreeing through vote that the proposed change is one they want to try for, can.
Mandatory union dues often support candidates that the union employee themself wouldn’t vote for. My non-union bosses never took my money to support a politacal candidate/party.
Then let’s lobby to change the rules so that unions can’t donate to candidates. You’ll notice that for all the times this comes up as a complaint, nobody’s proposing actually changing it. Instead they go after bargaining rights.
Why do you suppose that is?
Report comment to moderator
If only we understood reality!
This year, 44 states are expected to register budget shortfalls. The total budget “gap” for fiscal year 2012 comes in around $125 billion. California owns the lion’s share, with $25.4 billion to fill, more than seven times Wisconsin’s shortfall. Illinois comes in next with a $15 billion shortfall, followed by Texas with $13.4 billion, New Jersey at $10.5 billion and New York at $9 billion.
But these numbers mean nothing. Not to the average man on the street, anyway. You could beat him over the head with 1s, 7s and 5s all day long and he’d scarcely feel a thing. He doesn’t understand that, no matter how much he wants healthcare for everyone, turkeys in every oven and American-made muscle cars in every garage, there simply isn’t any money left to pay for them.
The states are broke. Broke as in “B-R-O-K-E” broke.
Which brings us to our second Daily Reckoning Financial Darwin Award announcement for the week. Over the weekend we narrowed the field to ten finalists (in alphabetical order) – California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Yesterday, we awarded 5th place to Connecticut.
Today we have fourth place honors for a state whose unions, perhaps the most renowned in the country, work tirelessly to retard the economic progress of its otherwise hard working citizens. Although this state has a slightly lower debt to GDP ratio than 5th place, its projected 2012 budget shortfall, at $10.8 billion, is more than three times as large, making it a much larger problem for the nation if or when it goes down. It’s also managed to stack up some $54.4 billion in unfunded pension liabilities not to mention billions more in healthcare and “other” unfunded obligations.
In fact, it was concerns over these very liabilities that Standard & Poor’s cited when they downgraded this state’s credit rating earlier this year. And, as Fellow Reckoners well know, if the ratings agencies are on to you…it’s probably already too late.
How did they get to this point?
Writes one reader, with a clue, “I asked a turnpike toll collector what he makes after hearing the waste of money in this state and was told very proudly that he makes $76,000! That [job] is no better than a cashier and that’s not including benefits he receives. No wonder that the Christi administration is looking to privatize it.”
Congratulations…New Jersey! You receive 4th place honors in this year’s Daily Reckoning Financial Darwin Awards: The State Edition.
Report comment to moderator
“The Ontario auto industry almost completely unionized now produces more cars and auto parts than any other state or province.”
And Toyota which is not unionized at all, is beating the tar out of the other manufacturers who are moving out of the country. At the same time it’s building plants in the US and making money and paying a good wage. That is, it was, until the government put out a hit order on it and the economy tanked.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk,
It’s not considered good etiquette to cut and paste entire, or near entire, articles/editorials without at least giving some kind of credit or reference… even if they are from emails.
Report comment to moderator
“The Gospel According to World Mag says, the wealthy and powerful deserve more wealth and power; the humble and hard-working don’t deserve squat. They’ll get nothing and like it; it’s their just due for not being smart or lucky enough to be wealthy.”
This is the kind of stupid rhetoric that tempts me to make comments that will get me banned.
Report comment to moderator
HRW asked me, “So the massive transfer of public wealth to the private sector in 2008 and onward wasn’t stealing?”
Please catch a clue, HRW. It was the government (a public sector action) that made this transfer, sir, and I was against it (because, yes, it is rather close to stealing). Were you for it?
Report comment to moderator
HRW asked me, “Did you check the 2010 Forbes 400 that I linked in a previous post? the Walmart?”
Your list revealed rich supporters of Democrats at and near the top. However, short lists like that are anecdotal. Other studies have shown that in the big picture, those who vote Republican have lower incomes, on average, than those who vote Democrat. Any weay one looks at this mixed bag, it is disingenuous and weak-minded to stereottpe the right as the party of the rich.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “If you want the government to take away power from labor unions, perhaps churches will be next.”
Churches (at least the decent ones) generate their income voluntarily from the private sector. The do not demand and extort money involuntarily from some tax-payers and then use them to support leftist candidates.
Scroop, I want more limited gov’t and more limits on the exploitative power of public unions too. Taking away power from such entities (but leaving them in place with appropriate limits on their power) adds to our legitimate freedom and our overall health as a nation.
Report comment to moderator
the least one 141
Are there more creative ways for companies to handle things? Sometimes, but I don’t often see employess (non-union and especially union) being very creative on their side either.
employees are hired to do a specific job and management is there for quite a different role. Its the management’s role to create and maitian a successful corporation. To overlook their incompentence because the workers don’t have creative ideas to help them overlooks the fact that workers aren’t there to manage. Do you expect the employees to both work and manage the company and if thats the case then fire the management.
please note how many of those citizens of socialistic nations are trying to get into the U.S. and than note how many are trying to leave the U.S.
I don’t thnk too many Swedes are banging on the door begging to be allowed in.
We don’t see anyone risking life and limb to take an overloaded boat to Cuba because Cuba’s mortality rate is lower than America’s.
No, but perhaps black males in Missouri are not aware of the fact they could increase their life expectancy by about 10-15 years by moving to Cuba.
We don’t see anyone moving to Germany to home-school there (it’s illegal there).
That may be important for a very small minority but that has nothing to do with the social factors I mention.
And where I’m from in Canada, 10% of the population does not have access to a personal physician but rather must use prompt care clinics or emergency rooms.
And the rate of uninsured Americans????
I’ll also use an old American right wing standard — of those not covered/cared for how many are actually trying to arrange insurance/a personsonal physician. Many young people without children don’t bother finding a personal physician — while in university I just went to the walk in clinic. BTW the doctor in the walk in clinic was American — tired of all the corporate paperwork he moved to Canada opened a walk in clinic and just billed one institution — the gov’t. He found that the lower overhead made up for any loss of gross income.
Report comment to moderator
MIM 146
Toyota workers (producing the Corolla) in Ontario are represented by the Canadian Auto Workers. Yes even Toyota is unionized here.
Joel 148
Of course, I was against the bailout. I was for a complete gov’t takeover of any failed finiancial institution, and the use of any applicatory bankruptcy laws which allowed a sale of assets. I was also in favour of criminal charges if possible.
Honestly you expect someone as far to the left as me in favour of anything remotely like a bailout? Perhaps its you who should grab a clue not me
Report comment to moderator
Most manufacturers are organizing into self-directed team, unless choked off by intransigent work rules and union recalcitrance. At that point, there’s little management – on the behalf of stockholders – can do but find a work-around to remain competitively in the market. At least that’s my experience.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, you missed the point.
Responding to Pastor Roy, you wrote; “Paying dues for services rendered is not theft”, ignoring the fact that public union dues are indeed often INVOLUNTARILY deducted from the pay checks of public employees who do NOT want to have the money taken from them.
I wrote; “Republicans tend to support the private sector, where wealth goes to those who work for it and earn it. Democrats tend to support the public sector where wealth comes FROM those who earn it. BIG difference. So, it is the the public sector doing most of the ’stealing’, not the private sector.” (I put ’stealing’ in quotes to relate it to the previous usage knowing it is legal).
Then HRW asked me, “So the massive transfer of public wealth to the private sector in 2008 and onward wasn’t stealing?”
Huh? The massive transfer of public wealth is NOT a private sector action, regardless of who they give the money too. That is BIG gov’t using tax-payer money to buy its own power (in the name of rescuing us). You seemed to presume that I would defend that sort of legal theft by the public sector, which would be absurd given all I have said. You can believe in radical government control, spending and oppression if you wish, but you missed my point completely.
Report comment to moderator
In an opinion column titled “Gov. Scott Walker puts out fire with gasoline,” Dave Zirin writes:
It is past time for this shameful war on America’s middle class to stop.
Like the Tea Party, I think I pay more in taxes than I should have to. Unlike the Tea Party, I don’t put the blame on hardworking people who reasonably want a good wage for their work, nor do I put it on the poor who need taxpayer-provided aid to get by.
I put it on the corporations and wealthy individuals who have, little by little, used their connections and influence and financial power to subvert the system so that they contribute relatively very little, and then have brainwashed a good number of those ordinary people into actually believing that what’s good for the rich is good for everybody.
It’s gone on long enough, and it hurts all of us … not just unions.
I hope that Walker and all 18 of the cowardly lawmakers who voted behind closed doors to take away the most fundamental rights of working people are recalled by voters at the first opportunity. And I really hope that the talk of a general strike in Wisconsin comes to pass so people can see what the government employees they’ve been so eager to spit on actually do — and how much it hurts when they don’t do it.
Report comment to moderator
Oops, forgot the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/gov-scott-walker-puts-out_b_833862.html
Report comment to moderator
And I really hope that the talk of a general strike in Wisconsin comes to pass so people can see what the government employees they’ve been so eager to spit on actually do — and how much it hurts when they don’t do it.
Ah, the smell of Egypt,….and the legalities? Well who really cares about those anyway. At least you’re becoming more honest about it. But like I’ve said before, don’t come crying here when respect for law is gone.
Report comment to moderator
Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition, Debra. And don’t whine about “legalities” when you’re applauding the financial pillaging of the working class by the wealthy elites.
I guess you would have told Lech Walesa to sit down and shut up too, eh?
Report comment to moderator
It’s very telling that you are apparently unable to distinguish the vast difference in Lech Walesa’s struggle against the Polish communist government and the US labor union’s struggle against the freely elected government of WI. Very telling indeed.
Civil disobedience has consequences. I sincerely hope that any and all striking public workers are promptly and permanently replaced by citizens who DO want to work.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
you said: I put it on the corporations and wealthy individuals who have, little by little, used their connections and influence and financial power to subvert the system so that they contribute relatively very little….
Please back this storytelling with factual references. A mirror may be helpful to see who has been brainwashed!
For your myth about the rich: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Corporations contribute 12% to the tax revenue. The myth about raising their share is they just pass the increase to the shoppers, so the average citizen ends up with the bill. In addition, as the tax and regulation environment gets worse for corporations they tend to move more of their operations overseas…go figure!
The public employee unions and less than steller, progressive politicians are the biggest culprits.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, you forgot to finish your sentence. I’ll help you:
Civil disobedience has consequences. I sincerely hope that any and all striking public workers are promptly and permanently replaced by citizens who DO want to work for low wages and without any protections against the next wave of cutbacks Walker decides to impose.
Report comment to moderator
Corporations contribute 12% to the tax revenue. The myth about raising their share is they just pass the increase to the shoppers, so the average citizen ends up with the bill. In addition, as the tax and regulation environment gets worse for corporations they tend to move more of their operations overseas…go figure!
So rather than attempting to encourage or require better business practices, your preferred solution is to take it out of the workers.
After all, why should we expect our standard of living to be any better than the third-world countries that do the work so cheaply? Lets just pull ourselves down to their level for the sake of staying competitive, right?
Report comment to moderator
LOL. Thanks but no thanks, Conan. I can finish my own sentences. See, it’s no wonder you get called a fascist: you can’t even let people speak for themselves. :–)
I would like to see any striking workers replaced by citizens who are willing to work at market value, rather than the over-inflated value the union places on its membership’s labor. Market value is by definition what the market will bear in this downturn. I bet you’d see qualified people lining up to get those jobs. And they’d be willing to relocate to do so—-as long as they can get protection from your union thugs.
Report comment to moderator
“So rather than attempting to encourage or require better business practices, your preferred solution is to take it out of the workers.”
Still making it up as you go along, I see. You should know that I’m often labeled as a protectionist because I favor tariffs and a tax structure that encourages domestic manufacturing, and I’m not a big fan of globalism.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, what is the rate of uninsured or underinsured that Obama was trying to get covered with ObamaCare? You may ask about America’s healthcare in comparision with Canada’s, but remember, if Canada is supposed to have universal health care for everyone why are there at least 10% in my area that don’t have personal physicians?
Employees have a stake in their companies success. And yes they can do things that affect that company, both positively and negatively. Unreasonable demands, poor work ethic, etc. do affect a company’s success.
So Cuba has a higher infant mortality rate – if they have a public sector union let’s see them try to shut down the government. Think it’ll get them collective bargaining? More like collective imprisonment.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: I bet you’d see qualified people lining up to get those jobs. And they’d be willing to relocate to do so—-as long as they can get protection from your union thugs.
Yes, I’m sure Wisconsin and neighboring states have no shortage of people who are dying to be garbage collectors and street sweepers and just haven’t been able to find a job because they want less salary and benefits than the employers are offering.
I’m not sure why you’re indignant in #164, that comment was addressed to RWHawk.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, I’m sure Wisconsin and neighboring states have no shortage of people who are dying to be garbage collectors and street sweepers and just haven’t been able to find a job because they want less salary and benefits than the employers are offering. “
What planet are you living on where jobs are so plentiful that people are just able to pick and choose? That’s a huge part of the problem, and it’s what has highlighted historical union intransigence. You’re definitely not unemployed. Come on, tell the truth now. Which union signs your paycheck?
…..
PS, Sorry about #164, my mistake.
Report comment to moderator
“It is past time for this shameful war on America’s middle class to stop.”
There is huge overlap between America’s middle class and the Tea Party, so I am inclined to agree with CONAN on this point.
Is it a war on America’s middle class that Obama is waging by NOT allowing the sort of collective bargaining rights public unions want for Wisdonsin public employees for federal public workers throughout the entire nation?
Report comment to moderator
No one has a problem with private unions. But unions backed up and enforced by the GOVERNMENT are a very different (and unjust) thing. Union dues should be voluntary!!!
Report comment to moderator
Public sector employees enjoy plush overtime pay, good holiday pay, pension plans and health care coverage (mostly paid for by public money) and more. How did they get these enriching benefits that most private sector employees do not enjoy? Public unions bought politicians with huge campaign donations to Democrat politicians who repaid these gifts with sweetheart votes.
This is immoral and unjust.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: I’m not in a union. Never have had the chance to be, although I would if I could.
The war on America’s workers affects all of us, not just unions. The unions today, the rest of us tomorrow.
Perhaps you should reflect on the words of Rev. Martin Niemoller.
Report comment to moderator
What’s immoral and unjust, Joel Mark, is that you would rather see workers who do have decent pay and benefits brought down, rather than those who don’t lifted up.
Report comment to moderator
Contrary to what the union would like you to believe, the American worker is not a monolithic group. But America’s manufacturing workers have been more negatively affected by globalism than by lack of unionization.
Neither multi-nationals who have no allegiance to our country, nor big unions should be pulling the strings for the American worker, but in fact, both groups have been. We need to stop treating China (or ___fill in the blank) like our alternate workforce; and the power of the unions over our duly elected government needs to be broken. This is not going to end well if we continue on in the same direction.
Report comment to moderator
The unrest in Wisconsin is not a war against voters, it’s a war between polarized voting blocks.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
HRW, you missed the point.Responding to Pastor Roy, you wrote; “Paying dues for services rendered is not theft”, ignoring the fact that public union dues are indeed often INVOLUNTARILY deducted from the pay checks of public employees who do NOT want to have the money taken from them.
And you must have missed the rest of the post — when you move into a condonimium you pay condo fees this is involuntarily, frequently when you belong to clubs and residents associations you pay a fee even though you don’t want to. Your only option is to move or drop your membership. Same with unions, if you don’t want to pay unions dues don’t work there.
The massive transfer of public wealth is NOT a private sector action, regardless of who they give the money too. That is BIG gov’t using tax-payer money to buy its own power (in the name of rescuing us). You seemed to presume that I would defend that sort of legal theft by the public sector, which would be absurd given all I have said. You can believe in radical government control, spending and oppression if you wish, but you missed my point completely.
So the threat to blow up the world’s economy unless the private banks/finiance institutions received a trillion dollars without conditions wasn’t a privatge sector act to extract money from the public sector. In your opinion this was about the gov’t try to buy power — they gave away the power with a blank cheque. There is no gov’t control here only corporate malfeasance hungry for power.
Report comment to moderator
Lech Walesa and others fought for the freedom of association and the right to for independent unions to collectively bargain with their employees. A right Wisconsin public workers no longer have.
but don’t listen to me, listen to the master http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0
Since unions are required by law to advocate for all members I’m not sure why employees need protection from “union thugs”
Report comment to moderator
RWhawk
I’m not going to question your numbers but why shouldn’t coporations and the rich pay more? After all they benefit from the infrastructure, law and order, contract enforcement, etc far more than the average worker. In other western nation, corporations and the rich pay a larger share yet their socieities don’t seem to be suffering.
Report comment to moderator
Least One
why do you define health care coverage by having a family doctor?? For six years while in university and after, I did not have a personal physician yet I was still covered. When sick or in need of simple care, I visited a walk-in clinic — of which there are many in a university town full of students.
Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate — thats a good thing less babies dying — you donh’t want a high rate. Yes, they don’t have collective bargaining but neither do Wisconsin public workers and many other Americans. Why should Americans or anyone else be satisfied with “we’re better than Cuba” position. Yes they could occupy a state building but they can no longer collectively bargain. Freedom should go forward not backward.
This reminds me of DEBRA’s statement of market value — if the market value of labour goes so far down that a Dickensian race to the bottom begins between America and Asian sweatshops, should the American worker be satisfied with the line “its more than a Chinese worker”?
Report comment to moderator
Joel
Is it a war on America’s middle class that Obama is waging by NOT allowing the sort of collective bargaining rights public unions want for Wisdonsin public employees for federal public workers throughout the entire nation?
You’re right its shameful that Obama hasn’t changed this — one more piece of evidence to suggest Obbama is far from the leftist many believe.
If the federal gov’t workers would occupy the capital builidng I would say their justified.
Union dues should be voluntary!!!
Right — and condo fees should be voluntary after all how dare they make my right to live there contigent on paying fees. Same for the private golf club up the road.
Public sector employees enjoy plush overtime pay, good holiday pay, pension plans and health care coverage (mostly paid for by public money) and more. How did they get these enriching benefits that most private sector employees do not enjoy? Public unions bought politicians with huge campaign donations to Democrat politicians who repaid these gifts with sweetheart votes.
This is immoral and unjust.
Let the Dickensian race to the bottom begin.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Neither multi-nationals who have no allegiance to our country, nor big unions should be pulling the strings for the American worker, but in fact, both groups have been. We need to stop treating China (or ___fill in the blank) like our alternate workforce; and the power of the unions over our duly elected government needs to be broken. This is not going to end well if we continue on in the same direction.
I agree with you on this.
Report comment to moderator
Conan and HRW,
You both appear terribly ignorant of how private industry works. The corporations can only pay higher taxes by raising prices to the consumers. They are still going to aim at an appropriate return on investment which their stockholders expect. As their prices rise their competitiveness weakens and sales shrink.
Now, please, explain to me who you think those consumers are?
The tax increase on the corporations is just an indirect tax on the population.
Perhaps another reality check is in order before you continue with empty rhetoric: “America’s political leadership is finally waking up to the fact that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors. Last year, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.” And this is from one who shares your worldview, go figure!
There is a very applicable childrens story about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. It may pay to review that story again.
Your Marxist class warfare is shallow; great sound byte, but shallow nonetheless. The “rich” are already paying at a much higher tax rate. Besides class envy and covetessness, why do you believe that legal plunder is valid? Why do the have-not have legal claim to the property of the haves through government coersion? That is stealing. What is the ethical basis you have for stealing property to transfer to others who have no rightful claim to it?
Starving the toxic parasite down to its constitutionally authorized size and authority is the first action we should see rather than continue its illegal growth. This is supposed to be a rule of law nation founded on freedom and private property. Why do both of you ignore this vital aspect of the financial troubles our governmental bodies have created?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another one of yours that just doesn’t get it I suppose:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 (UPI) — U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears before Congress Wednesday after saying Washington should cut the corporate tax rate by more than 5 percent.
“We are very serious … in trying to build consensus now on a set of fundamental changes to the corporate tax system that would improve incentives for investment,” Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee Tuesday.
While the official U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, one of the world’s highest, “the average rate of our major trading partners now is in the high 20s,” Geithner said. “And to make a meaningful difference, you want to get it down substantially toward that level.”
Perhaps you two should go and straighten Rangel and Geithner out; they’ve broken rank.
Report comment to moderator
#178 This reminds me of DEBRA’s statement of market value — if the market value of labour goes so far down that a Dickensian race to the bottom begins between America and Asian sweatshops, should the American worker be satisfied with the line “its more than a Chinese worker”?
They absolutely should not, but empowering union bosses to represent them in that dispute only resulted in kicking the can down the road. And guess what? We have arrived at ‘down the road’; and there is no more money to be looted from fat corporations. We must now work on fixing the core problem, not further empowering unions as adversarial intermediaries between labor and management.
I don’t have all the answers to that problem, but I’m quite sure that Socialism is not the right direction. Socialism will only compound the problem by driving out what inventiveness and initiative remains to us as Americans.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: The corporations can only pay higher taxes by raising prices to the consumers. They are still going to aim at an appropriate return on investment which their stockholders expect. As their prices rise their competitiveness weakens and sales shrink.
Now, please, explain to me who you think those consumers are?
Put that way, it sounds like an extortion scheme.
Why should we give in to extortion?
It’s really not that simple anyway. Corporations do not have to pass on their costs to customers, and often they do not. There have been periods in our history where the corporate tax rates were significantly higher than they are now, and contrary to what the conservatives assure us will happen, it doesn’t correlate to lessened job creation or to consumer price rises. Those things happen too, but not as a direct result of higher corporate taxes.
The “rich” are already paying at a much higher tax rate. Besides class envy and covetessness, why do you believe that legal plunder is valid? Why do the have-not have legal claim to the property of the haves through government coersion? That is stealing. What is the ethical basis you have for stealing property to transfer to others who have no rightful claim to it?
Any society has things that benefit the populace in general that must be paid for. They are not individual goods, so we all share the costs in the form of taxes. If you replace your mailbox, you pay for it. If you have a pothole in the public street near your house, the taxpayers pay to fix it.
Progressive taxation operates on the principle that the greater share of those costs should be borne by those who have benefited most.
All the whining about “stealing” is based on the false belief that you somehow have the right to benefit from these services without also bearing a fair share of the cost. THAT is where the stealing comes in.
When you call a plumber to unclog your sink, do you then say he’s “stealing” when he asks you to pay for the service? I hope you don’t. Taxes are just fees for services spread over the populace in general.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, Sorry I should have said “lower mortality rate”.
I don’t define health care coverage solely by having a personal physician, but that is a very important part of it, IMO. You may be satisfied with a walk-in clinic (they have their own role for minor care) but some people are not. Talk to fellow Canadians that have doctors that are mediocre or worse, but that cannot switch physicians because there are no other physicians in their area that are accepting new patients.
“Why should Americans or anyone else be satisfied with “we’re better than Cuba” position?”
You seem to take a very similar stance by saying that socialistic countries are better than the U.S.
“Freedom should go forward not backward.” America is probably the best example of that quote put into action.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: They absolutely should not,
Well once you get rid of unions and minimum wage laws (another frequent target of conservatives), what do you imagine is going to prevent it?
Report comment to moderator
Don’t put words in my mouth, Conan. I never said get rid of unions. We need to work on creating the tax structure and tariff system that encourages domestic manufacturing. More jobs=more choices for workers, and more tax money without raising tax rates. How that comes about, I’m not sure. But it doesn’t come about by doing the same old same old that the unions (and the Dems and some Repubs) are doing.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Curious, why did you fail to comment on Rangel’s and Geithner’s assertions that corporate taxes need to be reduced rather than your position to raise them?
you said: There have been periods in our history where the corporate tax rates were significantly higher than they are now, and contrary to what the conservatives assure us will happen, it doesn’t correlate to lessened job creation or to consumer price rises. Those things happen too, but not as a direct result of higher corporate taxes.
Please substantiate this claim
you said: Progressive taxation operates on the principle that the greater share of those costs should be borne by those who have benefited most.
This is absolutely false. A flat tax assures that those that prosper more pay a higher share of the tax burden and all will share equally in paying taxes. A 20% flat tax rate on $20,000 income is $4,000 and for a $1,000,000 income is $200,000. Seems the wealthier worker paid a much larger portion into the parasitic pot.
But progressive taxation (out of the marxist plank) and what we have today is to redistribute the wealth so the one earning $20,000 doesn’t pay any tax at all but rather receives a $7,000 refund while the one that earns $1,000,000 pays $200,000 in taxes.
you said: All the whining about “stealing” is based on the false belief that you somehow have the right to benefit from these services without also bearing a fair share of the cost. THAT is where the stealing comes in.
Please provide a universally accepted definition of ‘fair share’ then we can better identify when stealing occurs.
you said: When you call a plumber to unclog your sink, do you then say he’s “stealing” when he asks you to pay for the service? I hope you don’t. Taxes are just fees for services spread over the populace in general.
Here you are mixing apples with oranges. Your faulty implication that the “rich” don’t pay taxes and shrug their responsibility to pay the poor working plumber. But the example does illustrate that all should pay the plumber equally his wages for the amount of service each requests of the plumber; this is a flat tax system.
What you advocate, however, is the plumber give his services away to the ‘poor’ lower wage workers and double or triple or quadruple his rates to the ‘rich’ worker, whatever it takes, to spread the wealth.
So the real crux of the issue is what constitutes fairness in paying necessary taxes for a government limited to the enumerations of the constitution. The issue is between Marxism (ignore the constitution; promote class warfare) and a Christian worldview (rule of law; equal justice).
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t is interesting how lefties like HRW seem to always badmouth successful businesses like Walmart when they talk about economic issues. As if being successful in business was a detriment.
Report comment to moderator
RWhawk
The corporations can only pay higher taxes by raising prices to the consumers.
not necessarily, they can cut costs, they can lower profit expectations, they can increase productivity, they can be more innovative, etc
Perhaps another reality check is in order before you continue with empty rhetoric: “America’s political leadership is finally waking up to the fact that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors. Last year, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.” And this is from one who shares your worldview, go figure!
Obviously, if I disagree with the above and I do then he’s not one who shares my world view — in fact this illustrates that the Democrats are essentially right of centre.
The “rich” are already paying at a much higher tax rate. Besides class envy and covetessness, why do you believe that legal plunder is valid? Why do the have-not have legal claim to the property of the haves through government coersion? That is stealing. What is the ethical basis you have for stealing property to transfer to others who have no rightful claim to it?
see Conan’s response — those who benefit the most from a stable society should pay a greater share of the cost.
Perhaps you two should go and straighten Rangel and Geithner out; they’ve broken rank.
no they didn’t break rank, they are illustrative of the Democratic party’s right of centre tendencies.
Report comment to moderator
183 Debra
there is no more money to be looted from fat corporations.
When the top 400 people owe more wealth than half the population, there is more money especially when these 400 people receive their wealth from these corporations.
Report comment to moderator
Least Ones
“Why should Americans or anyone else be satisfied with “we’re better than Cuba” position?” You seem to take a very similar stance by saying that socialistic countries are better than the U.S.
No, I think Americans should take a look at what works elsewhere “best practices” and see if they can be implemented there, and in that way they can improve their economic standing and hence keep the west strong — the west needs a strong America and its not happening when Americans follow the wrong policies.
Report comment to moderator
“Freedom should go forward not backward.” America is probably the best example of that quote put into action.
Read the Patriot Act lately. Security at the expense of freedom.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I agree with your thought about considering other’s “best practices”. That sounds reasonable. Although I don’t believe that socialistic practices are for the most part worthy of being imitated.
Are you saying that socialistic “best practices” would help keep the west strong? It is precisely the opposite that has kept America strong, and ironically, it is the socialistic mind-set that believes that the west needs weakening.
I don’t necessarily support the Patriot Act, but doesn’t socialism tend to be “security at the expense of freedom”?
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you said: not necessarily, they can cut costs, they can lower profit expectations, they can increase productivity, they can be more innovative, etc
True, these could be other options if these corporations have chosen to currently run inefficient operations…but then they wouldn’t last long competing with more cost effective companies. GM and Chrysler are two such corporations that remained dinosaurs and should have been allowed to fail. Do you suppose raising taxes on either one of these would have allowed them to invest into more efficient operations? They could have cut wages and salaries but the unionists wouldn’t stand for that…would they?
you said: Obviously, if I disagree with the above and I do then he’s not one who shares my world view — in fact this illustrates that the Democrats are essentially right of centre.
no, they are both marxists……they are just closer to reality as their utopian ideal is faltering and they have to finally face it…for the marxist, reality is always the last to vote. You can stand back at arms length and pontificate utopian ideology and ignore the reasoning Rangel and Geithner use.
you said: see Conan’s response — those who benefit the most from a stable society should pay a greater share of the cost
you appear to have failed to see my response to Conan. The wealthier earners are paying a greater share. We all agree on this concept; they aren’t skating by without paying taxes. Wealth redistribution, based on your concept, is stealing. Read my response to Conan in 188 more closely, somewhere near the middle.
Perhaps you can help Conan with what I had possed to him recopied below:
Please provide a universally accepted definition of ‘fair share’ then we can better identify when stealing occurs.
you said: When you call a plumber to unclog your sink, do you then say he’s “stealing” when he asks you to pay for the service? I hope you don’t. Taxes are just fees for services spread over the populace in general.
Here you are mixing apples with oranges. Your faulty implication that the “rich” don’t pay taxes and shrug their responsibility to pay the poor working plumber. But the example does illustrate that all should pay the plumber equally his wages for the amount of service each requests of the plumber; this is a flat tax system.
What you advocate, however, is the plumber give his services away to the ‘poor’ lower wage workers and double or triple or quadruple his rates to the ‘rich’ worker, whatever it takes, to spread the wealth.
So the real crux of the issue is what constitutes fairness in paying necessary taxes for a government limited to the enumerations of the constitution. The issue is between Marxism (ignore the constitution; promote class warfare) and a Christian worldview (rule of law; equal justice).
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: Curious, why did you fail to comment on Rangel’s and Geithner’s assertions that corporate taxes need to be reduced rather than your position to raise them?
Because I don’t know what their reasoning is. On the face of it, I disagree with them; it may be they have a persuasive reason that would change my mind, but I haven’t researched it far enough to know.
However, we’re in a time where the political winds are apparently firmly anti-tax, and they may simply be posturing politically.
you said: There have been periods in our history where the corporate tax rates were significantly higher than they are now, and contrary to what the conservatives assure us will happen, it doesn’t correlate to lessened job creation or to consumer price rises. Those things happen too, but not as a direct result of higher corporate taxes.
Please substantiate this claim
This is a chart showing the corporate tax rates from 1909 through 2002:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
You can see the years in which it was higher than the current 35 percent, and I trust you will know your history well enough to know whether that corresponds to greater unemployment and inflation or not.
But just to point out one or two …during the Great Depression, the corporate tax rate ranged from 11 percent to 13.75 percent.
During the Clinton years, when we had the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history, it was was high as 39 percent depending on which bracket the business fell into.
you said: Progressive taxation operates on the principle that the greater share of those costs should be borne by those who have benefited most.
This is absolutely false. A flat tax assures that those that prosper more pay a higher share of the tax burden and all will share equally in paying taxes. A 20% flat tax rate on $20,000 income is $4,000 and for a $1,000,000 income is $200,000. Seems the wealthier worker paid a much larger portion into the parasitic pot.
No, it is true. Progressive taxation holds just what I said.
A flat tax is regressive unless you are pretty generous in granting exemptions to lower-level earners. It’s hard to get by on $20,000 and darn near impossible once you cut it to $16,000 with your 20 percent tax. The difference between $1 million and $800,000 is still doing just fine.
We can argue about whether flat or progressive is more fair, but the underlying philosophy is the same: Taxes are fees for services that the government performs on behalf of the populace.
But progressive taxation (out of the marxist plank) and what we have today is to redistribute the wealth so the one earning $20,000 doesn’t pay any tax at all but rather receives a $7,000 refund while the one that earns $1,000,000 pays $200,000 in taxes.
You can’t get a “refund” of money you hadn’t paid in.
you said: All the whining about “stealing” is based on the false belief that you somehow have the right to benefit from these services without also bearing a fair share of the cost. THAT is where the stealing comes in.
Please provide a universally accepted definition of ‘fair share’ then we can better identify when stealing occurs.
Obviously, “universally accepted” is impossible. So we do the best we can by debate and consensus to get close.
you said: When you call a plumber to unclog your sink, do you then say he’s “stealing” when he asks you to pay for the service? I hope you don’t. Taxes are just fees for services spread over the populace in general.
Here you are mixing apples with oranges. Your faulty implication that the “rich” don’t pay taxes and shrug their responsibility to pay the poor working plumber. But the example does illustrate that all should pay the plumber equally his wages for the amount of service each requests of the plumber; this is a flat tax system.
No, it’s a direct fee-for-service. The service costs the same whether you have $1,000 or $100,000 in the bank to pay it.
But if the plumber unclogs a water supply line that the city owns, then he gets paid out of taxes, and that’s where the millionaire contributes more than the pauper. The service costs what it costs, but the burden is shared among the many.
What you advocate, however, is the plumber give his services away to the ‘poor’ lower wage workers and double or triple or quadruple his rates to the ‘rich’ worker, whatever it takes, to spread the wealth.
Sorry no. The fee-for-service analogy doesn’t apply to service for the commons. I raised it to demonstrate that it’s entirely fair to pay a share of the cost of services done for all, just as it is to pay the whole cost of services done for you.
So the real crux of the issue is what constitutes fairness in paying necessary taxes for a government limited to the enumerations of the constitution. The issue is between Marxism (ignore the constitution; promote class warfare) and a Christian worldview (rule of law; equal justice).
No it isn’t, as neither Marxism nor Christianity has any legitimate role in American government.
I will give you credit for restraint though … only two references to Marxism and only one to parasitic. Little by little, you’re getting better.
Report comment to moderator
#191 HRW,
Ha. Leave it to a Socialist to find more road to kick the can down. It’s time to stop looting and start working on our real problems.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Thank you for the link; but as the article states in the beginning these brackets are not comparable over time.
you said: You can’t get a “refund” of money you hadn’t paid in.
You obviously don’t know our tax system. Look up the definition of refundable tax credit, EITC and Additional CTC. The scenario I gave you is truth. Our tax system is great at redistributing wealth and most are very ignorant of this fact.
As you have correctly observed; fair share does not have a universal definition yet your side uses this meaningless term often.
You are incorrect about religous worldviews of Marxism and Christianity not being a part of the state. The role of the state is defined by these religous worldviews. Socialism Vs free-enterprise; traditional family Vs contrived combinations; Obamacare Vs personal responsibility, etc. Toxic parasite Vs beneficial parasite. All these are morally derived from one or the other religion. It is impossible for the state to be neutral of a worldview as you imply. Currently, our state leans heavily towards the Marxist worldview but last November showed promise that we may get back onto the right course.
Actually, the plumber analogy I possed to you is very applicable for progressive Vs flat tax, stealing, etc. The issue is between Marxism (ignore the constitution; promote class warfare) and a Christian worldview (rule of law; equal justice) is still the crux of the issue. This is what our discussion is revolving around. You promote class warfare and ignoring the constitutional limits and I promote rule-of-law and equal justice. Marxist worldview Vs Christian worldview. The former is built upon a faulty foundation of presuppositions and the latter is built upon a solid rock of reality.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I don’t use the term Marxist worldview or Christian worldview in a disparaging manner. These are the two predominate worldviews in contention in our culture. Worldview is the bedrock of our belief system, interpretation of life and action in life. By this, a worldview is a religion.
Yours is heavily Marxist, mine is heavily Christian. Unfortunatey, the Marxist worldview is built upon many faulty presuppositions.
Report comment to moderator
RWhawk
So what worldview is the Governor of Michigan practicing when he wants to pass a bill that gives him the authority to dissolve elected local and county governments and appoint an individual or corporation to be in charge if he thinks there is a fiscal crisis. Its not traditional conservatism and its not Marxism, I would suggest corporatism otherwise known as neo-fascism. Perhaps the Christian traditionalist should revisit who they are allied with and what they are exactly fighting for.
Least One
Are you saying that socialistic “best practices” would help keep the west strong? It is precisely the opposite that has kept America strong, and ironically, it is the socialistic mind-set that believes that the west needs weakening.
Yes, the strongest economies at the present time and the strongest economies over an extended period of time are the social democratic countries of northwest Europe (Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany).And of course Canada — due to its refusal to deregulate. Properly managed mixed economies are the most stable and unlike the rest of the West these economies still have a strong manufacturing base.
Its the neo-monetarist (Reaganomics) economies that the US has practiced for the last 35 years which has left it in its present mess. Deregulation, deficit spending (”deficits don’t matter” “starve the beast”), interventionist foreign policy, etc
Report comment to moderator
I don’t necessarily support the Patriot Act, but doesn’t socialism tend to be “security at the expense of freedom”?
If freedom is “just another word for nothing left to lose”, then you’re right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFhWV8–io
Report comment to moderator
And Debra even the rich know they can pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet thinks its ridiculous that his secretary pays more taxes than he.
And here is Stephen King
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpn305Y7ToA&feature=player_embedded
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: Actually, the plumber analogy I possed to you is very applicable for progressive Vs flat tax, stealing, etc. The issue is between Marxism (ignore the constitution; promote class warfare) and a Christian worldview (rule of law; equal justice) is still the crux of the issue. This is what our discussion is revolving around. You promote class warfare and ignoring the constitutional limits and I promote rule-of-law and equal justice. Marxist worldview Vs Christian worldview. The former is built upon a faulty foundation of presuppositions and the latter is built upon a solid rock of reality.
Oh yeah, “class warfare,” the battle cry of those who think the rich shouldn’t contribute much to the society from which they benefit a great deal.
Class warfare, the real kind, is when you tell government employees that they might have to get laid off because we can’t possibly forgo more tax breaks for millionaires.
I am not aware of any Constitutional provision that forbids progressive income tax rates. Please point it out.
“Marxism” is not a religion. Your characterization of Marxism vs. Christianity as if they were competing religions is an insult both to Marxists and to Christians. But it’s also irrelevant because, whatever you think, nobody in the U.S. is proposing anything like actual Marxism.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Please provide the source for what Walker has supposedly proposed
you said: the strongest economies at the present time and the strongest economies over an extended period of time are the social democratic countries.
You are just cherry picking again. The worst economies in the world are also socialist. You say pick the best practices and duplicate but that is only dreaming. You have to consider the whole culture and whether it is adoptable. Socialism is being rejected here in the US because our culture for the last voting majority rejected the concept of being subjects of the state…go figure, we are ingrained with a claim to freedom.
The strongest economy offering the true freedom and liberty has been found in the US prior to 1913. Things began going downhill when the constitution was sidestepped and marxist based progressivism crept in. We are reaping those thorns and thistles now.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: You obviously don’t know our tax system. Look up the definition of refundable tax credit, EITC and Additional CTC. The scenario I gave you is truth. Our tax system is great at redistributing wealth and most are very ignorant of this fact.
Thanks for pointing this out. In researching it I found I’m eligible for a credit I wasn’t aware of. So now I need to file an amended return.
Report comment to moderator
Warren Buffet on class warfare — class warfare exists and my side is winning.
If you are referring to my post#200 its the Governor of Michingan I’m talking about and here’s the bill;
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/pdf/2011-HEBS-4214.pdf
check page 22
And here’s Forbes for a quick summary.
http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/03/11/michigan-governor-plays-fast-and-loose-with-democracy-invokes-radical-new-powers/
watch the video embedded in the forbes link.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
you said: Oh yeah, “class warfare,” the battle cry of those who think the rich shouldn’t contribute much to the society from which they benefit a great deal.
This is class warfare; the battle cry pitting one class against anothe is of Marx and Lenin. As far as your false contention about the rich not contributing much to society???? If they contribute 20% of their income just as somebody who hasn’t earned as much but also pays 20% they are contributing more to society (a flat tax system). This conforms to the Christian worldview. With our current tax structure the “rich” are contributing more.
The basis of your Marxist worldview is founded on the belief that the state owns it all. The Christian worldview says those that properly earn their money is theirs to manage as they see fit. Your worldview covets that “excess lucre” the rich have so you authorize the state to steal more of it to redistribute. That is a toxic parasite; but that is Marxism.
you said: Class warfare, the real kind, is when you tell government employees that they might have to get laid off because we can’t possibly forgo more tax breaks for millionaires.
Yes, this is an excellent example of the Marxist battle cry to pick one against the other with faulty reasoning. Could you please substantiat the exclusive tax breaks only for the millionaires?
you said: I am not aware of any Constitutional provision that forbids progressive income tax rates. Please point it out.
You are taking what I have said out of context. I am talking about the whole aspect of the Progressive (Marxist) agenda with government growth. I am referring to programs like the Federal Reserve, Fanny and Freddie, DOE, Obamascare, Socialist Security, Mediscare, abortion, etc. You have been taught to read and interpret the constitution differently with a marxist worldview; you look for what is excluded but the original intent is to use it for what is enumerated and keep it limited. By looking for what is excluded allows just about anything to pass.
you said: “Marxism” is not a religion. Your characterization of Marxism vs. Christianity as if they were competing religions is an insult both to Marxists and to Christians.
Your knowledge of religion is very limited. There are two methods to define religion; the substantive and the functional. By using the functional model Marxism is a religion. “James Davison Hunter explains:
The substantive model generally delimits religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on. The functional model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, ideology, world view and cosmology.[1]
Even the Supreme Court has used the functional model of religion from time to time: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.”
you said: But it’s also irrelevant because, whatever you think, nobody in the U.S. is proposing anything like actual Marxism.
Your knowledge of Marxism is also limited; You have been indoctrinated to it through your schooling. It is the worldview taught in our government schools and most of our university system. The term most common to this form of Marxism is Political Correctness. The original term was cultural Marxism. Your views that I have read on World are founded on this religion. If you want to dig into this form of Marxism and learn about this worldview here is an excellent discussion of it: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/may/05051909
Report comment to moderator
The strongest economy offering the true freedom and liberty has been found in the US prior to 1913.
Sure when the average income was $15,000 (2006$), life expectancy for a white male at 50, and 135 out of 1000 infants died before their 2nd birthday.
You must really hate paying taxes to return to that era.
The worst economies in the world are also socialist.
Given your wide definition of socialist, this means nothing as you would include almost any economy as socialist.
You say pick the best practices and duplicate but that is only dreaming. You have to consider the whole culture and whether it is adoptable.
Granted. But American exceptionalism isn’t that great of a barrier nor is American innovation so poor as to make this impossible.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you said: You must really hate paying taxes to return to that era….this means nothing as you would include almost any economy as socialist.
Three fallacies committed with your conclusion.
you ignored the ’strongest economy’ aspect and the aspect of ‘true freedom and liberty’.
The second is concluding that ‘I must really hate paying taxes’. Please provide the supporting statements I have made for you to draw this faulty conclusion.
The Third is improperly concluding that my definition includes most any economy. No, it only includes those that the government controls excessively in violation of the constitution and God’s design for true private enterprise.
Suggest you view this 10 minute video to better understand the governmental spectrum of control. This will help you understand where the American form of government is and where your Marxist position is and with what it shares: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
Socialism is being rejected here in the US because our culture for the last voting majority rejected the concept of being subjects of the state…go figure, we are ingrained with a claim to freedom.
Report comment to moderator
you ignored the ’strongest economy’ aspect and the aspect of ‘true freedom and liberty’.
the economy was stronger in 1913 than lets say 1966??2000?? or 2010??
did it produce more? were living standards higher? was the GDP per capita higher?
Its interesting you appendage the word “true” to freedom and liberty. I imagine you think there is only one type/definition of freedom and liberty.
he second is concluding that ‘I must really hate paying taxes’. Please provide the supporting statements I have made for you to draw this faulty conclusion.
the date chosen — 1913 when according to you true freedom and liberty ended which just happens to be the year the 16th amendment (personal income tax) passed.
No, it only includes those that the government controls excessively in violation of the constitution and God’s design for true private enterprise.
which countries do you think are not socialist? If you can tell me that than I may be able to better understand what you consider socialist.
and which constitution are you using as a measuring tool?
how does a constitution and God’s design go together? which constitution?
How is private enterprise God’s design but not communal/public property?
Report comment to moderator
your video is interesting and amusing
– their version of left and right is a unique American invention, it leaves no place for such European groups such as anarcho-sydnicalist, or individuals such as George Orwell (or myself).
– their Old West example of sheriffs and trial by jury are not inventions of a republic but rather are derived from anglo-saxon tradition based on a parliamentary democracy.
– “the proper amount of gov’t makes everyone freer” but what do we mean by “free” free to starve or freedom from starvation? free to die or freedom from illnesses? etc.
– when defining republic as rule by law they add “leaving the people alone” but a republic is simply rule by law — which means representatives can add or subtract to the law in the best interests of the people they represent or for what they consider necessary for law and order, the economy and the defense of the country.
– Rome went from a republic to an empire there never was a democracy.
– Bread and circuses occur under all regimes as it keeps the masses under control.
Report comment to moderator
Liberatarians and many conservatives seem to still believe that lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals will lead to greater tax revenues because production, job creation, etc. will rise enough so that the greater business revenues and greater number of entities paying taxes will outpace the reduction.
This was popularized during the Reagan years with the Laffer Curve, a bell curve showing a tax rate at which revenues peaked, and then began to decline as the rate went higher.
It sounded nice in theory but it didn’t work in practice. Reagan cut the corporate taxes and revenues did increase as predicted, and so we went into the current pattern of deficit spending.
The problem now is that many people still cling to the belief as an article of faith even though it has been a failure in reality.
Report comment to moderator
And even if the Laffer Curve has some substance I think we are well past the left side of the bell curve.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
true freedom and liberty involves the proper implementation of sphere sovereignty. The US was rather unique in this respect along with a constitution that supported that model. Within the era I picked the US was still on the upswing with this model as the others were peaked and/or plummeting. The video is from this perspective.
Progressivism began seeping into our system in 1913, contrary to the strict constructivist interpretation of the constitution, and we are now reaping the failure of that diversion.
Report comment to moderator
How does the US constitution and only the US constitution support the sphere sovereignty model??
The US constitution enumerates the responsibilities, duties and rights of various levels of gov’t. The US constitution contains a bill of rights. The US constitution outlines the different branches of gov’t and their composition. The US constitution has an amendment formula. BUT almost all constitutions have this — why then is the US one unique. Give specifics and how do they align with sphere soveriengnty.
Why did the US peak in 1913? Was it the recent closing of the frontier as described by the Turner thesis? Did it actually peak at all — in what did it peak if it did? The video itself is bad history and political science as outline in my previous post. Judging a nation solely on the basis of the extent of gov’t activity is fairly simplistic.
How did progressivism seep into the system at that particular date — the 16th Amendment?? soon followed the election of senators and women voting?? Are these bad things which must be repealed?? All these are amendments which followed the process outlined in the original constitution. If an amendment process was outlined in the original constitution than any amendments created through that process don’t violate the constitution even from a strict constructionist perspective.
Simply put, you assigned the US constitution a unique place with no justification, once an amendment was added authorizing income tax, you view it as in decline and degraded. I’m still left with you don’t like taxes.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
You ask: How does the US constitution and only the US constitution support the sphere sovereignty model??
Because of the limitations prescribed by the enumerations (based on the role and responsibility of the sphere of the state) along with the Christian worldview held by the majority of the population in living the rule-of-law out and support from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
You say: Judging a nation solely on the basis of the extent of gov’t activity is fairly simplistic.
God’s social design is not that difficult so the judgment is fairly easy and simple. The extent of gov’t activity is a primary sign for judging a nation and the worldview that drives it.
You say: Simply put, you assigned the US constitution a unique place with no justification,
Perhaps you have somewhat twisted what I said and added your own imaginings? Let’s review: true freedom and liberty involves the proper implementation of sphere sovereignty. The US was rather unique in this respect along with a constitution that supported that model.
The proper implementation of sphere sovereignty requires leadership and a population with a predominately Christian worldview working indepently and responsibly without civil government control. The US was unique in this respect. We developed a constitution (and form of government) that supported this model. I didn’t say everything rested on the constitution as you imply. Perhaps you missed the word ‘along’
I view the change in worldview of the country from Christian to Progressivism/Marxism as the decline. The amendments, etc are only the signs of that worldview transition.
You said: once an amendment was added authorizing income tax, you view it as in decline and degraded. I’m still left with you don’t like taxes.
Whatever. The structure and role of government began changing at about this time due to the change in worldviews. The sphere of state began encroaching on the other spheres. The parasitical nature of civil government is designed by God to be of a very limited capacity as our Constitution originally reflected and this would be a beneficial parasite that should be properly supported with taxes, which it was. As government control grew and encroached on the other spheres’ roles and responsibilities it started becoming a toxic parasite and I do object to taxes that support this illegal (from God’s perspective) encroachment. This encroachment began as the worldview of the nation began shifting.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!