Originally posted by PsychoPawn Well, the teachers are teaching students about being politically active and how peaceful and civil protest is useful in a democracy... could be seen as a positive role model if you look at it in a different way.
Of course there's a line to draw.
The line was somewhere before lying, and definitely way before some of the behavior at the protests. Check out this video in which a GOP Senator is chased and trapped by the crowd before being saved by one of the Democrat Reps. You have to watch until about 2:50 to get the gist. Eventually they convinced themselves to be peaceful, but only after a Dem Rep placed himself, arms outstretched, between the crowd and their potential victim, and it looked touch and go there. If that Dem rep hadn't stepped in what do you think might have happened? This is what I mean by "clenched firmly in their teeth". Does this teach students how to behave in a Democracy? Is this the activity our teachers should tell lies in order to attend?
One of the main problems I have is that Walker reduced taxes to businesses and others before this - and so reduced his state's income and increases the budget deficit. Then he turns around and says that it's the unions problem and they should sacrifice to fill in that deficit.
Why not just not lower the taxes in the first place?
I haven't taken the time to dig into the details of Wisconsin's budget, what Walker did, or why. I'll bet if I dig into it I'll find he wants low taxes to be business friendly and create an environment for economic growth, which would make sense to me. There is no way to do that without being accused of handing out favors to campaign contributors, but at least lower taxes should help the job market.
Here's a snip from Walker's budget address. Sounds like he's trying to do exactly what he campaigned on (though going after collective bargaining is likely more heavy handed than most expected). Low taxes on businesses is intended to spur job growth in the state.
We will also encourage job growth as I fulfill a campaign promise to lower taxes on those who invest in Wisconsin-based businesses and do so for an extended period of time. We will do this by eliminating the capital gains tax for investors in Wisconsin companies that provide jobs for our people. And we include tax relief for employers who hire more people to work in our state.
In this budget, we provide real tax relief for homeowners across the state by implementing property tax reform that locks in property tax levies at the local level. Time and time again, I've heard from Wisconsinites who are doing more with less and making sacrifices to keep their families going. Good people like the retired couple on a fixed income or the new parents paying for daycare and the mortgage on their first house or the middle-class working family where mom and dad still have jobs, but keeping them meant taking a pay freeze. All of them, and others like them across Wisconsin, need true property tax relief and this budget delivers.
I campaigned on creating an environment where the private sector can create 250,000 jobs over the next four years. Our budget lays that foundation, by freeing taxpayers to create jobs in the private sector, by limiting the size and scope of government, and by focusing our government on meeting core priorities. Where we must make reductions, we do so wisely, by giving local governments the tools to save even more money than overall reductions in state aid.
As I have said before, our constitution says, "the blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue."
This is the heart of our budget. We are returning to frugality and are making the long term decisions to balance our budget now — and more importantly, into the future. We will do the heavy lifting to protect our children and grandchildren from having to make the hard decisions that were once avoided.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]Except it will only nominally exist - they can negotiate up to the rate of inflation. That means they essentially can ONLY negotiate up to a measly barely keeping track with inflation if they are lucky enough to not have to make any concessions in the negotiations.
Just like the rest of us. I haven't had a ...[text shortened]... mpete . It's just plain corrupt, and I welcome any change in the right direction.[/b]
You don't have an f'in clue.
Go ahead and say that crap when you're a victim of a crime or your house catches fire.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy Please stop. I'm withering under your powerful reason.
But am I a hippo or a pig? I can't make it out.
I just can't see celebrating the defeat of the middle class simply to continue the madness of making the rich more wealthy.
Wisconsin and the feds can solve these issues by recognizing the travesty of allowing a small minority of the country making all of the decisions. That's why I say that we are approaching an oligarchy structure.
How can you rejoice in breaking the middle class? These people are not rich nor are they the source of the problem. How can you rejoice in seeing a populace that becomes less healthy, less educated and poorer?
It reminds me of the Arab countries being ruled by Sunni with a Shia majority. Ultimately it will break.
Originally posted by sh76 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41808726/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/
The main question I had of Walker was why he was going for the reduction of CB rights if the union had agreed to his proposed cuts in any case. His response is that only two statewide union officials had agreed to his cuts, but that the local leaders, who would also have to approve, had p ...[text shortened]... ed for security" doesn't make much sense. I will retain my criticism of Walker on that front.
"That’s the kind of debate we need to have … not the superficial ones about cutting ten million here or ten million there, but [asking questions] like “What Should Government Do?” and “What Should Government Not Do?” and once we get that right the cutting is easy."
- Yaron Brook,
Originally posted by Wajoma "That’s the kind of debate we need to have … not the superficial ones about cutting ten million here or ten million there, but [asking questions] like “What Should Government Do?” and “What Should Government Not Do?” and once we get that right the cutting is easy."
- Yaron Brook,
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=95&load=5011
I concur completely. In a democracy the debate should always relate to the questions “What Should Government Do?” and “What Should Government Not Do?” I believe these questions are axiomatic.
Originally posted by badmoon When you let the government be run be the rich and their contributions, it lessons democratic and republic values. And breaking the back of labor further disenfranchising the middle class then oligarchy is what will happen.[/b]
What about the thought that if you are able to elect those that you collective bargin with, you are more likely to make out better than those in the private sector? By all accounts, it appears that those in the public sector have it much better than the average worker in the private sector for this very reason.
Originally posted by badmoon I just can't see celebrating the defeat of the middle class simply to continue the madness of making the rich more wealthy.
This is class warfare gibberish. Public employees are a small subset of the middle class. I am middle class, and my taxes will be lower as a result of not having to pay outrageous benefits obtained by the collective bargaining of public employees.
Wisconsin and the feds can solve these issues by recognizing the travesty of allowing a small minority of the country making all of the decisions. That's why I say that we are approaching an oligarchy structure.
This decision was made by a majority of the voting public when they put into office those who campaigned on reigning in government spending. This is democracy. Get used to it.
How can you rejoice in breaking the middle class? These people are not rich nor are they the source of the problem. How can you rejoice in seeing a populace that becomes less healthy, less educated and poorer?
Again, public employee unions do not equal the middle class. I'm not sure what you perceive "the problem" to be, but the problem being solved here is broken state budgets (coupled with a crappy job market that makes raising taxes illogical), so these unions are part of the equation.
It reminds me of the Arab countries being ruled by Sunni with a Shia majority. Ultimately it will break.
Again, these actions are simply campaign promises supported by a majority of voters, not some cabal pulling strings. Are you unable to see the world in any other terms than class warfare?
Originally posted by Sleepyguy Originally posted by badmoon [b]I just can't see celebrating the defeat of the middle class simply to continue the madness of making the rich more wealthy.
This is class warfare gibberish. Public employees are a small subset of the middle class. I am middle class, and my taxes will be lower as a result of not having to pay outrageous benef ...[text shortened]... al pulling strings. Are you unable to see the world in any other terms than class warfare?[/b]
This is nothing less than right-wing ideologues exploiting a crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving the crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.
Exploiting a crisis for a flat out power grab is what it is.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy Originally posted by badmoon [b]I just can't see celebrating the defeat of the middle class simply to continue the madness of making the rich more wealthy.
This is class warfare gibberish. Public employees are a small subset of the middle class. I am middle class, and my taxes will be lower as a result of not having to pay outrageous benef ...[text shortened]... al pulling strings. Are you unable to see the world in any other terms than class warfare?[/b]
Your taxes will not be lower because "not having to pay outrageous benefits obtained by the collective bargaining". In fact, there is nothing in his tax cuts for the middle class. There are tons of tax cuts for corporations or the uber wealthy.
This really has nothing to do with "class warfare". This battle is about elections. Simply put, unions contribute to Democrats. Break the unions, break the Democrats. And in a gerrymandering year it is basically the death of the Democrats if this passes. Regardless of your ideology, a one party government isn't good for anyone. Oh, there will still be a few Democrats left from the very blue states, but they will wield no power.
Originally posted by CliffLandin Simply put, unions contribute to Democrats. Break the unions, break the Democrats.
If by "break the unions" you mean to take away the ability of unions to confiscate funds from members as a condition of being employed, that's what you call a silver lining for the union members. If forced campaign contributions is the only way the Dems can stay viable (which I doubt), then why mourn their demise?
Scott Walker defends himself
02 Mar '11 17:442 edits
Back to Top