Gotta love the press

[gimpy117]

ha ha were worried about one senator while the tea party is running about!?

what about the Wisconsin governor who just cut $140,000,000 in taxes to corporations, but now has $137,000,000 budget shortfall and is taking it out on the unions because the budget is unbalanced and Obviously its their fault?

thats what i call crazy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

ha ha we're worried about one senator while the tea party is running about!?

The Tea Party represents a significant shift in the priorities of right-wing and swing voters towards true fiscal responsibility for the government, one that is evident in the attitude of GOP politicians and the results of the 2010 elections.

Disagree with their policies if you will, but do not imply that they are crazy or dismiss them. The platforms of both major political parties have changed and even swapped places many times in the past because of the agitation of one group over one issue.

what about the Wisconsin governor who just cut $140,000,000 in taxes to corporations, but now has $137,000,000 budget shortfall and is taking it out on the unions because the budget is unbalanced and Obviously its their fault?

thats what i call crazy.

Then you should redefine what you call crazy. You do know that corporations don't pay corporate tax, right? Or did you imagine that the shrewd and "greedy" CEOs and Boards of Directors that the progressively-minded love to hate suddenly found their consciences when it came to surrendering a third of their income to the state? In a very competitive market? Who's crazy now?

All companies do when pressured by tax or unions or trade quotas or whatever is raise the price of their product or shift assets somewhere more friendly. They don't pay the tax, you do.

[CaptainHaplo]

Gimpy - ever learned to put partisan views aside? You might want to try it sometime....

Oh - and your numbers are incorrect - the three tax cuts signed by Walker amount to a total of 118 Million - and the projected shortfall is along the lines of 3.3 Billion - thats with a B.....

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...109275069.html

What Walker is doing is creating a more business friendly environment - meaning more businesses hire more people, thus increasing the tax base and revenue.

Try getting your facts right before you start screaming about how "crazy" people are just because you disagree with their politics. Otherwise it just shows you can't argue an idea or point, and thus have no recourse but to personally disparage your opponent.

PS - to Lance's point... try reading this....
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/po...ate-taxes.html

[gimpy117]

ill put my partisan views aside when you guys do.

There was a correction on the article that i missed, but as the correction article said "it does not make the proposed cute more fiscally responsible" Wisconsin's governor is raising everybody's taxes, But cutting taxes for the rich. In short, everybody BUT the rich are expected to dig that state out of debt. How fair is that.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

and by the way...your article is from 2010

So you're thinking that the budget deficit can transform itself from 140 million to 3.3 billion in four months?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

So you're thinking that the budget deficit can transform itself from 140 million to 3.3 billion in four months?

already changed that statement. but still that was an old atticle.

as i said in my changed post above, Wisconsins governor is cutting taxes for corporations, but asking public employees to pay more in taxes a year. so essentially, the working classes' belt is tightened while corporations are handed 137,000,000 over 3 years. If you need to balance a budget you need to do it fairly. Corporate tax cuts to stimulate the economy are the trickle down effects little brother. The savings they get from these bills rarely go into the workers pocket, much like how the tax savings to rich in the trickle down only really serve to make the rich richer, rather than making them spend more money.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

already changed that statement. but still that was an old atticle.

as i said in my changed post above, Wisconsins governor is cutting taxes for corporations, but asking public employees to pay more in taxes a year. so essentially, the working classes' belt is tightened while corporations are handed 137,000,000 over 3 years. If you need to balance a budget you need to do it fairly. Corporate tax cuts to stimulate the economy are the trickle down effects little brother. The savings they get from these bills rarely go into the workers pocket, much like how the tax savings to rich in the trickle down only really serve to make the rich richer, rather than making them spend more money.

Well for what it's worth the unions say they have no problem with the pension and pay cuts, they just want to reserve their right to stick it to the taxpayer later on when they think they can get away with it again.

As I've said, i'm not a fan of unions but I don't begrudge their existence in the private sector. PUBLIC sector unions on the other hand... Just who are these people organizing against?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

Well for what it's worth the unions say they have no problem with the pension and pay cuts, they just want to reserve their right to stick it to the taxpayer later on when they think they can get away with it again.

As I've said, i'm not a fan of unions but I don't begrudge their existence in the private sector. PUBLIC sector unions on the other hand... Just who are these people organizing against?

I think somebody (anybody) needs to create a thread regarding what a drain public sector unions are on society.

[tater]

Public employees should not be allowed to unionize, period.

Unions are an adversarial relationship with management that has a rational limit. That limit is that the business they work for must continue, even grow, or they are SOL. This is simply not the case WRT public employees. Their "company" can simply print money. They have no rational limits most of the time...

Why? Because their "adversary" is frequently on their side! Imagine if every unionized corporation had a narrowly split management that sometimes would side unerringly with whatever crazy demand the union asked for? Some places might have businesses where the "management" was nothing but union members themselves for decades. Democrats in power... unions can run rampant. Republicans? Hell, unions still usually run rampant because they are under contract, and hold much political power (all wielded towards helping one party—the bosses they want to give them easier jobs for more money).

Hmmm, except those companies would have tanked, unlike, say, a State.

The contractual arrangements between public employees and the public should be decided by the elected officials, period. If they say that city road workers should make $6/hr instead of $26, the people have spoken, take it or leave it. Strike? Fired. Unemployment is well over 10% most places (since many have stopped looking and are off the stats). Fire all of them and start over.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

already changed that statement. but still that was an old atticle.

as i said in my changed post above, Wisconsins governor is cutting taxes for corporations, but asking public employees to pay more in taxes a year. so essentially, the working classes' belt is tightened while corporations are handed 137,000,000 over 3 years. If you need to balance a budget you need to do it fairly. Corporate tax cuts to stimulate the economy are the trickle down effects little brother. The savings they get from these bills rarely go into the workers pocket, much like how the tax savings to rich in the trickle down only really serve to make the rich richer, rather than making them spend more money.

Don't you have homework to do? a union rally to attend in Madison?

Anyway, Where was the newspaper's interest in this prior to Nov?
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._wu_and_h.html

In 2004, The Oregonian reported that Wu, as a student at Stanford University in 1976, was disciplined for trying to force an ex-girlfriend to have sex.

Wu had refused interview requests for months and hired an attorney, Michael Simon, who aggressively attacked the paper's reporting and sought to stop publication. When the story ran three weeks before the election, Wu quickly apologized for his "inexcusable behavior" and was handily re-elected.

That looks like a fancy way of saying "rape." But it's okay it's par for the course in politics here. It's a non-issue.