March 9, 2011

"Polls are nice, if they are on your side... But in the end, you've got to govern based upon what you think is the right thing."

Scott Walker, who's not backing down.

266 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 266 of 266
Meade said...

"As unions disappear, the bad old days for workers come back."

Workers? Government employees are not "workers." Did you learn nothing in Marxism 101?

In 21st century Wisconsin, government employees are bourgeois: professionals, bureaucrats, middle class. They are not proletariat: wage laborers, working class, peasants. Try to catch up, fls.

E.M. Davis said...

*Oh, and by the way, Palladian is one of the regular teabagging fools who spend half their life here, sucking on The Queen and Needy.

Actually, maybe we should unionize the comments section so that all positions on the ideological spectrum can be equally repesented.

Jeremy said...

Speaking of teabagger fools...sometimes you just can't make this stuff up:

ATLANTA (AP) - Newt Gingrich says his passion for his country contributed to his marital infidelity. In an interview posted Wednesday by The Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich - who recently converted to Catholicism - said he had sought God's forgiveness for mistakes in his past.

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate," Gingrich said.

-His "passion for his country" made him screw around on his dying wife.

The Founding Fathers would be so proud...

E.M. Davis said...

"Friends?" You know these people personally...or just agree with their politics

No, I don't agree with their politics, and yes they are friends.

Is this difficult to comprehend that I don't hold ideological viewpoints against people I free associate with?

E.M. Davis said...

Speaking of teabagger fools...sometimes you just can't make this stuff up

Newt Gingrich is a douche. Next?

Jeremy said...

E.M. - "No, I don't agree with their politics, and yes they are friends."

When was the last time you saw any of them in person? Or spoken to them?

Ever.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Meade

Love the new 'avatar' ;)

I agree, the 'worker' term is played (as is the supposed importance of unions in general) and certainly does not apply to the modern government employee.

On the contrary, today's government employee enjoys a plethora of benefits and an environment folks of 100 years ago could only dream of.

When unionists and other leftists refer to them 'workers', this is code for their 'vulnerability' and hence the need for the ever doting and protective mother 'union'.

Jeremy said...

WASHINGTON -- Union officials in Wisconsin are accusing Gov. Scott Walker of selectively leaking emails in an effort to come off as more compromising than he has been in the debate over his sharply contested budget bill.

“Scott Walker is literally being sued by multiple Wisconsin media outlets for failing to release emails related to the budget repair bill, yet he’s willing to selectively leak emails he believes create the illusion he’s willing to make concessions,” said Rick Badger, Executive Director of a local AFSCME affiliate. “If Scott Walker really wants to negotiate, he should name a time and place and sit down with Democratic Senators. This deal is not going to be struck through stunts involving leaked emails and press conferences.”

Several days ago, the governor’s legal counsel was demanding more than $30,000 in printing fees from the Associated Press for its email requests.

The AP along with two local news organizations responded to that demand by suing the governor for violating the Wisconsin Open Records law. The Journal Sentinel, meanwhile, said it was satisfied with the records they were granted on Tuesday evening, confident that the governor had not left out anything by design.

Roger J. said...

A few thoughts--wealth is different from income thus farmers while they may have wealth in terms of land values may still have little income

Second--this exercise in political theater is worthwhile--it has taken the focus off other states who are about to stick it up the unions ass: Ohio for example and I suspect Tennessee in the near future

so do carry on wisonsin--you can see other results in Ohio in the very near future.

Jeremy said...

Don't Tread - "On the contrary, today's government employee enjoys a plethora of benefits and an environment folks of 100 years ago could only dream of."

As do all of the American workers who have the right to collective bargaining.

Duh.

garage mahal said...

Teachers make more than $45k. They get virtually free health insurance and retirement benefits.

Their pensions and health care are part of their compensation, for the work they performed. Pensions are just deferred compensation. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin's pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers. The phrase "contribute more" is actually nonsensical.

Jeremy said...

Roger J. said..."A few thoughts--wealth is different from income thus farmers while they may have wealth in terms of land values may still have little income."

I bet it's at least as much as a teacher.

Trooper York said...

I have to words that will unite everyone in Wisconsin and give them something to agree on:

Tiki Barber.

Trooper York said...

Just let the Packers sign him and you will come together in hating someone.

Trooper York said...

Oh and he is a millionaire so garage and jeremy can really hate him and tax him back to the stone age.

Roger J. said...

Jeremy--you dont know much about farming do you--as evidenced by your bullshit observation--but do carry on son. Your ignnorance is manifest.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Jeremy

"As do all of the American workers who have the right to collective bargaining.

Duh."

Greetings, Jeremy.

There is no such thing as a 'right' to collective bargaining.

What is so great about collective bargaining, anyways?

If I allowed my position and salary to be subject to 'collective bargaining', I assure you I would be leaving a lot of money on the table.

Clearly, as indicated by the words and actions of the president, all 'workers' as you call them are not created or treated equally.

I am not a 'worker'. A 'worker' is a supplicant to a union. The term 'worker' is derogatory in nature because the assumption is that 'workers' need representation and/or protection from someone or something.

As an independent person I find that offensive.

Roger J. said...

it seems that some do not understand the difference between pulic sector and private sector unions--not worth the time nor effort to explain that to morons.

madawaskan said...

I suspect the reason Walker did not do the Executive Order option is possibly that option is not available to him in the WI state constitution. (I'm on my iPhone-can't look it up.)

And if Walker can accomplish this legislatively it will last a lot longer- it will be harder to overturn.

***

fls

You're vote with your feet remedy-as in if you don't like it-move, is a two way street.

Business that doesn't like the economic environment in WI can move.

And there might be evidence that they have- IIRC Wisconsin has the 40th worst environment for business when it comes to taxes, etc.

Paddy O said...

Republicans got us the ending of slavery.

Send the Republicans money or you clearly want a return to the slave system in America.

You're racist if you don't support Republicans!

E.M. Davis said...

When was the last time you saw any of them in person? Or spoken to them?

Ever.


Uh, yesterday?

HINT: I work in a typically "creative" field, no stranger to the leftmost of ideologies.

Meade said...

Yea Paddy O!

Comrade X said...

Their pensions and health care are part of their compensation, for the work they performed. Pensions are just deferred compensation.

Call it whatever you want, it's an asset with a cash value. I don't much care how millionaires acquired their assets. I'm pretty sure the farmers earned theirs too.

So I guess the takeaway is you want to exempt public employee millionaires from your millionaire tax.

Hoosier Daddy said...

As unions disappear, the bad old days for workers come back.

Indeed. Let me know when the plethora of labor laws and EEOC are abolished.

Jeremy said...

Trooper York said..."Oh and he is a millionaire so garage and jeremy can really hate him and tax him back to the stone age."

I've never said that I "hate" millionaires. Only that they should be paying a higher percentage of their incomes in tax.

As for your "stone age" comment, it fits the intellectual capacity of many of your fellow teabagging knuckle-dragging buddies who post here on a regular basis.

I also feel the word "hate" is one of the more over-used terms by people with limited vocabularies.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Their pensions and health care are part of their compensation, for the work they performed.

So? Each year my employer provides me with a breakdown of my total compensation. That total shows my salary and the monetary value of my benefits. My benefits are part of my 'total compensation'.

Jeremy said...

Paddy - "You're racist if you don't support Republicans!"

That must be why there are so many black leaders in the GOP...

Duh.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I've never said that I "hate" millionaires. Only that they should be paying a higher percentage of their incomes in tax.

Why? Serious question because lets say for example, I invent a product, take the risk of borrowing money to produce it, market it and see to it that I have a successful product and become a millionaire, I should pay a higher percentage of my income?

So in other words, if I am sucessful you believe more of my earnings should be confiscated.

Jeremy said...

"Uh, yesterday?"

Uh, bullshit.

MayBee said...

That must be why there are so many black leaders in the GOP...

Are there a lot of black union leaders?

MayBee said...

NEA President - white
AFL-CIO President - white
AFSCME President - white
SEIU- white
UAW - white

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - So you're a defender of the American millionaire, huh? You feel they're being over taxed and deserve a break?

Now that's funny...

Households with incomes over $1 million paid income tax equal to 22.1 percent of their adjusted gross income in 2007.

Households with the average American income of $39,000 paid in at 13.4%

And of course, that doesn't take into account the millionaires who, via write-offs and other accounting procedures pay much less or nothing at all.

E.M. Davis said...

Uh, bullshit.

The fact that you're not willing to accept this is bizarre beyond comprehension.

And besides, what difference does it make?

Jeremy said...

MayBee said..."NEA President - white
AFL-CIO President - white
AFSCME President - white
SEIU- white
UAW - white"

These are now political parties?

Everybody associated with what you've listed vote Democrat?

Can you follow up with a list of the black GOP leaders?

Duh.

E.M. Davis said...

So, Jeremy has no "right wing" (for lack of a better term) friends?

Who lives in the echo chamber, again?

Jeremy said...

E. M. - I think you're lying.

Bruce Hayden said...

So in other words, if I am sucessful you believe more of my earnings should be confiscated..

One of the big problems here is termed "moral hazard". There are a lot of reasons why some people make more money than others, but some of the biggest are that they work harder and longer, and they may have delayed gratification much longer. So, instead of starting work at 18 just out of high school, they may get their MD, put in a residency, maybe work as a post-doc, and then hit the job market in their late 20s or maybe even into their 30s. Since most Americans are unwilling to do that, it makes sense to pay them more, and, maybe even a lot more.

Jeremy said...

E.M. - I never said I have no right wing friends.

I said that you're not actually "friends" with anybody here. The fact that you have, at some point in time, had some kind of contact doesn't make you "friends."

You and others can post all the bullshit drivel about how close you are, and how you all communicate outside of this forum, but it's just a crock.

Hell, you don't even post your profile...that how "close" you feel to your good "friends."

MayBee said...

These are now political parties?

Everybody associated with what you've listed vote Democrat?

Can you follow up with a list of the black GOP leaders?


No, I was just trying to figure out how you defined "racist". You seemed to be saying not having some number of black leaders was evidence of the Republicans' racism.
So I was looking at some other groups without black leaders and wondering if the same metric applies.

E.M. Davis said...

I said that you're not actually "friends" with anybody here. The fact that you have, at some point in time, had some kind of contact doesn't make you "friends."


I was never referring to the commenters at Althouse. I was referring to my friends whom I do not share ideology with, whom are not Althouse commenters.

Sorry for the confusion.

Jeremy said...

MayBee - "No, I was just trying to figure out how you defined "racist". You seemed to be saying not having some number of black leaders was evidence of the Republicans' racism.
So I was looking at some other groups without black leaders and wondering if the same metric applies."

Actually I was responding to Paddy's inane comment above: "You're racist if you don't support Republicans!"

But I bet there are one hell of a lot more racists in the GOP than in the Democratic Party.

*Now watch how long it takes for a teabagger to post...just watch...here it comes...

Bruce Hayden said...

Households with incomes over $1 million paid income tax equal to 22.1 percent of their adjusted gross income in 2007.

Households with the average American income of $39,000 paid in at 13.4
%

My guess here is that you are conflating income taxes with total taxes, since most households with that level of income pay little if any "income" tax. What they do pay are payroll taxes, and they pay social security on their entire incomes, while those with incomes above $1 million only pay SS on a small portion of their income (but then don't get SS payouts on the income not taxed by SS).

In any case, your figures seem to suggest to me that those making over $1 million are already paying too much in taxes. I don't see it as fair that they pay at double the rate that those earning less than $45k or so do, and that doesn't seem fair to me.

MayBee said...

Actually I was responding to Paddy's inane comment above: "You're racist if you don't support Republicans!"

You read the whole comment, right? The logic he used to introduce that sentence?

Jeremy said...

Bruce - "Average Income $39,527 - Federal Tax $10,406 - Effective Tax Rate 13.4%"

Wisconsin: $36,990 - $8,080 - 12.0%

E.M. Davis said...

"You're racist if you don't support Republicans!"

Some people like to use absurdity to point out the absurd.

E.M. Davis said...

"Average Income $39,527 - Federal Tax $10,406 - Effective Tax Rate 13.4%"


Somebody's math is broken.

Jeremy said...

MayBee - Yeah, I know all about how the Republicans saved the union and freed the slaves.

Now, just for fun...how about something a tad more current?

Name all of the top black leaders of the GOP.

Bruce Hayden said...

But that brings us to why collective bargaining for state employees is so much an issue these days.

The problem is that their union dues have bought politicians, and those politicians then sit on the other side of the bargaining table from the unions that got them elected. And, so, no one should be surprised when those politicians, bought by the government worker unions, agree to pay and benefits that the state cannot afford.

So, why should the taxpayers of a state be happy that their unionized state employees make more than they do, and have far better benefits?

Jeremy said...

E.M - "The effective tax rate is the amount of tax an individual or firm pays when all other government tax offsets or payments are applied, divided by the tax base (total income or spending)."

Duh.

E.M. Davis said...

Well, it also depends upon how one files.

I ran the numbers for single and came up with 12.58%

If you file married jointly, the effective rate drops to 8.27%

Head of household, 8.88%

Married separately, 12.46%

Qualified Widower, 8,27%

What's the point again? Millionaires only have an effective rate of 22.1% and that's unfair?

Theoretically, the effective rate for someone pulling down $2.1m filing jointly should be roughly 37%.

Jeremy said...

Regardless of how you do the math...millionaires have many more options relating to write-offs that effect their overall tax burden.

They also spend a much smaller percentage of their income on the necessities of life.

The argument for lowering the taxes on the wealthy is that they will invest in businesses that will in turn create jobs...and I think (especially in this economy) that that is bullshit.

Right now, according to a friend who handles big real estate sales, homes that cost over $1,000,000 are selling like crazy, and almost 50% are being paid for in CASH.

That should tell you what they're investing in...and it ain't jobs.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce - "Average Income $39,527 - Federal Tax $10,406 - Effective Tax Rate 13.4%"

That seems to be an admission that we are talking federal taxes, and not just federal income taxes.

If you know how to encode HTML links, could you provide one to your statistics? You obviously are not actually making up figures here, but copying and pasting them from somewhere else. There is something hinky with your numbers, and providing the source should allow us to see what it is, if they are indeed questionable.

The basic problem here is that the deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. for the lowest incomes result in almost zero income taxes being paid by that group. But, since most of their income tends to be salary and wages, they tend to pay the maximum there. But, even then, the $10k for someone at that income level seems quite high. c

E.M. Davis said...

The argument for lowering the taxes on the wealthy is that they will invest in businesses that will in turn create jobs...and I think (especially in this economy) that that is bullshit.

Then why do tax receipts increase when rates are lowered?

Here's my plan — eliminate all deductions/incentives/loopholes, etc and lower the rates. Simplify the entire code.

I suppose CPAs would not be in favor of my approach.

Methadras said...

Jeremy said...

As do all of the American workers who have the right to collective bargaining.

Duh.


Ah, yes, Jeremy the fellating scrotal sack shows us his effluvia about a common misconception, and typical of being the type of rabid unhinged leftard that he is, that collective bargaining is a right. It isn't, it's a privilege. Even the AFL-CIO doesn't agree with you, pap stain:

George Meany, former president of the AFL-CIO in 1955 said: “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

The union’s Executive Council in 1959 said: “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”

U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics show that public sector employees, many of them unionized, make nearly $40.00 an hour in combined wages and benefits versus roughly $27.50 for those in the private sector.

In your twisted bizarro world, which of course is most likely a total union stooge. Public sector unions have a monopoly over work that is done in government which is leveraged over raising taxes and inflates budgets to consider those very taxes.

Then the rest of you stooges whine like the gutted pigs you should be about the over-market compensation you claim not to get when the average government union employee has better health benefits that the tax payer pays for without a vote, better job security because they are protected by the lowest common denominator within their unions, something the private sector does not enjoy, get gold plated pensions, and earlier retirements at better than average salary percentages then most private sector and private sector unions.

Plus, your vaunted unions force union dues to be paid or the employee is subject to being fired because these unions negotiate provisions that allow for it that they never usually get to vote on which directly dovetails into the fact that public employee unions are nothing more than giant political machines that rake in billions from compulsory dues to be used to elect even the management they negotiate with, and spend that dues money on their candidates who will promise them any concessions they desire which is exactly why you see the mess you see in the first state to allow these parasites, which includes you, to exist in the first place, Wisconsin.

Your a fucking moron of the 1st order, your constant thread crapping is tolerated because you just shit words onto a screen in such sheer volume that it leaves anyone reading them that much dumber for having done so. You are the type of rock bottom piece of sub-human garbage that has created the animosity today, but that's what you like right, because you basically support and adhere to unamerican/anti-american sentiments just like you love to do.

I can't wait to see what kind of epileptic seizure you are going to show us some more, shit-squeeze.

Michael said...

Jeremy: All cash investments in housing do not positively impact the housing market? And the cash before it was invested was where? Under a mattress? It would not hurt to learn something about a system you despise just as generals are encouraged to learn as much as possible about the enemy. You know nothing and therefore are harmless, without the slightest status as a combatant. You will note that after the Bush tax rates were extended that the economy has begun to gain steam and the private sector has begun to hire. Govt. hiring has stalled. You should know why both of these phenomenon are occurring. But you don't.

Bruce Hayden said...

Right now, according to a friend who handles big real estate sales, homes that cost over $1,000,000 are selling like crazy, and almost 50% are being paid for in CASH.

Actually, what it probably means is just the opposite - in most markets there are sweat spots.

So, last year in the Denver area, houses selling at a million were selling far faster than those selling at $3/4 million. Why? It wasn't people upgrading from the $3/4 million house to the $1 million dollar house, but rather, those downgrading from the $2-3 million dollar houses. And the cash was what they had left after paying off their mortgages.

Of course, there are those who are not investing in their businesses right now because of all the anti-business legislation passed by the 111th Congress, such as ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, etc. But that has less to do with tax rates and more to do with the anti-small-business climate right now (thanks to the Democrats' Crony Capitalism though, the climate for big business is better than ever - think GE and its maybe 3% percent income tax rate).

E.M. Davis said...

Right now, according to a friend who handles big real estate sales, homes that cost over $1,000,000 are selling like crazy, and almost 50% are being paid for in CASH

Real estate is not an investment?

Well, let's just say it's a much l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-n-g-e-r term investment than it used to be.

Methadras said...

Jeremy said...

Hell, you don't even post your profile...that how "close" you feel to your good "friends."


So says Gene, the A/V fag.

Bruce Hayden said...

MayBee said..."NEA President - white
AFL-CIO President - white
AFSCME President - white
SEIU- white
UAW - white"

These are now political parties
?

Of course not. They are unions. I think that if you were to reread her post, you would see that her point was that the people running the biggest unions are even more lily white than corporations are.

Bruce Hayden said...

Their pensions and health care are part of their compensation, for the work they performed. Pensions are just deferred compensation. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin's pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers. The phrase "contribute more" is actually nonsensical.

Sure, at some abstract level. But what you have to keep in mind here is that a lot of things are going on with government employees that don't with employees in the private sector. One thing is that federal law essentially forces full funding of private sector pensions. This is one of the big reasons that they have mostly moved to defined contribution plans, instead of the defined benefit plans that so most state and local government employees have, and what so bankrupted the automobile companies (and why the Obama Administration screwed senior bond holders at GM and Chrysler).

So, you have the big problem here that much of the pension money that you are attributing to being part of the compensation for the government employees just doesn't exist. All it is is promises by the state to pay those benefits when they ultimately come due. That means that the politicians agreeing to those pensions aren't actually giving away money from their own budgets, but future budgets. Which is convenient for the politicians, since it gets them reelected with the generous help from the unions that they so help, and for the government employees who get these benefits, but not good at all for the taxpayers who will have to ultimately pay them.

Secondly, providing huge benefit packages, in relation to wages, is a covert way to increase the actual compensation for the government workers (who elected the politicians giving them the benefit increases) without having to actually show that many of these government employees are now greatly over-compensated.

So, yes, making the government employees pay something for their pensions and their other benefits does reduce their overall compensation. And that is because the governments hiring them can no longer afford the gold-plated compensation packages, and this is easier than actually cutting salaries.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, the discussion about collective bargaining rights in WI now is looking moot: Wis. GOP strips public workers' bargaining rights.

The Democrats in the Senate refused to return from Illinois, and so the bill was apparently passed with no real opposition.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier - So you're a defender of the American millionaire, huh? You feel they're being over taxed and deserve a break?

Thats not what I said. I assumed you had a rudimentary grasp of English but as evidenced by your comment, I have to assume you simply found a new depth of stupidity to display.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Right now, according to a friend ...

Now there's a credible testimonial. That's right up there with I know a guy whose second cousin on his mother's side has a picture of the Loch Ness monster.

shiloh said...

Doing the quick math, and "we" all know math is my best subject, from post #70 to #257, (188) posts, E.M. Davis had (50) posts.

Who the hell can compete w/that!

Although at Nate Silver's old blog, there was this friendly troll, Charles, who had well over half of the first (100) posts a couple times.

As Alex reminded me yesterday, less is more ...

E.M. Davis said...

Doing the quick math, and "we" all know math is my best subject, from post #70 to #257, (188) posts, E.M. Davis had (50) posts.

I had some downtime. How many did Jeremy have?

shiloh said...

Since you asked :)

From post #73 to #251, (179) posts, Jeremy had (46) posts. Just a tad shy! ;)

CWCID lol

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 266 of 266   Newer› Newest»