- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
Rashi just cackled. Wait for it.
What Conservatives Really Want vol. First Political Thread in NT History
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
What's going on in WI is ridiculous. These people think they work under the same environment as people in the private sector. They don't. They work for the State, they are public servants. Governments don't make profit, because they never allocate resources efficiently and they have no reason to. So if they choose to collectively bargain, they are negotiating with tax payer money which is immoral within itself. So the State is going to have to raise taxes, so the same people who they say they are "standing up for" are the people who they are hurting...The Middle Class. Why? Because they are taxed the most. The guy who wrote this article would just say "Well, we need to raise taxes on the rich!". Who is this so-called "rich"? The small business owners who these Public Unions don't like because they aren't Unioned. This creates a terrible environment for economic activity because taxes are too high for business owners, so they will take their employment somewhere else.
What's also funny is that these people who belong to these Public Unions are payed by the tax payer. In their paycheck money gets taken out for "dues" to the Unions, so essentially the taxpayers are funding the special interests of the Unions.
Then this guy says...
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
What's going on in WI is ridiculous. These people think they work under the same environment as people in the private sector. They don't. They work for the State, they are public servants. Governments don't make profit, because they never allocate resources efficiently and they have no reason to. So if they choose to collectively bargain, they are negotiating with tax payer money which is immoral within itself. So the State is going to have to raise taxes, so the same people who they say they are "standing up for" are the people who they are hurting...The Middle Class. Why? Because they are taxed the most. The guy who wrote this article would just say "Well, we need to raise taxes on the rich!". Who is this so-called "rich"? The small business owners who these Public Unions don't like because they aren't Unioned. This creates a terrible environment for economic activity because taxes are too high for business owners, so they will take their employment somewhere else.
What's also funny is that these people who belong to these Public Unions are payed by the tax payer. In their paycheck money gets taken out for "dues" to the Unions, so essentially the taxpayers are funding the special interests of the Unions.
Then this guy says...
- 10,490
- 229
- Joined
- May 2, 2001
- 10,490
- 229
- Joined
- May 2, 2001
budweiser
Banned
- 2,123
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
Originally Posted by rashi
What's also funny is that these people who belong to these Public Unions are payed by the tax payer. In their paycheck money gets taken out for "dues" to the Unions, so essentially the taxpayers are funding the special interests of the Unions.
Ding ding ding. And the Unions are basically Democratic shills. So my tax money went directly to getting Obama elected.
budweiser
Banned
- 2,123
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
Originally Posted by rashi
What's also funny is that these people who belong to these Public Unions are payed by the tax payer. In their paycheck money gets taken out for "dues" to the Unions, so essentially the taxpayers are funding the special interests of the Unions.
Ding ding ding. And the Unions are basically Democratic shills. So my tax money went directly to getting Obama elected.
- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
You're both right. It's a messed up system, and business is better done outside of the office, and alot of the time a sitting down having a drink with someone is/has/and will always be a good business move .....This is why I love Niketalk
When I own my own business, I'm taking all types of exotic trips and writing them off. Moral or Immoral, business isn't a political institution, we allowed it to be turned into part of the political system. Politics is defined as "the art of governing people" period; as a result, even though I am damn near a leftist terrorist, I don't believe the government should regulate business, nor do I believe the people should allow businesses to infiltrate the government.
- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
You're both right. It's a messed up system, and business is better done outside of the office, and alot of the time a sitting down having a drink with someone is/has/and will always be a good business move .....This is why I love Niketalk
When I own my own business, I'm taking all types of exotic trips and writing them off. Moral or Immoral, business isn't a political institution, we allowed it to be turned into part of the political system. Politics is defined as "the art of governing people" period; as a result, even though I am damn near a leftist terrorist, I don't believe the government should regulate business, nor do I believe the people should allow businesses to infiltrate the government.
- 6,805
- 16,578
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
I am a libertarian not conservative and there are many things that conservatives get wrong, especially their support of Imperial wars and the "war on Drugs." However, this author is not using that line of argument. Instead, he is mainly criticizing the more libertarian elements that have finally begun to emerge within mainstream conservatism for the first time in decades. I am not going to deconstruct this line by line but I feel the need to correct a few of the most misleading passages in this piece.
"Budget deficits are a ruse,"
No they are not. The Us national debt is very real it has been growing, its growth has drastically accelerated since 2008 and failure to address this looming crisis we will cause to experience a combination of very high taxes, inflation, default and eventually an inability of the government to borrow money and as a result very harsh austerity measures dictated to us by banks and foreign governments.
High tax rates reduce the growth of an economy, degrade the national standard of living and in the long run, reduce total tax revenues. Inflation will wipe out the modest savings of the middle class and will squeeze working poor people, whose modest purchasing power is primarily focused on buying essentials already. It will mean widespread misery if the poor's purchasing power is cut substantially. Only rich people, who own assets which are resistant to inflation (land, tangible capital goods, businesses and stocks) would be able to withstand the effects of inflation.
Even if the government taxes us more and prints a lot more money, it will end up in a true fiscal crisis it keeps spending more than it takes in through tax revenues. Eventually, the private sector, the ultimate source of all government financing/funding, will stop buying US bonds (and bills and notes and other government issued IOU's). We will have to abruptly halt many services, payments on social security and other benefits and under go very painful austerity measures.
"Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed."
Again, you can only squeeze so much money out of people, high tax rates cause those being taxed to become poorer and unable to pay those high taxes and/or it makes those being heavily taxed leave the the jurisdiction in which they are being taxed, if not that they will move their money out of the high tax zones or conceal wealth and income to avoid paying taxes. He is correct that putting people, reducing unemployment, would help balance the budget but only if that work to which people return consists of economically viable, private sector jobs and not government jobs or jobs that exist only because a firm is getting government stimulus funding.
Most importantly, government cannot develop the economy. It can create the conditions for growth but the private sector grows the economy and economic growth is being inhibited by government actions, especially its disregard for rule of law and its financial irresponsibility and all of the repercussions of that behavior. The President, taking the Orwellian tactic of calling even more deficit spending "investment," is not exactly making households and firms willing to take the calculated risks and make the much needed investment (the real type of investment, where you commit actual, existing wealth to a venture) that are needed for the US Economy to grow, let alone grow quickly enough to bring the US back to full employment.
"They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other."
He is confusing society with the state. The two are not the same. Giving your own wealth to someone who is down on his or her luck is generous and laudable. Giving away other people's money, in order to appear generous is lamentable and at best its effectiveness at helping truly poor and disadvantaged people is mixed and more often it has been counter productive to the task of reducing poverty. I personally do not believe that private charity should completely replace all forms of government benevolence but it is a fact that before the New Deal in the 1930's, Americans tended to be very charitable and despite America being a much poorer country in the year before the New Deal, American society (with little to no government action) did a good job of looking after the poor, the sick and otherwise vulnerable people, at least a good job given the relatively low productivity and therefor relatively high level of poverty among pre 1930's Americans as compared to Americans of today.
If you want to understand the world around you, especially the social sciences, you need to understand that government and society are anything but one and the same.
"The slogan, 'Let the market decide'"
Allowing market outcomes to emerge is not slogan it is an acknowledgement of the reality that scarce resources have to be allocate one way or another and the alternatives tend to be inferior. If you are not allocating scarce resources with prices, you will have to allocate them through violence, through randomized lottery system or through bureaucratic fiat (and in past centuries, through the whim of a local lord, sheik, high priest, warlord or king) and the latter is very unfair because your proximity to that ruler usually means that you get almost everything and the masses get very little.
"The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand)."
The market is not natural, having even quasi functional market system require property rights, rule of law and the freedom to communicate and associate freely with others. Most societies through out human history have not had those things and they made their economic decisions in other ways and usually the average person in that society was extremely poor as result.
I am not conservative but I know that very few libertarians consider the a market centered economy to be moral but rather we see command economies as immoral.
"In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word."
The great irony here is that the free market and the values that make it possible: individual liberty, freedom of contract, property rights and a government that is restrained by rule of law, are hated by people like the man who wrote this article. Those, who want collectivism, economic central planning, social engineering and a government that can do whatever it wants, are advocating for return to a time when people were ruled by autocrats. It is those who have erroneously call themselves "liberals" who want government to take a commanding and patriarchal role in our lives.
"Budget deficits are a ruse,"
No they are not. The Us national debt is very real it has been growing, its growth has drastically accelerated since 2008 and failure to address this looming crisis we will cause to experience a combination of very high taxes, inflation, default and eventually an inability of the government to borrow money and as a result very harsh austerity measures dictated to us by banks and foreign governments.
High tax rates reduce the growth of an economy, degrade the national standard of living and in the long run, reduce total tax revenues. Inflation will wipe out the modest savings of the middle class and will squeeze working poor people, whose modest purchasing power is primarily focused on buying essentials already. It will mean widespread misery if the poor's purchasing power is cut substantially. Only rich people, who own assets which are resistant to inflation (land, tangible capital goods, businesses and stocks) would be able to withstand the effects of inflation.
Even if the government taxes us more and prints a lot more money, it will end up in a true fiscal crisis it keeps spending more than it takes in through tax revenues. Eventually, the private sector, the ultimate source of all government financing/funding, will stop buying US bonds (and bills and notes and other government issued IOU's). We will have to abruptly halt many services, payments on social security and other benefits and under go very painful austerity measures.
"Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed."
Again, you can only squeeze so much money out of people, high tax rates cause those being taxed to become poorer and unable to pay those high taxes and/or it makes those being heavily taxed leave the the jurisdiction in which they are being taxed, if not that they will move their money out of the high tax zones or conceal wealth and income to avoid paying taxes. He is correct that putting people, reducing unemployment, would help balance the budget but only if that work to which people return consists of economically viable, private sector jobs and not government jobs or jobs that exist only because a firm is getting government stimulus funding.
Most importantly, government cannot develop the economy. It can create the conditions for growth but the private sector grows the economy and economic growth is being inhibited by government actions, especially its disregard for rule of law and its financial irresponsibility and all of the repercussions of that behavior. The President, taking the Orwellian tactic of calling even more deficit spending "investment," is not exactly making households and firms willing to take the calculated risks and make the much needed investment (the real type of investment, where you commit actual, existing wealth to a venture) that are needed for the US Economy to grow, let alone grow quickly enough to bring the US back to full employment.
"They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other."
He is confusing society with the state. The two are not the same. Giving your own wealth to someone who is down on his or her luck is generous and laudable. Giving away other people's money, in order to appear generous is lamentable and at best its effectiveness at helping truly poor and disadvantaged people is mixed and more often it has been counter productive to the task of reducing poverty. I personally do not believe that private charity should completely replace all forms of government benevolence but it is a fact that before the New Deal in the 1930's, Americans tended to be very charitable and despite America being a much poorer country in the year before the New Deal, American society (with little to no government action) did a good job of looking after the poor, the sick and otherwise vulnerable people, at least a good job given the relatively low productivity and therefor relatively high level of poverty among pre 1930's Americans as compared to Americans of today.
If you want to understand the world around you, especially the social sciences, you need to understand that government and society are anything but one and the same.
"The slogan, 'Let the market decide'"
Allowing market outcomes to emerge is not slogan it is an acknowledgement of the reality that scarce resources have to be allocate one way or another and the alternatives tend to be inferior. If you are not allocating scarce resources with prices, you will have to allocate them through violence, through randomized lottery system or through bureaucratic fiat (and in past centuries, through the whim of a local lord, sheik, high priest, warlord or king) and the latter is very unfair because your proximity to that ruler usually means that you get almost everything and the masses get very little.
"The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand)."
The market is not natural, having even quasi functional market system require property rights, rule of law and the freedom to communicate and associate freely with others. Most societies through out human history have not had those things and they made their economic decisions in other ways and usually the average person in that society was extremely poor as result.
I am not conservative but I know that very few libertarians consider the a market centered economy to be moral but rather we see command economies as immoral.
"In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word."
The great irony here is that the free market and the values that make it possible: individual liberty, freedom of contract, property rights and a government that is restrained by rule of law, are hated by people like the man who wrote this article. Those, who want collectivism, economic central planning, social engineering and a government that can do whatever it wants, are advocating for return to a time when people were ruled by autocrats. It is those who have erroneously call themselves "liberals" who want government to take a commanding and patriarchal role in our lives.
- 6,805
- 16,578
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
I am a libertarian not conservative and there are many things that conservatives get wrong, especially their support of Imperial wars and the "war on Drugs." However, this author is not using that line of argument. Instead, he is mainly criticizing the more libertarian elements that have finally begun to emerge within mainstream conservatism for the first time in decades. I am not going to deconstruct this line by line but I feel the need to correct a few of the most misleading passages in this piece.
"Budget deficits are a ruse,"
No they are not. The Us national debt is very real it has been growing, its growth has drastically accelerated since 2008 and failure to address this looming crisis we will cause to experience a combination of very high taxes, inflation, default and eventually an inability of the government to borrow money and as a result very harsh austerity measures dictated to us by banks and foreign governments.
High tax rates reduce the growth of an economy, degrade the national standard of living and in the long run, reduce total tax revenues. Inflation will wipe out the modest savings of the middle class and will squeeze working poor people, whose modest purchasing power is primarily focused on buying essentials already. It will mean widespread misery if the poor's purchasing power is cut substantially. Only rich people, who own assets which are resistant to inflation (land, tangible capital goods, businesses and stocks) would be able to withstand the effects of inflation.
Even if the government taxes us more and prints a lot more money, it will end up in a true fiscal crisis it keeps spending more than it takes in through tax revenues. Eventually, the private sector, the ultimate source of all government financing/funding, will stop buying US bonds (and bills and notes and other government issued IOU's). We will have to abruptly halt many services, payments on social security and other benefits and under go very painful austerity measures.
"Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed."
Again, you can only squeeze so much money out of people, high tax rates cause those being taxed to become poorer and unable to pay those high taxes and/or it makes those being heavily taxed leave the the jurisdiction in which they are being taxed, if not that they will move their money out of the high tax zones or conceal wealth and income to avoid paying taxes. He is correct that putting people, reducing unemployment, would help balance the budget but only if that work to which people return consists of economically viable, private sector jobs and not government jobs or jobs that exist only because a firm is getting government stimulus funding.
Most importantly, government cannot develop the economy. It can create the conditions for growth but the private sector grows the economy and economic growth is being inhibited by government actions, especially its disregard for rule of law and its financial irresponsibility and all of the repercussions of that behavior. The President, taking the Orwellian tactic of calling even more deficit spending "investment," is not exactly making households and firms willing to take the calculated risks and make the much needed investment (the real type of investment, where you commit actual, existing wealth to a venture) that are needed for the US Economy to grow, let alone grow quickly enough to bring the US back to full employment.
"They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other."
He is confusing society with the state. The two are not the same. Giving your own wealth to someone who is down on his or her luck is generous and laudable. Giving away other people's money, in order to appear generous is lamentable and at best its effectiveness at helping truly poor and disadvantaged people is mixed and more often it has been counter productive to the task of reducing poverty. I personally do not believe that private charity should completely replace all forms of government benevolence but it is a fact that before the New Deal in the 1930's, Americans tended to be very charitable and despite America being a much poorer country in the year before the New Deal, American society (with little to no government action) did a good job of looking after the poor, the sick and otherwise vulnerable people, at least a good job given the relatively low productivity and therefor relatively high level of poverty among pre 1930's Americans as compared to Americans of today.
If you want to understand the world around you, especially the social sciences, you need to understand that government and society are anything but one and the same.
"The slogan, 'Let the market decide'"
Allowing market outcomes to emerge is not slogan it is an acknowledgement of the reality that scarce resources have to be allocate one way or another and the alternatives tend to be inferior. If you are not allocating scarce resources with prices, you will have to allocate them through violence, through randomized lottery system or through bureaucratic fiat (and in past centuries, through the whim of a local lord, sheik, high priest, warlord or king) and the latter is very unfair because your proximity to that ruler usually means that you get almost everything and the masses get very little.
"The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand)."
The market is not natural, having even quasi functional market system require property rights, rule of law and the freedom to communicate and associate freely with others. Most societies through out human history have not had those things and they made their economic decisions in other ways and usually the average person in that society was extremely poor as result.
I am not conservative but I know that very few libertarians consider the a market centered economy to be moral but rather we see command economies as immoral.
"In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word."
The great irony here is that the free market and the values that make it possible: individual liberty, freedom of contract, property rights and a government that is restrained by rule of law, are hated by people like the man who wrote this article. Those, who want collectivism, economic central planning, social engineering and a government that can do whatever it wants, are advocating for return to a time when people were ruled by autocrats. It is those who have erroneously call themselves "liberals" who want government to take a commanding and patriarchal role in our lives.
"Budget deficits are a ruse,"
No they are not. The Us national debt is very real it has been growing, its growth has drastically accelerated since 2008 and failure to address this looming crisis we will cause to experience a combination of very high taxes, inflation, default and eventually an inability of the government to borrow money and as a result very harsh austerity measures dictated to us by banks and foreign governments.
High tax rates reduce the growth of an economy, degrade the national standard of living and in the long run, reduce total tax revenues. Inflation will wipe out the modest savings of the middle class and will squeeze working poor people, whose modest purchasing power is primarily focused on buying essentials already. It will mean widespread misery if the poor's purchasing power is cut substantially. Only rich people, who own assets which are resistant to inflation (land, tangible capital goods, businesses and stocks) would be able to withstand the effects of inflation.
Even if the government taxes us more and prints a lot more money, it will end up in a true fiscal crisis it keeps spending more than it takes in through tax revenues. Eventually, the private sector, the ultimate source of all government financing/funding, will stop buying US bonds (and bills and notes and other government issued IOU's). We will have to abruptly halt many services, payments on social security and other benefits and under go very painful austerity measures.
"Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed."
Again, you can only squeeze so much money out of people, high tax rates cause those being taxed to become poorer and unable to pay those high taxes and/or it makes those being heavily taxed leave the the jurisdiction in which they are being taxed, if not that they will move their money out of the high tax zones or conceal wealth and income to avoid paying taxes. He is correct that putting people, reducing unemployment, would help balance the budget but only if that work to which people return consists of economically viable, private sector jobs and not government jobs or jobs that exist only because a firm is getting government stimulus funding.
Most importantly, government cannot develop the economy. It can create the conditions for growth but the private sector grows the economy and economic growth is being inhibited by government actions, especially its disregard for rule of law and its financial irresponsibility and all of the repercussions of that behavior. The President, taking the Orwellian tactic of calling even more deficit spending "investment," is not exactly making households and firms willing to take the calculated risks and make the much needed investment (the real type of investment, where you commit actual, existing wealth to a venture) that are needed for the US Economy to grow, let alone grow quickly enough to bring the US back to full employment.
"They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other."
He is confusing society with the state. The two are not the same. Giving your own wealth to someone who is down on his or her luck is generous and laudable. Giving away other people's money, in order to appear generous is lamentable and at best its effectiveness at helping truly poor and disadvantaged people is mixed and more often it has been counter productive to the task of reducing poverty. I personally do not believe that private charity should completely replace all forms of government benevolence but it is a fact that before the New Deal in the 1930's, Americans tended to be very charitable and despite America being a much poorer country in the year before the New Deal, American society (with little to no government action) did a good job of looking after the poor, the sick and otherwise vulnerable people, at least a good job given the relatively low productivity and therefor relatively high level of poverty among pre 1930's Americans as compared to Americans of today.
If you want to understand the world around you, especially the social sciences, you need to understand that government and society are anything but one and the same.
"The slogan, 'Let the market decide'"
Allowing market outcomes to emerge is not slogan it is an acknowledgement of the reality that scarce resources have to be allocate one way or another and the alternatives tend to be inferior. If you are not allocating scarce resources with prices, you will have to allocate them through violence, through randomized lottery system or through bureaucratic fiat (and in past centuries, through the whim of a local lord, sheik, high priest, warlord or king) and the latter is very unfair because your proximity to that ruler usually means that you get almost everything and the masses get very little.
"The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand)."
The market is not natural, having even quasi functional market system require property rights, rule of law and the freedom to communicate and associate freely with others. Most societies through out human history have not had those things and they made their economic decisions in other ways and usually the average person in that society was extremely poor as result.
I am not conservative but I know that very few libertarians consider the a market centered economy to be moral but rather we see command economies as immoral.
"In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word."
The great irony here is that the free market and the values that make it possible: individual liberty, freedom of contract, property rights and a government that is restrained by rule of law, are hated by people like the man who wrote this article. Those, who want collectivism, economic central planning, social engineering and a government that can do whatever it wants, are advocating for return to a time when people were ruled by autocrats. It is those who have erroneously call themselves "liberals" who want government to take a commanding and patriarchal role in our lives.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- 37,057
- 12,407
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
My dude Shep is about to be fired.
Nothing more than politics. Has nothing to do with budgets. Protecting the middle class my !**. Anyone who can't see that is detached from reality. Avg teacher in Wisconsin ($51,000), this was a Fox News number from a different show.. Teachers are the middle class. And I'm going to be of the notion that a teacher's job is one of the most important in this country. They are not what is killing the budget.. Nor have they killed the budget.
"Facts are troublesome creatures from time to time"
First they Killed the Private Unions. Next is the Public Unions. All a shell game. Blame middle class Americans for problems caused by the rich, and pit the middle class against each other. Yet we can cut taxes for the top 2% to the tune of $400+ billion in lost revenue. And we can't even close tax loopholes, nor can we go after money that Corporations put overseas to avoid taxation.
I got news for you, no matter how much you cut taxes, no matter how much you cut wages, no matter how much incentives you give, there will always be some place where it can be done cheaper so they will outsource it overseas anyway.
And before you say I'm rambling, and off topic...It isn't. The same people who are pushing this Union Busting are funded by the same people who killed private unions, drove down worker's wages, and still shipped jobs overseas.
Nothing more than politics. Has nothing to do with budgets. Protecting the middle class my !**. Anyone who can't see that is detached from reality. Avg teacher in Wisconsin ($51,000), this was a Fox News number from a different show.. Teachers are the middle class. And I'm going to be of the notion that a teacher's job is one of the most important in this country. They are not what is killing the budget.. Nor have they killed the budget.
"Facts are troublesome creatures from time to time"
First they Killed the Private Unions. Next is the Public Unions. All a shell game. Blame middle class Americans for problems caused by the rich, and pit the middle class against each other. Yet we can cut taxes for the top 2% to the tune of $400+ billion in lost revenue. And we can't even close tax loopholes, nor can we go after money that Corporations put overseas to avoid taxation.
I got news for you, no matter how much you cut taxes, no matter how much you cut wages, no matter how much incentives you give, there will always be some place where it can be done cheaper so they will outsource it overseas anyway.
And before you say I'm rambling, and off topic...It isn't. The same people who are pushing this Union Busting are funded by the same people who killed private unions, drove down worker's wages, and still shipped jobs overseas.
- 37,057
- 12,407
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
My dude Shep is about to be fired.
Nothing more than politics. Has nothing to do with budgets. Protecting the middle class my !**. Anyone who can't see that is detached from reality. Avg teacher in Wisconsin ($51,000), this was a Fox News number from a different show.. Teachers are the middle class. And I'm going to be of the notion that a teacher's job is one of the most important in this country. They are not what is killing the budget.. Nor have they killed the budget.
"Facts are troublesome creatures from time to time"
First they Killed the Private Unions. Next is the Public Unions. All a shell game. Blame middle class Americans for problems caused by the rich, and pit the middle class against each other. Yet we can cut taxes for the top 2% to the tune of $400+ billion in lost revenue. And we can't even close tax loopholes, nor can we go after money that Corporations put overseas to avoid taxation.
I got news for you, no matter how much you cut taxes, no matter how much you cut wages, no matter how much incentives you give, there will always be some place where it can be done cheaper so they will outsource it overseas anyway.
And before you say I'm rambling, and off topic...It isn't. The same people who are pushing this Union Busting are funded by the same people who killed private unions, drove down worker's wages, and still shipped jobs overseas.
Nothing more than politics. Has nothing to do with budgets. Protecting the middle class my !**. Anyone who can't see that is detached from reality. Avg teacher in Wisconsin ($51,000), this was a Fox News number from a different show.. Teachers are the middle class. And I'm going to be of the notion that a teacher's job is one of the most important in this country. They are not what is killing the budget.. Nor have they killed the budget.
"Facts are troublesome creatures from time to time"
First they Killed the Private Unions. Next is the Public Unions. All a shell game. Blame middle class Americans for problems caused by the rich, and pit the middle class against each other. Yet we can cut taxes for the top 2% to the tune of $400+ billion in lost revenue. And we can't even close tax loopholes, nor can we go after money that Corporations put overseas to avoid taxation.
I got news for you, no matter how much you cut taxes, no matter how much you cut wages, no matter how much incentives you give, there will always be some place where it can be done cheaper so they will outsource it overseas anyway.
And before you say I'm rambling, and off topic...It isn't. The same people who are pushing this Union Busting are funded by the same people who killed private unions, drove down worker's wages, and still shipped jobs overseas.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Avg teacher in Wisconsin ($51,000)
That's a lot of money to some people, considering real unemployment is around 20%. Also, they don't pay no where near as much for their benefits as people in the private sector do.
Teachers are the middle class.
While that maybe true, they don't play by the same rules...
Public unions have a lot of power because they work in a monopolized environment. For example, if these talentless moochers go on strike government monopolized industries like garbage collection, schools, ect wont be utilized and will put pressure on the Mayor to make a decision which leads to "collective bargaining demands".
I got news for you, no matter how much you cut taxes, no matter how much you cut wages, no matter how much incentives you give, there will always be some place where it can be done cheaper so they will outsource it overseas anyway.
The Free Market.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Avg teacher in Wisconsin ($51,000)
That's a lot of money to some people, considering real unemployment is around 20%. Also, they don't pay no where near as much for their benefits as people in the private sector do.
Teachers are the middle class.
While that maybe true, they don't play by the same rules...
Public unions have a lot of power because they work in a monopolized environment. For example, if these talentless moochers go on strike government monopolized industries like garbage collection, schools, ect wont be utilized and will put pressure on the Mayor to make a decision which leads to "collective bargaining demands".
I got news for you, no matter how much you cut taxes, no matter how much you cut wages, no matter how much incentives you give, there will always be some place where it can be done cheaper so they will outsource it overseas anyway.
The Free Market.
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,769
- 80,568
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
You know what the trouble is?
We used to make #%%! in this country, build #%%!. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.
We used to make #%%! in this country, build #%%!. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,769
- 80,568
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
You know what the trouble is?
We used to make #%%! in this country, build #%%!. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.
We used to make #%%! in this country, build #%%!. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
QFT...Irish come to America,, blame them...Jews/Slavs/Italians come to America, blame them. Latin Americans come to America, blame them...And blacks, well just %#@* them they don't even count.
This has been America game for the past 300 hundred years, turn the proletariat against itself and watch them kill themselves as the rich watch laughing from the ivory tower. Slavery, indentured servitude, the attacks on unions outsourcing of jobs, corporatism is a true damn devil.
And who is behind most of this, none other than the Koch Brothers themselves
[h1]Billionaire Brothersâ Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute[/h1][h6]By ERIC LIPTON[/h6][h6]Published: February 21, 2011[/h6]
- Recommend
- Sign In to E-Mail
- Reprints
- ShareClose
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/linkedin.gif");" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">Linkedin
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/digg.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#"
igg - http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/mixx.gif");" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">Mixx
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/myspace.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">MySpace
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/permalink.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">Permalink
WASHINGTON â Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.
http:///www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/02/22/KOCH-1.html">http://www.nytimes.com/im...s/2011/...=580,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')">Enlarge This Image
http:///www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/02/22/KOCH-1.html">http://www.nytimes.com/im...s/2011/...=580,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')">
[h6]Left, Robert Caplin For The New York Times; Dave Williams/Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press[/h6]
David H. Koch, left, and Charles G. Koch have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation.
[h6]Room For Debate[/h6]
[h3]Wisconsin's Blow to Union Power[/h3][h6][/h6]
Will the governor's war on public employees' collective bargaining rights sweep the nation?
[h3]Related[/h3]
- [h6]Union Bonds in Wisconsin Begin to Fray(February 22, 2011)[/h6]
- [h6]Wisconsin G.O.P. Plans to Work Without Democrats(February 22, 2011)[/h6]
The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits.
âWe are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation,â he said.
What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.
State records also show that Koch Industries, their energy and consumer products conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., was one of the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who has championed the proposed cuts.
Even before the new governor was sworn in last month, executives from the Koch-backed group had worked behind the scenes to try to encourage a union showdown, Mr. Phillips said in an interview on Monday.
State governments have gone into the red, he said, in part because of the excessively generous pay and benefits that unions have been able to negotiate for teachers, police, firefighters and other state and local employees.
âWe thought it was important to do,â Mr. Phillips said, adding that his group is already working with activists and state officials in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to urge them to take similar steps to curtail union benefits or give public employees the power to opt out of unions entirely.
To union leaders and liberal activists in Washington, this intervention in Wisconsin is proof of the expanding role played by nonprofit groups with murky ties to wealthy corporate executives as they push a decidedly conservative agenda.
âThe Koch brothers are the poster children of the effort by multinational corporate America to try to redefine the rights and values of American citizens,â said Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, who joined with others in the union protests.
A spokesman for Koch Industries, as well as Mr. Phillips, scoffed at that accusation. The companies owned by Koch (pronounced Coke) â which include the Georgia-Pacific Corporation and the Koch Pipeline Company â have no direct stake in the union debate, they said. The company has about 3,000 employees in Wisconsin, including workers at a toilet paper factory and gasoline supply terminals. The pending legislation would not directly affect its bottom line.
âA balanced budget will benefit Koch Industries and its thousands of employees in Wisconsin no more and no less than the rest of the stateâs private-sector workers and employers,â said Jeff Schoepke, a Koch Industries lobbyist in Wisconsin. âThis is a dispute between public-sector unions and democratically elected officials over how best to serve the public interest.â
Certainly, the Koch brothers have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation, another Koch Industries spokesman said Monday.
But the push to curtail union benefits in Wisconsin has been backed by many conservative groups that have no Koch connection, Mr. Phillips noted.
Americans for Prosperity came to Wisconsin more than five years ago and has thousands of members, he said. The state chapter organized buses on Saturday for hundreds of Wisconsin residents to go to the Capitol to support the governorâs proposals.
âThis is a Wisconsin movement,â said Fred Luber, chief executive of the Supersteel Products Corporation in Milwaukee, who serves on Americans for Prosperityâs Wisconsin state advisory board. âObviously, Washington is interested in this. But it is up to us to do.â
Political activism is high on the list of priorities for Charles Koch, who in a letter last September to other business leaders and conservatives explained that he saw no other choice.
âIf not us, who? If not now, when?â said the letter, which invited other conservatives to a retreat in January in Rancho Mirage, Calif. âIt is up to us to combat what is now the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes.â
Campaign finance records in Washington show that donations by Koch Industries and its employees climbed to a total of $2 million in the last election cycle, twice as much as a decade ago, with 92 percent of that money going to Republicans. Donations in state government races â like in Wisconsin â have also surged in recent years, records show.
But the most aggressive expansion of the Koch brothersâ effort to influence public policy has come through the Americans for Prosperity, which runs both a charitable foundation and a grass-roots-activists group. Mr. Phillips serves as president of both branches, and David Koch is chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The grass-roots-activists wing of the organization today has chapters in 32 states, including Wisconsin, and an e-mail list of 1.6 million supporters, said Mary Ellen Burke, a spokeswoman. She would not say how much of last yearâs $40 million budget came from the Koch family, but nationwide donations have come in from 70,000 members, she said, offering it as proof that it has wide support.
The organization has taken up a range of topics, including combating the health care law, environmental regulations and spending by state and federal governments. The effort to impose limits on public labor unions has been a particular focus in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states with Republican governors, Mr. Phillips said, adding that he expects new proposals to emerge soon in some of those states to limit union power.
To Bob Edgar, a former House Democrat who is now president of Common Cause, a liberal group that has been critical of what it sees as the rising influence of corporate interests in American politics, the Koch brothers are using their money to create a façade of grass-roots support for their favorite causes.
âThis is a dangerous moment in America history,â Mr. Edgar said. âIt is not that these folks donât have a right to participate in politics. But they are moving democracy into the control of more wealthy corporate hands.â
During a demonstration outside the Wisconsin Capitol Monday, one protester made a similar point, holding a sign saying: âGov. Walker: Kick the Koch Habit.â
But Mr. Phillips and members of his group and other conservative activists, not surprisingly, see it very differently.
Just as unions organize to fight for their priorities, conservatives are entitled to a voice of their own.
âThis is a watershed moment in Wisconsin,â Mr. Phillips said. âFor the last two decades, government unions have used their power to drive pensions and benefits and salaries well beyond anything that can be sustained. We are just trying to change that.â
Steven Greenhouse contributed reporting from Madison, Wis.
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
QFT...Irish come to America,, blame them...Jews/Slavs/Italians come to America, blame them. Latin Americans come to America, blame them...And blacks, well just %#@* them they don't even count.
This has been America game for the past 300 hundred years, turn the proletariat against itself and watch them kill themselves as the rich watch laughing from the ivory tower. Slavery, indentured servitude, the attacks on unions outsourcing of jobs, corporatism is a true damn devil.
And who is behind most of this, none other than the Koch Brothers themselves
[h1]Billionaire Brothersâ Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute[/h1][h6]By ERIC LIPTON[/h6][h6]Published: February 21, 2011[/h6]
- Recommend
- Sign In to E-Mail
- Reprints
- ShareClose
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/linkedin.gif");" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">Linkedin
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/digg.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#"igg
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/mixx.gif");" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">Mixx
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/myspace.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">MySpace
- http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/permalink.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#">Permalink
WASHINGTON â Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.
http:///www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/02/22/KOCH-1.html">http://www.nytimes.com/im...s/2011/...=580,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')">Enlarge This Image
http:///www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/02/22/KOCH-1.html">http://www.nytimes.com/im...s/2011/...=580,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')">
[h6]Left, Robert Caplin For The New York Times; Dave Williams/Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press[/h6]
David H. Koch, left, and Charles G. Koch have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation.
[h6]Room For Debate[/h6]
[h3]Wisconsin's Blow to Union Power[/h3][h6][/h6]
Will the governor's war on public employees' collective bargaining rights sweep the nation?
[h3]Related[/h3]
- [h6]Union Bonds in Wisconsin Begin to Fray(February 22, 2011)[/h6]
- [h6]Wisconsin G.O.P. Plans to Work Without Democrats(February 22, 2011)[/h6]
The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits.
âWe are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation,â he said.
What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.
State records also show that Koch Industries, their energy and consumer products conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., was one of the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who has championed the proposed cuts.
Even before the new governor was sworn in last month, executives from the Koch-backed group had worked behind the scenes to try to encourage a union showdown, Mr. Phillips said in an interview on Monday.
State governments have gone into the red, he said, in part because of the excessively generous pay and benefits that unions have been able to negotiate for teachers, police, firefighters and other state and local employees.
âWe thought it was important to do,â Mr. Phillips said, adding that his group is already working with activists and state officials in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to urge them to take similar steps to curtail union benefits or give public employees the power to opt out of unions entirely.
To union leaders and liberal activists in Washington, this intervention in Wisconsin is proof of the expanding role played by nonprofit groups with murky ties to wealthy corporate executives as they push a decidedly conservative agenda.
âThe Koch brothers are the poster children of the effort by multinational corporate America to try to redefine the rights and values of American citizens,â said Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, who joined with others in the union protests.
A spokesman for Koch Industries, as well as Mr. Phillips, scoffed at that accusation. The companies owned by Koch (pronounced Coke) â which include the Georgia-Pacific Corporation and the Koch Pipeline Company â have no direct stake in the union debate, they said. The company has about 3,000 employees in Wisconsin, including workers at a toilet paper factory and gasoline supply terminals. The pending legislation would not directly affect its bottom line.
âA balanced budget will benefit Koch Industries and its thousands of employees in Wisconsin no more and no less than the rest of the stateâs private-sector workers and employers,â said Jeff Schoepke, a Koch Industries lobbyist in Wisconsin. âThis is a dispute between public-sector unions and democratically elected officials over how best to serve the public interest.â
Certainly, the Koch brothers have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation, another Koch Industries spokesman said Monday.
But the push to curtail union benefits in Wisconsin has been backed by many conservative groups that have no Koch connection, Mr. Phillips noted.
Americans for Prosperity came to Wisconsin more than five years ago and has thousands of members, he said. The state chapter organized buses on Saturday for hundreds of Wisconsin residents to go to the Capitol to support the governorâs proposals.
âThis is a Wisconsin movement,â said Fred Luber, chief executive of the Supersteel Products Corporation in Milwaukee, who serves on Americans for Prosperityâs Wisconsin state advisory board. âObviously, Washington is interested in this. But it is up to us to do.â
Political activism is high on the list of priorities for Charles Koch, who in a letter last September to other business leaders and conservatives explained that he saw no other choice.
âIf not us, who? If not now, when?â said the letter, which invited other conservatives to a retreat in January in Rancho Mirage, Calif. âIt is up to us to combat what is now the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes.â
Campaign finance records in Washington show that donations by Koch Industries and its employees climbed to a total of $2 million in the last election cycle, twice as much as a decade ago, with 92 percent of that money going to Republicans. Donations in state government races â like in Wisconsin â have also surged in recent years, records show.
But the most aggressive expansion of the Koch brothersâ effort to influence public policy has come through the Americans for Prosperity, which runs both a charitable foundation and a grass-roots-activists group. Mr. Phillips serves as president of both branches, and David Koch is chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The grass-roots-activists wing of the organization today has chapters in 32 states, including Wisconsin, and an e-mail list of 1.6 million supporters, said Mary Ellen Burke, a spokeswoman. She would not say how much of last yearâs $40 million budget came from the Koch family, but nationwide donations have come in from 70,000 members, she said, offering it as proof that it has wide support.
The organization has taken up a range of topics, including combating the health care law, environmental regulations and spending by state and federal governments. The effort to impose limits on public labor unions has been a particular focus in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states with Republican governors, Mr. Phillips said, adding that he expects new proposals to emerge soon in some of those states to limit union power.
To Bob Edgar, a former House Democrat who is now president of Common Cause, a liberal group that has been critical of what it sees as the rising influence of corporate interests in American politics, the Koch brothers are using their money to create a façade of grass-roots support for their favorite causes.
âThis is a dangerous moment in America history,â Mr. Edgar said. âIt is not that these folks donât have a right to participate in politics. But they are moving democracy into the control of more wealthy corporate hands.â
During a demonstration outside the Wisconsin Capitol Monday, one protester made a similar point, holding a sign saying: âGov. Walker: Kick the Koch Habit.â
But Mr. Phillips and members of his group and other conservative activists, not surprisingly, see it very differently.
Just as unions organize to fight for their priorities, conservatives are entitled to a voice of their own.
âThis is a watershed moment in Wisconsin,â Mr. Phillips said. âFor the last two decades, government unions have used their power to drive pensions and benefits and salaries well beyond anything that can be sustained. We are just trying to change that.â
Steven Greenhouse contributed reporting from Madison, Wis.
- 37,057
- 12,407
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
The Free Market.
And with that what you are telling me.. Hands off Government Free Market in the Economy doesn't work to facilitate jobs, because the counties they flee to are far more unregulated (and the reason they go is that wages are so low, which would be what would happen in the US without regulation)... And in your view at the same time government intervention doesn't work either to facilitate jobs
Further proves my point. The Free Market is nothing but transferring wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich..
Glad we can all agree "Unregulated Free Market Capitalism" either 1. Drives down wages for those who actually work. 2. The Free Market just doesn't work
But rejoice Free Market Capitalists you can always have your utopia in Somalia. They seem pretty anti-regulation there.
- 37,057
- 12,407
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
The Free Market.
And with that what you are telling me.. Hands off Government Free Market in the Economy doesn't work to facilitate jobs, because the counties they flee to are far more unregulated (and the reason they go is that wages are so low, which would be what would happen in the US without regulation)... And in your view at the same time government intervention doesn't work either to facilitate jobs
Further proves my point. The Free Market is nothing but transferring wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich..
Glad we can all agree "Unregulated Free Market Capitalism" either 1. Drives down wages for those who actually work. 2. The Free Market just doesn't work
But rejoice Free Market Capitalists you can always have your utopia in Somalia. They seem pretty anti-regulation there.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
