Re: Senator Pam Galloway Resigns Seat On Wisconsin Legislature, GOP Loses Senate Cont
Did you mention Obamas Job Czar Mr Jefferly Immelt (GE) who moved a company from Milwaukee that had been there 100+ years to China? I would bet that the Obama regime is doing everything possible to try to bring Walker down and this is just one example. With that said, what do you think is going to bring more jobs to Wisconsin then, more big goverment? More big spending putting us further into debt? No doubt Walker was foolish to make such bold job predictions with this president in charge and he may eventually pay for it at the ballot box. But that is much more reason to vote him out than the narrow selfish interests of the public sector unions.
PolitiFact: Update on the jobs promise - JSOnline
Net job creation since the Walker Budget took effect in July, 2011 - minus 6000 - and THAT is if the 15,700 for January 2012 isn't lowered - as all of the 2011 months were lowered.
I'm sure that Walker
wants to create jobs, every politician does. His biggest enemy to job creation is his own damn policies, though.
The only thing that creates job growth is demand. Period. Taxes have little to no effect on job creation. It's a Republican myth that their followers believe.
Foreign profit tax break was costly bomb: report | Reuters
Tax Holiday for $1 Trillion May Lure Back Profits Without Growth - Bloomberg
In 2004, Republicans gave multinational corporations a MASSIVE tax break on foreign-made profits (which are actually American-made profits that are fraudulently moved overseas to avoid taxes) costing the government approximately $33 Billion in revenues. They called it a jobs creation bill; but all the corporations did was give bonuses to CEOs. The biggest recipient was Hewlitt-Packard, who repatriated $14.5 Billion in profits and promptly, one-week later laid off 15,000 people. Republicans essentially gave them a $1 million bonus for every person they laid off.
Tax cuts do NOT lead to jobs. Indeed, as in Walker's case, it actually lowers job numbers.
An employer or owner is only going to pocket the money UNLESS demand for his product or services rises to the point where he has no choice to hire someone.
There are probably some really nice people out there who hire someone simply to be nice to that person if they have the money, but they are rare.
What's further infuriating about Walker and the anti-employee people is this: instead of looking to their own employer and asking why their benefits suck in comparison to state employees, they want to take benefits away from other working people. This creates a downward effect on what private sector employees receive in benefits. Unions have benefits to people who aren't in them.
If you have a union factory next to a non-union factory and the union factory is paying its people $24/hour and the non-union shop is offering $15/hour - where are the better employees going to go? To try to attract good employees, the non-union factory has to at least get close enough to the union benefits to be attractive. If there isn't a competing union factory offering better wages, then the non-union factory can lower their offer to $12/hour (or less) and everyone in the area suffers (except the owners of the factory, who are pocketing their savings).
This is exactly what's been happening as the Republican attack on unions has continued over the past 30 years. With union participation in general at it's lowest numbers, wages for working people have been basically stagnant, while CEO salaries have risen to an outrageous 300X what their employees are paid. And when you make the capital gains rate significantly lower than you make the rate for actual work, you clearly believe that working is worth less than existing wealth. You also make it more difficult for those without wealth to earn their way upward.
We have let one small class of people convince us all that they are so valuable to the nation that they deserve to be paid 300 to 500 times more than even a well-paid working person. Why, if we didn't pay them that much, they might leave the country. If we tax them the same way as we tax a working person, they might take their "talents" elsewhere (like Ayn Rand's mythical island paradise for capitalists). But where? There is NO country anywhere who pays their CEO's the rates that American corporations pay them. Most developed nations pay anywhere for 11 to 50 times wages. Here it's nearly 400 times. So tell me where these oh-so-valuable people will go? Especially considering that they pay much lower taxes here than they do in any country a wealthy person would want to live in (possible exception of the UAE, but if you want to live under Muslim laws, go ahead).
There was a president once who specifically set out to tax capital gains the same way working income is taxed - and that radical liberal was
Ronald Reagan. One thing he did that I can actually agree with.
