• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Governor to Missing Democrats: Do Your Job

ReverendHellh0und said:
Mr v.,

Midwestlib is not your stereotypical what libs see. He's not parroting media matters Nor is he a blind partisan.

We would be wise to consider his positions no matter how much we may disagree.

I disagree with almost everything thus far but his honesty and pov is refreshing for both sides to see. He presents it without ego and hes willing to listen to oir side.
Click to expand...

Thank you rev, that was very gentlemanly.
 
MrVicchio said:
Perhaps, it could also be they didn't want the PSU to go bonkers too. One problem at a time.
Click to expand...

That is a possibility, but given the evidence that the PSU supported the governor in his election and remain the only untouched public sector union seems just too fishy. Walkers dishonesty in the situation is what truly bothers me.
 
Walter said:
Really? Do you actually know the facts? The unions are only being asked to contribute 12% to their Medical insurance coverage...the private sector contributes 20% or better. The unions are being asked to pay 5% into their own pension plans, the private sector averages well over 7%. There is no demand for a decrease in pay, they still will be averaging more than 30% more than their private sector counter parts. But this legislation will stop the laying off of over 5 thousand public employees if the Union would concede these to small demands.

But....it was just weeks ago, the left was preaching to the right about being CIVIL as leadership talk does effect the population, just today we see signs calling the governor of Wis. Hitler, and a Terrorist, the end of democracy (Which I kind of agree with if the union constitutions are allowed to be superior to the oath these PUBLIC SERVANT take to defend our national CONSTITUTION) while the children are being denied an education...yet the left continually TALKS about the value of education. Where is the Prez...chastising all the hate filled angry speech, as he did only weeks ago...nope, He comes out and says this is an attack on UNIONS. When in reality the BUDGET must be saved or there will be 5000 fewer UNION MEMBERS with jobs shortly. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Click to expand...

If you think I'm clueless on this issue, you clearly have jumped to the last page and read none of my previous posts. I'm going to take this one line at a time.

You make your comparisons in statistics between the private and public sector. You obviously didn't read my post referring to the WI QEO law enacted in 93. As posted earlier public workers actually HAVE faced pay cuts, in order to compensate for the rising cost in health care. It is a burden that EVERYONE in the working class must face.

I agree that the democrats actions are questionable at best and have if you'd read, noticed that I strayed away from that, and focused on the bill instead. I made a seperate post referring to these Hitler sign holders as the nut jobs they are.

You next say that this is about BUDGET when in reality if Walker were near as concerned with the budget as he appears to be, the public safety unions would be on the chopping block. THIS is where the thick hypocrisy lays.

It appears to me as if I'm the one who did any sort of research and you are the one using talking points.
 
Tucker Case said:
Their job isn't to prevent legislation they don't agree with. It is to provide a voice for their constituents using define dparameters. By refusing to give that voice in the defined parameters, they are shirking their duty.

Party politics has forgotten this and they instead seek to represent party more than people.
Click to expand...

Bingo! We have a winner.

There are 385,000 union employees in Wisconsin out of a population of 6,000,000 people. Even if one factors each union employee as the breadwinner of a family of 4 (which is much too high, but it still makes the point), that's 1,500,000 union supported families. So exactly who is representing the other 4,500,000 million people in the state? Certain not these runaway democrats. This is partisian vote-pandering, nothing more.
 
I'm not sure there are any union members in my state. They were all wiped out a long time ago.
 
Well looks like the COKE brothers have dug into their deep pockets yet again and will provide buses for the teabaggers , for tomorrows rally. With any luck some of the lucky baggers might score an autograph from the famous pimp himself “Andrew Breitbart” of Breitbart.com.:2wave:

Login | Facebook
 
The Giant Noodle said:
This has nothing to do for "the rich". Dude spending is too high and these union members dont deserve a pension. Not in this economy. They need to do what every other human should do..... prepare for after retirement. This isnt a corporate greed issue. This is a tax payer issue. Its not like these workers are suffering because of their pay. Hell techers dont even work the whole year and they get paid more than ME! Screw THAT!
Click to expand...

Obama joins Wisconsin's budget battle, opposing Republican anti-union bill

Obama is getting into the act to help the unions.
 
DiAnna said:
Bingo! We have a winner.

There are 385,000 union employees in Wisconsin out of a population of 6,000,000 people. Even if one factors each union employee as the breadwinner of a family of 4 (which is much too high, but it still makes the point), that's 1,500,000 union supported families. So exactly who is representing the other 4,500,000 million people in the state? Certain not these runaway democrats. This is partisian vote-pandering, nothing more.
Click to expand...

just listening to leonard cohen's "the partisan"....guess they don't play that on fake news
 
The Giant Noodle said:
This has nothing to do for "the rich". Dude spending is too high and these union members dont deserve a pension. Not in this economy. They need to do what every other human should do..... prepare for after retirement. This isnt a corporate greed issue. This is a tax payer issue. Its not like these workers are suffering because of their pay. Hell techers dont even work the whole year and they get paid more than ME! Screw THAT!
Click to expand...

yeah, it does...if the privlidged simply pay a fair share then the the problem simply goes away
 
Midwest Lib said:
That is a possibility, but given the evidence that the PSU supported the governor in his election and remain the only untouched public sector union seems just too fishy. Walkers dishonesty in the situation is what truly bothers me.
Click to expand...

I can fully agree that his being backed by the one group not being touched has it's "ethical concern" I also have to say I'm always, ALWAYS against Governors using the Public Safety folks as a tool to get a budget maneuver. Generally it's a "If we don't raise taxes we're going to have to lay off police/fire fighters..." That's just lame. So maybe I'm just happy that isn't being used to justify changes for once.
 
donc said:
Well looks like the COKE brothers have dug into their deep pockets yet again and will provide buses for the teabaggers , for tomorrows rally. With any luck some of the lucky baggers might score an autograph from the famous pimp himself “Andrew Breitbart” of Breitbart.com.:2wave:

Login | Facebook
Click to expand...

Another worthwhile, insightful and meaningful post that adds to the conversation and brings a new and useful angle to the topic at hand.
:roll:
 
Correct me if I'm wrong on this:

This is a classic supply side theory vs demand side theory argument.

Conservatives want to cut taxes and benefits, taking money from consumers and giving it to producers. They hope the producers will create more jobs and the money will trickle down to consumers. I don't have any data on this, but I imagine those who already have money to spend would sit any additional money to the side and let it grow. This takes the money out of the economy, and cripples the trickle effect.

Liberals want to use tax money for benefits for the less fortunate. They hope that this will give those on a tight budget money to spend. I agree with this theory.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
wtfkenneth said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this:

This is a classic supply side theory vs demand side theory argument.

Conservatives want to cut taxes and benefits, taking money from consumers and giving it to producers. They hope the producers will create more jobs and the money will trickle down to consumers. I don't have any data on this, but I imagine those who already have money to spend would sit any additional money to the side and let it grow. This takes the money out of the economy, and cripples the trickle effect.

Liberals want to use tax money for benefits for the less fortunate. They hope that this will give those on a tight budget money to spend. I agree with this theory.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


Your theory of bottom up economic growth is inherently flawed as it requires taking far more from those that produce to give to those that consume then they get back in return. To put it another way, the tax burden on producers makes investing in new business and growth more risky. Investors don't like risk, they don't like spending money only to lose it to taxes and asking them to give more in hopes that those at the "bottom" getting their tax dollars will use it for economic activity that will in the end benefit them doesn't not engender confidence.

You are asking for people with wealth, to take the tax hit, because giving more to people at the lower end via the vehicle of Government welfare and programs will benefit them in the end. What happens is THEY SIT on their wealth and don't use it for job growth and expansion. Exactly what you fear, wrongly happens in the supply side angle.

If an investor get's back MORE for their effort, directly, they are morel likely to take the risk. If they know that the burden on those investments is lower that makes them even happier.

It's simple logic, and while I understand it doesn't FEEL as good as "social programs to assist the less fortunate" it's the one that actually works. Demand Side works temporarily, but ultimately fails due to being unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Another worthwhile, insightful and meaningful post that adds to the conversation and brings a new and useful angle to the topic at hand.
:roll:
Click to expand...



Your right, it was pretty lame... shoulda posted this instead.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
wtfkenneth said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this:

This is a classic supply side theory vs demand side theory argument.

Conservatives want to cut taxes and benefits, taking money from consumers and giving it to producers. They hope the producers will create more jobs and the money will trickle down to consumers. I don't have any data on this, but I imagine those who already have money to spend would sit any additional money to the side and let it grow. This takes the money out of the economy, and cripples the trickle effect.

Liberals want to use tax money for benefits for the less fortunate. They hope that this will give those on a tight budget money to spend. I agree with this theory.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

But, it's a theory that has already been disproven. You can't boost the economy by recycling money.
 
MrVicchio said:
Your theory of bottom up economic growth is inherently flawed as it requires taking far more from those that produce to give to those that consume then they get back in return. To put it another way, the tax burden on producers makes investing in new business and growth more risky. Investors don't like risk, they don't like spending money only to lose it to taxes and asking them to give more in hopes that those at the "bottom" getting their tax dollars will use it for economic activity that will in the end benefit them doesn't not engender confidence.

You are asking for people with wealth, to take the tax hit, because giving more to people at the lower end via the vehicle of Government welfare and programs will benefit them in the end. What happens is THEY SIT on their wealth and don't use it for job growth and expansion. Exactly what you fear, wrongly happens in the supply side angle.

If an investor get's back MORE for their effort, directly, they are morel likely to take the risk. If they know that the burden on those investments is lower that makes them even happier.

It's simple logic, and while I understand it doesn't FEEL as good as "social programs to assist the less fortunate" it's the one that actually works. Demand Side works temporarily, but ultimately fails due to being unsustainable.
Click to expand...

OK yeah. This makes sense, but I don't think it necessarily trumps my opinion either. You say that the programs are unsustainable, but would they still be unsustainable if we didn't keep cutting taxes or throwing money at Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, I can't really see people who need these programs sitting on their money. What is your reasoning behind that?
 
wtfkenneth said:
OK yeah. This makes sense, but I don't think it necessarily trumps my opinion either. You say that the programs are unsustainable, but would they still be unsustainable if we didn't keep cutting taxes or throwing money at Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, I can't really see people who need these programs sitting on their money. What is your reasoning behind that?
Click to expand...

It's like this: you can't take money out of the economy, in the form of taxes, then put it back into the economy, in the form of entitlements and expect to improve the economy. Common sense dictates that it just won't work.
 
wtfkenneth said:
Could you expand on that?
Click to expand...

I can't believe I actually have to, but ok: a good comparison would be your employer paying you $1,000 and taking back 20% so he can pay you next week. The moral of the story? At some point, you employer is going to run out of money to pay you with.
 
I try to refrain from using common sense to decide on a complicated topic.

My point is when all of the money is sitting at the top not being spent, it isn't an active part of the economy.
 
wtfkenneth said:
OK yeah. This makes sense, but I don't think it necessarily trumps my opinion either. You say that the programs are unsustainable, but would they still be unsustainable if we didn't keep cutting taxes or throwing money at Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, I can't really see people who need these programs sitting on their money. What is your reasoning behind that?
Click to expand...

Social spending >> Military spending. By quite a bit.

As for your second point, your missing the point here, those people who "need the programs" as you put it, where are they spending their money? Exactly my point. The Return on Investment in monies taken through taxes is very very low for investors.
 
wtfkenneth said:
I try to refrain from using common sense to decide on a complicated topic.

My point is when all of the money is sitting at the top not being spent, it isn't an active part of the economy.
Click to expand...

Then create an environment where it is being spent instead making the economic climate worse.
 
wtfkenneth said:
I try to refrain from using common sense to decide on a complicated topic.

My point is when all of the money is sitting at the top not being spent, it isn't an active part of the economy.
Click to expand...

If the government would stop trying to, "fix", the economy, that money would start moving around more. But, as long as the government keeps injeting uncertaintly into the private sector, people are going to hold on to their money, not knowing what new tax Obama is going to slap people with, or whose job he is going to kill next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom