Wisconsin politics

Whats up with all you democrats out there, cat got your tongue?

horkn wrote: Dave, it's the governor's responsibility to represent the people in his state. That's what the polls show. The people of WI have been telling walker that his bill is not what the people want.

Seems the people have spoken again, first when they elected Walker and now with the supreme court election. The media said this was a referendom on walkers politics when they thought the dem won by 200 votes, so a 7000 vote win by the republican must be a clear statement by the Wisconsin voters against union employee greed, Right?

OverMyHead wrote: I was reading some of the local media yesterday when Kloppenberg was ahead by a few hundred votes, They indicated the democrat victory as a referendom on walkers policies, what are they saying now?

Probably saying "how can we "find" 7301 new votes"!!

You are correct. A Brookfield town election official (I am taking a wild guess she may be a Democrat) "forgot" to turn in her whole towns vote. She was the person in charge of doing so. Gee, I wonder how she could forget to fulfill such an important responsibility. They caught up with her though when vote tallies didn't add up with the number of voters. Hmmmmm!

davidg wrote: The kid resigned today! That "optics" problem is gone.

loosing a job you just got could lead you to drink!

Ah, the old hanging chads syndrome. Didn't they do a recount and he won fair and square?

Well, it looks like the libs have stolen another election in Wisconsin. Prosser (conservative) lost by a few hundred votes to the Dem. Lots of storys on the radio today about vote fraud. There will be a recount for sure. Maybe he can still pull it out. Lets hope so.

It makes me sick to my stomach to see that kind of dirty politics go on there. If it wasn't for a very high turnout in Dane County which is where Madison (The Belly of the Beast of Liberalism)is, Prosser would have won. He carried every one of the other 71 counties in Wisconsin.

Remember the last election that the Dems stole? It was up in Minnesota two years ago when Al Franken won by a few hundred votes the electioneers "found some uncounted votes" during a recount. Now we have Stuart Smalley in the Senate as a result. What a joke!



How do you Minnesota boys like good old Stuart up there? Is he really smart enough? Doggone it, I just don't like him!!

malibud wrote: So I heard today that Walker who feels like public employees are over compensated just hired one of his biggest financial backer’s son to work for the state. He has no college degree and 2 DUIs starting salary 81K

I am glad you guys realize that some yahoo who could not get a job in the private sector does not deserve to make 81 grand plus retirement in the government union. Suddenly you are making walkers argument for him. I thought alcholism was supposed to be a disease, and thus a non-fireable offense, or at the least an alternative lifestyle choice, and we should support the diversity. So why is it brought up in this case as a support that this guy should not get the job. Seems like hate and intolence to me.

now you guys are upset about government wages. I think walker just masterfully illustrated the problems in wisconsin.

Wow, This governor has some big kahuna's. Hire a political lobbyist backers kid with no degree for $65K and then the kid immediately gets a $16K raise to $81,000+. This guy should run for office in Illinois as he would fit right in. Most Illinois governors do time.

So I heard today that Walker who feels like public employees are over compensated just hired one of his biggest financial backer’s son to work for the state. He has no college degree and 2 DUIs starting salary 81K

gee... what do you know...evidently 3 weeks isnt enough time? ... more games!


..... over 40 years in retail... worst business atmoshpere I have ever seen... maybe I need to move north?
(does that mean I hafta wear yellow + green?)

Hansel wrote: The voting public may or may not be against raising taxes (they certainly were in 2010!). I completely disagree with that on first principles and so I do not have any ideas, and I don't believe there should be any ideas, that take raising taxes off of the table. I believe that if we all thought about taxes logically that most people would agree with this course of action. The rich are almost literally stealing from you. I view "Entitlement" as a propaganda word, much ike "Obamacare." All I am asking is for a more equitable society. And I never said anything about "robbing" anybody. There is absolutely no congruence between robbery and taxes. None.

Hansel, If I read this correctly you say Your first principles are against lowering taxes. Is there a point where taxes can ever be to high? Historic US tax collection rates are 18%, when the rates are raised they are viewed as punitive and collections do not increase. people either find ways around paying them or simply stop producing or investing in new production. You seem to view taxation as simple equation of taking money from the very rich and it being spent in a very ethical and prudent manor bennifiting society. That may be the model, but the reality of taxing decisions is far more complicated. The reality is most of the "rich" (top 40% of the US population pays nearly 100% of the income taxes) are business owners making decisions about their business operations. These decisions are made on planning cycles of 1-3-5-10 years and based on ROI or return on investment. The average business person knows that they can earn low rates of by investing there money in guarenteed investments, or higher but less predictable rates in the stock market. They balance that against what they can earn in operating their business. If the business can not out perform readily available investments there is no reason to invest in the business.
Right now the government is spending at skyrocketing rates, nearly half of the spending is deficit spending. Despite lawmakers being able to make quick decisions about spending more money they have not been able to decide how to pay for it. Our lawmakers have not been able to come up with a plan for this year and are operating our govenment (I typo'd that and spelled givernment, fruedian slip?) on temporary spending budgets. Business knows that the government will need to fund these defecits and since the government does not produce income it will have to take it in the form of taxes from the top 40% of the US population. So how does a business make a one year plan let alone a five or ten year plan at a time where the government is operating in an unprecedented manor with no long term plan? They cannot, so they are putting their money in safe low return investmants rather than investing in growth because the costs from government are unpredictable. Government is compounding the situation with signals that it will increase regulation. What is the effect of all this? The economy is stagnent. Despite stimulus money businesses will not make decisions until they can do so with confidence. the governemt needs to stop making changes and signal to business that there will be some stability that they can plan on. Until then who is being hurt the most by businesses inactivity? It does not seem to be the rich, the only new homes I have worked on the last few years are in the 2 mill plus bracket. The people being hurt are the low and middle class, and not because they are recieving less from the government, they are recieving record amounts for now,(things will get worse as budgets are forced to become balanced) they are hurting because there are no jobs. We have seen the cost for government created stimulus jobs that take about   1/4 million each a year out of the economy in the form of taxes for temporary jobs that pay the workers about 50,000 a year so we know that is not the answer. The answer is the poor and middle class need business to see a reason to invest and hire them back. When this happens people get off government payrolls and even become tax payers, suddenly government deficits go away through decrease costs and increased collections. It is important to take a wholisic view of the economy and not just the view of those who recieve tax dollars.

Speaking to entitlement being a propoganda word, here is websters definiton.
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

That seems to accurately describe welfare, unemployment etc.... When an accurate description appears to someone as "propaganda" you have to question the skew of their viewpoint. The Rich (again the wealtiest 40% of the nation who pay nearly all of its tax bill) in tax terms cannot steal anything from the rest who either do not pay or recieve tax money. The best they can do is hope to control thier costs through lower tax rates. In the story of Robinhood he stole from the rich to give to the poor. Many see this as honorable but it was still called stealing. The rich he stole from where nobility(government of the day) who became rich through taxing the peasents. Robinhood stealing from the gready government to give back to the poor producers that feed the govenmnet makes a nice story. Today it is the greedy government stealing from the producers to give to non producers (while taking a healthy cut for itself aka operations and government union pensions). When the government (who is supposed to represent the tax payer) chooses to grow at rates in multiples of the inflation rate it is making decisions for business about what their costs will be (tax burden). The business then must look at decisions about ROI with the new government costs factored in. The raised costs are taken direcly off the investment return. If they are to high the business would be foolish to invest in growth and may even downsize or shut down operations. The Rich business owner still has his/her money safely invested, but the poor and middle class no longer have thier jobs. This is what well intentioned higher taxes for the rich do for the poor and middle class.

No worries, that was why the "smiley" was thrown in. My experiences has shown that if your going to participate in online political banter, you have to give a lot of benefit of doubt. To your point thats why face to face discussion is better.

Now logoff the dang computer, and go get some life experience. Your in college for cripes sake and it is St. Patty's day, I know their is some Green Beer being served somewhere in that town!

Hansel wrote:    I believe that if we all thought about taxes logically that most people would agree with this course of action.

And there it is, my Achilles heal!      Having my educational base in engineering, I generally gather data, observe and then base my decisions and opinion on a logical argument...