All eyes on Wisconsin: Public unions versus the Tea Party - Page 3

So with the unemployment rate so high and the country still fighting the deepest recession in decades, why is it that the GOP is so focused on eliminating the deficit? Do they want the nation to remain in a recession?

Which brings us back to Wisconsin. If Walker can't kill the unions through legislation, he wants to do it by more layoffs. And all of this under the veiled excuse of eliminating the deficit. Layoff more middle class people to give tax cuts to people that don't need the money.

So out of everything I just posted about the Clinton Administration's involvement in the housing bubble, thats the tidbit you respond to?

To answer your question, because $2 trillion+ is kinda sufficient spending by now don't you think, and eventually you have to pay that credit card back and its bad enough that every child born today starts life with over a $29K debt. The idea of the Obama administration to just increase inflation to make that debt worth less (and my life savings, appreciate that) and devalue the dollar comes at the consequence of the world losing faith in the dollar as a world currency. Russia is already in talks with a proposal to begin trading oil in the Euro, and I shouldn't have to explain the domestic ramifications of that.
Great! The private sector has been suffering continued decline while simultaneously having to pay the bill for an ever increasingly large government. In fact, Obama's last boast on 250K+ job creations lost just a little bit of its shine when the American people realized these were all public sector jobs that just cost them more money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...500&h=790&as=1
^pretty disturbing

Government spending HAS to be reduced (although far more on a federal level than state IMO), it is not sustainable for the American people during economic hardship. It brings no income into the nation, and it is the PRIVATE sector where money needs to be invested while reducing overhead in the form of government expenses.

The facts don't back up that statement, and my company's Japanese total hours of business are the same as our Houston office:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working...orea_and_Japan

It is fantastic that Japanese workers and employers share a much closer bond than in the US IMO, and it is not uncommon for Japanese to be employed with the same business their entire lives, with accordingly much greater investment in training by the employers accordingly... its an investment in their future. This is how businesses should be run, and Japanese prosperity despite a total lack of natural resources and land even after a catastrophic world war destroying their entire infrastructure is proof of this. I do admire them on that aspect of their culture, and believe it should be a model so that "Made in America" can mean something positive again the way "Made in Japan" does today.
Generous? I don't think you understand how unions work. GM, Ford, and Chrysler did not decide to give all these ridiculous unsustainable concessions based on generosity, but extortion from union leadership through strikes and picketing. Japanese foresight IMO was to create plants that are VERY heavily automated, so they require far less unskilled labor, and your argument fails to explain why the less automated Japanese manufacturer's AMERICAN plants with AMERICAN workers have on average between Toyota and Honda over the big three an 18% increase in productivity per man hour, with simultaneously by all counts greater quality of assembly.

Meanwhile, if management is exclusively the problem with domestic industry, then why could Chrysler not be made profitable when there was very little management carryover, Daimler management has been profitable for decades, a huge infusion of cash with an entire new vehicle lineup was created, and the only common factor was that they were stuck with the UAW?

Now, granted, not all unions are as bad as the UAW, and unions in Europe are not nearly as bad as North America. My primary issue is more with the problem specifically in the US with unions being allowed to bankroll politicians, especially in the public sector of which almost half is unionized with closed shops in the North which I find appalling.

The latest news is that there may be some sort of recall attempt on some of the AWOL democratic senators. Also the democratic assemblypersons are looking into the legalities of the vote that was taken in the early morning hours today.
Oh and the capitol police are going to attempt a new rule (law) and prohibit people from sleeping in the 2nd thru 4th floors of the capital. They will be removing sleeping bags, air mattress's and other items like this. There have been hygiene issues arising recentlly.
Many of Madison's homeless have also been taking advance of this situation to camp out in the capital building. Only authorized (government) personnel will be allowed in certain areas overnight.
Russ Feingold's new organization is setting up rally's in many Wisconsin communities for tomorrow as well.

And does it bother you that the chamber of commerce and large corporations are also bankrolling politicians? Why is one evil and the other OK?

That bothers me too, but two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes things twice as bad. If dad comes home angry and drunk, not usually a great idea for the kids to throw mom a bottle of scotch and tell her to get wasted to balance things out, or justify alcoholic dad because mom cheats on him... ooh, I think I should write this down and turn it into a soap.

Was recently posting on hardforum for example about Apple and Sony's recent abuses of the political system and measures that should be implemented to limit their control over politics and the courts, and as a Libertarian, would like to see government decision making removed from their grasp. Ron Paul sounds kinda dorky and not presidential, but he had some great ideas on how to do that, while simultaneously reducing the size and thus cost of government.

And its not that I want people to be unemployed, but I would like to see even, fair, and equal competition for jobs by the population, jobs and investments moved from the public to the private sector instead of the opposite that is occurring now on a massive scale as we saw in that previous graph, and have people negotiate their raises and the like based on their own personal contributions and merrits, like 90% of the rest of the county already does.

I know that a lot of the jobs being created right now are in the public sector, but if the private sector is not creating them right now, how is the unemployment problem going to be addressed? After my lay off, I applied for public sector jobs, just because they were the only ones that had wages over minimum wage. But for the most part, they required specific college degrees that I didn't have.

I saw statistics the other day about the wages of public versus private sector jobs, which were overlayed with a percentage of those workers with and without college degrees. The public sector had a higher advanced degree rate, which would support their higher salaries. It was actually proportionally accurate.

What's happening in Wisconsin is disturbing because Walker was bought out by the corporations (Koch was his 2nd largest campaign contributor), and he's using deceipt to get his way. And his way nearly makes him king of Wisconsin.

Whatever Walker may be receiving, it is dwarfed by the amount being spent by the Democratic political committees, including the President's own political action group, moveon.org, etc.

There is plenty of misinformation on both sides, as usual.

Take a look at http://politifact.com/. It says, for example, that Walker is correct on his budget deficit estimate, and the Wisconsin senate majority leader did not say it was necessary to destroy the unions in order to balance the budget.

It agrees with you that Walker said things in his blog-prank call that he had not said in public.

It's very interesting reading.

More Wisconsin claims and counterclaims: Wisconsin Lies and Truths

That is not what I have seen, and you have to factor in benefits packages as wages and salaries are almost always less than 2/3rds of total costs.

Ultimately, to bring budgets and deficit spending under control under a prolonged recession, you can't simply raise taxes as that would harm the private sector paying the bills and ultimately reduce revenue. What has been done elsewhere and in the past is to reduce government spending via cuts in the public sector that don't directly impact private growth/recovery and this would entail a combination of taking on the unions to bring total wages and benefits packages on par with the rest of the country, and reduce rather than increase jobs which in the last recession was a bit under a million moved out of public to private.

Now it is true that the government can't directly create private sector jobs like it can the public sector, but for one easing the financial burden on the majority of the non-unionized country increases spending money to purchase more goods and services, provided there is some level of consumer confidence and private sector stability. The government can influence private sector job creation and retention through appropriate investments in growth industries in a myriad of ways, typically from tax and consumer spending incentives and other impetus to growth. Examples would be the cash for clunkers, energy star, housing, and electric/hybrid programs we've already seen, to public projects that are fulfilled by private sector contractors, to venture capitalism investment and new business startups, remove or reduce payroll taxes and other incentives for hiring, and so on. The main complaint from the right was that of the trillions devoted to stimulus spending, there was next to no emphasis on growing the private sector, when that is the heart of this nation's economy.
So thats one politician, and how much do you imagine was donated exactly? None of the liberal news organizations that bring this up post a number, but only that it must be lower than his highest contributor which amounted to $43K.

As was linked to before, just a single union's campaign contributions to the democratic party were $87.5 million from union dues (which in the public sector simply represent more tax payer dollars).

Since 1990, total union contributions have amounted to $614 million to the Democratic party. And this is what has so many peeved as it clearly explains why the vast majority of stimulus money was being funneled to cover public sector deficits caused by a lack of appropriate downsizing in wages, benefits, and jobs to correspond with the reduced revenue generated by the private sector, with the slap in the face of focusing job creation on the public federal level.

The Kochs donates money to many Republicans in Wisconsin not just Walker and I bet they also donated to other politicians in other states. And don't forget they have owned Georgia-Pacific which has a big presence in Wisconsin.

The rally in Madison yesterday was quite large. I wonder how many of the protesters are getting paid to protest. Oh that's right, those teachers, firefighters etc... are being paid with my tax dollars.

I hope the removal of the protesters who sleep in the Capital tonite goes well. Its not a hotel.

The state senate passed a bill that will start fining the missing senators $100/day starting tomorrow. Also on the local news a missing democrat was quoted and it seems like might me wavering and skipping the state and said that there needs to be some compromise on the budget bill. I'm thinking someone is going to come back, the bill will pass and some items will be hashed out.

Don't forget...your tax dollars will also be used to make up the shortfalls created by the Republican tax cuts that serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of their handlers.

Well that, and to make "us" broke.

Walkers proposed budget also caps property tax increases so municpalities will have to be like me, doing more with less.

GOOD! What the democrats are doing is NOT the democratic process. Not that the republicans are saints, but at least when healthcare and bailouts and other bills recently opposed were presented, they cast their "nay" votes as is their job and moved on. Its not too much to ask.
Reducing income tax serves the purpose of reducing the tax burden on everyone paying them. Tax returns are again returns based on people paying taxes in. That is who benefits, and that much should be obvious. You can't just keep piling more and more stones onto our backs with constantly increasing tax burden on the American people, especially not in times of hardship. Reducing expenses should be intuitive even on a micro-economic level that people can relate to.

Please explain how out-of-control Democrat deficit spending with next to no investment in the private sector which is the economic heart of the nation, complete unwillingness to reduce state and federal level funding in times of economic hardship to keep pace with the private sector paying the bill, and in fact a huge INCREASE in government employment and thus costs while in a recession and then an increase in tax burden on the people is somehow the fault of a previous tax break economic stimulus... sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The only benefactors there in the short term are government employees and those contributing little to nothing to our collective tax pool, at the sacrifice of everyone else and long-term on themselves since that's simply not sustainable (just as we have seen with the heavy unionization of what once was the industrial pearl Detroit... when the ship sinks, eventually everyone gets wet).

I DO think the Democrats in Wisconsin, Indiana, etc., have shown who is the real "party of NO."

Have you all forgotten how Bush turned the huge surplus that Clinton left him into a huge deficit? And it also appears that you have forgotten about the tax cuts that Obama implemented? And didn't Bush grow the Federal government larger than most presidents? What I read in some of these responses is Fox News propaganda, not facts.

Tax cuts to the wealthy do not stimulate the economy and create jobs. This was proven out by the Bush tax cuts - look at the rise in unemployment during his term in office after he cut taxes. Walker put a huge tax cut into the budget for large corporations and the wealthy, then is trying to offset it by punishing middle income workers.

I heard a good joke the other day that sums it up. A plate of a dozen cookies was offered to a corporate CEO, a liberal and a Tea Party member. The CEO took 11 of the cookies and told the Tea Party member that the liberal was going to steal his cookie. If you don't see this, then look again.

Reducing taxes does not pay the bills. Tax breaks may make rich individuals and Republican puppeteers happy, but it doesn't pay the bills. It's pretty much that simple. And the bills are due.

Actually, the bills have been due for quite a while, but we've "tax break'd" them into a crisis.

Massive cuts in spending need to be made and neither party is serious about doing so.

Exactly It's a very simple recipe. More money in; or less money out.

I do think they're serious though. The stumping point is neither side wants their favorites on the chopping block.

Not "the real"...just "the current". Quid pro quo. Isn't it grand.

Let us please not turn this into a "lesser of two evils" contest, and for the record I did not vote for Dubya. The Clinton administration did not create the tech boom upon which the economy prospered by any stretch of the imagination, and the Democratic party controlled only the executive branch, the house, senate, and supreme court remained mostly conservative. This conflict between branches was overall a good thing, even though it brought the government to a standstill on numerous occasions due to lack of cooperation, but still Clinton administration and republican congressional budget resulted in a surplus for only one year despite being the greatest economic boom experienced since the great war. And this represented the beginning of the millennium recession Dubya inherited along with the extra kicker of the Sept. 11th attacks in '01.

Obama's "tax cut" merely represented not exercising his veto power over congresses passing of extending the Bush administrations tax cut... cmon. The only tax changes his administration has effected have otherwise since then all been tax increases.
Define "wealthy". I got a tax cut, which was just returning some of my own money to me. I hardly consider myself wealthy, and incentives for businesses to hire domestically such as payroll tax breaks represent an investment in the private sector economy. There was no rise in unemployment following the tax cuts (overall it resulted in 6.5% growth from a quick google search), so I'm not sure where you are getting these statistics. The joint economic committee in 2006 also demonstrated that while growth was historically poor, the United States outperformed Japan, the EU, and Canada in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability during this global recession.

And yes, I am very much aware and displeased with how Bush's promise of small government and freedom just ended up directing expenditures to two very expensive wars (that my sister and brother in law are fighting in... he's on his fourth deployment) and from huge nanny state programs to police state ones eroding away the citizens freedoms and right to privacy. But again, two wrongs don't make a right, so I'll never understand why people justify the wrongs of one administration by the mistakes of another like that somehow ends the argument and makes everything all right.

Most people forget that President Clinton's first budget was an absolute disaster, raising taxes immensely on the middle class (we took a huge hit as truck drivers), and showing large deficits (larger than Reagan's) for the rest of his administration and all of his second administration.

That was a large amount of the anger that swept the Democrats out of the house leadership in 1994.

When Clinton started working WITH the Republicans (and they with him), the economy boomed and the deficits fell.

Just as an example, the Welfare Reform Act, which Clinton brags so much on now, was passed 3 times in indentical forms. He vetoed it the first two times.

Wasn't it the Republicans who ran up the deficit with unnecessary wars? Didn't the Republican's have a fit when the private sector auto manufactures were "bailed out?" saving thousands of jobs. Wasn't it the Republicans who demanded their rich friends continue to get their tax breaks while trying to cut services to the poorest people in this country?

I believe that the agenda of the governor in Wisconsin and others like him is to break the unions so his friends the Koch brothers don't have to contend with fair wages and benefits any longer.

I've always been Apolitical, and I consider myself neither Democrat nor Republican, but what I've seen the Republicans become over the past several years has just totally turned me off to that party. I don't see anything that they've done or tried to do that in any way helps this country out of the mess its in.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are failures, and both can shoulder equal share of the blame. There is a lot of fat that can, and should be trimmed, to help cut the deficit. There are a ton of redundant programs/agencies that can be scrapped.

I'm not reading all 7 pages of discussion, BUT the absent Dems hiding out in Illinois all took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of both the federal government and the State of Wisconsin. They were elected to do a job, and that is to propose and vote on legislation within their state. They have broken their oath of office and are not representing the people who voted them into office. They should all be impeached and thrown out of office immediately, with special elections to fill their vacancies within the next 60 days.

That 6.5% is neither unusual, nor special, nor is it related to tax cuts OR stimulus, although both sides will try to use the numbers to their advantage. It happens this time of year, EVERY year. Construction companies are hiring back the logistics people and mechanics they laid off for the winter to get parts, equipment and fuel stocks up to operating levels. Maybe even more this year, trying to beat the price of fuel. It will look even better next month, when they start hiring back their operators, sappers and blue collars. Those numbers will be used by both sides too, even though they had nothing to do with them. Also, after feeling things out for a few months, the gulf fishing industry is coming back to life, and companies are rehiring crews, deck hands, netters and long liners.

Tax breaks still amount to nothing more than giving a few some of everyone else's money, because everyone else is who will have to make up the shortfalls it creates.

I friend of mone mentioned that if the missing Wisconsin Democrats were in the armed services they would be AWOL and deserters.

But if our representatives were in the armed forces, then we wouldn't have a democracy, we'd have a junta.

Tax returns are based on a percentage of taxes contributed. So how is that redistribution of wealth to give people back some of their own money that they originally paid in? And it was actually a disproportionate return, with those that contributed next to nothing still getting a considerable return, with higher scale getting reduced amount, and I believe over $150K income receiving none of their money back.

Regarding "everyone else's money" btw, the bottom 50% of the country contribute only 3% to the collective tax revenue, with the remaining 97% paid for by the upper 50%. And that tax burden on the bottom 50% is less than half of what it was when I was a kid (6.5% in 1986), so government income redistribution if anything is definitely in the lower class' favor.

So I am not sure what is expected, that tax breaks only be given to those that didn't really contribute anything at all in the first place, and everyone that paid in taxes gets nothing? When it comes to fairness, that doesn't make much sense.

To get back on topic the point was that its basic economics that raising taxes slows or reverses economic growth and the American people tend to be better about allocating their own resources than some stranger in Washington on their behalf, but we have far too high of expenses and far too much debt. The only logical answer during a recession then is to reduce expenses, and government expenses includes its own staff which have NOT been downsized to account for the reduction in the private sector (recall while private lost 6%, Obama increased federal by 10% which the private sector has to pay for w/ less disposable income), along with misc. non-critical services and programs and expensive foreign wars and the constant flow of "aid" to Israel every year (search shows around $114 billion with no obvious return on investment, aside from attracting the attention of terrorists in a holy war). Taking on the disproportionate employment and compensation for the public sector to bring it at least SOMEWHAT in the range with the rest of the country involves taking on the unions. And hopefully if Ron Paul or like-minded individuals get power we'll get our troops and my sister and brother in law back on US soil, and those savings can be applied back into repaying some of the deficit as well so this interest alone isn't killing our profitability.

The tax breaks just extended are NOT the one time checks that were sent to nearly everyone. Nearly half the tax breaks we're talking about are specifically for those making in excess of $300,000 annually. John Q. Public isn't in that clique.

eta: What is expected is to give NO tax breaks to ANYONE. It's time to pay up.