Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1 VIDEO: Myths vs. Facts of the Wisconsin Union Protest 
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDnKQul_c8

    MADISON, Wis. — The fight in Wisconsin’s capital is marked by a fundamental disagreement over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget proposal. Protesters claim it’s a blatant assault on labor unions, while the governor’s supporters say it’s about government spending, plain and simple.

    The Heritage Foundation sent a team to Wisconsin to report on the action. Our video captures the claims of pro-union protesters as well as state Sen. Leah Vukmir, a Republican supporter of Walker’s budget plan.

    “It’s about rights; it’s not about the money,” protesters called out. Many told us they represented not only their own interests, but the interests of the rest of the country as well. “This is what democracy looks like,” they chanted.

    But Vukmir said Walker and the Republican majority in the Wisconsin legislature remain confident that the people of Wisconsin — the silent majority, she said — want legislators to make the difficult decisions necessary to balance the budget. That’s why Wisconsinites elected the officials they did, Vukmir said.

    For all that protesters said they weren’t marching on the Capitol because of money, the protest had definite overtones of class-consciousness.

    Numerous signs proclaimed, “Tax the rich,” and protesters frequently cited that mantra as the solution to budget problems.

    Some denied the deficit entirely, saying Walker “manufactured” the budget crisis to justify this bill, which some said he must want to pass because he has dictatorial ambitions.

    The protests were notably organized, with signs posted throughout the Capitol building providing “media talking points” for protesters. At least one taught protesters “how to talk to teabaggers.”

    “They will be trying to provoke you!” the sign proclaimed. Perhaps because of the promptings of such signs, many protesters refused to speak with us when we identified ourselves as with The Heritage Foundation.

    “You’re against everything we stand for,” one said. Another said, “In case you don’t know, you work for an organization with a bad reputation.” Yet another said, “Stand there too long and you might not have your equipment.” When we asked if that meant he was threatening us, he said, “That means whatever you want it to mean.”

    But others were eager to speak with us.

    “That’s why we’re here — so our voices can be heard,” one teacher said, adding at the end of our interview that she hoped she and her two colleagues had made “friends” of us. When we passed her later, she called out, “Hi, friends!” and waved.

    The day revealed the extent of the ideological divide that seems to characterize this debate — and the lack of consensus about the underlying facts that necessitate it in the first place.

    Few protesters we spoke to knew Wisconsin has a deficit of $137 million — a deficit projected to increase to $3.6 billion in the next two years. Fewer still seemed to realize just how generous public worker benefits in Wisconsin are — far more generous than the national average.

    Dispute also existed as to whether union membership is currently optional for public workers in Wisconsin (it’s not), even though most protesters seemed to think it should be optional.

    But the protests seem to have done even more than expose ideological fault lines and a lack of mutual understanding of the facts.

    As one CNN commentator put it, the protests have revealed that “things get ugly when the money’s just not there” — and they may perhaps foreshadow more to come as states across the country face budget shortfalls.

    In Wisconsin, the protests seem unlikely to end anytime soon, as the state Senate Democratic minority (whom protesters call the “Fab 14″) remain out-of-state and unwilling to vote on the issue.

    Vukmir said their absence is an abdication of their constitutional responsibility, while protesters carried signs that said, “My senator serves me better in Illinois than my governor does in Wisconsin.”

    Senate Democrats, protesters said, are not being childish — they’re ensuring the debate receives attention.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/20/...union-protest/
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Raise taxes on the wealthy. I'm not talking 90% tax rates or anything (although we've had nearly that high tax rates before, during the largest expansion of the middle class in the history of the world). I'm talking about raising taxes to reasonable levels where they have been in past decades.

    Walker keeps going back to the budget, it's the budget, there's just no money, then GET SOME FUCKING MONEY. In the same budget he cuts taxes for wealthy people, cuts capital gains taxes, and then says that it's necessary to attack working-class Americans because "the state just doesn't have the money".


    How about this, if federal or state tax rates are set to a level comparable to the level under Ronald Reagan's first term, will that be fair? Every conservative points to reagan as the guy they need to learn from, so let's use Reagan's own federal tax rates as a model.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    There is no RIGHT to collective bargaining - ESPECIALLY in the public sector. There are no PROFITS to share. There is only hard earned money to confiscate.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Raise taxes on the wealthy. I'm not talking 90% tax rates or anything (although we've had nearly that high tax rates before, during the largest expansion of the middle class in the history of the world). I'm talking about raising taxes to reasonable levels where they have been in past decades.
    Ask NY and Cali and Mass how that's working out for them. You are such a stupid fuck it's not even funny.
    Walker keeps going back to the budget, it's the budget, there's just no money, then GET SOME FUCKING MONEY. In the same budget he cuts taxes for wealthy people, cuts capital gains taxes, and then says that it's necessary to attack working-class Americans because "the state just doesn't have the money".
    FUCK YOU. I'm already hurting why the fuck should I have to hurt more so that some government worker can get viagra for fucking free?? :mad:

    How about this, if federal or state tax rates are set to a level comparable to the level under Ronald Reagan's first term, will that be fair? Every conservative points to reagan as the guy they need to learn from, so let's use Reagan's own federal tax rates as a model.
    Sure - as long as we can also set government spending back to Regan levels as well. How's that for ya?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Raise taxes on the wealthy. I'm not talking 90% tax rates or anything (although we've had nearly that high tax rates before, during the largest expansion of the middle class in the history of the world). I'm talking about raising taxes to reasonable levels where they have been in past decades.

    Walker keeps going back to the budget, it's the budget, there's just no money, then GET SOME FUCKING MONEY. In the same budget he cuts taxes for wealthy people, cuts capital gains taxes, and then says that it's necessary to attack working-class Americans because "the state just doesn't have the money".


    How about this, if federal or state tax rates are set to a level comparable to the level under Ronald Reagan's first term, will that be fair? Every conservative points to reagan as the guy they need to learn from, so let's use Reagan's own federal tax rates as a model.
    Not this propaganda bullshit again.

    No, Wee wee, he does not "cut taxes for the wealthy." He does, however, do exactly what he campaigned on, which got him elected: he creates tax incentives for companies to relocate to Wisconsin, and he creates a tax deferral for small businesses that are already in Wisconsin.


    I know that for a Leftist this is extremely hard to do, but please, just for a little while, try not to just outright lie.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Ask NY and Cali and Mass how that's working out for them. You are such a stupid fuck it's not even funny.
    FUCK YOU. I'm already hurting why the fuck should I have to hurt more so that some government worker can get viagra for fucking free?? :mad:
    I said raise taxes on wealthy people. If that applies to you then shut the fuck up you are not "hurting" just because you have to wait a few months to buy a new Yacht. The fact is that the top income brackets are the only group in the US that has done consistently well throughout this economic "crisis". It seems wealthy people get bailed out and working class people have to do it all on their own.

    If you aren't wealthy, and a small tax increase would hurt you, then I'm not talking about you because I'm in favor of keeping taxes low on working and middle class workers.


    Sure - as long as we can also set government spending back to Regan levels as well. How's that for ya?
    Sure thing. I'm fine with cutting spending so long as we have an honest, intelligent discussion about what is to be cut. Education is extremely important for our future this should be a no-brainer. We live in a global marketplace now and 21st century American jobs are not factory jobs they require more education and if we don't educate our children then other nations with better educated workforces will take all the jobs we want to keep here.

    That's a purely economic reason there are far more important reasons to have an educated populous but I think that's the main one within this discussion.

    Programs that help poor, old, or disabled people need to be protected. These often cost only a mere fraction of the extreme amounts we spend on defense and foreign military aid. Yes defense is important for actual defense and even for the economy (much of American jobs are in the defense industry), however there is room to reallocate resources.

    I'm willing to say yes, even painful cuts that I'm not happy about I'm wiling to compromise, but a budget is a two-sided problem - costs and revenue, and you cannot focus solely on one side of this problem like some people are dead-set on doing.

    Increase revenue through higher taxation on wealthy people combined with smart cuts in all areas, some more than others. This is a compromise. Let's hope other people know how to do this.

    I'm saying set taxes to the level during Reagan's first term, and let's look at cutting spending, you have to be a numbskulled ideologue if you can't recognize this as a compromise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I said raise taxes on wealthy people. If that applies to you then shut the fuck up you are not "hurting" just because you have to wait a few months to buy a new Yacht. The fact is that the top income brackets are the only group in the US that has done consistently well throughout this economic "crisis". It seems wealthy people get bailed out and working class people have to do it all on their own.

    If you aren't wealthy, and a small tax increase would hurt you, then I'm not talking about you because I'm in favor of keeping taxes low on working and middle class workers.

    You know what happens when you drive off the rich wee wee? The middle class become the rich. When you can understand that concept, then we can have a discussion on economics.
    Sure thing. I'm fine with cutting spending so long as we have an honest, intelligent discussion about what is to be cut. Education is extremely important for our future this should be a no-brainer. We live in a global marketplace now and 21st century American jobs are not factory jobs they require more education and if we don't educate our children then other nations with better educated workforces will take all the jobs we want to keep here.

    That's a purely economic reason there are far more important reasons to have an educated populous but I think that's the main one within this discussion.

    Programs that help poor, old, or disabled people need to be protected. These often cost only a mere fraction of the extreme amounts we spend on defense and foreign military aid. Yes defense is important for actual defense and even for the economy (much of American jobs are in the defense industry), however there is room to reallocate resources.
    Oh no. You want the tax rates back to what they were in the early 1980s - I want the spending rates there as well. No debates. No pandering to special interest groups. Fair is fair. BTW - do you know how much this country spends on k-12 education annually? Before you whine about education budget cuts - you should know what you're whining about.

    I'm willing to say yes, even painful cuts that I'm not happy about I'm wiling to compromise, but a budget is a two-sided problem - costs and revenue, and you cannot focus solely on one side of this problem like some people are dead-set on doing.


    Increase revenue through higher taxation on wealthy people combined with smart cuts in all areas, some more than others. This is a compromise. Let's hope other people know how to do this.
    Revenue? This is half the problem with you stupid fucks on the left. You constantly try to claim that taxes are revenue. They're not INCOME - they're CONFISCATION. The Government does not EARN those dollars - they take them by threat of force.
    I'm saying set taxes to the level during Reagan's first term, and let's look at cutting spending, you have to be a numbskulled ideologue if you can't recognize this as a compromise.
    Why is it when you fucktards on the left speak of compromise - it's always our side that has to give something up?? I gave you a compromise - You want Reagan level tax rates - I want Reagan era spending. That IS the compromise. idiot.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    You know what happens when you drive off the rich wee wee? The middle class become the rich. When you can understand that concept, then we can have a discussion on economics.
    Except that's not true. Tax rates have been well over twice as high as they are now, and during that time period there were still wealthy people, there were still giant corporations, there were still millionaires and billionaires.

    Raising tax rates to past levels is not going to make all the rich people vanish.


    Oh no. You want the tax rates back to what they were in the early 1980s - I want the spending rates there as well. No debates. No pandering to special interest groups. Fair is fair. BTW - do you know how much this country spends on k-12 education annually? Before you whine about education budget cuts - you should know what you're whining about.
    I am offering up the Reagan tax rates as a compromise. Reagan is the conservative posterboy, not the liberal posterboy not the socialist posterboy not the communist posterboy. I am offering Reagan's policies as a compromise.

    As for spending rates, fine like I said we can lower them we need to do so, but there needs to be a discussion about what needs to be cut. I'm even willing to say that important programs like social security and medicare need to be reformed (and this is all totally opposed to my so called commie principles.). However, overall I think cuts are necessary even if it means some things I support face cuts. I am willing to debate here the appropriate levels and appropriate places to cut, and I will concede that painful cuts need to be made, even ones I don't like.

    If I'm some far-left socialist marxist commie radical, then me saying let's use Reagan's policies is already a huge compromise. If it were up to me the workers would control the means of production but like I said, it's important to compromise here so I'm willing to.



    Revenue? This is half the problem with you stupid fucks on the left. You constantly try to claim that taxes are revenue. They're not INCOME - they're CONFISCATION. The Government does not EARN those dollars - they take them by threat of force.
    Call it what you like taxation is older than the United States is and it's written into the constitution.

    Why is it when you fucktards on the left speak of compromise - it's always our side that has to give something up?? I gave you a compromise - You want Reagan level tax rates - I want Reagan era spending. That IS the compromise. idiot.
    Whoa now.

    I think taxes should be raised to the level they were during the 50's, near 90% (which by the way, led to the greatest expansion of the middle class in the entire history of mankind).

    I think the means of production should not be controlled by an elite ruling class.

    I think there should be collective ownership of institutions that provide social needs.

    I am compromising, very seriously. A leftist saying "let's start with Reagan" is a SERIOUS compromise.

    I can go on and on, but you really think that me offering Reagan's tax policies AND conceding to spending cuts means that you are giving something up? I never thought I would say "hey let's use Reagan's plan" because frankly I think Reagan is responsible for a lot of the problems we have today.

    However, I compromised. I disagree with a great deal of what reagan did, but I still suggest, because I know that conservatives worship Reagan, that as a compromise, let's use Reagans' tax policies.

    Also, as a compromise, let's have a serious discussion about important cuts.

    compromise compromise compromise.


    What is your idea of compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Policon
    No debates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Except that's not true. Tax rates have been well over twice as high as they are now, and during that time period there were still wealthy people, there were still giant corporations, there were still millionaires and billionaires.

    Raising tax rates to past levels is not going to make all the rich people vanish.
    Tell that to New York State . . . . and to New York City . . . . and to Massachusetts . . . and California . . . . And to the states to which the rich are relocating. What you fail to realize is that wealth is far more portable today that it was 100 years ago - and with wealthy being heavily invested in off shore ventures making often as much if not more money from those off shore ventures - it's not at all difficult for them to pull up out of say - DETROIT and open factories in Canada and Mexico which have lower tax rates.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •