if youre trying to play that whole "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist." line, give it a rest. this is about money (or lack of it) and trying to balance the state's budget. the alternative to balancing the budget is raising taxes to cover the spending. and that means they come for me with higher taxes. so given the choice between higher taxes and less spending, i go with less spending. in EVERY case.
Why should the union members get to decide whether or not they will continue to rip off taxpayers? They had an election, just like obama wants egypt to do, and people he hates won. Now they are doing exactly what they said they would do, cut back on outrageous union entitlements. That is called democracy. Of course, when it suits him, obama and liberals much prefer mob rule to democracy.
For starters, let's bring all our troops home and put them on our borders where they belong. Instant saving of 30%. But I'm not sure how much higher you want my taxes to be. I currently pay over 40% of my income in taxes when you include Federal income taxes, California state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. etc. Please don't bring up the 70% and 90% tax rates of the past. Very few people paid those rates. The Rockefellers, Astors and Morgans kept much of their money outside the country (Switzerland in the good old days of secret accounts) and used non-recourse leveraged tax shelters (outlawed in the 1980's) to eliminate much of their US tax burden. I seriously doubt that any of them paid 40+% of their income in taxes.
Rip off the taxpayers? Let me ask you, were you equally outraged when Haliburton got no bid contracts at the taxpayer expense? The taxpayers are only getting ripped off if the negotiations are not fair. So we allow workers to bargain collectively, and we reach a fair settlement. The governor did not run on union busting, he did not state what he would do, the people were not informed of his agenda, nor has the governor been completely devoid of politics. I don't for a moment believe that the governor is doing what is in the best interest of his state...he is a politician! The people of Wisconsin are not happy with the governor, according to the polls. So is the governor truly representing the will of the people, or his own agenda? Is he serving the will of the people or his own agenda? This crap from the republicans when they win office, that they have a mandate to do whatever they want is nonsense. Where is the job creation from the republicans since they have taken over? The scorched earth republican way is going to fail. It is better to compromise, which the union workers have already been willing to do. The governor is uncompromising, and that's the real problem.
Troops home, agree. Are you in the top 2%? If not, no worries. Yes, very few paid those rates, but we had fewer of those types, as wealth was more spread out with a stronger middle class. Now the pyramid scheme of unbridled capitalism has created more of a higher class, and a shrinking of the middle class. I am just suggesting a return to the level of balance we had in the past. It worked well then, it can work well again. Balance of power. We have it by design in the constitution. The market is not free, because those with the money and power influence the markets. Traders should know that those who huge hedge funds control market behavior...so it is not a truly free market, there is undue influence by a few upon the many.
Good post. I Was hoping to avoid the obvious to many, out of the picture to most tV watchers. I am not a fan of the Unions. They have become, over the last 100 years, a symbol of what they were rightfully fighting for early on. Child labor, bad working conditions and all that were good fights, fought and won proudly. I do think that they got too big for their britches, added too many in their middle management etc. When it comes to bargaining, I just have to point something out. Teachers, for example, take a small paycheck but make up for that with benefits. This includes health care, and in some cases assist with their pensions. Not many have a 401K or anything similar. When negotiating a labor contract, you have to look at the whole picture. To say that the employer will simply dictate where you work, how many hours, hourly wage, number of students, and all the rest is a bit draconian in my opinion. You sign with some RE firm, they offer you a car, a rental home, cell phone and all the needed tools. They tell you you get to keep half of the 6% commissions earned. After a few years, take away the car, the home, the phone, and say you now get 20%. And, by the way, you cannot even negotiate with us any longer. Doesn't sound like good business to me. I hate to say this too, but even when the banks had deals with investment banker types to receive 5% of profits from deals they make. If someone else in the firm loses money, the guy who complied with his contract is entitled to his money. Not everyone agrees with me on this obviously. Foolish to try to take away someone's ability to negotiate a contract. And to your specific point. How is doing this less government? c
LOL! I'm not going quite that far, yet. This crap in the ME keeps blowing up,oil & gas go parabolic...we'll have more to worry about than who or who isn't paying for heath-care. This shit has me worried. Maybe just getting old, too old to fight the fight if it comes to that.
I thought you said "prepare for bloodshed" if anyone came to push you into the sea. No? I'm old, too, but I still have my guns and can still load and squeeze a trigger. I don't believe in hand-to-hand combat. I prefer hand-to-bullet in those instances.
If I wasn't in the top 2% I wouldn't be paying at the current rates. It's my taxes you want to raise and I'm already paying well over 40% of my income in taxes. Let me be clear that I'm not against paying taxes. We need a way to finance government. I don't mind paying taxes for public schools even though my kids are in private schools because I know its a necessity. But how much is enough? The fundamental problem is that our governments (federal, state and local) have insatiable appetites. Democrats and Republicans alike are profligate spenders. The only way to stop them is by cutting off the funds. Regarding the strong middle class of the past, that was primarily due to the aftermath of WWII. The period of 1945-1965 established the US as the leading manufacturing country in the world, not because of our manufacturing prowess, but rather because of our military might. At the end of WWII, the US had 5% of the world's population and almost 70% of the world's intact manufacturing and transportation infrastructure because most of Europe and Asia had been bombed to ashes during the war. For about 20 years, the US had the highest manufacturing price/wage structure in the world, from which the American middle class benefited greatly. By the mid-1960s, the rest of the world had rebuilt and the US had to actually compete against countries like Japan and Germany. Our market dominance began to erode in the 1970s, and the erosion increased in velocity during the 1980-90s as India and China entered the world markets. When hundreds of millions of people enter the global manufacturing workforce and are willing to work for fifty cents an hour, wages are going to fall, manufacturing is going migrate, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it. It's inevitable that the economies of China and India will overtake the US because China's population is 4X the US and India is 3X. Simple math. The economic forces of gravity in action.