The Twit on Twitter saying everyone must sacrifice (except corprations...of course.)

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Feb 20, 2011.

  1. The Twitter from Wasilla speaking to her "union brothers and sisters?"

    Too funny...

    MADISON, Wis. — Sarah Palin says union members protesting Wisconsin Republicans' plan to help balance the state's budget by cutting collective bargaining rights are taking up "the wrong fight at the wrong time."

    Palin weighed in on the debate in a Friday night posting on her Facebook page but didn't indicate whether she would join weekend conservative counter-protests organized by groups including the Tea Party Patriots and Americans for Prosperity.

    In the posting addressed to "union brothers and sisters," Palin says Wisconsin taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pay for benefits "that are not sustainable." She says "real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice."

    New Republican Gov. Scott Walker insists the concessions he's seeking from public workers are necessary to deal with Wisconsin's projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall and to avoid layoffs.


    Everyone should sacrifice, but is that what this is actually all about? Is Walker's plan to share the sacrifice amongst all of the people of Wisconsin?

    Was it a sacrifice to give tax breaks to corporations as part of Walker's first actions? *---see below

    Too funny how the windbaggers have drunk the koolaid of the oileeeeeegarchy that is pulling the strings.



    *---

    MADISON — Companies that relocate to Wisconsin won't have to pay income taxes for two years under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Scott Walker.

    Read more: http://www.postcrescent.com/article...ker-signs-tax-cut-bill-into-law#ixzz1EXPgR4yo
     
  2. You are a sick dog.

    Its like the Republicans are having a barbecue in a backyard and you are the pervert peaking through the hole in the fence.
     
  3. Thanks for the personal attack/defense of Palin.

    Your seething consistency is such a comfort...

    I can always count on the likes of you to provide the necessary contrast between reason and pure vacuous rancor...


     

  4. The shared sacrifice (as a leftist bogus concept) is invalid , the real reason is workers assuming personal responsibility and the state having the balls to refuse to concede to a crappy deal for the taxpayer.
     
  5. Analysis of a deal in bad times, when it was considered a reasonable deal in good times is like looking at a trade that didn't work out because the market conditions changed. Someone bought a stock high thinking it would go higher...they love the stock and it was a great deal as long as it goes up...but now it is a bad deal because the stock price goes down? Talk about a stock buyer without any real plan...

    This discussion in Wisconsin and reactionary move by the governor is not because it was a bad deal or a good deal, it was a bargained deal, fair and square.

    To strike a "new deal" is just because of the many variables that have contributed to the economic situation, and the many variables are a shared deal because of our system of government is a shared deal. It is a shared responsibility to vote, it is a shared responsibility to pay taxes, etc.

    Shared sacrifice is not a liberal idea, any more than sharing good times is a liberal deal. But shared sacrifice is done by all involved for the good of the whole.

    Shared sacrifice across the board is what allowed the United States to win the second world war and achieve greatness post war...and selfishness and sacrifice by the union workers for the sake of the few and powerful, is just plain stupid...

    Look, say the governor gets his way for now, and the election is recalled in a year, and say a democrat house and governor are elected in...that would make it any different that what is happening now?

    What really needs to change in order for states and our federal government to properly solve our problem?

    Change by just a few, sacrifice by just a portion...or a united effort by all parties involved and impacted...which is nearly everyone but the 2% who are not impacted is going to be a more effective course of action in the long run.

    When people see that fairness is applied equally to everyone, they are going to think that our government is genuinely being fair...and if people see that the sacrifice is not applied equally...well, the election cycle, or recall cycle will take care of that.

    Think about it, we went from 6 years of complete republican control, to the people rejecting republicans, to Obama, to republican control again...and you think that it can't snap right back to the previous polar opposite if things don't improve quickly?

    The electorate is fickle as hell, and they vote their pocketbooks over most anything else.

    I am still waiting to see what happens to the baggers, the old ones who depend on social security and medicare...if the GOP shuts down government. Who will they blame?

    Not themselves of course, and being not too bright, they will blame everyone but the GOP and their own foolish voting.

    Shared responsibility, shared success, shared blame, shared sacrifice is the nature of any collective, and please check your Constitution, the United States is a collective of States, where the Federal Government has the highest power.

    We fought that war already, you guys lost...




     
  6. Count me out I don't subscribe to the "shared sacrifice BS" and I reject "the collective".

    This is about gubbermint workers taking responsibility for their retirement and healthcare more similar to the private sector.

    It's also about an elected official looking out for the interests of the taxpayer ( as he should: yeah I know it's a foreign concept for the executive branch to actually show some fiduciary duty to the taxpayer).
     
  7. So truly believe that a government worker, i.e. the elected official is looking out for the interests of the tax payer?

    Please, could you at least make an attempt to be consistent with your comments?

    I mean, are you really so bi-polar as to think that a republican governor is only trying to look out for the interests of the tax payer, and that the democrats aren't?

    Isn't more likely knowing the nature of politics and pols, that this governor has his own agenda, that may just happen to coincide with the people from time to time...but bottom line the governor, like most pols is not truly a public servant...not expecting anything in reward for public service...puuuuuleeeeze!!!

    It is a reaction to a financial situation by both sides, and to think that this particular elected official is a servant to the people, but that the other government workers don't serve the tax payers is rather, how shall I say this...

    You can count yourself out of the concept of shared sacrifice, and also don't expect the government workers of any kind to come to protect you or yours when it comes time for them to sacrifice their lives to save yours...

    Fair enough?

    Be entirely self sufficient and not dependent on any government to sustain you and yours...good luck with that in today's world. I'm guessing in addition to not buying into shared sacrifice, you don't agree with compromise, getting along with others who are different, etc.

    Really, go full on libertarian, don't accept our government's money, try to pay your trading fees in pigs and sheep, don't drive on federal or state roads, etc., etc., etc.

    Madness, utter madness...

    There may not be an desert island waiting for you to be king/lord of your own kingdom, but there is always a rubber room with a straight jacket for people who do think they are the king/lord of our country...and some of those folks even think they are LORDs from KAL-EL.

    :D

     
  8. yep you nailed it .
     
  9. Okay, that's what you think.

    Now if the governor reversed his position, because he changed his mind and thought sincerely it was in the best interest of the tax payers in the long run to reverse his position...you would think he is acting in the best interest of the tax payers?

    So which is it, you trust his intentions, or you take his side on the issue?

    Really funny, very funny...

    It boils down to a simplistic logic:

    "I agree with anyone who agrees with me."

    No thinking required from that point forward, is there?


     
  10. (the above is)
    Too stupid for a cogent reply.

    Of course I agree with those who agree with me.
     
    #10     Feb 20, 2011