Was said before in the last thread ages ago (that the no-bid sale of state assets was included in the bill), not seen a link pointing directly to the legislation.
This is the bit I'm actually referring to when I was saying it hadn't got any coverage here, since the Torys plan to make it the role of the government to show they can't run a state service more efficiently than a private corporation if challenged. I doubt claiming that they hold the actual physical assets would do and expect this to end up with the Government paying corperations to take the assets and service over (or paying less than the assets are worth, and then paying the corperation pretty much what they spent on the service previously).
"Anonymous" has apparently targeted the Koch brothers, claiming they are attempting to usurp American Democracy.
Also can anyone verify this claim, made in the article?
"Governor Walker's union-busting budget plan contains a clause that went nearly un-noticed. This clause would allow the sale of publicly owned utility plants in Wisconsin to private parties (specifically, Koch Industries) at any price, no matter how low, without a public bidding process," they explained. "The Koch's have helped to fuel the unrest in Wisconsin and the drive behind the bill to eliminate the collective bargaining power of unions in a bid to gain a monopoly over the state's power supplies.
As bum mentioned, it's not gone unnoticed, though it seems under-reported in the awful job the national media has done on the subject. We, here, and elsewhere on yon intarwebz are aware; it's not like the information is hiding; it's in the bill. It's just that the bill is 144 (or: one gross) pages.
Anyways, Anonymous probably couldn't pick a better target than the Kochs.
The taxpayers also end up footing the bill for their pension plans which are actually pretty generous.
This was disproven. State workers pay for their own pension plans by putting money aside. The only way that taxpayers end up paying for them is insofar as taxpayers pay for public salaries. Asking the public workers to pay "more" of their own pension is redundant. They pay it all already. What Walker really wants is for them to take a pay cut, and never be able to negotiate it back.
That article doesn't "disprove" it at all. In fact, it goes so far as to prove exactly what I said. When the pension plans end up coming short, the taxpayers foot the bill.
while it is true that it is state employees’ own money that funds the pension plan, when the pension plan comes up short it is up to the taxpayer to make up the difference.
There is some truth in this – but not as much as many seem to think.
The article then, later on, blames the shortfall on the states for negotiating deals through collective bargaining which they could not actually fund.
• failing to make annual payments for pension systems at the levels recommended by their own actuaries;
• expanding benefits and offering cost-of-living increases without fully considering their long-term price tag or determining how to pay for them; and
• providing retiree health care without adequately funding it
ERISA ensures that private corporations have to be able to pay for their pension plans. The only thing ensuring that the government pays their share is the government itself. If the government fund runs out of money, the taxpayers have to pay up more to pay the difference or the employees get nothing.
The issue is elected officials not taking responsibility for telling their employees the truth about what needs to be done. Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Okay so I read Keptins post above and one thing stood out for me:
Somewhere there has to be some give. We have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. There isn't much more to tax out of them without driving even more jobs overseas. In fact, we probably need to reel that back in because as the rest of the world closes the education gap we're going to lose companies that stay here for easy access to educated individuals.
Specificaly the red part....
Edit: Or in other words Citation needed.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Except it's long been established that money not the issue, as the Union and the Democrats and some of Walker's own Republican colleagues have suggested varying degrees of "sure, the teachers will help cover more of their insurance and pension, but they want to keep the right to collectively bargain" and he flipped them the middle finger.
The ability to negotiate as a group is powerful, to be sure, but if the immediate problem is a budget shortfall (in part created by Walker's policies in the first place) then surely the concessions given should be enough.
The budget and finances in general are, Clue style, a red herring. This is pretty much strictly about union breaking by any means necessary.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Okay so I read Keptins post above and one thing stood out for me:
Somewhere there has to be some give. We have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. There isn't much more to tax out of them without driving even more jobs overseas. In fact, we probably need to reel that back in because as the rest of the world closes the education gap we're going to lose companies that stay here for easy access to educated individuals.
"The United States has the highest corporate tax rate on paper. In practice, a third of the world's countries charge businesses more.
That means the claim that we're the highest is only partly true.
Truth Meter: 6"
I never said we had the highest. I'm not sure what your point was unless you're trying to indicate that I was being deceitful. I was suggesting having one of the highest is a problem - as is agreed on by both parties from the article you gave.
One last thought about corporate taxes: Despite seeming agreement from Republicans and Democrats, don't expect approval of lower rates to be easy. Obama said he wants to "get rid of the loopholes, level the playing field and use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years -- without adding to our deficit."
The problem is that the study shows the effective tax for those able to effectively use all the loopholes indicated. For businesses unable to acquire the most skilled book keepers, this is where the problem comes in. Lowering the corporate tax and simplifying the code are both necessary to encourage business.
So... I'll put it out there again...
Somewhere there has to be some give. We have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. There isn't much more to tax out of them without driving even more jobs overseas. In fact, we probably need to reel that back in because as the rest of the world closes the education gap we're going to lose companies that stay here for easy access to educated individuals.
We could raise taxes on the rich, everyone across the board... I don't think either of those will work as is because the tax code is so damn complicated that the people with enough money can find loopholes. So, really it is the middle class (historically, small business owners and property owners) that takes the majority of the hit as the poor get public programs and the rich avoid paying too much more.
What do you disagree with?
Keptin on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Our corporate tax rates are very high. Regardless of what it is though, if we had proper trade policy in place, they wouldnt be able to run from it no matter where they go. If you want access to American consumers, you have to pay the price of entry.
Nobody wants to talk trade though. Unions dont matter much if corporations can get away from them by fleeing the country.
Higher than two thirds of the world doesn't mean all that much, considering how many countries hardly have any business in the first place. No, the last thing we need to do is slavishly slash even more taxes.
Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Except it's long been established that money not the issue, as the Union and the Democrats and some of Walker's own Republican colleagues have suggested varying degrees of "sure, the teachers will help cover more of their insurance and pension, but they want to keep the right to collectively bargain" and he flipped them the middle finger.
The ability to negotiate as a group is powerful, to be sure, but if the immediate problem is a budget shortfall (in part created by Walker's policies in the first place) then surely the concessions given should be enough.
The budget and finances in general are, Clue style, a red herring. This is pretty much strictly about union breaking by any means necessary.
I'll agree that he is trying to bust public unions. I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. The financial problems are not caused by Governor Walker. That is not true. The belief that the $137 million shortfall is due to tax cuts is based mostly on Rachel Maddow's segment.
This is a tough situation. We already know that Walker is willing to lie to bait them back. However, at some point you have to take them at their word, even if you're walking into a trap.
Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Except it's long been established that money not the issue, as the Union and the Democrats and some of Walker's own Republican colleagues have suggested varying degrees of "sure, the teachers will help cover more of their insurance and pension, but they want to keep the right to collectively bargain" and he flipped them the middle finger.
The ability to negotiate as a group is powerful, to be sure, but if the immediate problem is a budget shortfall (in part created by Walker's policies in the first place) then surely the concessions given should be enough.
The budget and finances in general are, Clue style, a red herring. This is pretty much strictly about union breaking by any means necessary.
I'll agree that he is trying to bust public unions. I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. The financial problems are not caused by Governor Walker. That is not true. The belief that the $137 million shortfall is due to tax cuts is based mostly on Rachel Maddow's segment.
"Anonymous" has apparently targeted the Koch brothers, claiming they are attempting to usurp American Democracy.
Also can anyone verify this claim, made in the article?
"Governor Walker's union-busting budget plan contains a clause that went nearly un-noticed. This clause would allow the sale of publicly owned utility plants in Wisconsin to private parties (specifically, Koch Industries) at any price, no matter how low, without a public bidding process," they explained. "The Koch's have helped to fuel the unrest in Wisconsin and the drive behind the bill to eliminate the collective bargaining power of unions in a bid to gain a monopoly over the state's power supplies.
The most important thing I've learned from that is that "Georgia Pacific" paper company and vanity fair make the koch brothers money. I just hope I don't learn some evil shit about Kimberly Clark because they're the only paper products company left for me to buy from (I already don't do P+G).
I did read the thing about the sale of Wisconsin assets before, but I think the source was something like KOS or MotherJones. I do think I remember they quoted the bill itself, though.
Higher than two thirds of the world doesn't mean all that much, considering how many countries hardly have any business in the first place. No, the last thing we need to do is slavishly slash even more taxes.
Might I ask why you are against one of the few issues in this country that has bipartisan support?
Also, slashing the tax without simplifying the code would lessen the burden on smaller corporations but it wouldn't have a great effect on the large corporations.
Our corporate tax rates are very high. Regardless of what it is though, if we had proper trade policy in place, they wouldnt be able to run from it no matter where they go. If you want access to American consumers, you have to pay the price of entry.
Nobody wants to talk trade though. Unions dont matter much if corporations can get away from them by fleeing the country.
Yeah, talking trade divorces us even more from the issue of public unions than I already did. I was just trying to talk to about paying for pensions and I accidentally put us down a rabbit hole on private corporations. The public unions operate somewhat like what a private union would if the organization they worked for was unable to move away or cease to exist... though thats a stretch.
Every time the "unions let bad _____'s stick around" argument comes out, I can't help but think that this is an acceptable price to pay in order to protect the 95% (pulled from ass) of staff who are just in it for the job or to support a family or because they enjoy yelling at people in a mall (or whatever they get to do).
Is it just me or does this seem to be a deep-rooted conservative mindset? "Some people are cheating on welfare/bad at their job but impossible to get rid of/etc etc, so let's scrap the entire thing."
The conservatives around these parts got sick of perceived welfare cheating and wanted to get rid of it. So far they've caught cheaters for a total of 0.17% of the cost of the anti-cheating initiative.
Pretty much. It's easy to point at literally any law and say "This law isn't perfect, therefore it is entirely terrible and should be destroyed," laws being both under- and over-inclusive of their intended targets and all that. Just look at all the manufactured rage over illegal immigrants getting healthcare benefits.
Due process laws involving things like needing a search warrant and a trial by jury makes it harder to convict the legitimately guilty.
Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Except it's long been established that money not the issue, as the Union and the Democrats and some of Walker's own Republican colleagues have suggested varying degrees of "sure, the teachers will help cover more of their insurance and pension, but they want to keep the right to collectively bargain" and he flipped them the middle finger.
The ability to negotiate as a group is powerful, to be sure, but if the immediate problem is a budget shortfall (in part created by Walker's policies in the first place) then surely the concessions given should be enough.
The budget and finances in general are, Clue style, a red herring. This is pretty much strictly about union breaking by any means necessary.
I'll agree that he is trying to bust public unions. I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. The financial problems are not caused by Governor Walker. That is not true. The belief that the $137 million shortfall is due to tax cuts is based mostly on Rachel Maddow's segment.
Posting something without comment or annotations is a little lowbrow for a debate. I watched the whole thing to see if it added anything other than her normal Department of Corrections bit. They weren't correcting her on that she said there wasn't a shortfall. She led viewers to believe that it was the fault of Walker. I'm not quoting some conservative rag here.
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
So 500,000 signatures. One person. 60 days.
So basically this is a case where the public demanded the ability to recall, so the politicians made it technically possible, but is never going to happen.
Keptin, I guarantee you that even if you lower the corporate tax rates in the US that we will see very little of a decrease in outsourcing.
Because why would they want to keep Jobs here where they have to pay decent wages, benefits and hours to Americans when they can go overseas and use much cheaper labor in countries that don't have the same level of Labor rights that we have?
Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Except it's long been established that money not the issue, as the Union and the Democrats and some of Walker's own Republican colleagues have suggested varying degrees of "sure, the teachers will help cover more of their insurance and pension, but they want to keep the right to collectively bargain" and he flipped them the middle finger.
The ability to negotiate as a group is powerful, to be sure, but if the immediate problem is a budget shortfall (in part created by Walker's policies in the first place) then surely the concessions given should be enough.
The budget and finances in general are, Clue style, a red herring. This is pretty much strictly about union breaking by any means necessary.
I'll agree that he is trying to bust public unions. I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. The financial problems are not caused by Governor Walker. That is not true. The belief that the $137 million shortfall is due to tax cuts is based mostly on Rachel Maddow's segment.
Posting something without comment or annotations is a little lowbrow for a debate. I watched the whole thing to see if it added anything other than her normal Department of Corrections bit. They weren't correcting her on that she said there wasn't a shortfall. She led viewers to believe that it was the fault of Walker. I'm not quoting some conservative rag here.
A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.
Why would they include that part, though? She either said it or she didn't. I can see why she had a problem with their reporting. I personally haven't seen the portion where's she's said to pin it on Walker, but I'm going to go watch it now.
Also, sorry about the corporate tax rate thing, I was totally reading that you said 'highest' rather than 'one of the highest'. My bad.
When she's quoting the same numbers as Walker, I'm at a loss as to how she's getting fact checked and he's not.
She literally said that there was a budget deficit, cited numbers from both the Walker office and the Wisconsin CBO. The CBO numbers saying that there was a surplus and the Walker numbers saying that there was a deficit, and conceded that there was in fact a deficit as stated by Walker.
The Politifact "analysis" sided with the press instead of with the budget office.
She opened one segment saying that there was a budget surplus according to the LFB (Wisconsin's CBO) and then stated that there was an apparent budget deficit as reported by the AP.
Politifact cherrypicked one statement and ignored the other.
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
So 500,000 signatures. One person. 60 days.
Under 9,000 votes a day isn't impossible if there is enough support. Milwaukee and Madison would potentially have many more than that. They have to wait a full year to recall the governor anyways, I believe.
The limits are there because, generally speaking, people will sign anything. That assertion is based entirely on personal experience.
Higher than two thirds of the world doesn't mean all that much, considering how many countries hardly have any business in the first place. No, the last thing we need to do is slavishly slash even more taxes.
Might I ask why you are against one of the few issues in this country that has bipartisan support?
I don't give a flying fuck what has bipartisan support. The Iraq War was begun with bipartisan support. Banning gay marriage has bipartisan support. Both of those are shitty.
Also, businesses constantly complain that taxes are too high. That's what they do. It doesn't indicate anything about the actual rate of taxation.
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
So 500,000 signatures. One person. 60 days.
Under 9,000 votes a day isn't impossible if there is enough support. Milwaukee and Madison would potentially have many more than that. They have to wait a full year to recall the governor anyways, I believe.
The limits are there because, generally speaking, people will sign anything. That assertion is based entirely on personal experience.
Speaking as someone who has street canvassed, this is simply not the case.
You basically have to prove you're either a nun or superman to get anyone to sign anything on the street.
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
So 500,000 signatures. One person. 60 days.
Under 9,000 votes a day isn't impossible if there is enough support. Milwaukee and Madison would potentially have many more than that. They have to wait a full year to recall the governor anyways, I believe.
The limits are there because, generally speaking, people will sign anything. That assertion is based entirely on personal experience.
Two big things just got changed (prevented from being changed to be more accurate) in Canada in no small part thanks to large numbers of people signing petitions.
If we had a similar "one man must collect all the signatures!" rule, it's pretty likely that both measures would have passed unchallenged.
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
So 500,000 signatures. One person. 60 days.
How big was Obama's contact list in the state? One of the immediate goals should be to make it more difficult in the state chambers.
The state house and state senators need in the range of tens of thousands. Especially since the 2008 senators should be vulnerable right now. That's much easier to pull of.
When she's quoting the same numbers as Walker, I'm at a loss as to how she's getting fact checked and he's not.
She literally said that there was a budget deficit, cited numbers from both the Walker office and the Wisconsin CBO. The CBO numbers saying that there was a surplus and the Walker numbers saying that there was a deficit, and conceded that there was in fact a deficit as stated by Walker.
The Politifact "analysis" sided with the press instead of with the budget office.
She opened one segment saying that there was a budget surplus according to the LFB (Wisconsin's CBO) and then stated that there was an apparent budget deficit as reported by the AP.
Politifact cherrypicked one statement and ignored the other.
Yeah, just watched that segment. I think you put that more succinctly than I could have.
When she's quoting the same numbers as Walker, I'm at a loss as to how she's getting fact checked and he's not.
She literally said that there was a budget deficit, cited numbers from both the Walker office and the Wisconsin CBO. The CBO numbers saying that there was a surplus and the Walker numbers saying that there was a deficit, and conceded that there was in fact a deficit as stated by Walker.
The Politifact "analysis" sided with the press instead of with the budget office.
She opened one segment saying that there was a budget surplus according to the LFB (Wisconsin's CBO) and then stated that there was an apparent budget deficit as reported by the AP.
Politifact cherrypicked one statement and ignored the other.
Well, I don't really have any interest in continuing to defend my point to someone who isn't reading the articles I'm providing so I'm going to go with maybe you just missed the parts that dispute Maddow. I'm sorry for not quoting/citing them to begin with. The LFB indicates a $121.4 million gross balance and a $56.4 million net balance. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf $56.4 million surplus so far.
Now, if you read that entire memo, (page 4 if you please) there is a $153.2 million Medical Assistance shortfall, an $8.9 million shortfall in the public defender, private bar, a $21.7 million fall in the Department of Corrections. $58.7 million is owed to Minnesota (page 3) under the reciprocity agreement. That isn't all.
So, if you choose to ignore all the pages other than the first two, then yes they are cherry picking.
Optimism that these shortfalls will magically not occur is not an excuse for poor bookkeeping.
Okay, I legitimately do not care about the legalese about whether politifact was correct in calling them right or wrong or whether Maddow is right or wrong. The point is that the Maddow people agree that the shortfall was not caused by Governor Walker.
I don't care if she is right or wrong. The ending point is that the shortfall is not covered by Governor Walker. The tax cuts he is putting into place do not result in the shortfall.
When she's quoting the same numbers as Walker, I'm at a loss as to how she's getting fact checked and he's not.
She literally said that there was a budget deficit, cited numbers from both the Walker office and the Wisconsin CBO. The CBO numbers saying that there was a surplus and the Walker numbers saying that there was a deficit, and conceded that there was in fact a deficit as stated by Walker.
The Politifact "analysis" sided with the press instead of with the budget office.
She opened one segment saying that there was a budget surplus according to the LFB (Wisconsin's CBO) and then stated that there was an apparent budget deficit as reported by the AP.
Politifact cherrypicked one statement and ignored the other.
Well, I don't really have any interest in continuing to defend my point to someone who isn't reading the articles I'm providing so I'm going to go with maybe you just missed the parts that dispute Maddow. I'm sorry for not quoting/citing them to begin with. The LFB indicates a $121.4 million gross balance and a $56.4 million net balance. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf $56.4 million surplus so far.
Now, if you read that entire memo, (page 4 if you please) there is a $153.2 million Medical Assistance shortfall, an $8.9 million shortfall in the public defender, private bar, a $21.7 million fall in the Department of Corrections. $58.7 million is owed to Minnesota (page 3) under the reciprocity agreement. That isn't all.
So, if you choose to ignore all the pages other than the first two, then yes they are cherry picking.
Optimism that these shortfalls will magically not occur is not an excuse for poor bookkeeping.
Politifact was cherrypicking Maddow's statements. Not the budget report.
The statement that there was a reported surplus came literally 3 sentences before the statement that there was actually a deficit.
I get that you've got some sort of axe to grind here, but Politifact needed a boogeyman on the budget check and picked her based on one statement that was immediately contextualized to agree with the budget statement you just linked.
Besides that, the Politifact statement is incoherent; they accuse her first of claiming that there is no deficit, and then of saying that Walker is manipulating the budget to produce one.
Basically, it's just bad reporting on their part. I will say that she made her point in a way that left her open to this sort of "analysis", when she should be smarter than that, but that's really the only level she's culpable on here.
Okay, I legitimately do not care about the legalese about whether politifact was correct in calling them right or wrong or whether Maddow is right or wrong. The point is that the Maddow people agree that the shortfall was not caused by Governor Walker.
I don't care if she is right or wrong. The ending point is that the shortfall is not covered by Governor Walker. The tax cuts he is putting into place do not result in the shortfall.
You're really pounding hard on this for someone who didn't actually see the clip.
She said as much during the segment Politifact was using to push on it.
They just failed to report that part because it didn't fit their narrative.
Okay, I legitimately do not care about the legalese about whether politifact was correct in calling them right or wrong or whether Maddow is right or wrong. The point is that the Maddow people agree that the shortfall was not caused by Governor Walker.
I don't care if she is right or wrong. The ending point is that the shortfall is not covered by Governor Walker. The tax cuts he is putting into place do not result in the shortfall.
Certainly don't help.
I swear, in what rational mind does the idea come forth "We don't have enough money to pay for the budget. We'll then lets cut income!"
Posts
This is the bit I'm actually referring to when I was saying it hadn't got any coverage here, since the Torys plan to make it the role of the government to show they can't run a state service more efficiently than a private corporation if challenged. I doubt claiming that they hold the actual physical assets would do and expect this to end up with the Government paying corperations to take the assets and service over (or paying less than the assets are worth, and then paying the corperation pretty much what they spent on the service previously).
As bum mentioned, it's not gone unnoticed, though it seems under-reported in the awful job the national media has done on the subject. We, here, and elsewhere on yon intarwebz are aware; it's not like the information is hiding; it's in the bill. It's just that the bill is 144 (or: one gross) pages.
Anyways, Anonymous probably couldn't pick a better target than the Kochs.
Apparently half-true.
"The United States has the highest corporate tax rate on paper. In practice, a third of the world's countries charge businesses more.
That means the claim that we're the highest is only partly true.
Truth Meter: 6"
That article doesn't "disprove" it at all. In fact, it goes so far as to prove exactly what I said. When the pension plans end up coming short, the taxpayers foot the bill.
The article then, later on, blames the shortfall on the states for negotiating deals through collective bargaining which they could not actually fund.
ERISA ensures that private corporations have to be able to pay for their pension plans. The only thing ensuring that the government pays their share is the government itself. If the government fund runs out of money, the taxpayers have to pay up more to pay the difference or the employees get nothing.
The issue is elected officials not taking responsibility for telling their employees the truth about what needs to be done. Governor Walker is trying to be balance the sheets and he is being keelhauled for it.
Specificaly the red part....
Edit: Or in other words Citation needed.
Except it's long been established that money not the issue, as the Union and the Democrats and some of Walker's own Republican colleagues have suggested varying degrees of "sure, the teachers will help cover more of their insurance and pension, but they want to keep the right to collectively bargain" and he flipped them the middle finger.
The ability to negotiate as a group is powerful, to be sure, but if the immediate problem is a budget shortfall (in part created by Walker's policies in the first place) then surely the concessions given should be enough.
The budget and finances in general are, Clue style, a red herring. This is pretty much strictly about union breaking by any means necessary.
I never said we had the highest. I'm not sure what your point was unless you're trying to indicate that I was being deceitful. I was suggesting having one of the highest is a problem - as is agreed on by both parties from the article you gave.
The problem is that the study shows the effective tax for those able to effectively use all the loopholes indicated. For businesses unable to acquire the most skilled book keepers, this is where the problem comes in. Lowering the corporate tax and simplifying the code are both necessary to encourage business.
So... I'll put it out there again...
What do you disagree with?
Nobody wants to talk trade though. Unions dont matter much if corporations can get away from them by fleeing the country.
I'll agree that he is trying to bust public unions. I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. The financial problems are not caused by Governor Walker. That is not true. The belief that the $137 million shortfall is due to tax cuts is based mostly on Rachel Maddow's segment.
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/
Basically, they were never on track for a surplus and the tax cuts that Governor Walker passed don't begin until next year.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The most important thing I've learned from that is that "Georgia Pacific" paper company and vanity fair make the koch brothers money. I just hope I don't learn some evil shit about Kimberly Clark because they're the only paper products company left for me to buy from (I already don't do P+G).
I did read the thing about the sale of Wisconsin assets before, but I think the source was something like KOS or MotherJones. I do think I remember they quoted the bill itself, though.
You're right, no one in the history of the planet has ever sought to challenge unions before.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-01-27-corporatetaxrates27_ST_N.htm
Might I ask why you are against one of the few issues in this country that has bipartisan support?
Also, slashing the tax without simplifying the code would lessen the burden on smaller corporations but it wouldn't have a great effect on the large corporations.
Yeah, talking trade divorces us even more from the issue of public unions than I already did. I was just trying to talk to about paying for pensions and I accidentally put us down a rabbit hole on private corporations. The public unions operate somewhat like what a private union would if the organization they worked for was unable to move away or cease to exist... though thats a stretch.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Due process laws involving things like needing a search warrant and a trial by jury makes it harder to convict the legitimately guilty.
Best get rid of them.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-01-27-corporatetaxrates27_ST_N.htm I was close to including this link to begin with.
Posting something without comment or annotations is a little lowbrow for a debate. I watched the whole thing to see if it added anything other than her normal Department of Corrections bit. They weren't correcting her on that she said there wasn't a shortfall. She led viewers to believe that it was the fault of Walker. I'm not quoting some conservative rag here.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_Wisconsin
Basically, you need to collect over half a million signatures within 60 days.
Oh, and the law is written so that the person doing the paperwork has to personally collect the signatures. They're not allowed to delagate the signatures to everyone else.
So 500,000 signatures. One person. 60 days.
So basically this is a case where the public demanded the ability to recall, so the politicians made it technically possible, but is never going to happen.
Because why would they want to keep Jobs here where they have to pay decent wages, benefits and hours to Americans when they can go overseas and use much cheaper labor in countries that don't have the same level of Labor rights that we have?
See, for instance, Foxconn in China.
Why would they include that part, though? She either said it or she didn't. I can see why she had a problem with their reporting. I personally haven't seen the portion where's she's said to pin it on Walker, but I'm going to go watch it now.
Also, sorry about the corporate tax rate thing, I was totally reading that you said 'highest' rather than 'one of the highest'. My bad.
She literally said that there was a budget deficit, cited numbers from both the Walker office and the Wisconsin CBO. The CBO numbers saying that there was a surplus and the Walker numbers saying that there was a deficit, and conceded that there was in fact a deficit as stated by Walker.
The Politifact "analysis" sided with the press instead of with the budget office.
She opened one segment saying that there was a budget surplus according to the LFB (Wisconsin's CBO) and then stated that there was an apparent budget deficit as reported by the AP.
Politifact cherrypicked one statement and ignored the other.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Under 9,000 votes a day isn't impossible if there is enough support. Milwaukee and Madison would potentially have many more than that. They have to wait a full year to recall the governor anyways, I believe.
The limits are there because, generally speaking, people will sign anything. That assertion is based entirely on personal experience.
Also, businesses constantly complain that taxes are too high. That's what they do. It doesn't indicate anything about the actual rate of taxation.
You basically have to prove you're either a nun or superman to get anyone to sign anything on the street.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Two big things just got changed (prevented from being changed to be more accurate) in Canada in no small part thanks to large numbers of people signing petitions.
If we had a similar "one man must collect all the signatures!" rule, it's pretty likely that both measures would have passed unchallenged.
How big was Obama's contact list in the state? One of the immediate goals should be to make it more difficult in the state chambers.
The state house and state senators need in the range of tens of thousands. Especially since the 2008 senators should be vulnerable right now. That's much easier to pull of.
Yeah, just watched that segment. I think you put that more succinctly than I could have.
That's the original segment if you want to watch it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well, I don't really have any interest in continuing to defend my point to someone who isn't reading the articles I'm providing so I'm going to go with maybe you just missed the parts that dispute Maddow. I'm sorry for not quoting/citing them to begin with. The LFB indicates a $121.4 million gross balance and a $56.4 million net balance. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf $56.4 million surplus so far.
Now, if you read that entire memo, (page 4 if you please) there is a $153.2 million Medical Assistance shortfall, an $8.9 million shortfall in the public defender, private bar, a $21.7 million fall in the Department of Corrections. $58.7 million is owed to Minnesota (page 3) under the reciprocity agreement. That isn't all.
So, if you choose to ignore all the pages other than the first two, then yes they are cherry picking.
Optimism that these shortfalls will magically not occur is not an excuse for poor bookkeeping.
Okay, I legitimately do not care about the legalese about whether politifact was correct in calling them right or wrong or whether Maddow is right or wrong. The point is that the Maddow people agree that the shortfall was not caused by Governor Walker.
I don't care if she is right or wrong. The ending point is that the shortfall is not covered by Governor Walker. The tax cuts he is putting into place do not result in the shortfall.
The statement that there was a reported surplus came literally 3 sentences before the statement that there was actually a deficit.
I get that you've got some sort of axe to grind here, but Politifact needed a boogeyman on the budget check and picked her based on one statement that was immediately contextualized to agree with the budget statement you just linked.
Besides that, the Politifact statement is incoherent; they accuse her first of claiming that there is no deficit, and then of saying that Walker is manipulating the budget to produce one.
Basically, it's just bad reporting on their part. I will say that she made her point in a way that left her open to this sort of "analysis", when she should be smarter than that, but that's really the only level she's culpable on here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
She said as much during the segment Politifact was using to push on it.
They just failed to report that part because it didn't fit their narrative.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Legalese that agrees with what I believe are, of course, facts.
Certainly don't help.
I swear, in what rational mind does the idea come forth "We don't have enough money to pay for the budget. We'll then lets cut income!"