3

so zodijackyl won't feel left out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi00ykRg_5c

gotta get down on friday

you quoted media, im clearly reading that shit

Ty for ignoring anything I've said

actually, you havnt said anything other than rhetoric anyway, carry on rush

also, since all media is lol, would you mind telling us where you get your daily news? you must have a non-media source of information that is a well-kept secret.

proof? bold claims unbacked. entire toilet is stev laying out links and facts, gull disagrees but has no proof.

and can we talk about how much the politicians make? 174k a year for a first time rep seems outrageous. they dont even work 12 months a year. and since thats part of their argument against teachers im pretty sure its valid.

clearly yet, the first question I asked hasn't really been answered yet, just vaguely avoided while bringing up other issues that are clearly wholly relevant to this.

Your assertion is incorrect. Here are some public opinion polls from the past six weeks or so (newest available) that strongly suggest that that the majority of Wisconsin residents do clearly support Scott Walker ("the current regime") nor his key policies, as well as a bit of information about the national political climate on these key issues.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Wisconsin voters shows that just 39% favor weakening collective bargaining rights and 52% are opposed. At the same time, 44% support a 10% pay cut for all state workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are opposed. That’s partly because 27% of Wisconsin voters believe state workers are paid too much and 16% believe they are paid too little. Forty-nine percent (49%) believe the pay of state workers is about right. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Among those asked about the state budget deficit, 52% supported the Democrats and 44% supported the Governor. Most of those 50 and over support the Governor, 40-somethings are evenly divided, and those under 40 support the Democrats.
Among those asked about weakening collective bargaining rights, 56% supported the union and 41% supported the Governor. There is a similar age dynamic on this question, even though the overall level of support for the Governor is lower.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...rgaining_rights

34% Strongly Approve of the job he is doing, while 48% Strongly Disapprove. Overall, including those who somewhat approve or disapprove, the new Republican governor earns positive reviews from 43% and negative reviews from 57% of voters statewide.
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...approval_rating

Around the nation, people overall oppose reducing or eliminating certain state programs and reducing pay or benefits the government provides for state workers. Nationally, the 33% of people favor eliminating collective bargaining rights while 61% oppose it. There is much more information on these issues with the original poll.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-...scal-Evils.aspx

More polls:
53 percent of voters with unfavorable feelings toward Walker and only 46 percent favorable
Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/201...making-its-case
[i]54.87 percent of Wisconsinites disapprove of the job Walker is doing while 43.71 percent approve. The pollster notes an even more striking number in the results, only 1.42 percent of those polled had “no opinion.”[/]
Source: http://weaskamerica.com/2011/03/28/crossfire/ (commentary added, statistics referenced)
46% approval, 52% disapproval. 48% support recalling Walker, 48% are opposed to recalling Walker - This poll is from March 1, his approval has dropped since then and new polls will become available with the start of the new month in the next week.
Source: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP..._WI_0301930.pdf

when it works, it works. people hated obama for a while that leveled off

except obama isnt working

This is clearly about Obama.

i know, its about an injunction that seemingly no one cares about except you
at most its a 5 second hurdle that will be passed

Time to rephrase the original question.

Is it acceptable for the Governor's office to use loopholes to circumvent the political process that is in place in order to achieve the ends they seek? Is it acceptable for the legislature to force this bill through when so many of their colleagues have left the state in protest of it to prevent it from being enacted and more than half of the state supports them in doing so? After all of this has been done, is it acceptable for the Governor's office to ignore an order from the judicial branch in order to enact this law, disregarding an investigation into the legality of how it was passed? Why should a law be valid if those who wrote and enacted it do clearly follow the laws that govern how they make laws?

To simplify this: The political process is dictated by a series of laws, and the process allows for the three branches of government to work to ensure that these laws are followed. If these laws are disregarded to make more laws, why should these new laws be valid? Are they legitimate laws?

P.S. This is clearly about Obama, state government and federal government are clearly equatable in their executive branches.

One-third of government is irrelevant because nobody except me cares about it.
Another third has more than half of the state's population opposed to what they are doing when they are supposed to be representing them, and have had a sizable number of their members leave the state in protest, with the support of the majority.
The last third had 48% of the state supporting recalling him before this law was forced through and ignored the courts up to the supreme court of the state. This show of power is clearly likely to gain support for the Governor.

I'm clearly a politician yet so I still have to go to work, be back later.

you're going to keep writing persuasive essays and keep asking loaded questions until you get the answer you want out of sgull, which is NEVER going to happen geek

let us refer to blind_chief's trusty chart, this discussion doesn't even pass the first check



SHUT UP

find me a stream for the brewers reds game

Do you believe that this is the correct thing to be doing at this point in time, at this point in the process of resolving budget problems?

gull hates unions, this bill fuck unions, so the methods don't matter. Hippie is right (sigh).

PARTYAN PARTYAN YEAH
PARTYAN PARTYAN YEAH

FUN FUN

I DO clearly APPROVE OF HER SONG ADVOCATING PARTYAN BUT SUPPORTAN MINORS IN THE VIDYA

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF REGULATION LEGISLATION ABOUT MINORS IN PROVOCATIVE VIDYA

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BLACK GUY DOING IN THE VIDEO

HOLY PEDGRO

PARTYAN PARTYAN YEAH
PARTYAN PARTYAN YEAH

FUN FUN FUN FUN

ERRRBODY LF TO THE WEEKAND

the prospect of my state clearly being in debt without having to pay more taxes, and getting more idiots off medicaid sounds like a huge plus to me

What do you think of increasing state income taxes by one percent, only on those making over one millions dollars per year for three years? This is a threshold beyond where personal labor earns the money, rather the society is an environment in which their business thrives. This will resolve the budget deficit, then we can put some effort into better providing social services, reducing abuse and increasing the intended benefits and effects.

gull thinks like all good repubs. "social services" means "free hand out" and anyone with money is just a smart dude who earned it. this entire toilet is gull clearly answering a single question, clearly presenting a single "i think this because of this". he presents himself as this informed person (which indirectly means you are clearly informed) who understand the issues, though evey response is singular in nature, and generally clearly directly related to the topic at hand.

the moral of the story is gull does clearly want the govmt to spend any money on people (just the average worker, clearly the actual politician who makes more than hes worth), but a tax break, which does clearly go on the expense sheet, is ok (its clearly a loss if you never had it ). as long as he only surrounds himself with the other 15 people who come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and are in the same education program (which, ironically, benefit from the very "social programs" that he hates [teachers, student loans for everyone]) he wont ever have to face the many different faces of america. he will have made his cash from a completely government protected industry controlled by lobbyist but think it was because he made good choices. maybe he did, going into an industry that is government protected and that has the backing of some of the most influential corporations. he will forever think that the older woman who does clearly understand this complicated insurance structure who cant afford her clearly yet generic medicine is a bane on society.

nothing new here. i give stev meni credits for trying to at least debate the issues with gull.

The fact of the matter is this:
Medicaid costs are eating away at the Wisconsin budget. When the economy tanked a whole slew of poors jumped on the medicaid bandwagon, and almost none of them are kicked off. Well now 3 years later, the economy is clearly as bad and people are getting jobs, but people are clearly getting off medicaid. any time theres a situation where someone says "well i cant work full time because then im off medicaid" my heart sinks into my gut and i feel the acidic environment of my stomach eating away and my cardiac tissue, but clearly in sympathy. more in terms of, well maybe you dont fucking need a cell phone with the unlimited data plan to live, maybe you should fucking work for what you think you need instead of having a *broke* government entity provide it for you.

i dont think the super rich should be taxed more for being more successful. sure all of them dont work harder than you, but some to most of them certainly do. whenst in the situation of needing money, and youre a corporation you can do 2 things: paycuts, or job cuts. think of the government as a corporation since it employs a bunch of people, the only difference being that it can do an additional thing: tax everyone else to maintain overpaid teachers salaries and fringe benefits. in a sick and twisted world we live in, we absolutely abhor politicians and their 150k/year and good insurance jobs, but we dont hate the teachers who work 8-9 months a year and make 70k a year plus an additional 70k/year in fringe benefits. god, why do we have to tax the TEACHERSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS WAAAAAAAAAAAAH. because they make more than they should, for what they are worth, for what they are doing. want to make more money? do a better job, wisconsin education sucks; improving a union structure or paying teachers more will clearly help that

let me reiterate: if the bottom line doesnt make sense, i dont give a fuck what the agenda is, i'm clearly for it

Lmk when this becomes a discussion on why the fuck is congress trying to make engineering decisions for NASA.

the problem people have is why, when there is a budget problem, side a gets tax breaks while side b gets penalized. i dont think anyone would argue that there are circumstances where entitlements gets abused. ive seen it first hand at work people who cant work overtime because their food stamps get penalized for more than just the 2 days they worked extra. that also makes me sick. but then again they are temps working for minimum wage and have no job security, so they are actually being smart for themselves.

the issue of teachers should be separate. they should contribute to their health care and 401k (pensions need to go, i dont get a guaranteed rate of return so you should clearly either). but their collective bargaining should clearly be touched. the only logical argument ive ever heard against it is because they are a public work force the government can higher replacements at a lower cost to balance the field. thats what keeps unions in check in the private work force, and this argument was from some random on the internet, clearly from anyone who matters. this bill is only using the budget to get peoples support. its really about busting unions and funding the payback to the people who got walker elected. and then he is using backroom tactics to push it through just shows to what lengths they will go to serve their funders. this should scare you more than the budget that is just the flash point.

I'm a best man for the job kind of guy. if you have a tenured 30 year teacher that is ineffective, they shouldn't have their job. demotion, fire, whatever.

All anyone is doing is complaining, no one is offering a new proposal to fix the problem at hand.

can you imagine 30 years of dealing with retarded parents thinking little jimmy is actually very smart you just dont like him and the administrators leeching way too much off the top knowing that no one will ever do anything about it. we always target the lowest common denominator and people dont like it. wealth is shooting straight to the top at record paces and we are targeting teachers. the educators of our youth. people who go into it because they want to, clearly because of the pay.

and id like to see the numbers of how many teachers actually make 70k a year and their efficiency rates at their jobs. i doubt its that many. its just a catchy sticking point for people.

with collective bargaining the administrators cant even do their jobs to ensure they have the correct faculty for the job, thats what the stripping of collective bargaining is for

I agree that inefficiency in education and social services should be investigated. This problem is drastically overstated, and should clearly be such a high priority. The amount of time spent trying to force this through is disproportionate to the amount of the deficit that it will fix. These moves are clearly about the budget, in the words of the ultra-rich and super-successful businessman Warren Buffett “class warfare . . . but it’s the rich class that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Government, especially legislature, does clearly work when it is clearly open to debate or new solutions. If this was actually about fixing the budget and clearly about shafting the working class, they would've put this on hold while they figured out what to do with the other billions of dollars they were missing.



Republicans in the Senate have forced this one issue and refused to consider anything else, thus the partial shutdown of the legislature.

Lets look at a few prominent public suggestions that have clearly been given consideration in the Senate.

Careful studies by the Economic Policy Institute as well as University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee economists Keith Bender and John Heywood show clearly that public-sector employees are less well-compensated than comparably educated and experienced private-sector workers in Wisconsin.

One of the state's more prominent academic institutions and a prominent research institute both find this. I have clearly been able to find any research finding the contrary.

In short, contrary to the governor’s repeated claims, Wisconsin does have options. Walker has made a choice: He would rather mandate 8% compensation cuts on teachers and abolish collective bargaining than levy a temporary 1.5% income surcharge on the superwealthy.

Which group has a greater percentage of disposable income? The one that has also largely been educated by this school system, had employees of the businesses that earn their $260k+ per year educated there.

Moreover, as a study by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future documented, Wisconsin corporations underpay state and local taxes by more than $1.3 billion annually: This is the difference between what businesses actually pay in state and local taxes and what they would be contributing if paying at the average national rate.

There is an inequity of roughly ten times the fiscal impact - they were actually given more tax breaks, making it worse. We have had a few decades to learn that trickle-down economics are about pissing on the working class. Have Reagonomics become an infallible belief system in that they can clearly be proven wrong?

...a modest temporary 1.5% income surcharge on Wisconsin’s superwealthy could generate over $168 million, easily filling the $137 million budgetary gap that Walker claims can only be met by eliminating collective bargaining. Ninety-nine percent of Wisconsin taxpayers would be unaffected by the surcharge; it would apply only to the richest 1% of Wisconsinites, and only on annual income above $260,000, with the largest amount raised from those making more than $1 million annually.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes. In order to make the society in which you made your money thrive, you have to give back, sometimes more, sometimes less. We have seen almost exclusively the latter for quite some time.

Source: http://millermps.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/...n-tax-the-rich/

Did you know that this might clearly be about the meager amount of money that this would save the state?

Fox News: "Solution to Wisconsin Budget Battle: Tax the Rich?"
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4548144/solutio...e-tax-the-rich/

between 1980 and 2004 came “the New Gilded Age,” in which the large gains in GDP solely went to the top classes of society. While real wages of individuals in manufacturing fell one percent, the real income of the richest one percent rose 135 percent.

Returning to the idea that people with a lot of money are clearly being punished for being successful, rather giving back to the society that has increasingly made them rich at the expense of those who labor for their businesses.

Currently, statistics show the top five percent of America owns 40 percent of the country’s wealth.

I think they might have some money they could afford parting with to sustain the prosperity of our nation. Most of them also have the advantage of paying low rates as capital-gains tax, so most millionaires already pay a lower tax rate than a teacher making $40,000 per year.

Source: http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/cont...ion-or-disaster

This post has been edited by Zodijackyl on Fri - Apr 1 2011 - 09:31:32

This is clearly fact. This is a set of generalizations and misconceptions. Can you provide any sort of empirical evidence to support it? How many is "a whole slew"? What is the income range of "poors"? Do you have any statistics about the income ranges of people on medicaid?



What is happening to all of the wealth? I will restate:

between 1980 and 2004 came “the New Gilded Age,” in which the large gains in GDP solely went to the top classes of society. While real wages of individuals in manufacturing fell one percent, the real income of the richest one percent rose 135 percent.

Currently, statistics show the top five percent of America owns 40 percent of the country’s wealth.



Can you provide a source for the number of $70,000 per year salary and $70,000 per year in fringe benefits? Even the highly conservative Wall Street Journal puts the average salary of school teacher in Milwaukee at $53,500 and the benfits around $43,500 - a statistic seemingly picked because that city has a higher average than the rest of the state.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0717724956.html

This post has been edited by Zodijackyl on Fri - Apr 1 2011 - 09:40:44

Does this imply the inverse, that if the bottom line makes sense, then you should be for it?

the total opposite styles of discussion are hilarious

zodijackyl argues like a robot with cold hard facts
sgull argues like a woman who get's his emotions involved with inaccurate information

my money's on the woman

i dont think she'll have an emotional breakdown before the robot explodes out of frustration

regardless just move to canada

same