I sure do miss Keith Olbermann. Now it looks like Charlie Sheen is a lock for 2011 Fousesquawk Jerk of the Year honors-if he lives till the end of the year, that is.
One thing that may keep Charlie going would be to take Olbermann's place as MSNBC prime time blatherer. They sure do have a hole to fill, don't they?
Not that Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Mr Ed aren't trying to fill that (sink) hole.. Two nights ago, Rachel was declaring victory for the union thugs in Wisconsin telling us that Scott Walker had caved in. That was before yesterday.
And Ed (Butter and Egg Man) Schultz has become a one-trick pony as he has jumped on the union bandwagen-even going out to Wisconsin to cover it live. (How's the Brats, Ed?)
And did you hear Chris Matthews last night on Hardball? I think "Highball" might have been a more appropriate word. He was about as incoherent as Sheen as he ranted about one Republican after another while making no sense at all.
He did have a point when it came to Newt Gingrich, however. Are we really to believe that Gingrich was cheating on his wives because he "was working so hard for the country he loves so much"? Sounds rather Clintonesque, I'd say.
"I did it for the children."
But back to Wisconsin. Did you see the scenes that followed yesterday as the Republicans voted in their union bill while the Dems were hiding out in Illinois? Things got so unruly that the Republican lawmakers had to get out of Madison because it wasn't safe for them there. Now we hear that there have been death threats.
"Union power! Help!"
Gee. I never saw a tea party get that much out of hand.
Just like old Michael Moore says, "This is war!! And Jesse Jackson says it's time for "a revolt".
"This a human rights issue!"
(Duly noted.)
And notice those protesters are practically all white people too. They must be angry that a black man sits in the White House. What really ticks me off is that those darn lilly-white Cheeseheads don't deserve a Super Bowl champ. Black and Gold, that's the ticket!
If you have not guessed by now, I am four square on Governor Walker's side. These public sector unions are bleeding the states dry. It's time the teachers and public employees realized that they are public servants. But hey! It's like that teachers union president in Wisconsin said, "It's about the children."
Hello. Mr. Gingrich. ("I did it for the children.")
32 comments:
If you have not guessed by now, I am four square on Governor Walker's side. These public sector unions are bleeding the states dry. It's time the teachers and public employees realized that they are public servants.
Gary, they acquiesced to all of Walker's cuts and yet he STILL needs to take away their collective bargaining rights?
Yeah, it's the unions that are the problem - not all these tax cuts for the rich. I'm sure that all of those teachers are living high on the hog just like I am with my 2001 Chevy Prizm.
Lance,
When public sector unions have collective bargaining rights, they are negotiating with the legislators. Corruption and back-scratching naturally follow. Or have you not noriced what goes on in California.? You do live in California, don't you?
Flawless logic like usual, Gary. Can't think of a single hole in there...only one that's big enough to put an elephant through.
So bring on the elephant, Lance.
I don't know why I should bother as logical arguments have no impact on you, but here goes:
According to your logic, if something leads to corruption, then we should get rid of it. So, let's get rid of government all together, as government leads to corruption. I could provide more, but I'm sure you'd ignore them just as you'll hem and haw about this one.
Hem and haw hell. I stand on my previous staement about why public sector unions with baragaining rights leads to corruption. You are negotiating with legislators. Just look at California. Public sector unions have bankrupted our state. They own the Democratic party in Sacramento.
Public sector unions have bankrupted our state.
Yeah, nothing else played a part in it - keep blaming the "regular people" when it's convenient.
Oh yes, Lance, there were other factors. Out of control spending by Democrats, largely on lucrative wages, benefits and pensions for state employees. Prison guards, teachers, etc. (Unionized). Now we are being asked to pay more in taxes (a 5 year extension of the last big tax hike) to keep feeding the beast.
Just because you keep saying something, that doesn't make it all true.
"Just because you keep saying something, that doesn't make it all true."
All true? Are you bending a little, lance. Why don't you just deny it all?
I'm saying that while there might very well be some truth in what you say, it hardly represents the big picture. As usual, you have a simplistic, talking-point ready, view of a problem.
Walker cut the corporate tax rate at the same time he was blustering that all collective bargaining had to be terminated in order to balance the budget. He's a bold faced liar. If Gary had the pleasure of sitting in the same room with him for eight hours or so, he would develop a markedly different impression - even if Gary happens to be one of those curious American creatures who favor cutting the corporate tax rate in order to pay off the mounting state and national debts !?!
But to return to the subject of Rachel Maddow... (I posted something last night, and Google screwed up the log-in process... I waited to see if it posted, because its embarrassing to have the same message appear twice... but its not here...)
Maddow should know better than to make such assinine claims. Scott Walker is no more going to cave in than Muammar Qadaffi is. Both are going to have to be carried out feet first. Fortunately, we live in a nation where Walker's powers are far from unlimited, and we can take him out, however unwillingly, still very much alive, and send him home to the shady block between Wisconsin Avenue and Blue Mound Road where he lives.
It takes some real work to go from election with 52% of the vote to a 57% DISapproval rating two months after taking office. Sounds like what people saw in him and what he delivered were markedly different. In Wisconsin, recall is only available after a person has been in elective office for one year. Meantime, eight Republican state senators are up for recall, and polls show two of them likely to lose. One more and the senate flips.
Maddow did an excellent job last August at contrasting the original Sharon Angle (when she was the Tea Party darling in the primary, announcing that "social security is dead), and the revised Sharon Angle, once the RNC realized she was their candidate, and sent in a team of handlers to make clear to voters that she fully supported social security, etc.
Other than that, I haven't seen much of her, so I don't know whether the good day or the bad day was typical, and which was an aberration.
Democrats and liberal Progressives never seem to comprehend plain economics. First, there is no free lunch. When you somehow (as with strike threats or paid off politicians) get inordinate benefits you get more than your economic value. Salaries and benefits should be determined in the open market where the value of your labor is rewarded.
In the private sector, unions end up ruining employers. GM is no longer the top auto manufacturer in the world. US Steel has gone from number one in the world to around seventh. The coal and aluminum industries have been greatly diminished. Countless other companies and industries have withered and died because they were bled dry, basically by unions. They can succeed for a while in the private sector until they kill their host but in the public sector they succeed only until they bankrupt the state. Then there is a reaction.... finally.
Secondly, when you tax something you make it more expensive and you, in effect, penalize the entity that pays the tax. If you tax cigarettes or gasoline, for example, you discourage its use. When you tax companies and "rich people" you signal your hostility toward them and discourage them from staying. So they move out, like they are moving out of high tax states like California and New York and moving to low tax states like Texas. Incidentally, they take their jobs and opportunities with them.
These collective "rights" are not in the constitution or God given ... they were coerced in previous negotiations. There is something very unfair about "closed shops" and "closed states" where you can't work unless you belong (and contribute) to a union. "Open" elections are not fair. Elections should be secret, like our political elections. Obviously the unions want open elections so they can know who voted against them and harass them. There is nothing wrong with having union elections every year instead of every two or three years. Insistence on controlling firing rules is a joke because it rewards longevity and not merit. So the best teacher gets fired if she is the newest and the oldest teacher, even if he is the worst teacher, gets to stay on, according to union collective bargaining "rights". How long could a competitive private company last with labor rules like that?
People who complain about losing collective "rights" seldom know what is really at stake.
.
You can always count on Miggie for some unintentional irony.
"First, there is no free lunch."
Uhhh...yeah...DUHHHHH! That's the point, Miggie! The Republicans kept cutting taxes under Bush, and the spineless Obama continues to cut them and look at the mess we're in? Meanwhile, a small percentage of wealthy Americans own an even larger slice of the pie than they ever have before, and we continue to lower their taxes. Meanwhile, the middle class is shrinking and continuing to bear the brunt of any sacrifices that the government demands.
When the hell are you people going to wake up?
Lance,
You are playing class warfare here. And that old canard about the rich not paying their fair share. What is it, the top 1% pay something like 40% of the total tax revenue? The poor don't pay income taxes.
Who do you think provides jobs in America-the rich that's who. Next time you need a job, Lance, try going to a poor man to ask for one.
Point of information: Obama did not cut any taxes. He was forced to leave the Bush tax rates in place. That is not a cut.
There is no free lunch MEANS that you can't get something for nothing and has nothing to do with taxing the "rich" people. It means you can't go long by demanding and somehow getting more than your economic worth.
Incidentally, data from the IRS shows that individual people within the categories of rich and poor change all the time. At one time, out of school for example, you may have been in the poor category. Later you made it into the middle class. If you ever got a windfall bonus or inheritance or something you may have even briefly been in the rich category for a year or so. The studies show that most of the people don't stay in their categories after several years.
It doesn't help the class warfare mantra of the liberals but facts are stubborn things. I know you believe that if we would only soak the evil rich and spread the money around, things would improve for everyone. The rich primarily got there by EARNING it which is a lesson the progressives should consider. It would also be good to appreciate that the poor here enjoy a better life with more things, (TV sets, computers, cars, etc.) than most people in history and certainly more than even middle class families in most of the world.
.
Gary, you're right - there is class warfare, but I'm not the one who started it. (And I pretty much guessed that you'd use that blithering Fox News talking point.) The richest one percent possesses more wealth than the bottom 90 percent COMBINED! And yet we're CUTTING their taxes? What's wrong with having them pay what they paid under Reagan? Under Clinton even? How is it warfare when they can more than afford it but people like me are being asked to take furlough days and people can't afford health care?
What you "conservatives" never seem to understand is that the pie is only so big. If the rich keep taking more of it, that means less for everybody else. It's not going to get bigger!
Are you in that top one percent, Gary? Unless you are, then you need to realize that the class warfare is being perpetrated against you.
And as Siarlys has pointed out to you time and time again, the rich only provide jobs when it's a way for them to make even more money. They don't do it out of a sense of altruism.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be making over 250,000 a year and have to pay more taxes than what those folks do now than be in the situation that I'm in - and I'd definitely rather do that then be in the situation that a lot of other Americans are currently in.
Oh, and since you claim to be a Christian, do you think that the following statements are also examples of class warfare?
"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?"
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
That's straight from the big JC's mouth, if you believe that sort of a thing. If you heard somebody saying that now, you'd denounce him as a liberal and nominate him for your "Jerk of the Year" award.
Lance,
It is clear that you have bought into this demonization of the rich. Let's be clear; I don't care how much money a man has as long as he came by it honestly. I have no interest in dragging him down to my level. On the contrary, I want to join him in that top 1% (which I never will). If a man or woman works harder or is smarter or has more initiative or creativity than others, so be it. It's aclled meritocracy and free trade.
As for those big corporations, who do you think gives people jobs? They do and as you say not out of the kindness of their hearts but to maximize profits for them and their shareholders -which is their responsibility. If you want to burden them with lots of new taxes and regulations, go ahead. They will simply raise their prices or reduce their work force or move somewhere else. Look right here in Calif. where we live. Businesses are packing up and leaving-taking jobs with them.
It seems you want to level the playing field artificially through govt. intervention.
The teachers in Wisconsin seem to be doing quite well. I don't know why they are whining-except that their union bosses are telling them to whine.
As usual, Gary, you don't pay any attention to what I actually wrote, and instead you regurgitate every right-wing talking point.
Should have figured that though, so I guess I can't be all that smart either.
Speaking of regurgitation, I have good news that will cheer you up.
I am going to be at the beer fest in June. (You know which one.)I'll be hoisting a liter to Scott Walker.
Now, don't you feel better already?
Yeah, it's a wonder why I wouldn't raise a toast to a guy who would be out to screw me over if he were the governor of my state.
It is always interesting to see a shibboleth of the Left stated so earnestly as if it were true. One of the glaring ones that cause so much misery on the Left is the one "... the pie is only so big. If the rich keep taking more of it, that means less for everybody else. It's not going to get bigger!"
That is absolutely false. The economy, the GDP, the wealth of the nation fluctuates all the time. The conservatives want to grow that economy with more industry, more competition, more personal responsibility to do more, try harder, build more businesses and everything else. Further, we want less taxes, more liberty, more opportunity for everyone to use your money, education, and talents as you see fit rather than to give it to the union or the government and have them distribute back as they see fit (after they have taken their cut off the top and then paid for all the administration of the balance.)
The Left, on the other hand, sees it as one big pot and there is only so much in it, there is a fight over who should get it. So it is seems only fair for you to want me to give you some greater share of the pot because I have more. No wonder you want others to pay more taxes. Of course it is easier to claim they don't deserve their money or that they have too much of it and that you should get some of it. If you have held these views for a lifetime it is no wonder you are in a failure mode. You blame others (especially the MAN) for your bad decisions and inadequacies and expect them to carry you. As the elections showed in 2010 and in Wisconsin, we are tired of it and your time at the trough along with your special rules is over.
The escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one's own behavior and choices. The Left has embraced it and the losers bought it.
Miggie, while there is a shred of truth to what you say, the FACTS are that the richest one percent own a greater share of the pie than they ever have before, the middle class is shrinking, and the amount of people before the poverty line is growing.
We've been cutting taxes and cutting taxes - how's that been working out for us? The rich are just getting richer, but you guys keep saying, "Cut their taxes even more! They'll create jobs!" Isn't this the very definition of insanity?
You pretend to be a fan of facts, but you ignore all of those that are inconvenient for you.
And knock it off with this passive-aggressive responding to me without using my name. I know that you're butt-hurt because I proved you wrong that time you said that Christians haven't engaged in terror in the past several hundred years and when you posted your "links to nowhere". Stop being such a child about it.
Lance,
Why is the middle class shrinking? Bad economy yes, but also because the govt is taxing it to death and destroying whatever chance they had of moving up. We have become the servants of the govt-and yes, the public service unions.
As for Christians engaged in terror I am glad you added the last several hundred years because you literally have to go back to the Inquisition and Crusades.
As for things like the Holocaust, there was nothing Christian about it though carried out by people who were nominal Chrsitians but for reasons not to do with religion-No it wasn't Judaism they were against; it was the Jews as a people, as a race. So are you going to tell me Oklahoma City was done in the name of Tim McVeigh's "devout" belief in Christianity? You may as well tell me Al Capone was a Catholic.
The fact is, Lance that we are not talking hundreds of years ago. We are talking here and no. Only one religion is conducting terror in the name of God. A big reason for that is because Islam is not only a religion, but a political ideology as well that demands theocracy. Add up the figures. You always say show me the evidence, the stats, the empirical evidence.
Gary, I'm referring to a conversation we had a long time ago where Miggie made an assertion and I proved him wrong. His response? He called me an idiot and now won't respond to me directly.
As usual, you're arguing points that I'm not even making. (Although you might want to look up the "witch hunters" in Africa if you believe that there aren't ANY acts of terrorism committed in the name of Christianity these days.)
Yeah, the economy stinks because the middle class is taxed to death. I know a great solution! We can give another tax break to the rich! That worked so well before!
"As usual, you're arguing points that I'm not even making."
Huh?
I was addressing the points you made about the Middle Class and Christian terror.
Witch hunts in Africa???? That's your example?
I do like your last solution, however. Actually it points out the tactic you on the left are making. The so-called Bush tax cuts for the rich-were tax cuts for everybody paying taxes-I repeat- everybody paying taxes. However, you guys on the left have hijacked it with this "tax cuts for the rich" label.
lance, the fact is that the govt could confiscate every last dime of every millionaire in this country and it won't cover the deficit we have created by out-of-control govt spending on a million things the govt has no business being involved in.
As for what is happening in Wisconsin, California and elsehere, the money isn't there. We can't pay for it. Yet you guys on the left just want us taxpayers to keep feeding the beast.
For God's sakes Gary, are you unable to look at the entire thread of a conversation and put everything into context?
lance, the fact is that the govt could confiscate every last dime of every millionaire in this country and it won't cover the deficit we have created by out-of-control govt spending on a million things the govt has no business being involved in.
I don't even know how you can possibly say anything that's as bat-sh** crazy as this. By ending the Bush tax cuts ALONE, we'd cut a sizable chunk out of the deficit.
The thing is, I usually try and stay out of arguments about taxes and economics because I don't really feel that I know what I'm talking about. I'm starting to realize that just like with global warming though, you don't let the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about stop you from making bold statements such as this.
I don't know much, but I know enough to know that you know nothing.
So Lance,
Tell me why we have this large deficit. Tell me why California has such a huge deficit (24 Billion?) Why?
Is it because the people are not taxed enough? Or is it because our state and federal govenments are spending themselves to death with our money?
Lance,
There is more than a "shred" of truth in what I wrote about the nonsense that there is only so much wealth in the US. Malik Ali says that we have plenty of money, it is there, and that there is a struggle over who gets it, the rich people or the poor people and congress decides. That sounds like you.
The number of people in wealth categories fluctuates all the time and the people within the categories change all the time.
We have not been cutting taxes and cutting taxes. We have kept in place the Bush tax cuts of many years ago. There are other factors that cause the economic decline, such as the building industry bust, caused by government forcing banks to give mortgages to unqualified people and what flowed from that.
You don't know the meaning of the words "passive aggressive." You don't know what words mean and your theories and philosophies are nonsense. It is a waste of time to argue with you because you don't know anything. I try to ignore whatever you write altogether but sometimes, what you write is just too ridiculous to let pass.
You continue to blame the rich and feel that they should be taxed more to compensate for your lack of achievements. Too bad you made poor choices and embraced Leftist ideologies but the rest of us are not going to take the blame for your failures or finance the consequences of your choices much longer. The party is over as well as any messages between us.
.
Class warfare generally gets declared by the dominant class. The class on the receiving end generally lacks the connections, clout and money to take the offensive.
However, it does not require any class warfare at all to point out that cutting taxes is no way to bring down a deficit and begin paying off a debt. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is the conservative Republican mantra.
Why shouldn't the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes? They control 90% of the wealth! If they want the tax burden more equitably distributed, all they have to do is turn loose of the cash flow. If I made $50,000 a year, I would pay several thousand dollars more in taxes than I do at present.
"Class warfare generally gets declared by the dominant class." Let's see, that was true in the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, and the current Revolution in Egypt ... the dominant class, not the people revolted according to you. I don't think so. It wasn't the British or the French kings, or the Czar, or Mubarrack that declared war, they liked things the way they were. But they teach that in college, I don't know where self-taught people get their history.
Cutting taxes stimulates business and more business creates more tax revenue for the government. That has been shown time after time. The reverse, taxes with stimulus spending programs, fail time after time. They prolonged the American Depression for longer than necessary and the Japanese have tried it many times in the last 10 or 15 years without results, except more debt. Social programs like in Greece end up by almost bankrupting the country. Work rules imposed by the government in France increases unemployment dramatically. Out of control government spending here will bankrupt us unless there is a halt put to it.
You have tens of millions of people trying to make a living and growing their businesses every day. If you would just get out of their way without imposing all kinds of taxes and regulations, they would earn, build and create and then contribute taxes for what the government has to have to do its job. It is not for the government to impose itself and regulate and tax every damn thing until it stifles industry. The bigger the government, the less liberty for the people.
You don't earn $50,000 a year so you don't know what it takes or how much you would give up taxes instead of building your business. It is easy to say "Let's confiscate the money of the rich people, they don't need it as much as we do." That is the same philosophy as stickup men and has about the same benefit for the economy. The notion of everybody trying to do his best just doesn't occur to those at the trough.
Read an economics book, say by Thomas Sowell, in your self education, and you would learn some basics instead of demagoguery.
.
Post a Comment