Quantcast

Let's Fight for Wisconsin and Governor Walker!!!

STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL 2012/04/18 17:02:57

This is to request everyone's help in making sure the statists don't succeed in the Wisconson recalls. As you probably know, labor unions and left wing political activist groups are literally pouring millions into trying to recall Governor Scott Walker, ten GOP members of the Wisconsin state legislature, and Wisconsin Judge David Prosser. None of these officials did anything wrong, immoral, or illegal. The unions are simply angry that Governor Walker forced some state workers to contribute to their fringe benefits, just like everybody in the private sector already does.


While the cowardly "walkout" by Wisconsin state legislators denied Governor Walker a quorum to institute a comprehensive budget fix, he was able to make a labor fix, as well as some ad hoc executive decisions, that have proved nothing short of miraculous in only one year:

  • * The annual budget deficit of about $3.5 billion was turned into a small surplus.
  • * Ending excessive union power in Wisconsin has employment growing in the state (even out-of-state companies are opening new plants in Wisconsin).
  • * Wisconsin's educational outcomes are already up significantly, with teacher layoffs way down, class sizes getting smaller, elimination of extracurriculars almost totally stopped, and retention of art and vocational programs going up.

  • This is a make or break issue for the unions and conservatives alike.
    If the unions succeed in the recalls, it could easily result in a rollback of the Walker reforms, and send a very threatening message to other states. At potentially mortal physical risk to himself and his family (which has not abated), Governor Walker did what was right for his state. The threats, harrassment, and even assaults continue on the Governor. Governor Walker has done what’s necessary to balance Wisconsin's budget, create jobs, and give future generations of Wisconsinites a chance at pursuing the American Dream. However, these bold, mature policies fly in the face of union tyranny and challenge the power of left-wing radicals, and especially violent union bosses and their cohorts.

    What is happening in Wisconsin right now is a bellweather for the nation. You can clearly see this from the fact that radical union activists are trying to recall Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. What actual malfeasance did he commit? None. The unions just don't like him, so they want to run him out of office, despite the fact that Michigan voters have spoken at the polls. What's the point of having a vote if minority malcontents can challenge the will of the people without valid reason? This is exactly the same issue we are facing in Wisconsin.

    We can't let the unions and progressives call the agenda on this issue. The stakes are too high. While the left is pouring literally millions of dollars into these ridiculous Wisconsin recalls, conservatives don't have to match them dollar for dollar, because our message is better.


    I am asking you to do three things:


  • (1) Make a donation, in whatever amount you can reasonably afford, at
    https://secure.donationsafe.com/mwl (The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama) or http://www.teapartyexpress.org/contribute (Tea Party Express). Both groups are actively fighting the recalls with protests, ads, public education bus tours, high profile speakers, etc. I know times are tough, but alot of small donations can add up to alot of money. This kind of grassroots activity is expensive, and Governor Walker is running a very close race against the recall radicals.

    (2) Go viral and broadcast this thread to your followers and friends.

    (3) Create discussions in your conservative groups to send people to this thread. Simply put you want in the title box (anything appropriate, such as simply the title of this thread), and copy/paste the link to this thread in the body text area.

    The unions aren't just angry, but they're scared too. Greg Junemann, the President of the Professional and Technical Engineers Union and a Milwaukee resident, stated publicly "If we lose, it's a shot in the mouth." In fact, the unions and left wing radicals are terrified. They know if the recalls fail, other states, initially small red ones, will emulate Governor Walker's policies to fix their own budget and employment crises. If the recalls succeed, many Governors in other other states will be afraid to take the steps needed to fix their growing problems, and the successful Wisconsin reforms may be rolled back by union-label political hacks who might replace Walker and many of the Wisconsin state legislators who support him. Wisconsin is truly the "line in the sand." If Governor Walker loses, we all lose
  • You!
    Add Photos & Videos

    Top Opinion

    • Andrew 2012/04/18 18:32:40
      Andrew
      +17
      Governor Walker is doing the will of the people of Wisconsin. He is protecting the taxpayers money from those who woulld confiscate it for their own aims, namely the labor union leadership!

    Sort By
    • Most Raves
    • Least Raves
    • Oldest
    • Newest
    Opinions

    • SoCal71 Hermes 2012/04/20 20:05:48 (edited)
      SoCal71
      +2
      If that's what keeps you going throughout the day.. more power to you, The rest of us know how it really went down...
    • Hermes SoCal71 2012/04/27 21:18:01
      Hermes
      +1
      Whatever buddy, I agree that the rest of everyone knows how it went down. Be well.
    • SoCal71 Hermes 2012/04/27 21:32:03 (edited)
      SoCal71
      +2
      Sure they do, how many top opinions do you have... ZERO...
    • Hermes SoCal71 2012/04/27 22:37:25
      Hermes
      +1
      And that matters why? I'm not in a popularity contest - you may be - I'm not. I'm here when I can be to document each thing I say -- and make my points clearly.

      How old are you that you think "top opinions" matter more than facts? You don't have to answer that, but I am curious.

      Regards,

      Reyn
    • STU~PWC... Hermes 2012/06/10 05:02:31
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Umm, what "facts" have YOU provided?
    • STU~PWC... Hermes 2012/06/10 05:01:37
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Now your omniscient?
    • STU~PWC... Hermes 2012/06/10 05:00:57
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Wish I had some of whatever you're smoking.
    • STU~PWC... SoCal71 2012/06/10 05:00:19
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      He has zippo.
    • STU~PWC... Hermes 2012/06/10 04:59:40
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      I agree you can't judge the whole labor movement by the Hoffa affair, but look at how unions engaged in threats and assaults in the Walker recall effort. Look at how they recently destroyed employer property in Washington state ports. Look at how Stern promised Obama he was going to "take out" TPM members. Look at how union thugs terrorize employees in snap "Card Check" certification votes.
    • STU~PWC... Hermes 2012/06/10 04:55:53
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      I think his point was that Hoffa was mobbed up, and probably did something to upset his masters.
    • STU~PWC... SoCal71 2012/06/10 04:54:23
    • gr8American 2012/04/19 18:52:40
      gr8American
      +1
      LOL don't hold your breath trying to help the crook, Sean Stupidity tried and of course his effort was worthless, he goes around the Country asking for Money and claims that the Democrats are getting funded by outside sources.
      He is a hypocrite and may actually get indicted before he gets booted.
    • beavith1 gr8Amer... 2012/04/19 21:29:13
      beavith1
      +4
      there is an estimate of as much as 70Million union dollars going into this campaign.

      just like the unions fighting the right to work bill in OH, they have no choice. WI, for them, needs to a be fire break, against anti gov't union rules in other states.
    • STU~PWC... gr8Amer... 2012/06/10 05:03:42
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Jimmy the Greek you ain't. No indictment, and he beat the recall.
    • MO 2012/04/19 17:41:30
      MO
      +5
      This clown can't be voted out of office fast enough..
    • STU~PWC... MO 2012/06/10 05:04:49
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Clown? When's the last time YOU turned a $3.6 billion annual deficit into a surplus?
    • Carol 2012/04/19 17:10:21
      Carol
      +5
      Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    • STU~PWC... Carol 2012/06/10 05:05:58
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      You either - they don't make doors like they used to, and I suspect yours is made of concrete.
    • Hermes 2012/04/19 17:08:21
      Hermes
      +4
      And as I'm sure you know the extreme Right is eclipsing union spending by a huge amount.

      The unions are no threat to the people, but plutocracy - that is a threat. It's almost certainly no skin off my nose or my family's -- we are high enough up the food chain and well enough invested and attached on both sides of the aisle so that I doubt that a plutocracy would effect us. It will effect a whole lot of the people supporting Walker though -- wait, it already has, hasn't it? - and it is only partially in place through surrogates so far..

      You don't have to believe me, just keep supporting plutocrats and those who back them -- watch what happens to your lives and the lives of people you know.

      Unless you are at least as well off as we are with jobs as secure as ours OR BETTER -- you do NOT belong supporting Scott Walker - not if you are protecting yourself, whether you see it or not.

      Kind thoughts.
    • beavith1 Hermes 2012/04/19 21:30:11
      beavith1
      +5
      gov't unions support certain candidates. usually democrats.

      you don't see the incestuous nature of that reality?
    • Hermes beavith1 2012/04/19 22:18:07
      Hermes
      +1
      And major corporations and certain elite families support certain candidates, usually Republicans. You don't see the incestuous nature of that reality?

      More seriously however, I made no comment one way or another on whether or not unions were politically involved, in fact, of course they are. I made a direct comment on what I believe and have observed about self-interest. Arguments can be made legitimately (and have actually) that at our economic and investment level we should have become Republicans (not that we are all that, we aren't, but we are solidly in the top 20% of earning families and possibly in the top 10% depending on the year and on secondary income streams - we have been for a decade now) Other pieces of self-interest, and the fact that I have always cared deeply for others and that my partner is even stronger on that than I am - together with the fact that we were not so well off when we were first together and worked hard to get where we are - but know we would not have been able to without the advantages of education and upbringing AND LUCK offset that and in fact, while my partner was always a Democrat, I switched at about the same point our income started getting really solid, having been raised a Republican.

      At the same time, I do not understand how a...









      And major corporations and certain elite families support certain candidates, usually Republicans. You don't see the incestuous nature of that reality?

      More seriously however, I made no comment one way or another on whether or not unions were politically involved, in fact, of course they are. I made a direct comment on what I believe and have observed about self-interest. Arguments can be made legitimately (and have actually) that at our economic and investment level we should have become Republicans (not that we are all that, we aren't, but we are solidly in the top 20% of earning families and possibly in the top 10% depending on the year and on secondary income streams - we have been for a decade now) Other pieces of self-interest, and the fact that I have always cared deeply for others and that my partner is even stronger on that than I am - together with the fact that we were not so well off when we were first together and worked hard to get where we are - but know we would not have been able to without the advantages of education and upbringing AND LUCK offset that and in fact, while my partner was always a Democrat, I switched at about the same point our income started getting really solid, having been raised a Republican.

      At the same time, I do not understand how anyone who claims to be rational and who is working or middle class can possibly claim to support the Republican party. It is literally in defiance of their own interest and the interest of their children to do so. Yes a small number of people actually rise from the bottom to the top - but that number is declining and it was never even near a single whole percent statistically. The vast majority of people remain within a single social strata -- even in our case, I say that we were not well off when we were first together, which is true -- but it is also true that the reason was largely that both of us had been orphaned and our family monies expended outside of our control before we were of age. Even as it was, we had enough money to get college educations without owing a penny and I still had a property in my name, a mortgage free home - plus excellent connections due to a hobby from my youth (bridge). Tell me that most middle or working class people have any hope of leaving their children that much EACH.

      There are other reasons for being a Democrat (support for minority rights, a belief in social justice, a strong sense of community morality, support for women's rights, etc.) , but it is certainly legitimate as well to argue that self-interest is one. Having a strong educational program, funds for college (TAP AND PELL), guaranteed health insurance and guaranteed social security, strong infrastructure, regulation to guarantee clean water ans safe food and so forth are basic to having a successful nation - and certainly helpful to guaranteeing that those who can move up - do and there is opportunity for all.

      If you have never visited (other than the tourist areas) even our close neighbor to the South - I suggest that you do. You can get a better picture of how a plutocratic autocracy works and what it -- and its middle and working classes -- look like -- and then listen to people like Ken Griffith, the billionaire hedge fund manager say that the rich, even with unlimited political donations under Citizen's United do not have ENOUGH power or say in the United States. Mr. Griffith is a strong backer of Mr. Romney. So again, exactly how does a person justify, as a thinking person - supporting an agenda run by the Plutocrats, if that person is him or her-self, NOT a plutocrat?

      Have a pleasant evening.

      Kind thoughts,

      Reyn
      (more)
    • beavith1 Hermes 2012/04/19 22:48:26
      beavith1
      +4
      i have no idea how you find the self dealing of gov't unions to anywhere be equivalent with gov't spending to be used for the maximal benefit of everyone.

      if gov't unions were run to maximize their fiduciary responsiblity to the people who pay their salaries, i don't think that we'd have much of an argument.

      do we agree that that currently is NOT the case?

      this has absolutely nothing to do with who makes more or makes less. that's another false equivalence.

      we, as a nation spend far more than anyone else in the world on education, so, clearly, the amount of money is not the issue. how could MORE money solve a problem that isn't a problem of money?

      if Obamacare is unaffordable, why would we, with even a whisker of responsbility, do that? please don't patronize me by telling me its affordable. its not.

      when has there been less opportunity to 'move up?' we'd have more opportunity for everyone if Obama would stop doing what he's doing to punish capital AND punish success.

      Obama's whole empty rhetorical speech that our problems are from the rich are just that. empty. he blames the successful. he's trying to charge them more just for being successful.

      if he had fixed the economy, which he promised would take three years, we wouldn't be having this discussion because no one would ca...



      i have no idea how you find the self dealing of gov't unions to anywhere be equivalent with gov't spending to be used for the maximal benefit of everyone.

      if gov't unions were run to maximize their fiduciary responsiblity to the people who pay their salaries, i don't think that we'd have much of an argument.

      do we agree that that currently is NOT the case?

      this has absolutely nothing to do with who makes more or makes less. that's another false equivalence.

      we, as a nation spend far more than anyone else in the world on education, so, clearly, the amount of money is not the issue. how could MORE money solve a problem that isn't a problem of money?

      if Obamacare is unaffordable, why would we, with even a whisker of responsbility, do that? please don't patronize me by telling me its affordable. its not.

      when has there been less opportunity to 'move up?' we'd have more opportunity for everyone if Obama would stop doing what he's doing to punish capital AND punish success.

      Obama's whole empty rhetorical speech that our problems are from the rich are just that. empty. he blames the successful. he's trying to charge them more just for being successful.

      if he had fixed the economy, which he promised would take three years, we wouldn't be having this discussion because no one would care. they'd be trying to find and build on those opportunities.

      empty rhetoric. feelings. nebulous leadership. kicking the can down the road. jawboning. blamecasting.

      Obama has had his shot. time for someone new.
      (more)
    • Hermes beavith1 2012/04/20 20:30:27
      Hermes
      +1
      OK, what is "self-dealing?" Do you mean self - interest -- one of the core principles of Capitalism of any form?

      Government spending SHOULD be used for the maximum benefit of everyone.

      Do I accept that your assertion that government unions - by which you mean unions of government employees I believe, do not have the good of the whole in mind? If that is what you are actually asking when you say "do we agree that that currently is not the case?" Then the answer is emphatically no - not in any way that matters..

      If you mean, do I agree that unions put their members first. Then the answer is yes.

      Are you a Capitalist? Another words do you support Capitalism? If you do and you understand what Capitalism is, then you know that enlightened self-interest is the basis of the system. Negotiation occurs between seller and buyer in one way or another routinely. In the case of labor -- capital buys it from the workers -- whether those are ditch diggers, garbage men, teachers, doctors or scientists - and regardless of whether capital is private or public. The intention of capital is to obtain the labor power for as little as possible. The intention of the worker, whether alone or in the union is to maximize the amount paid for their labor. Employers (Capital) have a great deal of ...















      OK, what is "self-dealing?" Do you mean self - interest -- one of the core principles of Capitalism of any form?

      Government spending SHOULD be used for the maximum benefit of everyone.

      Do I accept that your assertion that government unions - by which you mean unions of government employees I believe, do not have the good of the whole in mind? If that is what you are actually asking when you say "do we agree that that currently is not the case?" Then the answer is emphatically no - not in any way that matters..

      If you mean, do I agree that unions put their members first. Then the answer is yes.

      Are you a Capitalist? Another words do you support Capitalism? If you do and you understand what Capitalism is, then you know that enlightened self-interest is the basis of the system. Negotiation occurs between seller and buyer in one way or another routinely. In the case of labor -- capital buys it from the workers -- whether those are ditch diggers, garbage men, teachers, doctors or scientists - and regardless of whether capital is private or public. The intention of capital is to obtain the labor power for as little as possible. The intention of the worker, whether alone or in the union is to maximize the amount paid for their labor. Employers (Capital) have a great deal of power due to their size, and wealth. They hire many workers and control vast resources. They are well positioned to exploit any worker who is negotiating alone. This extends beyond simple matters of compensation, as in for example, issues of workplace safety. For capital, the cheapest workplace is best, even if it is unsafe and make damage or kill workers.

      Yet, a single worker, even if of exceptional skill or unique talent has little chance of obtaining his or her value in the marketplace against such massively powerful entities. That of course is the idea of unions. Just as one stick is easy to break but a bundle of sticks 3 feet thick is nearly impossible to snap, so too is a union, due to its collective power, capable of defending its members and obtaining just compensation - including wages, benefits and retirement -- where alone, each worker could not do anywhere near as well. It was the unions that brought us the weekend, paid holidays, the 40 hour week, health insurance and retirement. And I say us because it is not just the union members that benefit, it is all workers at all levels.

      To invalidate that part of unionism, you have to effectively embrace the idea that workers do not have a right to fair compensation, or the right to form collective bodies to negotiate for them. That is the equivalent of saying that holders of capital do not have the right to amalgamate into corporate bodies to maximize their power in the market. You would NEVER accept that idea, even though it leads to tilted markets, limited monopolies and other things that deform the marketplace far more than labor ever could -- but yet, you would accept it, apparently, for unions - or at least public sector unions. Why? It is an illogical conclusion given the system in which we function.

      As for Obamacare Madam, you are the one attempting to patronize. You are effectively saying "don't show me facts that disagree with what I've already decided." and saying it in the most offensive manner you can find. So I won't - that won't change the facts - just delude you into being allowed to continue to think that they don't exist.

      Obama's has not said that our problems are all from the rich -- he has said that everyone should pay a fair share - and he is right. Many of the nations top billionaires recognize that he is right. Again, facts don't deter you do they? Do you REALLY think that its fair that Romney's assistant pays a higher tax rate than he does? That there is no minimum absolute tax? That some types of income aren't taxed at all? Or do you just not care whether its fair or not because you hope to one day be one of those rich enough to get away with such a travesty.

      No president, of any party, can simply "fix the economy" - he's a president not a wizard. However, the economy, supported by a WOEFULLY INADEQUATE recovery package is in far better shape than I feared it would be, once someone actually reviewed the final figures from the Bush Admin and realized that the actual retraction in the economy between September 07 and Jan 09 when Mr. Obama took office was nearly double what we had been told. With honest information, perhaps the president wouldn't have promised recovery by 11. Regardless, we have had considerable recovery, I have friends working who hadn't been able to get jobs in years - and the real estate market is actually moving, sluggishly but moving.

      And I know that as a good Republican, you don't want that, now do you -- be honest.

      Regards,

      Reyn
      (more)
    • beavith1 Hermes 2012/04/20 21:08:31
      beavith1
      +3
      'If you mean, do I agree that unions put their members first. Then the answer is yes.'

      you've answered your own question. when they politically support the party that will give them the most beneficial terms, the fox has now taken control of the henhouse.

      there was a time when working in gov't was a calling. you didn't make top dollar, but you were guaranteed a job and a retirement package.

      many now get great pay (more than the taxpayers that have to earn it before it can be taxed) and ironclad retirements that in some cases are better than the private sector. again, better than those that pay those tax bills.


      i see your support of unions, but you DO realize that gov't unions are a relatively new innovation? that, at some point, their cost exceeds their value?

      and the lunkheads in WI that struck because Walker was ending the gravy train, struck just because of that. there's no shame that people are losing houses and businesses because they can't pay their tax bill. there's no shame that unaffordable personnel overhead costs are punishing those that have to work out in the real world to earn the money before its taxed?

      the implication is that SOME aren't paying their fair share. who might those laggards be? he's insanely wrong. if everyone pays their taxes, properly and on ...















      'If you mean, do I agree that unions put their members first. Then the answer is yes.'

      you've answered your own question. when they politically support the party that will give them the most beneficial terms, the fox has now taken control of the henhouse.

      there was a time when working in gov't was a calling. you didn't make top dollar, but you were guaranteed a job and a retirement package.

      many now get great pay (more than the taxpayers that have to earn it before it can be taxed) and ironclad retirements that in some cases are better than the private sector. again, better than those that pay those tax bills.


      i see your support of unions, but you DO realize that gov't unions are a relatively new innovation? that, at some point, their cost exceeds their value?

      and the lunkheads in WI that struck because Walker was ending the gravy train, struck just because of that. there's no shame that people are losing houses and businesses because they can't pay their tax bill. there's no shame that unaffordable personnel overhead costs are punishing those that have to work out in the real world to earn the money before its taxed?

      the implication is that SOME aren't paying their fair share. who might those laggards be? he's insanely wrong. if everyone pays their taxes, properly and on time, they don't deserve to be singled out for special treatment.

      we are a nation of laws. not a nation of gov't mandarins determining who needs to pay more.

      Romney? i think you're thinking of Buffett. his assistant doesn't pay a higher tax rate than Buffett does. he pays at a higher effective tax rate because the assistant has 'earned income' and Buffet has hidden most of his wealth from taxes and only pays taxes on 'capital gains.' its a world of difference.

      'fair' is Obamacode for whatever he wants it to mean. and you democrats lap it up as if it has some sort of concrete meaning. it doesn't. its a weasel word.

      i never said that Obama could simply fix the economy. i did say that he and the Congress have to write laws/policies that promote create or preserve capital for jobs to be created.

      he's done everything he can to punish success and damage capital.

      no wonder we're stuck in this morass.

      its good to know that you have friends that are seeing positive change. its not enough, its not fast enough and its not systemic.

      the main is not a leader. he's failed. its time for him to go and give the next guy a chance.
      (more)
    • Hermes beavith1 2012/04/27 22:35:43
      Hermes
      +1
      So is or is not what is good for the goose, good for the gander? If so then there is nothing different about most unions supporting Democrats in general than there is in most billionaires supporting Republicans in general - in fact, its just a mirror. So if you say that that is the fox having charge of the henhouse with unions supporting Democrats - so be it, it is no less so for the wealthiest among us to have more power than the rest of us. In fact looking at your example I think it is far more so. You talk about guaranteed jobs and great pay being the payoff to union members. Let's see -- on the other end of the scale, companies with lobbyists get billions of dollars of tax benefits and government contracts. How many government workers would billions pay?

      You then revel in the fatal flaw of arguments from the Right on this topic -- you say "many now get great pay (more than the taxpayers that have to earn it before it can be taxed) and ironclad retirements that in some cases are better than the private sector. again, better than those that pay those tax bills."

      I say this is a flaw for several reasons:

      * The comparison is faulty. You have to compare job to job, NOT average to average. Why? Government employees above the level of secretaries tend to require high levels...











































      So is or is not what is good for the goose, good for the gander? If so then there is nothing different about most unions supporting Democrats in general than there is in most billionaires supporting Republicans in general - in fact, its just a mirror. So if you say that that is the fox having charge of the henhouse with unions supporting Democrats - so be it, it is no less so for the wealthiest among us to have more power than the rest of us. In fact looking at your example I think it is far more so. You talk about guaranteed jobs and great pay being the payoff to union members. Let's see -- on the other end of the scale, companies with lobbyists get billions of dollars of tax benefits and government contracts. How many government workers would billions pay?

      You then revel in the fatal flaw of arguments from the Right on this topic -- you say "many now get great pay (more than the taxpayers that have to earn it before it can be taxed) and ironclad retirements that in some cases are better than the private sector. again, better than those that pay those tax bills."

      I say this is a flaw for several reasons:

      * The comparison is faulty. You have to compare job to job, NOT average to average. Why? Government employees above the level of secretaries tend to require high levels of education and often additional certifications. Many also require security clearances. Overall governmental employees have qualifications that give them higher income in ANY industry, so you have to compare fairly.

      So, if we might -- let's compare three sets of people at beginning and end of career.

      A janitor
      A person holding advanced degrees in science, computer science or medicine
      An executive

      Let's use NYS -- why? Simply because the information is comparatively easily available (you have no idea how much effort getting viable data cost me).

      (all state salaries are from the New York State Governor's Office of Employee Relations. All state workers are unionized.)

      the janitor, if a government employee in NY starts at a grade 6 salary - which is 25,146$ plus, if in NYC, a 700$ yearly differential. Mid career, the janitor can expect to make 30,252$. At end of career s/he can expect an average income of 47, 753$.

      What about the private sector? Well according to "Indeed" which did a salary survey of janitors, $25,000 is the starting point (slightly less) and 49,000% is the ending point (slightly more) -- Midpoint appears to be 35,000$ but I have no explanation for why there would be a hump in the middle - that seems odd. There is however a 25% differential for private sector non-unionized janitors in NYC on average.

      the person with advanced degrees (a Ph.D. in a science related field, an MD, etc.), if in state service in New York starts in the range of 70,232$ if not an MD and in the range of 95,000$ if an MD (those positions are treated as unique and are negotiated according to expertise and specialty). End of career brings the bottom end codger up to approximately 96,010$, while an MD or a particularly valuable scientist might make as much as 125,000$.

      What about the private sector? Well that is somewhat slippery, and more subject to subjective concerns because it is much harder to get hard and fast figures -- however -- I can point to people I personally know. We have three friends who graduated with terminal degrees in different forms of programming - the one with the lowest starting salary started at 75,000$ (not that much more than state start for equivalent) HOWEVER, one of the other two started at 120,000$ and the final one at 122,000$. We have other friends with doctorates as well and EXCEPT for those who went into academia (private or public) none of them started careers at less than $80,000 and the best paid of them started at 225,000$ (I kid you not) I started working before finishing my doctorate, and I will not leave my position until I retire if I can help it - but by starting earlier than several friends, I have consistently made less than they have -- but I make enough and we are happy. All of our friends, 10 to 15 years into careers however now make FAR more than they made to start and in most cases at least double what they would make in the public sector at end stage.

      Finally an executive. Except for the director of the School of Nanoscale Engineering at SUNY Albany (who makes a salary of a million a year BUT brings in literally over a billion a year in grants) the highest paid executive in state service in New York makes approximately $165,000 dollars after cutting his own salary upon taking office. That would be the governor. Find me a private sector chief executive responsible for 200,000 employees and 20 million stake holders, overseeing a budget of 132.5 billion dollars (which is balanced by law) who does not make far more than that by orders of magnitude. In fact, if you want a real comparison, find me more than one, find me a bevy of them, because NY's governor is pretty well paid by national standards.

      So, on a factual basis I believe the argument is flawed -- but beyond that, its self-defeating.

      The trap, and it is set and baited by those who know they will soon no longer need the middle class (hint, that is NOT the unions that largely created the middle class) is to think "wow, they make more than the average person, they should be forced to make less" -- when the winning position for people and the middle class is "this is my country too -- and I deserve a good solid living wage, I should have as much as they do -- where is my union?"

      You are not in agreement with almost any economist and no Nobel laureates still alive when you assert that Obama has damaged capital. The UK has just conclusively and convincingly proven that austerity measures DO NOT work. The only thing that Obama could have done better is push for a stronger stimulus bill. He didn't, those of us on the Left joined many Nobel laureates in economics in bemoaning that fact - but we are recovering (2.5 million new jobs in the last year) and the nations that followed the path to austerity and the meme of the banking fundamentalists presently are still sinking.

      When a wonderful Republican president named Eisenhower was in the White House, the top marginal tax rate in the US was 90%. When a different, less wonderful Republican president was in the Whitehouse, a man named Richard Nixon, the top marginal tax rate was 70% (see attached graph). America was at its best. Innovation was NOT stifled. Jobs were NOT destroyed. In fact, we were near full employment - a goal, together with universal health care, that BOTH those Republican presidents supported. Today, we have a top marginal tax rate of 30% and very few of the wealthy pay anywhere near that.

      If you really want to fix America, stop attacking those who want to protect you and it. Instead consider the solution offered by Carl Gibson, and feel free to check his numbers, they actually work -- while the numbers AND rhetoric of the Cains and the Norquists of the world do not.

      "We can start by ending the wars and the F-35 program. That's $1.5 trillion and counting, even John McCain says its wasteful. That's several hundred billion a year right there. And as far as the tax code is concerned, all you need to do is five things.

      "First, a new tax bracket for households making over a million a year. That's about 100 billion a year, every year. Next, you put in a 3-cent financial transaction tax on derivatives and other speculative trading. That's $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Then you close excessive corporate tax loopholes and make those guys pay what small businesses pay by percentage. That's another $155 billion a year. Then you progressively tax estates worth 5 million on up. Not even 3 million, just five. All that equals $4 trillion in 10 years. Finally, you use the new revenue gained to reverse all the budget cuts at the state level and create a massive WPA style jobs program to cut unemployment in half and fix all of our roads and bridges and schools and parks. And we'd still have a couple of trillion left over to put towards the debt. Since most of that debt comes from tax cuts for billionaires and the wars, we won't be running a new deficit."



      marginal taxes

      Alright, this has taken considerable work. Thank you for your kind reply - and I hope you will consider the conversation. You better yourself and your children by fighting for yourself and your children - not against others.

      Regards,

      Reyn
      (more)
    • beavith1 Hermes 2012/04/30 20:53:39
      beavith1
      +3
      big difference. there is one billionaire voting and millions of gov't union members voting.

      who has the stacked odds? the unions that vote their self interest. that self interest that requires those of us that need to earn the money before its taxed to pay all those self dealing union members.

      your bigger flaw is that you try and compare those pay scales. the state worker doesn't get paid if taxes aren't collected. the money has to be created in the productive economy, earned/paid out then taxed.

      perhaps you need 10 tax payers to support one $100k scientist.

      this is not sustainable.

      If you use Krugman as your Nobel economist, that'd be your second flaw. his work was done in 1981. since then, he's become a bloviator for the democrats. really not much different than a Limbaugh. who else? Robert Riech? that dwarf has been in the bag for democrats ever since they got him his great bank job (in both senses of the word 'bank job').

      capital doesn't sit on the sidelines unless something is very wrong. the WSJ has called it a capital strike for years now.

      i'm not talking about 'austerity measures'. i'm talking about the stopping of additional spending that we saw under the end of Bush 2 and all during Obama. the democrats need to keep those $ spigots open and flowing. would it...














      big difference. there is one billionaire voting and millions of gov't union members voting.

      who has the stacked odds? the unions that vote their self interest. that self interest that requires those of us that need to earn the money before its taxed to pay all those self dealing union members.

      your bigger flaw is that you try and compare those pay scales. the state worker doesn't get paid if taxes aren't collected. the money has to be created in the productive economy, earned/paid out then taxed.

      perhaps you need 10 tax payers to support one $100k scientist.

      this is not sustainable.

      If you use Krugman as your Nobel economist, that'd be your second flaw. his work was done in 1981. since then, he's become a bloviator for the democrats. really not much different than a Limbaugh. who else? Robert Riech? that dwarf has been in the bag for democrats ever since they got him his great bank job (in both senses of the word 'bank job').

      capital doesn't sit on the sidelines unless something is very wrong. the WSJ has called it a capital strike for years now.

      i'm not talking about 'austerity measures'. i'm talking about the stopping of additional spending that we saw under the end of Bush 2 and all during Obama. the democrats need to keep those $ spigots open and flowing. would it be austerity if we stopped spending the $1T that we've been overspending every year for the last 3-4 years?

      solution: reduce repatriation taxes from 35% to 12%. we'd add nearly $2T of domestic economic activity and collect $100-200B in taxes at the same time.

      It seems Eisenhower is every democrats friend to try and justify 91% marginal rates, even as they carefully ignore the extensive levels of tax writeoffs, benefits and shelters. however, those same democrats forget Kennedy's tax cut that increased revenues, channeling Laffer by 20 years..

      its moot because this economy is nothing like the economy of the 50/60s.


      i note the work, but my first thought is that this guy is rearranging deck chairs by liking things that he favors and ending things he doesn't, to shift the tax burden(s).

      taxes aren't our problem. spending with no feedback loop is. if we followed his instructions to the letter, what's to keep the new Congress from spending whatever cash comes in on some other hair brained scheme. nothing.

      FDRs WPA and all his spending falls into that same Keynesian 'stimulus,' 'multiplier' mumbo jumbo. if stimulus worked, we'd be flying along because over the last 4 years, we've poured something like $6-7T into the economy and we still have very unimpressive employment results and growth that is poor.

      we're walking a tightrope.
      (more)
    • Hermes beavith1 2012/04/30 21:52:33
      Hermes
      +1
      You may not have noticed, but Krugman is NOT alone among Nobel laureates -- and you also may not have noticed, but world markets and multiple national economies are now proving his hypotheses on these topics correct. Further, unless you have a Ph.D. in economics I respectfully submit that you have no standing to dispute the overwhelming consensus of those who do. You are welcome to quote the minority opinion, but ad hominem attacks on the economists in question do nothing but prove that you have no real arguments. Ad hominem is almost always the refuge of those who have no other. i see no evidence that this conversation is any different.

      I have no question that it is a Capital strike. Capital wants total political control, some of their spokespeople have made that obvious, even directly said so. *shrug* It is not going to happen. If Capital strikes long enough it will result in the end of the American economy and hegemony - but not of American democracy. If American Capitalists are stupid enough to think that they can get the "deal" they have here in any other country, they are very mistaken, and will so discover. Considerably greater taxation occurs in every other First World democracy. If you go to the more questionable nation-states that are not quite First World yo...















      You may not have noticed, but Krugman is NOT alone among Nobel laureates -- and you also may not have noticed, but world markets and multiple national economies are now proving his hypotheses on these topics correct. Further, unless you have a Ph.D. in economics I respectfully submit that you have no standing to dispute the overwhelming consensus of those who do. You are welcome to quote the minority opinion, but ad hominem attacks on the economists in question do nothing but prove that you have no real arguments. Ad hominem is almost always the refuge of those who have no other. i see no evidence that this conversation is any different.

      I have no question that it is a Capital strike. Capital wants total political control, some of their spokespeople have made that obvious, even directly said so. *shrug* It is not going to happen. If Capital strikes long enough it will result in the end of the American economy and hegemony - but not of American democracy. If American Capitalists are stupid enough to think that they can get the "deal" they have here in any other country, they are very mistaken, and will so discover. Considerably greater taxation occurs in every other First World democracy. If you go to the more questionable nation-states that are not quite First World you find instead that you may have greater economic freedom but you pay for it with less personal freedom and with the threat of nationalization at the drop of a hat. There really is no other game in town for American Capitalists. All they are doing with this Capital strike (which we both agree is occurring) is harming themselves, and the rest of us.

      This is a democracy. You reveal your own actual slant on that by noting that a billionaire only has one vote and unions have many. That clearly indicates that you think the situation should be otherwise -- well -- otherwise -- wherever you go for otherwise, is anti-democratic. MANY of us are not willing to live in a plutocratic autocracy. We both know where that would quickly lead in America. Many of those you count as allies on the Right would be fighting on the same side as most of us on the Left. Autocracy is not acceptable as an alternative to democracy.

      Let's see -- you want to argue for eliminating the "extra" spending, rather than funding it -- alright. Short on plan, long on rhetoric from what I see. Where exactly would you cut the one trillion you are talking about, and exactly why do you think that will not create further harm? You mention repatriation taxes. There are 1.2 trillion total dollars outside the US accrued since 2004. If it was brought back in at full rate, THEN you would have your 200 billion tax income. If is was brought back in at the proposed 5.25%, you would get nowhere near that, nowhere NEAR that. The idea that its repatriation would lead to further investment is also suspect, and as has been pointed out on the House Floor, it would encourage other companies to keep their profits offshore for another tax holiday in the future, which could lead to, conservatively, a net loss of 80 billion over a decade.

      You will have to do far better than that to make your case.

      Actually my dear -- stimulus did work. You think we'd be flying along huh? I suggest you read A LOT more economics. The reality is we are at least 5.5 million jobs ahead of where we would have been without the Obama Stimulus. Where we would be without the Bush stimulus, I don't know - it would be worse than 1930 I think. The two presidents working together against the "orthodoxy" of the Right succeeded in saving this country - but people like you will never give either of them credit.

      By talking about Keynsian "mumbo-jumbo" you only succeed in proving conclusively that you have no idea how the present day political economy works, or has worked since we moved from entrepreneurial Capitalism to corporate. I wish you well with that, even Keynsianism is not robust enough to protect all of the people all of the time, but it is robust enough to protect all the people some of the time and most of the people all of the time. As history clearly shows, its pure free market alternative protects few of the people any of the time.

      If you doubt that most of the wealthy and corporations actually believe in intervention -- ask them all to sign legally binding documents stating that if their particular ventures sink, they won't take public dollars and Keynsian solutions. You will get either no, or almost no takers.

      Regards,

      Reyn
      (more)
    • beavith1 Hermes 2012/05/01 23:24:57
    • STU~PWC... beavith1 2012/07/02 06:10:23
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      He needs to read some Kayek and Von Mises. Keynes and Krugman will destroy anybody's mind.
    • beavith1 STU~PWC... 2012/07/02 14:54:26 (edited)
      beavith1
      +2
      Hayek. ;-) i paddle a kayek...

      you're right though. Hayek, Von Mises, Bastiat, Adam Smith, ANYTHING Friedman.

      there are SO many resources out there and these ninnies resort to group think.

      i fear for us.

      i was having breakfast yesterday morning in MA. three older folks (in their 50s) were waxing poetic about how great Obamacare is and how dumb the republicans are for resisting it.
      those morons are going to be the ones subjected to tits tender mercies.

      i walked out noting that i had seen free range democrats in their native environment.

      Keynes was wrong on just about everything. he did get the paradox of thrift right, but even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while...

      Krugman? he's nothing but a wild eyed democrat apologist. whenever one of the lefty loons bring him up because of his Nobel Prize in economics, i remind them that he's never held a position of responsibility in ANY democrat administration. he's nothing but a democrat bloviator who the DEMOCRATS think is a kook, too.
    • STU~PWC... beavith1 2012/07/11 12:13:04
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      I won't even give the Paradox of Thrift to Keynes. Although Keynes coined the term, the concept was mentioned in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

      And speaking of Nobel Prizes, can ANYONE tell me what Obama did to get this? Is there a Nobel Prize in Community Organizing?
    • beavith1 STU~PWC... 2012/07/11 14:00:59
      beavith1
      +1
      i'll throw him that bone. Keynes, for nothing else, along with Hayek, did some of the codifying that turned economics into the 'science' it is.

      at the time, the Peace committee said they gave him the prize for future works. so far, he's done just dandy... not.
    • STU~PWC... beavith1 2012/07/11 14:04:34
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Well, Hayek turned into science, but Keynes turned it into FICTION.

      Nobel Prize For Future Works??????? Can anyone apply for this, or do you have to be a communist community organizer from Chicago?
    • beavith1 STU~PWC... 2012/07/11 14:07:54
      beavith1
      imagine if Hayek was less of a jerk. Keynes would have been selling used cars someplace, we'd have clawed our way out the Depression quickly and we wouldn't revert to 'stimulus' ever.

      there's a good example of a nexus in history.

      yep. future works. i imagine it would work for a community organizer from Cambridge or Berkely too. you MUST be a liberal to initially qualify.
    • STU~PWC... beavith1 2012/07/11 14:10:31
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      Why do you think Hayek is a jerk?
    • beavith1 STU~PWC... 2012/07/11 14:18:09
      beavith1
      +1
      FDR brought them both in when he was ramping up his presidency. Hayek was always an insufferable jerk to everyone around him, but he was right. Keynes was smooth, polished and charming, and as we know now, wrong.

      FDR had a choice to make as to which path he'd be taking the country.

      the rest was history.
    • STU~PWC... beavith1 2012/07/11 14:54:57
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      FDR chose the wrong path, and I'll take a correct insufferable jerk over a polished and charming dummy any day of the week.
    • beavith1 STU~PWC... 2012/07/11 18:50:32
      beavith1
      +1
      especially since we're looking back with 20/20 hindsight.

      (shrug) its human nature. take the path of least resistance...
    • STU~PWC... beavith1 2012/07/12 02:54:12
      STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
      +1
      Speaking of polished and charming dummies:

      obama
    • beavith1 STU~PWC... 2012/07/12 04:47:45 (edited)
      beavith1
      +1
      ain't THAT the truth.

      all sizzle and no steak...

      truly an empty suit...

    See Votes by State

    The map above displays the winning answer by region.

    News & Politics

    2014/04/16 19:15:05

    Hot Questions on SodaHead
    More Hot Questions

    More Community More Originals