Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-02-16 10:22 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
Extreme Veteran 605 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: He ran as a small government, low tax, pro-business candidate. This is all well and good, but not very realistic and is just pandering to what people want, and not what can be delivered.
|
|
2011-02-16 10:27 AM in reply to: #3357787 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: MNGopher - 2011-02-16 11:22 AM He ran as a small government, low tax, pro-business candidate. This is all well and good, but not very realistic and is just pandering to what people want, and not what can be delivered. Now be honest and paint the picture of what happens if nothing is done. After that, and you illustrate there will be a problem either way, please throw out how you believe it should be handled. |
2011-02-16 10:28 AM in reply to: #3357777 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TheSchwamm - 2011-02-16 10:17 AM 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-16 10:08 AM Really? When did he mention it during the campaign? i thought this was a surprise... Gaarryy - 2011-02-16 10:05 AM why did he get voted in? was this something that he just sprung up on people or was it something he said he was going to do when running.. Just curious. The latter. The union addendum that came out last week was a surprise, but the budget cut generalities were out there - http://www.scottwalker.org/news/2010/06/editorial-republican-pair-offers-specifics-not-generalities-tomah-journal |
2011-02-16 10:30 AM in reply to: #3357787 |
Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: MNGopher - 2011-02-16 10:22 AM what happens when the benefits that the state cant afford keep getting paid? the hole gets deeper, but at least everybody is happy in the short term, right? who is going to deal with it and are they expected to just whenever they get around to it? thats not really working so well.He ran as a small government, low tax, pro-business candidate. This is all well and good, but not very realistic and is just pandering to what people want, and not what can be delivered.
|
2011-02-16 10:31 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1830 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: I figured since I am sitting back and enjoying this discussion, I might as well throw in my $0.02. I will first state that the following is only my opinion, and should be treated as such. |
2011-02-16 10:37 AM in reply to: #3357815 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: lonoscurse - 2011-02-16 11:31 AM I figured since I am sitting back and enjoying this discussion, I might as well throw in my $0.02. I will first state that the following is only my opinion, and should be treated as such. I agree and right now, the solutions offered have been typically one-sided, depending on which side of the political spectrum a person favors. We all got into this mess together, as I see it, we are going to have to get out together. |
|
2011-02-16 11:24 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
Extreme Veteran 605 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: If nothing is done then the government runs out of money. That is pretty clear. The question isn't what happens; it's how to fix the problem. So here goes. Take all the sick people without health care and kick them to the curb. If they die as a result, who cares their fault for not having healthcare. There is no consequence for not buying health insurance as it stands right now. This is the fundamental problem with healthcare in this country. I have health insurance, I pay taxes, so I pay for my healthcare and also for a portion of my lazy sister-inlaw who bought a big screen TV instead of health insurance and instead uses public health systems to pay for her healthcare. Raise the retirement age for social security and pensions to the average life expectancy, currently 78 years old. There is no such thing as a free lunch, you didn't save enough money not to work, not my fault you quit your job. The system wasn't setup to let people retire early it was ment to keep old feable poeple who were past the life expectancy from ending up in the gutter.That tackles the two biggest money sucks, old people and sick people. As a balance, the minimum wage should be raised such that someone working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year can afford health insurance and to save for retirement. Next, license fees for cars should be based on engine size and weight. Two factors that influence impact on the road and environment. The gas tax should be sufficient to address the cost of road maintenance and improvement. The DOT should be based on contract and administrated by a small working group. Education is an investment. Dumb people aren’t worth as much as smart people. Smart people can do more things that are worth more money and can therefore charge more for their time and efforts. Stop nickel and diming education, but also run the schools under contract. Define what needs to happen, what goals should be met, and what it will cost to provide the service. Then pay what it costs. Different entities could bid on the job of running the education of the young ensuring that the tax payer gets best value. Everyone pays income tax. Your rich, your poor, everyone pays. You got it because you worked 40 hours a week, won the lotto, cashed in on your house, or played the stock market, it's all the same its money you didn't have last year and now you have it this year. None of this deduction here, deduction there stuff for everything. Progressive income tax should be permitted. Stop taxing sales; it's pointless, complicated and unfair. Rich people spend a smaller percentage of their income on stuff then poor people. Boost income tax until it covers the lost sales tax. Remove elected officials responsibility/ability to affect the decision making of the workings of delivering government services. They don't know what they are doing and they routinely make bad choices. Elected officials should legislate the types of benefits that are to be provided by the government and leave it to people who know what they are doing to come up with a plan. Elected officials should act as corporate boards of the business of government, not as CEO's or managers. This means that to encourage the best possible deal for the tax payer all government services should be provide by defined term contracts that can be evaluated. Privatize government services. Never select any contract based on lowest first cost. Always select the contract based on lowest lifetime cost. Allow government agency’s to carry a balance or allow deficit spending. Swings in the economy should not be amplified by government spending. It should be dampened. So in good times spending should be reduced and surpluses built so that in bad times spending can be continued or increased without requiring additional revenue. Government is not like your home budget. You wanted my solution, there it is. Edited by MNGopher 2011-02-16 11:27 AM |
2011-02-16 11:50 AM in reply to: #3358001 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: MNGopher - 2011-02-16 11:24 AM If nothing is done then the government runs out of money. That is pretty clear. The question isn't what happens; it's how to fix the problem. So here goes. Take all the sick people without health care and kick them to the curb. If they die as a result, who cares their fault for not having healthcare. There is no consequence for not buying health insurance as it stands right now. This is the fundamental problem with healthcare in this country. I have health insurance, I pay taxes, so I pay for my healthcare and also for a portion of my lazy sister-inlaw who bought a big screen TV instead of health insurance and instead uses public health systems to pay for her healthcare. Raise the retirement age for social security and pensions to the average life expectancy, currently 78 years old. There is no such thing as a free lunch, you didn't save enough money not to work, not my fault you quit your job. The system wasn't setup to let people retire early it was ment to keep old feable poeple who were past the life expectancy from ending up in the gutter.That tackles the two biggest money sucks, old people and sick people. As a balance, the minimum wage should be raised such that someone working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year can afford health insurance and to save for retirement. Next, license fees for cars should be based on engine size and weight. Two factors that influence impact on the road and environment. The gas tax should be sufficient to address the cost of road maintenance and improvement. The DOT should be based on contract and administrated by a small working group. Education is an investment. Dumb people aren’t worth as much as smart people. Smart people can do more things that are worth more money and can therefore charge more for their time and efforts. Stop nickel and diming education, but also run the schools under contract. Define what needs to happen, what goals should be met, and what it will cost to provide the service. Then pay what it costs. Different entities could bid on the job of running the education of the young ensuring that the tax payer gets best value. Everyone pays income tax. Your rich, your poor, everyone pays. You got it because you worked 40 hours a week, won the lotto, cashed in on your house, or played the stock market, it's all the same its money you didn't have last year and now you have it this year. None of this deduction here, deduction there stuff for everything. Progressive income tax should be permitted. Stop taxing sales; it's pointless, complicated and unfair. Rich people spend a smaller percentage of their income on stuff then poor people. Boost income tax until it covers the lost sales tax. Remove elected officials responsibility/ability to affect the decision making of the workings of delivering government services. They don't know what they are doing and they routinely make bad choices. Elected officials should legislate the types of benefits that are to be provided by the government and leave it to people who know what they are doing to come up with a plan. Elected officials should act as corporate boards of the business of government, not as CEO's or managers. This means that to encourage the best possible deal for the tax payer all government services should be provide by defined term contracts that can be evaluated. Privatize government services. Never select any contract based on lowest first cost. Always select the contract based on lowest lifetime cost. Allow government agency’s to carry a balance or allow deficit spending. Swings in the economy should not be amplified by government spending. It should be dampened. So in good times spending should be reduced and surpluses built so that in bad times spending can be continued or increased without requiring additional revenue. Government is not like your home budget. You wanted my solution, there it is. I like a lot of this. Not so keen on progressive income tax though. I'd be a fan of a flat % tax. Everone pays the same % of income. Progressive income tax, IMO, is a deterant of progress. People don't have incentive to create or work hard when they know if they make more the government will take more. This could really hurt our position in the world economy and our ability to stay competitive. |
2011-02-16 12:37 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1192 Oak Creek, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: i love it... our governor has the balls to take one small step towards treating public employees like the rest of us... and everyone cries foul and is ready to crucify the guy... its about time that someone stands up and holds govt accountable... scott walker will be the best thing that has happened to this state for a long time... the private sector has been shouldering this burden for long enough... i just hope other states take notice and follow suit... |
2011-02-16 12:42 PM in reply to: #3358244 |
301 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: My problem with the current approach in WI is that it does not have a way to help protect those almost at retirment age. I agree, public employees should not have a pension, the rest of us have a 401K and no pension they can do the same. BUT if an employee has been working for the goverment of WI for 30 years you can't expect them to suddenly save enough for retirement if the pension is ended today. Phase in the end of the pension starting with employees that are not vested. |
2011-02-16 12:47 PM in reply to: #3358260 |
Expert 1192 Oak Creek, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: MNHockey - 2011-02-16 12:42 PM My problem with the current approach in WI is that it does not have a way to help protect those almost at retirment age. I agree, public employees should not have a pension, the rest of us have a 401K and no pension they can do the same. BUT if an employee has been working for the goverment of WI for 30 years you can't expect them to suddenly save enough for retirement if the pension is ended today. Phase in the end of the pension starting with employees that are not vested. fully agree with this... heck... i'd be fine with giving every public employee a 10% raise... and then treating them like private sector employees... |
|
2011-02-16 1:15 PM in reply to: #3358260 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: MNHockey - 2011-02-16 12:42 PM My problem with the current approach in WI is that it does not have a way to help protect those almost at retirment age. I agree, public employees should not have a pension, the rest of us have a 401K and no pension they can do the same. BUT if an employee has been working for the goverment of WI for 30 years you can't expect them to suddenly save enough for retirement if the pension is ended today. Phase in the end of the pension starting with employees that are not vested. I look at it this way. If I make a bad investment I'm accountable and won't have retirement. IMO, anyone who counts on a pention for retirement is making an investment. If they chose not to save outside of that in case that pention wasn't there that's their problem. It's no different from the clawbacks Madoff investors are being subject to. It's a risk they took and it didn't turn out. Why is everyone else accountable for someone's bad investment??? And don't tell me because they were "led to believe....blah..blah..blah" Every time I invest in a stock I'm led to believe something. It doesn't always turn out, and I get burned. I take my licks and move on like these people should have to. Let's face it, pension plans are EXACTLY like Madoff investments. If it looks too good to be true........it probably is! |
2011-02-16 1:23 PM in reply to: #3358349 |
301 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: [ I look at it this way. If I make a bad investment I'm accountable and won't have retirement. IMO, anyone who counts on a pention for retirement is making an investment. If they chose not to save outside of that in case that pention wasn't there that's their problem. It's no different from the clawbacks Madoff investors are being subject to. It's a risk they took and it didn't turn out. Why is everyone else accountable for someone's bad investment??? And don't tell me because they were "led to believe....blah..blah..blah" Every time I invest in a stock I'm led to believe something. It doesn't always turn out, and I get burned. I take my licks and move on like these people should have to. Let's face it, pension plans are EXACTLY like Madoff investments. If it looks too good to be true........it probably is! The folks don't have a choice. A certain percentage of their paycheck goes to the pension no questions asked. I know for employees of the University of Minnesota it is 5%. are the employees supposed to let the pension have 5% and then save an additional 10-15% "just in case." That seems a little crazy to me! |
2011-02-16 1:28 PM in reply to: #3358361 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: MNHockey - 2011-02-16 1:23 PM I look at it this way. If I make a bad investment I'm accountable and won't have retirement. IMO, anyone who counts on a pention for retirement is making an investment. If they chose not to save outside of that in case that pention wasn't there that's their problem. It's no different from the clawbacks Madoff investors are being subject to. It's a risk they took and it didn't turn out. Why is everyone else accountable for someone's bad investment??? And don't tell me because they were "led to believe....blah..blah..blah" Every time I invest in a stock I'm led to believe something. It doesn't always turn out, and I get burned. I take my licks and move on like these people should have to. Let's face it, pension plans are EXACTLY like Madoff investments. If it looks too good to be true........it probably is! [ The folks don't have a choice. A certain percentage of their paycheck goes to the pension no questions asked. I know for employees of the University of Minnesota it is 5%. are the employees supposed to let the pension have 5% and then save an additional 10-15% "just in case." That seems a little crazy to me! yes, they should. If I put away 5% I wouldn't even be able to retire on that (hence, the too good to be true analogy). Consider that a bonus!! Personally, I put 5% in a 401k because my company matches it. I then put another 15% in other investments "just in case" the tax rate is soooooo high by the time I take it out that the government suck up half my savings. It's all a risk. We've lost sight of that over recent years. People don't like to lose and they aren't used to it. But rest asured, it happens! Edited by Meulen 2011-02-16 1:30 PM |
2011-02-16 2:14 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Seems the national guard component of this is a bit of spin: |
2011-02-16 3:50 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Spent a few hours at the Capitol both last night and today. The overwhelming sentiment is displeasure towards the collective bargaining agreement. It also hits a nerve with us because this affects, among others, firefighters, teachers, professors, police...people that we hold some amount of respect in our society. Obviously, this rally and protest is not going to affect the passage of the budget. This is going to be the reality in Wisconsin, so the impetus is now on those who feel they are being marginalized to figure out what the next steps are. |
|
2011-02-16 3:56 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: This article essentially summarizes the fact that the budget was going to be fine without this, until he decided to approve $140million in new spending since he took office last month. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html Edited by UWMadTri 2011-02-16 3:56 PM |
2011-02-16 4:20 PM in reply to: #3358700 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 3:56 PM This article essentially summarizes the fact that the budget was going to be fine without this, until he decided to approve $140million in new spending since he took office last month. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html Anybody else want to support his ideas? Anybody?? Bueller?? |
2011-02-16 4:40 PM in reply to: #3358700 |
Expert 1192 Oak Creek, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 3:56 PM This article essentially summarizes the fact that the budget was going to be fine without this, until he decided to approve $140million in new spending since he took office last month. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html who doesnt love a good protest rally...?!? for starters, getting your news for editorial section of the cap times...?!? really...?!? This article is so ridiculous it is laughable... ignoring the lefty madison spin for a moment... he is putting in place economic incentives and job creation programs to actually bring businesses to the state of Wisconsin... crazy idea, huh..?? that way we can have more private sector employees to foot the bill for all the public sector employees who apparently believe that they are above the rest of us and dont need to do so... he is also putting money aside for health savings accounts to ease the burden of the ever increasing costs of healthcare for those of us that actually have to pay for it... the guy is clearly a criminal..!!! i actually started off relatively neutral on all of this... however the more mindless banter i read coming out of madison the more i hope scott walker bends over these public employees and really gives them something to complain about... and then this 'protected' class will actually wake up and know what its like to live in the real world... |
2011-02-16 4:44 PM in reply to: #3358746 |
Expert 1192 Oak Creek, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-16 4:20 PM UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 3:56 PM This article essentially summarizes the fact that the budget was going to be fine without this, until he decided to approve $140million in new spending since he took office last month. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html Anybody else want to support his ideas? Anybody?? Bueller?? Right here Phil... Why dont you focus your energy on the $862 billion your president pi$$ed away on failed job creation... or that beautifullty crafted obamacare... Walker is starting what should have been done long ago...!!! Give me your reasons why public employees should be put above and given special treatment over private sector employees.... would love to hear them...!!! Edited by bscharff 2011-02-16 4:45 PM |
2011-02-16 4:46 PM in reply to: #3358774 |
Champion 7495 Schwamalamadingdong! | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: bscharff - 2011-02-16 4:40 PM i actually started off relatively neutral on all of this... however the more mindless banter i read coming out of madison the more i hope scott walker bends over these public employees and really gives them something to complain about... and then this 'protected' class will actually wake up and know what its like to live in the real world... Well... at least with that rhetoric, you're on a level playing field. There's nasty spin coming from each side. That's about all i know of this situation. |
|
2011-02-16 4:51 PM in reply to: #3358700 |
Master 1529 Living in the past | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 3:56 PM This article essentially summarizes the fact that the budget was going to be fine without this, until he decided to approve $140million in new spending since he took office last month. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html Which budget are we talking about? The pdf in the linked article talks specifically about "fiscal 2010/2011", but as I recall, the bigger concern about the fiscal situation of Wisconsin is not current year but the next two-year budgeting cycle - a multi-billion dollar shortfall at current projections. Even conceeding budget chicanery for 2010/2011, the debt bomb we have coming, and the sacrifices necessary to address that, will dwarf this. This is a downpayment on the bigger challenges ahead. If it wasn't today, then it was certainly next year. The budget gimmicks are all used up. I wonder if we can linearly scale the level of protest to the budget shortfall in dollars? |
2011-02-16 4:54 PM in reply to: #3358349 |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Meulen - 2011-02-16 2:15 PM MNHockey - 2011-02-16 12:42 PM My problem with the current approach in WI is that it does not have a way to help protect those almost at retirment age. I agree, public employees should not have a pension, the rest of us have a 401K and no pension they can do the same. BUT if an employee has been working for the goverment of WI for 30 years you can't expect them to suddenly save enough for retirement if the pension is ended today. Phase in the end of the pension starting with employees that are not vested. I look at it this way. If I make a bad investment I'm accountable and won't have retirement. IMO, anyone who counts on a pention for retirement is making an investment. If they chose not to save outside of that in case that pention wasn't there that's their problem. It's no different from the clawbacks Madoff investors are being subject to. It's a risk they took and it didn't turn out. Why is everyone else accountable for someone's bad investment??? And don't tell me because they were "led to believe....blah..blah..blah" Every time I invest in a stock I'm led to believe something. It doesn't always turn out, and I get burned. I take my licks and move on like these people should have to. Let's face it, pension plans are EXACTLY like Madoff investments. If it looks too good to be true........it probably is! For employees who are close to retiring and have been working for the state for 30+ years, it was a very different system then. 401ks were NOT the norm. Also, it's penSion not penTion. |
2011-02-16 5:08 PM in reply to: #3358783 |
Expert 1192 Oak Creek, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TheSchwamm - 2011-02-16 4:46 PM bscharff - 2011-02-16 4:40 PM i actually started off relatively neutral on all of this... however the more mindless banter i read coming out of madison the more i hope scott walker bends over these public employees and really gives them something to complain about... and then this 'protected' class will actually wake up and know what its like to live in the real world... Well... at least with that rhetoric, you're on a level playing field. There's nasty spin coming from each side. That's about all i know of this situation. I dont mean any personal attacks... as i personally like my attackees... obviously no one likes to have their compensation screwed with... i realize that... i get it... however i dont see why we have such a disparity in treatment between public and private employees... why do we have seperate standards...??? and my comments are geared more towards unions in general than just public employees... i kind of view the public employment system as one big union... i have no problem with public (or union) employees making a good wage... however the system is outdated and needs to be fixed... i have a lot of family and friends that are public employees... and i love them dearly... but there clearly is this air of 'entitlement' or 'protection' that the rest of us dont have the benefit of... now i'm in the private sector and do fine... and have no complaints... however there are a lot in the private sector that struggle as much if not more than their public sector brethren... and unlike those in the public sector where i often hear "hey, i only have to work XX more years than i can collect my pension and i'm set..." the response from those in the private sector is more like "hey, the way this market is it looks like i'm going to have to work until they stick me in the ground..." level the playing field i say... and i think that there is a huge overreaction going on in madison right now... |
2011-02-16 5:16 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: I have responses to the points that you all made, but it wouldn't solve anyone's concerns. Fundamentally, one side is saying that they want to support the public sector's rights to bargain collectively, as well as protect their already mediocre paychecks ("if the private sector is so bad, leave it!", to flip the rhetoric I've heard towards public employees) and the other side is saying that they think the solutions to our budget our accomplished by taking away some of their money and the right to bargain collectively. That's fine. We disagree. No amount of arguing about these issues will change anyone's opinion. HOWEVER, why is it that Republicans do not want to increase taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, but have no problem taking away money from the middle class? That's really the thing that irks me. Edited by UWMadTri 2011-02-16 5:17 PM |
|