Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 27)

The wealthy DO pay more! 42% of Americans pay no federal tax - those people are getting the vast majority of the benefits.

Walker is trying to get corporations to stay and grow business in WI - they give people jobs, grow the tax base and increase property values.

Go back and look at the JFK tax cuts - they brought in a ton of tax revenue. High taxes CHOKE tax revenue they don't increase it.

In a ceteris paribus model, your argument is probably valid. This cut may even be a misguided attempt to stimulate the sale of non-inv. assets, but the fact of the matter is banks aren't lending, people aren't buying and we have a new normal, at least for a little while. So either Walker is naive, misguided, or just plain oblivious as to the effects of that tax cut in this economy.

Yes, HD is still in Wisconsin. How long is Talgo staying in WI?

Corporations are spoken about in a way that seems almost otherworldly...people need money to pay for goods and services. So, we're going to continue to increase the burden on the poor so that corporations can keep their prices low? How about we raise taxes on corporations, so that the inefficient ones go under or leave our state? Simple economic analysis shows that when you reduce duplication of effort and inefficiency, society gains.

And I'm sorry to disagree with you on this point, but trickle down economics doesn't do it for me. If taxes (and by proxy, the bottom line) were the only thing keeping business from starting and expanding, why haven't they all moved production and services off-shore?

When you say choke, I say redistribute. Preemptive strike against Cruse: you've already given me the link to CPUSA. :p

Erm, who has the net worth to buy property, stocks, bonds and high-value commodities at low prices and then resell them when the markets rebound? o_0

Whoa there, Nelly. "Tax out MOST companies?" Nonono. Tax out inefficient companies (like inefficient unions ), so that we do not have duplication of effort inefficiency. I don't know what they taught you when you were at Madison, but inefficiency RAISES the cost to society. Oligopolies for elastic goods are exactly what we need in this society and you can reduce the tax burden on those companies from here to kingdom come. Heck, I'll put on my fiscal conservative hat and dance that parade with you. Why are we giving tax cuts to corporations who produce this inelastic crap due to duplication and generally unnecessary-ness (yes, I create words)? We should raise taxes to bump them past their shutdown point and then perhaps we can go back to a true free-market.

crusevegas - 2011-03-04 5:41 PM

UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 3:35 PM

Yes, HD is still in Wisconsin. How long is Talgo staying in WI?

Corporations are spoken about in a way that seems almost otherworldly...people need money to pay for goods and services. So, we're going to continue to increase the burden on the poor so that corporations can keep their prices low? How about we raise taxes on corporations, so that the inefficient ones go under or leave our state? Simple economic analysis shows that when you reduce duplication of effort and inefficiency, society gains.

Well based on what you said here and the fact that WI is already like #4 in taxes I would think that the "bad" ones are gone. But hey if you think that's sound reasoning wish you all the luck with that. Sounds like you have a chance to make Obama's finance team.

Serious question, do you agree with Michael Moore's idea to get rid of or reduce the debit in WI &/or the USA?

I wouldn't want to be within a billion miles of Obama's finance team. Just about the most corrupt group of individuals ever to have any control over our monetary supply. Inefficiency exists everywhere. My goal in life is to decrease it as much as possible, says the guy that spent the last hour on BT. Whoops.

I'm not familiar with that. I'll go take a look right now and let you know my initial thoughts in a few minutes.

ETA: Can't find anything, unless it's in that "War Against the Middle Class in Wisconsin." If so, I'll watch it later.

To what or whom do you credit your clairvoyance at seeing the end results of the budget bill, understanding the morality of the Governor, and connecting those who support this bill with a disdain for the poor? What has provided you the insight to judge anyone's priorities as it relates to legitimate and defensible point-of-view about how taxes should be spent and the relationship between tax payer and government?  Is it your schooling at the UW?

As a UW engineering school graduate and tea party sympathizer, I reject your claim to the intellectual high ground.

The budget bill is a simple matter. The end result for some items is easy to quantify, e.g. 65,000 losing health coverage when the bill passes, others require an insight into the economic levers that he is attempting to utilize, along with an understanding of the current economic conditions.

The morality of the governor has been on showcase these last two weeks. His promulgation of untruth regarding and his mistreatment of protesters, his blatant aversion to court-ordered mandates (one of which I picked up hot off the presses and was summarily told that it does not matter; Gov. Walker gives the orders), his disregard for negotiation, with the subsequent arrogance of his "rightness", and his interminable ability to bend the laws just enough to get his way, e.g. sneaking in shills for his budget address and locking out any detractors.

The support of this bill is a direct attack against the working poor and the making-ends-meet middle class, because it specifically targets only those groups and gives relief to those in the upper class. Therefore, willful support of said bill is willful acknowledgment of the fact that the problems of this state are caused by those who make "just enough" every year, NOT the upper classes and that the people that should pay for these shortfalls are those who make "just enough" every year and NOT the upper classes.

If I'm understanding your next question correctly (and please tell me if I'm wrong), you're asking how I can judge people based on their tax distribution beliefs. It's pretty simple: the social welfare system is in place to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have nots. If it sounds too much like socialism to you, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. Sweden has a radical version of this and they're a social democratic society. Things seem to be working out just fine for them.

Further to that, my beliefs are that people should not be incentivized to become exceedingly wealthy. There is a belief in this country that if you can reach the stars, goddamnit it's your God-given right as an American and you should let nothing stop you! The arrogance and stupidity of this concept are what has created this society of greed and need. It is the underlying principle to corporate America and the masses are the willing and equally stupid subjects (note: myself included. I'm on no high ground there).

The only way to sustain the enormous rise of wealth in this country is 1) redistributing wealth UPWARDS, or 2) monetary policy in the form of inflation, or as I like to call it, "government mandated counterfeiting." Money doesn't magically appear out of nowhere and if we were still on the gold standard (not that I'm calling for it, mind you), we would have far fewer problems in this country. Mayer Rothschild was a brilliant mind and posited the theories that were later remanufactured into a working framework of how to manipulate global markets through commodity shocks to induce mass response. He was essentially the grandfather of game theory as we know it today and its his absolutely brilliant policies that have created this unbelievable imbalance of wealth across the world today.

So, to summarize: tax redistribution, in my opinion, should not only be used to make certain that the working masses are at the very least, mildly comfortable, but it should also give the non-working masses should have every opportunity to see the path of prosperity that we have all been blessed to see. As it stands, tax redistribution upwards is willful intent to make the poor poorer, of course under the carefully crafted guise of "trickle down economics." Which should have gone the way of the Laffer curve in the 80's.

No, my schooling at UW is largely a product of incredibly conservative economics professors and ethically dubious business professors. They would have pushed me in the opposite direction of anything. Surprisingly, I'm just an intelligent individual who sees how the big economic picture works. I plan on disseminating said information in a more traditional route within the next few years. With any luck, they'll call me the founder of "sanity-based economics." Disincentivize inefficiency and encourage those who want to be a part of the solution. Hallelujah and amen.

Reject my claim all you want, the fact stands. The Tea Party is a corporate created PAC, with the sole intent to pay its way into the highest forms of government to set standards for economic policy for corporate America. It in no way, shape, or form benefits the masses and their ability to somehow convince said masses that it is the "party for those who don't like to be taxed" is just absurd. It makes sense that they targeted the Republican Party to latch onto, simply because of the continuing belief of trickled down economics that conservatives just love to cling to. The only thing that trickles down is, as we say in Yiddish, dreck.

You make a very good point: spending is out of control. While you make the point on the government side, which I do agree with, you also have to recognize that WE are spending way beyond our means. We can blame the government and banks and every finance tool on the housing crash, or we could just realize that we thought we could afford stuff that we couldn't. The end.

So I say it's on us first, then we can talk about the government. We curb spending over a five-year period, we can absolutely cut spending on the Federal level.

Out of curiosity, where would you cut spending from this:

What gives the national government any!!!!! Role in education at all?   What is the purpose of the national government?  What is the purpose of the State governments if you will take time to research this you will discover that as a republic the national government has a role and so does the state governments and one is the defense of this nation.   Guess which it is? To answer your question I would cut spending from the areas that the National Government has no business being in to begin with, HHS, Energy, Agriculture, and Education Energy, and HUD. Show me a positive to any of these agencies.   Has the poverty rate dropped since the inception of the war on poverty? Have the billions we have spent on agriculture resulted in benefits to farmers?  Has the level of education improved since the national government started mandating education reforms? Have we become more energy independent since the creation of the department of Energy? And please explain what business is it of the National Government to provide me with easy access to a home?

When is the last time negotiations between Haliburton and Dick Cheney were tense?

On paper, you are 100% right. And I agree that this is not an ideal situation.

But to the working class in this country that are union members, even under a microscope it looks a thousand times more honest than what has been going on vis-a-vis the Federal Reserve's relationship with Congress, the last admin's relationships w/ many unnamed defense contractors etc.

Collusion and corruption are everywhere in our country. Nobody likes getting called out on it, but this argument might be summed up in degrees. Where is the conservative outrage at what has been perpetrated to pump money into the banks and Wall St?

Because those were tax dollars that we spent.

Where is the outrage at the thousands of corporations and wealthy families that pay NO US taxes?

Those are revenues that we, as a country could use.

These are the questions that need to be answered before we expect the population at large to stand up against groups of workers supporting elected officials, then negotiating labor deals with the same officials.

If you think about it, it's hypocrisy to begrudge these unions the rights they seek while mega wealthy industries are sucking at the teet of the US taxpayer.

I feel like a first year econ teaching assistant...I'll wait for the unabridged version.

Who knows, perhaps you will be a famous economist for your thoughts, opinions, and theories. Fine by me, although I don't share many of your opinions or beliefs and I surely don't share your characterization of supporters of this bill; their motives and their morals.

The sureness you have of the motives, morality, and degree of thoughtfulness of the other side appears to be matched only by your assessment of the rightfulness of your own positions. I get it, you don't like the bill. You don't like the politics around it. I look at this bill and accept it as a downpayment toward all the tough decisions previously avoided.

Maybe we can have fun debating some of your theories and beliefs about what is wrong about corporate America, unions, wealth re-distribution, taxation, etc., but when you aren't deep in econ theory and principles, you have insulted the intelligence of those that disagree with you and have called into question the character and morality of those you know nothing more about than their posts.

Both sides have gone overboard here, not just him.

Is that fair?

Is what "fair" (unfair)? My criticism? My direct response to his post? 

I've read this whole dang thread, commented a bunch too, and with few exceptions the discourse has been civil and fact-based.

In retrospect, I should have let the mods address his post if they felt it necessary.

Well, the unabridged version will be quite abridged from its current form of notes resembling manifesto. :p

I highly doubt the powers that be would ever allow these thoughts to be distributed in any manner, as it is essentially an anti-corporation treatise and the good lord knows who the government works for.

Disagreeing is absolutely fine. I'd welcome a defense of the supporters of the bill. Something that isn't trickle down-based though, if possible.

I fully respect that position. I'm just wondering why you feel it is necessary to take that downpayment from those who cannot afford it and give tax cuts to those who can.

I certainly wasn't trying to insult anyone and I apologize if I came off that way. I do not know of a person on this board who is a Tea Party supporter until you mentioned your position. I absolutely do not judge anyone on this board based on their posts; although I have had initial gut reactions, I've found them to be wrong the large majority of the time. The rest of the time, I keep my mouth shut as many of you keep your mouth shut (to a point) with me.

I will give you that the Tea Party was initially founded as a grassroots movement...there's absolutely no question about that. However, the Michele Bachman/Sarah Palin duo turned it into a sizeable PAC for social conservatism and then the Koch Bros. popped in and decided to add their sizable muscle to the group. The Koch Bros., along with AFP, have convinced everyone that this is still a grassroots campaign, built on the beliefs of freedom of government and low taxes. The fact of the matter is, these guys did not sign on to make the little people's lives better. They signed on because they saw an opportunity to rally a political mass in an effort to install their people into positions of power across the country for their own financial gain. They are not altruistic individuals.

It's a shame that they've taken over the grassroots nature of the Tea Party. While it was in its infancy, the racism was an easy highlight for the media, but I would imagine that would have toned down with time. There was some promise for the Tea Party to introduce a what-if scenario into American politics, assuming it became a true party: can we sustain 3 major parties? Sadly, the religious and socially conservative right swallowed it whole in a matter of no time and out came this disfigured hull of a PAC with intentions of crumbling liberal power sources and strengthening conservative power sources.

At this point, I hope it falls off like a vestigial organ over the next 2-3 election cycles. Here's hoping.

You were implying that he was wholesale insulting people's opinions and making assumptions on their integrity, motivations etc.

I was trying to point out that he's been the target of the same things, actually worse, on this thread.

And I asked if my conclusion (That the insults have been going both ways) was fair.

Hence the "Is that fair?" question.

Does that make sense?

Reject my claim all you want, the fact stands. The Tea Party is a corporate created PAC, with the sole intent to pay its way into the highest forms of government to set standards for economic policy for corporate America. It in no way, shape, or form benefits the masses and their ability to somehow convince said masses that it is the "party for those who don't like to be taxed" is just absurd. It makes sense that they targeted the Republican Party to latch onto, simply because of the continuing belief of trickled down economics that conservatives just love to cling to. The only thing that trickles down is, as we say in Yiddish, dreck.

Really? as a TEA party member We the People Can you help me to understand What corporation created us? Have you attended a TEA party meeting?  I am not trying to be rude but you have stated that you make your decisions or statements based on your gut feelings and are often wrong.  That should tell you something; perhaps you should research your gut feelings to see if there is any reality to them. As far as benefiting the masses I make less than 75k per year I will not benefit directly from a tax reduction for the rich yet I support one the purpose of government is not to take from one group to benefit a larger group.  We are not opposed to taxes we are opposed to the spending of tax dollars in areas that the Government has no business spending them in such as propping up failed and failing business, Foreign aid to countries that do not support us, dictating to school systems what to teach and what is allowed to be served in the lunchroom. I hope this gives you a bit to think about and I am keeping it short.  And buy the way you asked questions of what to cut when you posed your pie chart I answered you.  In your post you stated the problem is the comparatively large amount of spending for defense and the comparatively small spending on education I ask you which Defense or Education is the role of the National Government.