login
Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 28)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-03-05 7:59 AM in reply to: #3383665 |
Pro  3906     Libertyville, IL |  Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 11:26 PM I find it interesting that you tend to realize a lot of this is over consumption by people but wonder how that ties into your definition/perceptions of the working poor and arguments of what middle class is. It feels like you are tying old standards to that middle class and 'not being able to make ends meet' in the context of the new economy. There are many folks in financial duress of their own doing. Sure some of that is from terrible lending practices and credit being too loose, but how much of that is simply situations where overconsumption over the years has put some folks in dire straights, upsizing that home they shouldnt have or even getting one in the first place...the 'needs' for new cars every few years, etc, etc. Maybe you seem to agree with that to an extent in your musings on creating inelastic goods and maybe you are trying to say that production and consumption in teh US is based on a lot of filler and to that I would agree. cerveloP3 - 2011-03-04 11:00 PM Wow.... I have not been on BT in at least 2 years and I read this thread first. I am in awe. While I have a tendency to side on the conservative area of the spectrum, I have to say, if I read one more thing about "is that what they teach, or at UW , or this theory" one more time, I will choke. I find it amusing at the pinkos that side on the public union side, when basically it is a circular, and IMO criminal, situation to have a CBA in these public unions. Negotiating with the people that you collectivley support is the circular end of thergument and whileou coulday realistically that they have had CBA for "decades," its not like 30-40 years. Unions support dems, dems win in election, unions negotiate "raises" with dems, unions have what they have now. how is that even legal? When is the last time you heard of a dem and union negotiation being tense? Crazy. we dont need more taxes..... we need about 50% less federal spending and appropriate state cuts in order to achieve budget stasis. We can have our arguments all day long about this but unless we tame our spending and sort through SS, Medicare, and ALL govt spending, our currency and economy are in dire straits, and none of these argumenst will matter at all. We are spending 3.3 trillion in this FY and only will have receipts federally for less than half that. that shoudl scare the out of all of us. 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: Where I dont agree is that the best solution is to blame business for it all. Folks have brains and need to use them. The climate of capitalism promotes innovation for new products that do add to society as well and one could argue that consumerism adds to quality of life for many, shallow as a lot of it may be. I think many have a disagreement that each and every person should be in the ballpark financially just because. There are all kinds of things that pay off with work ethic, innovation, etc and there are many in life that seem just fine going through the motions. Really now that I look at it, it seems like a contradiction that you seem to be blasting the plastic nature of our existence yet at the same time look for even wealth distribution as a benchmark of good society. The suggestion that business pick up the tab leads to fewer jobs and things end up getting worse for the majority, not better. I think too many obsess that some have stuff they dont without looking at how folks got there. Sure there is some nepotism and some silver spoons out there, but a lot of those that have gotten wealthy have earned it by providing good or services that people want, through innovation, hard work and yes, maybe some luck. And guess what? There are also a ton of good employers that have allowed folks to share in financial gain and make a livelihood. I just dont get the beef with business when it is typically a mutually beneficial relationship. Where things go wrong is where there is a lack of oversight on practices that a business undertakes, but to make a huge damnation of corporations seems pretty silly IMO. |
| 2011-03-05 9:36 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Wow posting in a hurry without adequate coffee may result in a very poorly phrased post sorry for that. But I hope you get the meaning. |
| 2011-03-05 10:12 AM in reply to: #3383784 |
Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 7:42 AM need to keep out the flatlanders!UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 11:26 PM That's odd. I had no idea Defense played such a huge role in a STATE BUDGET. cerveloP3 - 2011-03-04 11:00 PM Wow.... I have not been on BT in at least 2 years and I read this thread first. I am in awe. While I have a tendency to side on the conservative area of the spectrum, I have to say, if I read one more thing about "is that what they teach, or at UW , or this theory" one more time, I will choke. I find it amusing at the pinkos that side on the public union side, when basically it is a circular, and IMO criminal, situation to have a CBA in these public unions. Negotiating with the people that you collectivley support is the circular end of thergument and whileou coulday realistically that they have had CBA for "decades," its not like 30-40 years. Unions support dems, dems win in election, unions negotiate "raises" with dems, unions have what they have now. how is that even legal? When is the last time you heard of a dem and union negotiation being tense? Crazy. we dont need more taxes..... we need about 50% less federal spending and appropriate state cuts in order to achieve budget stasis. We can have our arguments all day long about this but unless we tame our spending and sort through SS, Medicare, and ALL govt spending, our currency and economy are in dire straits, and none of these argumenst will matter at all. We are spending 3.3 trillion in this FY and only will have receipts federally for less than half that. that shoudl scare the out of all of us. 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: |
| 2011-03-05 10:25 AM in reply to: #3383784 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 7:42 AMThat's odd. I had no idea Defense played such a huge role in a STATE BUDGET. Did you not read cervelo's post? Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-05 10:25 AM |
| 2011-03-05 11:12 AM in reply to: #3383912 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 8:25 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 7:42 AMThat's odd. I had no idea Defense played such a huge role in a STATE BUDGET. Did you not read cervelo's post? Why no arrow to HHS? I mean the Federal Govts. MAIN duty is defense isn't it? Where in the US constitution does it say the Federal Govt specifically needs to be involved in HHS matters or education? |
| 2011-03-05 11:16 AM in reply to: #3383785 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: CBarnes - 2011-03-05 7:44 AM Really? as a TEA party member We the People Can you help me to understand What corporation created us? I definitely misspoke there. I should have said corporate controlled, not created. The corporate interests that control the Tea Party are held by the Koch Bros. GP, Brawny, Lycra (conflict of interests for me! :p ) 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. I'm not sure what attending a Tea Party meeting would accomplish, in terms of helping me make my point any clearer. There are certainly grassroots elements left in this thing, but you guys are being used for corporate interests. I could attend a meeting, hear all of the points you're making, but at the end of the day, you aren't picking your candidates and those candidates aren't doing it for you. They're doing it for corporate interests. Is that my gut? No, that's just fact. Look at the instance of the Tea Party's stance on Net Neutrality...the thought is that the government shouldn't regulate it, give it to the corporations. o_0 That makes no sense whatsoever. The government has left the Internet open, with the obvious exception of Egypt and corporate America wants to charge different prices for different websites. How does that align with anything other than corporate interests? Ah yes, ATT was a huge donor to the Tea Party during the last cycle. So was Verizon and NCTA. Why would the Tea Party align with something that would hurt all of its members? 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. The welfare system needs further overhaul from the 1996 Act, but it is absolutely imperative for a country to operate. When a country fails to redistribute wealth to its citizens, you have inefficiency. Look at pre- and post-welfare statistics for any number of countries and tell me that you don't think it's beneficial to society. I do agree that it should be used as a temporary crutch and not a permanent wheelchair, but we need to refine the welfare system to get it to that place. 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, Well, we agree there! Foreign aid to countries that do not support us, We probably agree there, although I'm interested in knowing how you define "support." dictating to school systems what to teach and what is allowed to be served in the lunchroom. Half agree with you there. I hate NCLB, but I'm a big fan of the gubmint jumping in and restructuring the lunch programs. If they could just get Jamie Oliver's mindset into the lunchrooms, our kids would be in a better place. It's the reason that we pack our daughter's lunches every day...what they serve is simply not sufficient. Probably because they have no money. 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. A very fair question. I'd say we all agree on the fact that the government's main role is to protect its citizens. However, I take umbrage with the claim that the recent wars have had anything to do with protection. Project for a New American Century made very clear their intent in 1997: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Click on the report at the bottom of this page, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and have a read. The impetus for the ramping up of the industrial military complex was set in motion before we had any "just cause" to go to war. PNAC intimated that the only way to modernize American defenses on their (at the time) current budget, was to overcome American anti-war sentiment with an attack on American soil. They were given that opportunity on 9/11 and they responded pretty darn quickly.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2001.htm They were waiting for this to happen and when it did, they had the pieces in place to ramp up military spending in a heartbeat, while the American public was as malleable as putty. They had initially gotten me too...after I watched the WTC crumble from my window, I made my way right down to Times Square to get myself into the Armed Forces: I was going to fly airplanes down these terrorist's throats. Sadly, you have to be smart, well-educated and at the time, shorter (something about passing out at high-G's, being a poor ejection candidate and plain not fitting in the thing) to fly airplanes. Three strikes and I left dejected. So, after that diversion, I come back to this: defense spending needs to be toned down, but it also needs to become more efficient. When Haliburton gets to run free with cost-plus contracts, we are grossly inefficient. Listen, if I would be paid more to do something if I overinflated my budget, maybe I'd do it too. Unlikely, as I have some morals left, but who knows. However, Haliburton is playing fast and loose with taxpayer money and it is despicable. Education, on the other hand, should have a loosening of federal regulations, with an increase in spending. Schools are grossly underfunded right now and we need to change that quickly. It's much like preventative care in medicine: nip the problem in the bud early and you prevent catastrophe later. For some reason, 1/2 of America doesn't seem to see the tax-cost savings inherent in good education and access to preventative health care for all. It's a long-term savings and a short-term cost, absolutely I agree. That doesn't mean it isn't in the best interests of our country. Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-05 11:16 AM |
| 2011-03-05 11:35 AM in reply to: #3383794 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: jszat - 2011-03-05 7:59 AM I find it interesting that you tend to realize a lot of this is over consumption by people but wonder how that ties into your definition/perceptions of the working poor and arguments of what middle class is. It feels like you are tying old standards to that middle class and 'not being able to make ends meet' in the context of the new economy. There are many folks in financial duress of their own doing. Sure some of that is from terrible lending practices and credit being too loose, but how much of that is simply situations where overconsumption over the years has put some folks in dire straights, upsizing that home they shouldnt have or even getting one in the first place...the 'needs' for new cars every few years, etc, etc. Maybe you seem to agree with that to an extent in your musings on creating inelastic goods and maybe you are trying to say that production and consumption in teh US is based on a lot of filler and to that I would agree. You absolutely hit the nail on the head. American consumers lost their minds over the last 15-20 years with this available access to untold amounts of credit. We put down payments (real cash) down to purchase debt (cash that doesn't exist yet). Depending on how much faith you put in the Operations Research Tech. Manual, this was all part of a larger equation that was put in place many, many years ago to bilk taxpayers out of all their real money. We have grown irresponsible with created "needs" and we are absolutely paying the price for it right now. It isn't anyone else's fault except our own. Where I dont agree is that the best solution is to blame business for it all. Folks have brains and need to use them. The climate of capitalism promotes innovation for new products that do add to society as well and one could argue that consumerism adds to quality of life for many, shallow as a lot of it may be. I think many have a disagreement that each and every person should be in the ballpark financially just because. There are all kinds of things that pay off with work ethic, innovation, etc and there are many in life that seem just fine going through the motions. Really now that I look at it, it seems like a contradiction that you seem to be blasting the plastic nature of our existence yet at the same time look for even wealth distribution as a benchmark of good society. Innovation in society is absolutely crucial to its growth. Inefficient innovation, duplication of effort, narrow patents, and poorly structured research incentives is the problem. Once innovation becomes marketable, we privatize it (with the assumption that most innovation is on some ladder rung up from public research) and privatization seeks to protect its interests. If new innovations are covered with broad enough patents to discourage duplication, great. Great, assuming it's useful to society anyway. The problem is that patents have narrowed in breadth, encouraging inefficient duplication. And the price decrease that we see from competition is offset in the costs of licensing and market share control. At the end of the day, the competitive price for innovation will occur when industry squeezes out all profits, e.g. MR=MC, also known as monopolistic price. So not only are we back where we started, we've also incurred the enormous duplication of effort costs. It's inefficient and harmful to society. The suggestion that business pick up the tab leads to fewer jobs and things end up getting worse for the majority, not better. I think too many obsess that some have stuff they dont without looking at how folks got there. Sure there is some nepotism and some silver spoons out there, but a lot of those that have gotten wealthy have earned it by providing good or services that people want, through innovation, hard work and yes, maybe some luck. And guess what? There are also a ton of good employers that have allowed folks to share in financial gain and make a livelihood. I just dont get the beef with business when it is typically a mutually beneficial relationship. Where things go wrong is where there is a lack of oversight on practices that a business undertakes, but to make a huge damnation of corporations seems pretty silly IMO. I politely disagree. If we lived in a perfect society, where business behaved in a sustainable manner for society, you would be absolutely correct. However, businesses have no interest in the benefit to society and therefore focus only on their bottom line, which is inefficient for society. If there are no regulations in place telling a carpet manufacturer not to dump toxic chemicals in a river and that is the cheapest available option for them, what do you believe they will do? Heck, forget believe, I'll tell you what they do...they dump the chemicals into the river. Society then has to bear that cost, assuming courts don't rule that all cleanup, court, environmental costs are on the shoulders of corporation. You are placing a lot of good faith in corporate America that it simply doesn't have. |
| 2011-03-05 11:38 AM in reply to: #3383935 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 11:12 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 8:25 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 7:42 AMThat's odd. I had no idea Defense played such a huge role in a STATE BUDGET. Did you not read cervelo's post? Why no arrow to HHS? I mean the Federal Govts. MAIN duty is defense isn't it? Where in the US constitution does it say the Federal Govt specifically needs to be involved in HHS matters or education? They both need to be severely reformed. They are both crucial to our society's growth. I cover that in one of my other walls of text on this page. :p |
| 2011-03-05 11:38 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: I think we can all agree the heart of the debate in Wisconsin centers on the CBA’s unions have been able to negotiate with elected officials. So I thought it might be helpful to take a look at State public worker CBA’s and examine how they’re working out in Wisconsin? Turns out they’re working out really well for union members. Not so well for taxpayers. MPS teachers (that is the MEDIAN MPS teacher) make over $100K/year in salary and benefits. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/04/maciver-... In Green Bay, teachers can retire and get a full year’s pay for coming back to work 30 days IN ADDITION to their pension benefits. Oh, and retirees get their healthcare covered for up to 8 years after retirement. Care to show me where in the private sector teachers can get that deal? http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/140-green-bay-teachers-looking-... Madison bus drivers making up to $159K in salary and overtime pay because of union contract rules—rules that guarantee the need drivers get plenty of overtime hours. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_24... Are you a Milwaukee cop who got caught drunk driving? Don't worry-- you'll get paid while placed on 6 months of "administrative leave" and no, the public doesn't have to know. Union rules! http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17218&mname=... Are you a cop found GUILTY of beating a citizen? No problem, you'll still get paid while suspended and even after you're convicted! http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29464434.html Full-time painter for MPS? Congrats, here's nearly a $100K in compensation. http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WI_Fiscal_Cr... Oh, and, no, contrary to myths being tossed about, Wisconsin state workers currently pay NOTHING toward their pensions. http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WI_Fiscal_Cr... Nothing out of whack here, right? Hey, it's all just taxpayer... er, "government" money! But try to rein in this cash-grab and people scream it's all about "killing the middle-class" (like unions have a monopoly on that term and class) and "destroying education". Edited by scoobysdad 2011-03-05 11:40 AM |
| 2011-03-05 11:41 AM in reply to: #3383936 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 9:16 AM I'm not sure what attending a Tea Party meeting would accomplish, in terms of helping me make my point any clearer. There are certainly grassroots elements left in this thing, but you guys are being used for corporate interests. I could attend a meeting, hear all of the points you're making, but at the end of the day, you aren't picking your candidates and those candidates aren't doing it for you. They're doing it for corporate interests. And by the same token you are being used by the Communist Party to promote their agenda. If you don't believe me I think you already have this site to verify my claim. |
| 2011-03-05 11:52 AM in reply to: #3383949 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 11:38 AM I think we can all agree the heart of the debate in Wisconsin centers on the CBA’s unions have been able to negotiate with elected officials. So I thought it might be helpful to take a look at State public worker CBA’s and examine how they’re working out in Wisconsin? Turns out they’re working out really well for union members. Not so well for taxpayers. MPS teachers (that is the MEDIAN MPS teacher) make over $100K/year in salary and benefits. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/04/maciver-... In Green Bay, teachers can retire and get a full year’s pay for coming back to work 30 days IN ADDITION to their pension benefits. Oh, and retirees get their healthcare covered for up to 8 years after retirement. Care to show me where in the private sector teachers can get that deal? http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/140-green-bay-teachers-looking-... Madison bus drivers making up to $159K in salary and overtime pay because of union contract rules—rules that guarantee the need drivers get plenty of overtime hours. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_24... Are you a Milwaukee cop who got caught drunk driving? Don't worry-- you'll get paid while placed on 6 months of "administrative leave" and no, the public doesn't have to know. Union rules! http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17218&mn... Are you a cop found GUILTY of beating a citizen? No problem, you'll still get paid while suspended and even after you're convicted! http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29464434.htmlFull-time painter for MPS? Congrats, here's nearly a $100K in compensation. http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WI_Fiscal_Cr... Oh, and, no, contrary to myths being tossed about, Wisconsin state workers currently pay NOTHING toward their pensions. http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WI_Fiscal_Cr... Nothing out of whack here, right? Hey, it's all just taxpayer... er, "government" money! But try to rein in this cash-grab and people scream it's all about "killing the middle-class" (like unions have a monopoly on that term and class) and "destroying education". Hey, I agree that CBA's need to be overhauled...they just do not need to be eliminated, save wages pegged to inflation. I've said that somewhere in here. The problem is that Gov. Walker said, "my way or the highway", which is why everyone sees this as a purely political move. He doesn't want to waste the time in finding a middle ground because he doesn't have to. |
| 2011-03-05 11:56 AM in reply to: #3383951 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 11:41 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 9:16 AM I'm not sure what attending a Tea Party meeting would accomplish, in terms of helping me make my point any clearer. There are certainly grassroots elements left in this thing, but you guys are being used for corporate interests. I could attend a meeting, hear all of the points you're making, but at the end of the day, you aren't picking your candidates and those candidates aren't doing it for you. They're doing it for corporate interests. And by the same token you are being used by the Communist Party to promote their agenda. If you don't believe me I think you already have this site to verify my claim. I preemptively told you not to link me there again on page 33 or 34! This has nothing to do with Communism. Just because the Socialist and Communist parties have descended on Madison like flies on poop, does not mean that we give them any credence. I've spoken with a number of leaders of the Socialist movement these past few weeks and they're borderline delusional. Not only that, they have warring factions within, telling me that the other one is bad. It's hilarious. No, this is not about CPUSA, despite your one-man war that it is. |
| 2011-03-05 12:00 PM in reply to: #3383963 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 9:56 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 11:41 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 9:16 AM I'm not sure what attending a Tea Party meeting would accomplish, in terms of helping me make my point any clearer. There are certainly grassroots elements left in this thing, but you guys are being used for corporate interests. I could attend a meeting, hear all of the points you're making, but at the end of the day, you aren't picking your candidates and those candidates aren't doing it for you. They're doing it for corporate interests. And by the same token you are being used by the Communist Party to promote their agenda. If you don't believe me I think you already have this site to verify my claim. I preemptively told you not to link me there again on page 33 or 34! This has nothing to do with Communism. Just because the Socialist and Communist parties have descended on Madison like flies on poop, does not mean that we give them any credence. I've spoken with a number of leaders of the Socialist movement these past few weeks and they're borderline delusional. Not only that, they have warring factions within, telling me that the other one is bad. It's hilarious. No, this is not about CPUSA, despite your one-man war that it is. They support your cause and your agenda 100% just sayin. |
| 2011-03-05 12:03 PM in reply to: #3383969 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:00 PM They support your cause and your agenda 100% just sayin. Of course they do...they see an opportunity to latch onto a political group to drive momentum, much like corporate interests did when they latched on to the Tea Party. Thankfully, cpusa has made no headway at all into these protests. The Socialists are doing a MUCH better job than the Communists. I'd focus on them if you want to make some sort of tenuous connections. |
| 2011-03-05 12:08 PM in reply to: #3383974 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 10:03 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:00 PM They support your cause and your agenda 100% just sayin. Of course they do...they see an opportunity to latch onto a political group to drive momentum, much like corporate interests did when they latched on to the Tea Party. Thankfully, cpusa has made no headway at all into these protests. The Socialists are doing a MUCH better job than the Communists. I'd focus on them if you want to make some sort of tenuous connections. Communist/Socialists Tomato/Tomoto, the difference in their agenda is minimal, they are knee deep in the unions and the unions are up to their armpits as well. Progressive Democrats, Unions especially Public Government Unions the CPUSA and the Socialists movement all have a very similar agenda. I'm not conneting you to them your actions and their actions are making the connection, I'm mearlely point it out. |
| 2011-03-05 12:09 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: I have to leave for the rest of the day. I'm not ignoring comments made to my posts now and assuming there aren't 3 pages for me to respond to when I get back, I'll respond to all of them. I seem to be the only one on this platform, so I guess the obligation is with me. I hope none of you feel that I've personally attacked you. I don't feel attacked by anyone either, despite the fact that I'm in the minority on this board. At the end of the day, my interests don't align with either party, mostly because I've developed my interests over the course of 5 years, without bias for alignment. I hope that you all can see that. |
| 2011-03-05 12:15 PM in reply to: #3383979 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:08 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 10:03 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:00 PM They support your cause and your agenda 100% just sayin. Of course they do...they see an opportunity to latch onto a political group to drive momentum, much like corporate interests did when they latched on to the Tea Party. Thankfully, cpusa has made no headway at all into these protests. The Socialists are doing a MUCH better job than the Communists. I'd focus on them if you want to make some sort of tenuous connections. Communist/Socialists Tomato/Tomoto, the difference in their agenda is minimal, they are knee deep in the unions and the unions are up to their armpits as well. Progressive Democrats, Unions especially Public Government Unions the CPUSA and the Socialists movement all have a very similar agenda. I'm not conneting you to them your actions and their actions are making the connection, I'm mearlely point it out. Oh, come now. I can make specious links to all sorts of boogeyman and tie them to any movement in the world. You're not merely pointing it out...you're putting a correlation/causation plot together with absolutely no basis in reality. |
| 2011-03-05 12:36 PM in reply to: #3383985 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 10:15 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:08 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 10:03 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:00 PM They support your cause and your agenda 100% just sayin. Of course they do...they see an opportunity to latch onto a political group to drive momentum, much like corporate interests did when they latched on to the Tea Party. Thankfully, cpusa has made no headway at all into these protests. The Socialists are doing a MUCH better job than the Communists. I'd focus on them if you want to make some sort of tenuous connections. Communist/Socialists Tomato/Tomoto, the difference in their agenda is minimal, they are knee deep in the unions and the unions are up to their armpits as well. Progressive Democrats, Unions especially Public Government Unions the CPUSA and the Socialists movement all have a very similar agenda. I'm not conneting you to them your actions and their actions are making the connection, I'm mearlely point it out. Oh, come now. I can make specious links to all sorts of boogeyman and tie them to any movement in the world. You're not merely pointing it out...you're putting a correlation/causation plot together with absolutely no basis in reality. How is what I've said here any different than what you've said about the Tea Party and the people associated with it? |
| 2011-03-05 2:45 PM in reply to: #3383359 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? 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 or someone like my training buddy...an elementary school teacher...who I would not consider wealthy..... who is renting me his house that was empty after he got re-married (to another teacher - and their combined income does not equate to what I would call wealthy). He needs to sell the house this spring but is worried about how much capital gains tax he will have to pay. Maybe your definition of wealthy goes down to a much lower income level than I would define it. Edited by Birkierunner 2011-03-05 2:46 PM |
| 2011-03-05 2:57 PM in reply to: #3384006 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:36 PM How is what I've said here any different than what you've said about the Tea Party and the people associated with it? There is an actual connection between everything I've said. TP was grassroots. Bachman/Palin made it social. Koch Bros. made it corporate. What have I said that is not correlated? You have nothing but a connection of ideals as some method of tying things together. No one except Glenn Beck is making such outrageous connections as yours. |
| 2011-03-05 3:04 PM in reply to: #3384137 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 2:45 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? 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 or someone like my training buddy...an elementary school teacher...who I would not consider wealthy..... who is renting me his house that was empty after he got re-married (to another teacher - and their combined income does not equate to what I would call wealthy). He needs to sell the house this spring but is worried about how much capital gains tax he will have to pay. Maybe your definition of wealthy goes down to a much lower income level than I would define it. With all due respect to your friend, if he can sell a house at a price higher than his purchase price in this market, he should take that money and run. Capital gains should be the least of his worries. And if he is married in WI and in the lower tax brackets (and by lower I mean combined $500,000) with a long-term asset such as a house and he lived there for more than 2 of the last 5 years, he won't pay any CG tax at all. So what exactly is he worried about? o_0 It doesn't affect him at all. ETA: I just looked at the law and I misreported that. He will not have to pay CG tax regardless of his tax bracket up to a gain of $500,000. Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-05 3:06 PM |
| 2011-03-05 3:10 PM in reply to: #3384151 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 3:04 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 2:45 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? 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 or someone like my training buddy...an elementary school teacher...who I would not consider wealthy..... who is renting me his house that was empty after he got re-married (to another teacher - and their combined income does not equate to what I would call wealthy). He needs to sell the house this spring but is worried about how much capital gains tax he will have to pay. Maybe your definition of wealthy goes down to a much lower income level than I would define it. With all due respect to your friend, if he can sell a house at a price higher than his purchase price in this market, he should take that money and run. Capital gains should be the least of his worries. And if he is married in WI and in the lower tax brackets (and by lower I mean combined $500,000) with a long-term asset such as a house and he lived there for more than 2 of the last 5 years, he won't pay any CG tax at all. So what exactly is he worried about? o_0 It doesn't affect him at all. ETA: I just looked at the law and I misreported that. He will not have to pay CG tax regardless of his tax bracket up to a gain of $500,000. he lives in MN, he hasn't lived there for 2 of past 5 years, its not his primary residence....and this still doesn't address my point that its not only the wealthy that have to pay capital gains... |
| 2011-03-05 3:19 PM in reply to: #3384159 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 3:10 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 3:04 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 2:45 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? 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 or someone like my training buddy...an elementary school teacher...who I would not consider wealthy..... who is renting me his house that was empty after he got re-married (to another teacher - and their combined income does not equate to what I would call wealthy). He needs to sell the house this spring but is worried about how much capital gains tax he will have to pay. Maybe your definition of wealthy goes down to a much lower income level than I would define it. With all due respect to your friend, if he can sell a house at a price higher than his purchase price in this market, he should take that money and run. Capital gains should be the least of his worries. And if he is married in WI and in the lower tax brackets (and by lower I mean combined $500,000) with a long-term asset such as a house and he lived there for more than 2 of the last 5 years, he won't pay any CG tax at all. So what exactly is he worried about? o_0 It doesn't affect him at all. ETA: I just looked at the law and I misreported that. He will not have to pay CG tax regardless of his tax bracket up to a gain of $500,000. he lives in MN, he hasn't lived there for 2 of past 5 years, its not his primary residence....and this still doesn't address my point that its not only the wealthy that have to pay capital gains... The capital gains tax on the sale of long-term assets are negligible in this market. This benefits the wealthy who have large sales of short-term assets And I will reiterate my point...if he can sell for a profit in this housing market, he should not be worried about a 15% tax on his profits. I'd venture that most people would take that to the bank running. 1. Using plausible measures of economic status, capital gains receipts are highly concentrated among those with high incomes. The richest 2 percent of Americans receive more than 50 percent of all capital gains. Claims that capital gains recipients only appear to be rich because their capital gains income is transitory are not supported by longitudinal data. Likewise, claims that a large fraction of the benefits from capital gains tax reductions flow to middle income taxpayers result from failing to consider tax shelters. Capital gains on corporate stocks are considerably more concentrated among high income indi- viduals than capital gains on other assets. |
| 2011-03-05 3:58 PM in reply to: #3384168 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 2:19 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 3:10 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 3:04 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 2:45 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? 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 or someone like my training buddy...an elementary school teacher...who I would not consider wealthy..... who is renting me his house that was empty after he got re-married (to another teacher - and their combined income does not equate to what I would call wealthy). He needs to sell the house this spring but is worried about how much capital gains tax he will have to pay. Maybe your definition of wealthy goes down to a much lower income level than I would define it. With all due respect to your friend, if he can sell a house at a price higher than his purchase price in this market, he should take that money and run. Capital gains should be the least of his worries. And if he is married in WI and in the lower tax brackets (and by lower I mean combined $500,000) with a long-term asset such as a house and he lived there for more than 2 of the last 5 years, he won't pay any CG tax at all. So what exactly is he worried about? o_0 It doesn't affect him at all. ETA: I just looked at the law and I misreported that. He will not have to pay CG tax regardless of his tax bracket up to a gain of $500,000. he lives in MN, he hasn't lived there for 2 of past 5 years, its not his primary residence....and this still doesn't address my point that its not only the wealthy that have to pay capital gains... The capital gains tax on the sale of long-term assets are negligible in this market. This benefits the wealthy who have large sales of short-term assets And I will reiterate my point...if he can sell for a profit in this housing market, he should not be worried about a 15% tax on his profits. I'd venture that most people would take that to the bank running. 1. Using plausible measures of economic status, capital gains receipts are highly concentrated among those with high incomes. The richest 2 percent of Americans receive more than 50 percent of all capital gains. Claims that capital gains recipients only appear to be rich because their capital gains income is transitory are not supported by longitudinal data. Likewise, claims that a large fraction of the benefits from capital gains tax reductions flow to middle income taxpayers result from failing to consider tax shelters. Capital gains on corporate stocks are considerably more concentrated among high income indi-viduals than capital gains on other assets.
Let's say he outright owns his house as some people do. The average price on a house in MN is somewhere around $210,000 so he is losing over $30,000. That is silly. What did he do to deserve to pay that tax? I'm sure there is already a property tax on it. Assuming he paid it off, he has astutely paid his mortgage on time and now he is being punished that he happened to marry someone else with their own house. |
| 2011-03-05 4:10 PM in reply to: #3384147 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 12:57 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:36 PM How is what I've said here any different than what you've said about the Tea Party and the people associated with it? There is an actual connection between everything I've said. TP was grassroots. Bachman/Palin made it social. Koch Bros. made it corporate. What have I said that is not correlated? You have nothing but a connection of ideals as some method of tying things together. No one except Glenn Beck is making such outrageous connections as yours. So Sarah and the Senator make the Tea Party social (whatever that means) by their envolvment, The Koch brothers supporting it make it corporate,,,,,, ok. The people still involved in the many different tea party groups are all lead by the nose of those 4 indivudials,,,,, ok. The Communist Party being knee deep in organizing protests in WI, sending out propaganda weekly supporting the unions and their ability to dictate to the taxpayer have no association with what you are doing,..... Yeah, I see the difference. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK