Bipartisan recall efforts in Wisconsin

[Bob78164]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Neither the economy's current condition nor the size of the annual deficit justifies that speculation. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Stupidity is thinking we can go on forever spending more money than we take in and thinking we can just take more money from those who are productive, but we cannot possibly cut the spending side. But when the rubber hits the road and cuts are proposed, it's always "Don't cut mine!!!!'

Current tax rates are at historical lows, particularly for those at the top end of the income spectrum:



Here's the source of the chart and a more detailed explanation. Blue areas show historically low tax rates. --Bob

All you guys ever want to talk about is who's paying what. Show me a frickin chart like that which charts government spending, then let's have a damn discussion, OK!!!!!!

I'm sorry, it really just pisses me off. It's just this simple. When the government, be it local, state or federal, can show even just a little fiscal responsibility, then maybe they have the right to talk about taking more money from taxpayers, NOT BEFORE!!!!

[TheCalvinator24]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Neither the economy's current condition nor the size of the annual deficit justifies that speculation. --Bob

Again, you are focusing only on the revenue side of the equation. Our deficit can be eliminated by dealing with the spending side.

And you think pumping up taxes will improve the economy?

[Bob78164]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Neither the economy's current condition nor the size of the annual deficit justifies that speculation. --Bob

Again, you are focusing only on the revenue side of the equation. Our deficit can be eliminated by dealing with the spending side.

No, it can't. Not without social and economic consequences that I believe the vast majority of the American people (including me) would find wholly unacceptable.

Illinois just elected a governor who said he would increase taxes to preserve services, and that's exactly what he did. California elected a governor who said he would give the people an opportunity to vote on a tax increase in order to preserve services. If the Republicans don't permit that vote (for reasons I don't understand, putting the measure on the ballot requires a two-thirds vote of each house), I think they'll get blamed for a budget that most Californians will find very painful indeed. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Stupidity is thinking we can go on forever spending more money than we take in and thinking we can just take more money from those who are productive, but we cannot possibly cut the spending side. But when the rubber hits the road and cuts are proposed, it's always "Don't cut mine!!!!'

I won't even take issue with you once again chanting right-wing mantra with the code words "the productive", and point out that nothing forms a stronger base for an economy than a strong educational system.

And sure there are lots of things about our education system that need fixing, but sudden, systematic, and dramatic decreases in resources towards education are highly unlikely to bring those fixes about.

[Spock]

Neither the economy's current condition nor the size of the annual deficit justifies that speculation. --Bob

Again, you are focusing only on the revenue side of the equation. Our deficit can be eliminated by dealing with the spending side.

No, it can't. Not without social and economic consequences that I believe the vast majority of the American people (including me) would find wholly unacceptable.

I like what Mark Steyn had to say on what you find unacceptable.

"I see that recent polls supposedly show that huge majorities of Americans don't want any modifications to Medicare or Social Security. So what? It doesn't matter what you "want." The country's broke, and you can vote yourself unsustainable quantities of government lollipops all you like, but all you're doing is ensuring that when, eventually, you're obliged to reacquaint yourself with reality, the shock will be far more devastating and convulsive."

[flockofseagulls104]

Stupidity is thinking we can go on forever spending more money than we take in and thinking we can just take more money from those who are productive, but we cannot possibly cut the spending side. But when the rubber hits the road and cuts are proposed, it's always "Don't cut mine!!!!'

I won't even take issue with you once again chanting right-wing mantra with the code words "the productive", and point out that nothing forms a stronger base for an economy than a strong educational system.

And sure there are lots of things about our education system that need fixing, but sudden, systematic, and dramatic decreases in resources towards education are highly unlikely to bring those fixes about.

Well, Jeemie, political candidates have been chanting the mantra about improving our education system since I was a little kid, and that was a long time ago. So we have thrown money at the problem for so long and what have we got to show for it? Have we gotten any better at educating our kids? I don't think so.

And the teachers unions resist any attampt to change. Assess teachers by merit? No, we can't do that. Do away with tenure? No we can't do that. Encourage competitive private schools? No we can't do that. What we need is more administration to decide what is wrong. We need to pay teachers more.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. Our education system is broke, and we keep trying the same things to fix it. Many people closer to the problem than me have said the answer is not throwing more money at it, because it just trickles down the sewer and doesn't get to where it needs to go. I am not proposing to lower the compensation level of teachers. I'm proposing to reevaluate the whole system and get rid of the chaff: The unions, the beaurocrats and administrators that do nothing to advance the education of the children, and to actually concentrate on educating our children on what they need to be PRODUCTIVE. (there's that nasty mean spirited mantra again). I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that word, but maybe if you thought about it real hard, it might make sense to you.

[silverscreenselect]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Well, we're also low in comparison with other industrialized nations and low in comparison with the level of government services we actually provide (unless you want to count defense spending, of which we provide enormous amounts). The one thing we're not low on right now is the deficit.

I do find it ironic that people can say on the one hand that those retiring who have spent their entire lives paying money into Medicare and Social Security will have to adjust to new economic realities in order to deal with the deficit, while those at the very top of the income spectrum who have only been enjoying these lower tax rates for a small number of years should not.

Two tax changes that no one should have a problem with are (1) reinstating a reasonable estate tax. That money isn't being taxed twice because it's not a death tax... dead people don't pay taxes. When I hired someone to fix my refrigerator, he paid taxes on the money I paid him, even though I paid tax on it as well when I got it. But when George Steinbrenner died, his relatives didn't have to pay one cent of tax on that money which they did far less to earn than the repairman. And small businesses and individuals can buy life insurance to handle the estate tax problem if they choose to do so... many of them don't.

and (2) eliminating a maximum earnings ceiling for social security.

[Bob Juch]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Well, we're also low in comparison with other industrialized nations and low in comparison with the level of government services we actually provide (unless you want to count defense spending, of which we provide enormous amounts). The one thing we're not low on right now is the deficit.

I do find it ironic that people can say on the one hand that those retiring who have spent their entire lives paying money into Medicare and Social Security will have to adjust to new economic realities in order to deal with the deficit, while those at the very top of the income spectrum who have only been enjoying these lower tax rates for a small number of years should not.

Two tax changes that no one should have a problem with are (1) reinstating a reasonable estate tax. That money isn't being taxed twice because it's not a death tax... dead people don't pay taxes. When I hired someone to fix my refrigerator, he paid taxes on the money I paid him, even though I paid tax on it as well when I got it. But when George Steinbrenner died, his relatives didn't have to pay one cent of tax on that money which they did far less to earn than the repairman. And small businesses and individuals can buy life insurance to handle the estate tax problem if they choose to do so... many of them don't.

and (2) eliminating a maximum earnings ceiling for social security.

Rich people can always avoid all inheritance taxes by setting up a trust like my parents did. A tax would only affect people who died before setting one up.

[flockofseagulls104]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Well, we're also low in comparison with other industrialized nations and low in comparison with the level of government services we actually provide (unless you want to count defense spending, of which we provide enormous amounts). The one thing we're not low on right now is the deficit.

I do find it ironic that people can say on the one hand that those retiring who have spent their entire lives paying money into Medicare and Social Security will have to adjust to new economic realities in order to deal with the deficit, while those at the very top of the income spectrum who have only been enjoying these lower tax rates for a small number of years should not.

Two tax changes that no one should have a problem with are (1) reinstating a reasonable estate tax. That money isn't being taxed twice because it's not a death tax... dead people don't pay taxes. When I hired someone to fix my refrigerator, he paid taxes on the money I paid him, even though I paid tax on it as well when I got it. But when George Steinbrenner died, his relatives didn't have to pay one cent of tax on that money which they did far less to earn than the repairman. And small businesses and individuals can buy life insurance to handle the estate tax problem if they choose to do so... many of them don't.

and (2) eliminating a maximum earnings ceiling for social security.

How about getting a handle on spending before discussing any tax hikes? Or is that too much to ask?

[Jeemie]

How about getting a handle on spending before discussing any tax hikes? Or is that too much to ask?

About one of the only places where we could have significant enoug cuts to even begin making a dent in the deficit is military spending.

Are you game for that?

Or do you have a logical reason why we should spend more on defense than almost the rest of the world COMBINED?

(Well- I have some others- outrageous farm subsidies that bankrupt the farmers getting them, enrich the agribusinesses that profit from the cheap corn inputs they get from over-production of corn, and cause practices that leads to major enivronmental damage, the creation of ethanol using a ridiculously net-energy LOSING process, thus exacerbating, not helping, our current energy issues, as well as the creation of "food" that is ridiculously unhealthy for the majority of Americans that eat it. But that one's personal for me- haven't yet calculated the economic benefits of eliminating such asinine subsidies).

[flockofseagulls104]

How about getting a handle on spending before discussing any tax hikes? Or is that too much to ask?

About one of the only places where we could have significant enoug cuts to even begin making a dent in the deficit is military spending.

Are you game for that?

Or do you have a logical reason why we should spend more on defense than almost the rest of the world COMBINED?

(Well- I have some others- outrageous farm subsidies that bankrupt the farmers getting them, enrich the agribusinesses that profit from the cheap corn inputs they get from over-production of corn, and cause practices that leads to major enivronmental damage, the creation of ethanol using a ridiculously net-energy LOSING process, thus exacerbating, not helping, our current energy issues, as well as the creation of "food" that is ridiculously unhealthy for the majority of Americans that eat it. But that one's personal for me- haven't yet calculated the economic benefits of eliminating such asinine subsidies).

Most definitely agree. The military is necessary, but they are as or more wasteful with their resources as everything else in the government. They need to cut and be foreced to be more efficient with resources just like everything else. But if you think that is the only place in the Federal government that wastes money, you are blind, man.

I also agree with the ethanol debacle. It effects my company directly, as corn prices have doubled because our federal government gives money to farmers to grow corn for this inefficient fuel source.

Give me a list of other things you would cut.

[SportsFan68]

Stupidity is thinking we can go on forever spending more money than we take in and thinking we can just take more money from those who are productive, but we cannot possibly cut the spending side. But when the rubber hits the road and cuts are proposed, it's always "Don't cut mine!!!!'

I won't even take issue with you once again chanting right-wing mantra with the code words "the productive", and point out that nothing forms a stronger base for an economy than a strong educational system.

And sure there are lots of things about our education system that need fixing, but sudden, systematic, and dramatic decreases in resources towards education are highly unlikely to bring those fixes about.

Well, Jeemie, political candidates have been chanting the mantra about improving our education system since I was a little kid, and that was a long time ago. So we have thrown money at the problem for so long and what have we got to show for it? Have we gotten any better at educating our kids? I don't think so.

And the teachers unions resist any attampt to change. Assess teachers by merit? No, we can't do that. Do away with tenure? No we can't do that. Encourage competitive private schools? No we can't do that. What we need is more administration to decide what is wrong. We need to pay teachers more.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. Our education system is broke, and we keep trying the same things to fix it. Many people closer to the problem than me have said the answer is not throwing more money at it, because it just trickles down the sewer and doesn't get to where it needs to go. I am not proposing to lower the compensation level of teachers. I'm proposing to reevaluate the whole system and get rid of the chaff: The unions, the bureaucrats and administrators that do nothing to advance the education of the children, and to actually concentrate on educating our children on what they need to be PRODUCTIVE. (there's that nasty mean spirited mantra again). I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that word, but maybe if you thought about it real hard, it might make sense to you.

As Flock knows from the story I told earlier about the dreadful working conditions my friend encountered when she went to work at a nearby school district, I disagree with him that unions are chaff in our educational system. Those teachers tried but could not improve the learning situation in those schools any other way.

The bureaucrats and administrators, however . . . Some administration is obviously needed -- somebody has to write the checks, keep up the plant, and there has to be a principal to send students to. Some is obviously not needed. At my college alma mater, they're in the process of cutting staff in some departments and dismantling others. For example, there will no longer be a Wellness administrator, and I will mourn this loss because of everything from the healthier food in the cafeteria to the smoke-free campus initiative. I'm sure that Flock would call that chaff because it doesn't directly relate to classroom/lab teaching, and I have to admit, those things could have happened anyway without the extra layer of administration. I doubt that the smoke-free initiative will go through now, and probably not for a while -- the impossible just takes a little longer.

[flockofseagulls104]

I won't even take issue with you once again chanting right-wing mantra with the code words "the productive", and point out that nothing forms a stronger base for an economy than a strong educational system.

And sure there are lots of things about our education system that need fixing, but sudden, systematic, and dramatic decreases in resources towards education are highly unlikely to bring those fixes about.

Well, Jeemie, political candidates have been chanting the mantra about improving our education system since I was a little kid, and that was a long time ago. So we have thrown money at the problem for so long and what have we got to show for it? Have we gotten any better at educating our kids? I don't think so.

And the teachers unions resist any attampt to change. Assess teachers by merit? No, we can't do that. Do away with tenure? No we can't do that. Encourage competitive private schools? No we can't do that. What we need is more administration to decide what is wrong. We need to pay teachers more.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. Our education system is broke, and we keep trying the same things to fix it. Many people closer to the problem than me have said the answer is not throwing more money at it, because it just trickles down the sewer and doesn't get to where it needs to go. I am not proposing to lower the compensation level of teachers. I'm proposing to reevaluate the whole system and get rid of the chaff: The unions, the bureaucrats and administrators that do nothing to advance the education of the children, and to actually concentrate on educating our children on what they need to be PRODUCTIVE. (there's that nasty mean spirited mantra again). I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that word, but maybe if you thought about it real hard, it might make sense to you.

As Flock knows from the story I told earlier about the dreadful working conditions my friend encountered when she went to work at a nearby school district, I disagree with him that unions are chaff in our educational system. Those teachers tried but could not improve the learning situation in those schools any other way.

The bureaucrats and administrators, however . . . Some administration is obviously needed -- somebody has to write the checks, keep up the plant, and there has to be a principal to send students to. Some is obviously not needed. At my college alma mater, they're in the process of cutting staff in some departments and dismantling others. For example, there will no longer be a Wellness administrator, and I will mourn this loss because of everything from the healthier food in the cafeteria to the smoke-free campus initiative. I'm sure that Flock would call that chaff because it doesn't directly relate to classroom/lab teaching, and I have to admit, those things could have happened anyway without the extra layer of administration. I doubt that the smoke-free initiative will go through now, and probably not for a while -- the impossible just takes a little longer.

I am sorry there will be no wellness coordinator. But I don't remember there being any wellness coordinators in any school that I went to, and we apparently managed to educate our kids just fine without one. Just how does paying someone to dictate cafeteria policies and to make sure no one smokes on campus contribute to giving children the education they need? How many other people get paid in our education system that do not contribute significantly to the goal at hand? Once you get the main thing fixed, then look at these social programs.

[Bob78164]

A state court judge has issued a temporary restraining order halting the new law for the moment. The order prevents the Secretary of State from officially publishing the bill. It was issued in response to a complaint from the District Attorney of Dane County (Madison and environs) that the process used to pass the bill violated the state's Open Meetings law.

This order may not mean very much. I haven't seen the order, but I wouldn't be surprised if the judge reasoned that once the bill is published, it will be much harder to unring that bell, so giving everyone the opportunity to more carefully brief the issue is justified.

Typically, when a temporary restraining order is granted, the hearing must be held on a preliminary injunction (which would remain in effect until final judgment) within a relatively short time frame (weeks, rather than months). That decision will be a much clearer indication of what this judge actually thinks about the merits of the issue. --Bob

[Bob78164]

How about getting a handle on spending before discussing any tax hikes? Or is that too much to ask?

In my view, the country's tax structure has been out of whack since the early days of the Bush 43 Administration. I thought the Bush tax cuts (particularly for the rich) were a bad idea then, and I think they're a bad idea now. Once those cuts are permitted to expire, we'll be able to afford some programs that would otherwise find themselves on the chopping block. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

How about getting a handle on spending before discussing any tax hikes? Or is that too much to ask?

In my view, the country's tax structure has been out of whack since the early days of the Bush 43 Administration. I thought the Bush tax cuts (particularly for the rich) were a bad idea then, and I think they're a bad idea now. Once those cuts are permitted to expire, we'll be able to afford some programs that would otherwise find themselves on the chopping block. --Bob

Well, Bob, we're in total disagreement then. But I reiterrate that we are currently spending 200 billion dollars a month more than we're taking in, and if you want to fix it by taxing everyone, that would mean every man woman and child who lives here would have to pony up $4000 a year more than they are now just to fix it now. This doesn't include automatic hikes and inflation. If you reduce the number of people we are talking about to limit it to those who actually make an income, limit it to those who actually have to pay taxes now, etc... the bill goes up big time per person. There are just not enough 'rich' people to bleed to make up for how overbloated our spending is. Someone, no, many people, are going to have to figure out how to do without the money the federal govermnet is giving them now. What we spend now is JUST NOT SUSTAINABLE. If we don't fix it now, if we can, there will be a catastrophe when the bills come due. I don't think you are really examining the problem with an open mind.

[TheCalvinator24]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.

Well, we're also low in comparison with other industrialized nations and low in comparison with the level of government services we actually provide (unless you want to count defense spending, of which we provide enormous amounts). The one thing we're not low on right now is the deficit.

I do find it ironic that people can say on the one hand that those retiring who have spent their entire lives paying money into Medicare and Social Security will have to adjust to new economic realities in order to deal with the deficit, while those at the very top of the income spectrum who have only been enjoying these lower tax rates for a small number of years should not.

Two tax changes that no one should have a problem with are (1) reinstating a reasonable estate tax. That money isn't being taxed twice because it's not a death tax... dead people don't pay taxes. When I hired someone to fix my refrigerator, he paid taxes on the money I paid him, even though I paid tax on it as well when I got it. But when George Steinbrenner died, his relatives didn't have to pay one cent of tax on that money which they did far less to earn than the repairman. And small businesses and individuals can buy life insurance to handle the estate tax problem if they choose to do so... many of them don't.

and (2) eliminating a maximum earnings ceiling for social security.

I'm okay with #2. Definitely opposed to #1. A person works hard his or her whole life. Pay taxes on income and manages to save a little along the way. So, when he or she dies, the government should get to dip its hands back into the pot one more time? Nosirreebob. Okay, after that absolutist rant of sorts, I'll grant that I could support a reasonable estate tax. For me, reasonable falls in the neighborhood of 5% of the excess over $2,000,000.

[silverscreenselect]

that would mean every man woman and child who lives here would have to pony up $4000 a year more than they are now just to fix it now.

Every man woman and child would not pony up $4000 a year or whatever the final figure is. The tax rates on upper incomes (which were reduced substantially under Bush, leading to the deficit in the first place) will be increased by some amount which will generate more revenue for the government. And whatever the final figure is, it won't be what they managed to avoid paying during the Bush years.

[TheCalvinator24]

that would mean every man woman and child who lives here would have to pony up $4000 a year more than they are now just to fix it now.

Every man woman and child would not pony up $4000 a year or whatever the final figure is. The tax rates on upper incomes (which were reduced substantially under Bush, leading to the deficit in the first place) will be increased by some amount which will generate more revenue for the government. And whatever the final figure is, it won't be what they managed to avoid paying during the Bush years.

The Bush cuts did not lead to the deficit. There have been deficits ever since LBJ. The Clinton "balanced budget" was a mirage.

[Bob78164]

Less than halfway through the 60 days permitted for the process, and the first petitions seeking recall are being submitted today. This is a Senate district around La Crosse. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Less than halfway through the 60 days permitted for the process, and the first petitions seeking recall are being submitted today. This is a Senate district around La Crosse. --Bob

Yep, if you can't get what you want through the established processes, then to hell with it. Just create chaos until you get what you want. Isn't that what terrorists do?

This recall bull*** is costing the state, which is already bankrupt, to spend even more money.

[Bob78164]

Less than halfway through the 60 days permitted for the process, and the first petitions seeking recall are being submitted today. This is a Senate district around La Crosse. --Bob

Yep, if you can't get what you want through the established processes, then to hell with it. Just create chaos until you get what you want. Isn't that what terrorists do?

This recall bull*** is costing the state, which is already bankrupt, to spend even more money.

Recall in Wisconsin is an established process. And as constituted in Wisconsin, it's really hard to use -- you need a lot of signatures. So when a recall movement actually makes it to the ballot, you can be sure that there are a lot of unhappy voters. I guess by your lights, all of those voters (40% of the district's turnout in the last gubernatorial election) are terrorists?

And by the way, the State of Wisconsin isn't bankrupt. The budget deficit is a direct result of a tax giveaway just enacted by the newly elected governor (not yet subject to recall) and the new Republican majorities in the legislator. I'm thinking it's safe to say that this is not the government the voters thought they were getting on Election Day. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I'm thinking it's safe to say that this is not the government the voters thought they were getting on Election Day. --Bob

Voters like Republicans when they talk in generalities. When they get down to the specifics of their policies, voters have a big problem.

[Bob78164]

I'm thinking it's safe to say that this is not the government the voters thought they were getting on Election Day. --Bob

Voters like Republicans when they talk in generalities. When they get down to the specifics of their policies, voters have a big problem.

I'm not sure that's limited to Republicans.

But in the case of the Wisconsin attack on unions, I don't think the voters had a clue that Republicans had anything like this in mind. --Bob