Indiana Dems go AWOL

[04SCTLS]

I didn't read that part in the constitution, that only private sector workers can unite, i read that in the China, Germany under Hittler, United arab emiretes, Napoleon's France, and Iraq under Hussein and the previous ruler....

And under FDR, he also said "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms"
Ummmm.....opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth.... where have we heard that before, OH YEAH the communist Obama, that's right. Well if FDR was right about unions, then he must be right about this too. Look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt under 1932 presidential election section.

The constitution does not mention anything about a right of government workers to unionize.
It is a privilege allowed by legislation and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen with a simple majority the same way it was allowed.
If Obama is such a union supporter how come he hasn't made any moves to help the federal govt workers unionize.
The problem here is the debate has been framed around "rights" which poorly informed americans like( we like rights) as opposed to framing it as "privileges" that ordinary taxpayers don't have.
Also there is confusion in some uninformed people who think public workers are in the private sector.(the public vs the govt)
We should be refering to these people as government workers.
In many ways working for the government is a form of privileged welfare.
Also rich people pay almost all the taxes.
You think the top 2% are all fat cats who don't pay taxes.
This is completely ridiculous.
The majority of the top 1% are junior millionaire contractors manufacurers and providers of goods and services who are taxed 40-45% depending on their state tax rate.
On top of that there is the taxes SS and Medicare the employees of the junior millionaires pay as well.
There's a whole other class of plutocrats with 50 million and up who can shuffle their money around and make capital gains that are taxed at only 15%.
If you go as far as the top 2% it's people making 250k and up, hardly fat cats in most urban cities.

 

[04SCTLS]

Wisconsin in fact has a $137 billion budget downfall, which coinsides with the $140 billion in tax breaks to the corporations", given by who?? no, not Obama, given by the new republican jesus, Gov. Scott Walker.

This is a total red herring.
Giving tax breaks to attract businesses to set up is not the same thing as giving out 140 million not billion.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Not getting in some money in the first place is not the same thing as handing out that which you have already.
You can't lose something you don't have.
Just because you offer tax breaks doesn't mean they will be taken.
Also next year Wisconsin will be short 3.6 Billion to which 140 million is small stuff.

 

[04SCTLS]

I haven't seen any millionares returning their social security checks.

If millionaires could opt out of paying into SS in exchange for not being able to collect most would.
Currently SS is capped at 14% of 106k income.
Democrats want to always raise the ceiling but rich people don't get any more for paying more and have enough of their own money.
I never expected SS to be there for me but even millionaires who paid in are entitled to a check.
You can talk about means testing but the problem there is the people on the borders between rich and poor and how you agree on who is who.

 

[04SCTLS]

Ohio Senate Passes Anti-Union Bill

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/ohio-senate-oks-bill-that-would-restrict-public-un/



A bill to curb union power in Ohio inched closer to passage on Wednesday, reports Reuters. The Ohio senate voted 17 to 16 to support the measure that curtails Ohio public unions' bargaining abilities and bars government employees from going on strike. While the union standoff in Wisconsin has received most of the attention, the impact of restrictions in Ohio would arguably be larger, given that it has twice as many public union members as the Badger State. To become law, both the Ohio house and the governor must approve the bill. More than 8,000 protesters gathered at Ohio's capital on Tuesday to protest, but that hasn't swayed Republic Governor John Kasich, who praised the Senate vote as "a major step forward in correcting the imbalance between taxpayers and the government unions that work for them."

The bargaining rights of public workers in Ohio would be dramatically reduced and strikes would be banned under a bill narrowly passed by the Ohio Senate on Wednesday.
A Republican-backed measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees squeaked through the state Senate on a 17-16 vote. Six Republicans sided with Democrats against the measure.
Firefighters and teachers shouted “Shame!” in the chamber as the legislation was approved.

The bill would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who do participate in walkouts. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions - but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.
The legislation would also set up a new process to settle worker disputes, giving elected officials the final say in contract disagreements. Binding arbitration, which police officers and firefighters use to resolve contract disputes as an alternative to strikes, would be eliminated.

Republican Sens. Tim Grendell of Chesterland and Bill Seitz of Cincinnati spoke out against that provision. Mr. Grendell said the process would turn workers into beggars before city councils and other officials who oversee them.
“No one can be a judge and advocate in their own cause,” Mr. Seitz said. “That’s called heads I win, tails you lose.”
The bill had passed a Senate committee after leadership replaced Mr. Seitz on the panel after he expressed disappointment in the bill, a move that secured the votes needed to get the legislation before the full Senate.
Extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate the public attending the hearing. Prohibited from clapping, many wagged or waved their hands in response to pro-labor comments.
The bill now goes to the state House, where the Republicans hold a 59-40 majority. If passed there, it would go to Republican Gov. John Kasich, who has said he supports the effort.
During the debate, the chamber defeated Democrats‘ request to have the entire bill read aloud. Republican Sen. Scott Oelslager of North Canton sided with Democrats on that issue, as he did on the bill.
The bill sponsor, Republican Sen. Shannon Jones had said the bill, which would change a 27-year-old Ohio law, is long overdue and would help state and local governments control costs.
Mrs. Jones said the bill is not an attack on the middle class, prompting snickering and coughs from members of the public in the crowded room. Democratic lawmakers pointed out teachers, pipefitters and public safety workers from their districts as the hearing began.

_______________________________________________________________

Democrats may have blocked things in Wisconsin by running away like in Monty Python but Ohio looks like a done deal and a win for taxpayers.

 

[shagdrum]

"Wisconsin in fact has a $137 billion budget downfall, which coinsides with the $140 billion in tax breaks to the corporations", given by who?? no, not Obama, given by the new republican jesus, Gov. Scott Walker.

Here again is one of those absurd partisan assumptions that you cannot defend. This statement assumes that tax increases and decreases are a simple calculation of addition and subtraction. It ignores the idea of people changing their behavior in reaction to tax policy changes. Specifically, it assumes static analysis and ignores dynamic analysis.

For your argument to stand, you HAVE to justify that assumption. Any argument you make has to make economic sense and so far NOTHING you have said is AT ALL consistent with the laws of supply and demand. Despite all your posturing, you cannot make 2+2=5.

Since you have no clue of the difference between static and dynamic analysis, let me explain it for you from something I wrote a couple weeks ago...

When you see different economic/statistical projections (especially when there is a different between the projections of a governmental agency and an organization outside the government), it can stem from “cooking the books” as is being intimated by DailyKos, TPM. Rachael Maddow and others. However, more often it stems from a difference in assumptions behind the analyses, which leads to profoundly different approaches in analysis; static vs. dynamic analysis.

Static analysis effectively assumes you can change one variable in an equation without the other variables changing as a result. In hard sciences, this is simple enough, but in the soft sciences, this is practically impossible to achieve in the real world, especially when you are dealing with something as large as fiscal policy. Dynamic analysis accounts for that problem by trying to estimate and account for the changes in those other variables (basically, accounting for changes in human behavior).

Since it is the more “traditional” approach, most government organizations use static analysis (including the CBO). However, dynamic analysis is, unsurprisingly, far more accurate.

For instance, under a static analysis, a tax rate increase of $1 billion = a tax revenues increase of $1 billion. However, under a dynamic analysis, tax increases can incentivize behavior changes to avoid the taxes. The result being either no increase in revenue (and possibly even a decrease in revenue) or a much smaller increase in revenue then projected under a static analysis.

Static analysis tends to understate policy costs and overstate revenue from changing tax policy in it’s projections. This is one way in which there can be budget surpluses on paper that never truly materialize or that costs of a new entitlement program are dramatically underestimated.​

Under the logic of your argument, a tax rate increase of $1 billion = a tax revenues increase of $1 billion. That NEVER happens in the real world. People adjust their behavior in reaction to the tax change and the revenue is much different then expected, almost always less then expected.

In the middle of a severe recession with real unemployment close to 20%, tax increases are viewed by almost all economists as one of the most foolish things a government can do and tax decreases are one of the wisest things it can do.

I know you will probably simply skim this for one or two lines you can take out of context and turn into a cheap excuse to dismiss the entire post, but for people actually interested in the truth, it is worth taking the time to point out economic illiterate arguments.

That single statement above also makes the logical flaw of assuming coincidence = causation as well, but that is rather obvious.

 

[04SCTLS]

The State Budget Crisis, Visualized

A chart that explains why governors are panicking.

Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011

In the years preceding the recent recession, direct expenditures by state and local governments rose faster than their own-source revenues. (They compensated for this by receiving more fiscal transfers from the federal government.) The widening structural gap between revenue growth and expenditure growth is causing financial stress. Many states have taken painful measures to balance budgets: cutting wages and benefits and reducing the number of public employees. More cuts are likely to come, which could harm the fledgling economic recovery, raising unemployment and dragging down revenues.

_______________________________________________________________

As you can see the States have been irresponsible with the money for over 10 years now with their spending and promised handouts and the recession only brought things to a head.

 

[shagdrum]

The State Budget Crisis, Visualized

A chart that explains why governors are panicking.

Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011

In the years preceding the recent recession, direct expenditures by state and local governments rose faster than their own-source revenues. (They compensated for this by receiving more fiscal transfers from the federal government.) The widening structural gap between revenue growth and expenditure growth is causing financial stress. Many states have taken painful measures to balance budgets: cutting wages and benefits and reducing the number of public employees. More cuts are likely to come, which could harm the fledgling economic recovery, raising unemployment and dragging down revenues.

_______________________________________________________________

As you can see the States have been irresponsible with the money for over 10 years now with their spending and promised handouts and the recession only brought things to a head.

Great find. I am gonna use it in something I have been writing up on this...

 

[04SCTLS]

Great find. I am gonna use it in something I have been writing up on this...

http://www.slate.com/id/2287083/

 

[shagdrum]

http://www.slate.com/id/2287083/

Thanks

 

[compshmoe]

Well, FDR certainly got some things right about Unions...

...meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of pubic employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.​

FDR also signed into law the Wagner Act in 1935:

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act...is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.​

You do realize that ANYTHING you cite of FDR HAS to be interpreted in a manner consistent with his explicit actions and statements concerning public unions, right? To do otherwise is to intentionally take him out of context and distort what he said.

Also, what kind of logic is, "if FDR was right about unions, then he must be right about this too"? This is simply a sloppy and clearly dishonest attempt to put words in the mouth of 04SCTLS; to distort what he was saying.

FDR was not anti union, he highly depended on unions for political support and for helping sell the new deal, the sloppy attempt to put words in someone's mouth was only proved when the rest of FDR's sentences were shown, not only the one's that proved a narrow point, EX= if FDR said " unions suck the evil from corporations" don't just use "unions suck".

 

[compshmoe]

The State Budget Crisis, Visualized

A chart that explains why governors are panicking.

Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011

In the years preceding the recent recession, direct expenditures by state and local governments rose faster than their own-source revenues. (They compensated for this by receiving more fiscal transfers from the federal government.) The widening structural gap between revenue growth and expenditure growth is causing financial stress. Many states have taken painful measures to balance budgets: cutting wages and benefits and reducing the number of public employees. More cuts are likely to come, which could harm the fledgling economic recovery, raising unemployment and dragging down revenues.

_______________________________________________________________

As you can see the States have been irresponsible with the money for over 10 years now with their spending and promised handouts and the recession only brought things to a head.

recession :
"The unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism."
Edward HeathEdward Heath (b. 1916), British Conservative politician, prime minister. Speech, May 15, 1973, House of Commons, London. Hansard, col. 1243.

Referring to the high emoluments of company directors during a period of recession.

emolument :

1435, from L. emolumentum "profit, gain," perhaps originally "payment to a miller for grinding corn," from emolere "grind out," from ex- "out" + molere "to grind."

States think the answer is to cut employees, cutwages. So where will revenue come from, if everyone is unemployed and living on unemployment, taking jobs that pay less? By not having money, they spend less, so products sit on shelf, then companies have to do more layoffs, in turn less money in the economy, soooo cutting wages and benefits and reducing the number of public employees is better than getting rid of tax cuts for corporations?

Depression:
Economics . a period during which business, employment, and stock-market values decline severely or remain at a very low level of activity.

why are states in deep? lack of revenue to cover everyday operations and public support for those in need. states answer= take away more from those in need, and NOT take anything from those who can afford it.Tax breaks for corporations and bussiness so jobs can be created is a failed policy, So yes it's the chicken or the egg, but in this policy it's eat the chicken first then wait for the egg?

 

[compshmoe]

Here again is one of those absurd partisan assumptions that you cannot defend. This statement assumes that tax increases and decreases are a simple calculation of addition and subtraction. It ignores the idea of people changing their behavior in reaction to tax policy changes. Specifically, it assumes static analysis and ignores dynamic analysis.

For your argument to stand, you HAVE to justify that assumption. Any argument you make has to make economic sense and so far NOTHING you have said is AT ALL consistent with the laws of supply and demand. Despite all your posturing, you cannot make 2+2=5.

Since you have no clue of the difference between static and dynamic analysis, let me explain it for you from something I wrote a couple weeks ago...

When you see different economic/statistical projections (especially when there is a different between the projections of a governmental agency and an organization outside the government), it can stem from “cooking the books” as is being intimated by DailyKos, TPM. Rachael Maddow and others. However, more often it stems from a difference in assumptions behind the analyses, which leads to profoundly different approaches in analysis; static vs. dynamic analysis.

Static analysis effectively assumes you can change one variable in an equation without the other variables changing as a result. In hard sciences, this is simple enough, but in the soft sciences, this is practically impossible to achieve in the real world, especially when you are dealing with something as large as fiscal policy. Dynamic analysis accounts for that problem by trying to estimate and account for the changes in those other variables (basically, accounting for changes in human behavior).

Since it is the more “traditional” approach, most government organizations use static analysis (including the CBO). However, dynamic analysis is, unsurprisingly, far more accurate.

For instance, under a static analysis, a tax rate increase of $1 billion = a tax revenues increase of $1 billion. However, under a dynamic analysis, tax increases can incentivize behavior changes to avoid the taxes. The result being either no increase in revenue (and possibly even a decrease in revenue) or a much smaller increase in revenue then projected under a static analysis.

Static analysis tends to understate policy costs and overstate revenue from changing tax policy in it’s projections. This is one way in which there can be budget surpluses on paper that never truly materialize or that costs of a new entitlement program are dramatically underestimated.​

Under the logic of your argument, a tax rate increase of $1 billion = a tax revenues increase of $1 billion. That NEVER happens in the real world. People adjust their behavior in reaction to the tax change and the revenue is much different then expected, almost always less then expected.

In the middle of a severe recession with real unemployment close to 20%, tax increases are viewed by almost all economists as one of the most foolish things a government can do and tax decreases are one of the wisest things it can do.

I know you will probably simply skim this for one or two lines you can take out of context and turn into a cheap excuse to dismiss the entire post, but for people actually interested in the truth, it is worth taking the time to point out economic illiterate arguments.

That single statement above also makes the logical flaw of assuming coincidence = causation as well, but that is rather obvious.

so how do these equations explain taking less from haves and taking more from the have not? how is it possible that a CEO making 300% to 500% more than the average worker lower the worker's wage and at the same time have said worker pay more for the goods it produces, corporations excuse is the economy, well if you cook something thats sh$@y, don't just pass the plate down, pick up a spoon and eat the sh@t too.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/
http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007/06/salary_comparison

 

[04SCTLS]

recession :
"The unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism."
Edward HeathEdward Heath (b. 1916), British Conservative politician, prime minister. Speech, May 15, 1973, House of Commons, London. Hansard, col. 1243.

Referring to the high emoluments of company directors during a period of recession.

emolument :

1435, from L. emolumentum "profit, gain," perhaps originally "payment to a miller for grinding corn," from emolere "grind out," from ex- "out" + molere "to grind."

States think the answer is to cut employees, cutwages. So where will revenue come from, if everyone is unemployed and living on unemployment, taking jobs that pay less? By not having money, they spend less, so products sit on shelf, then companies have to do more layoffs, in turn less money in the economy, soooo cutting wages and benefits and reducing the number of public employees is better than getting rid of tax cuts for corporations?

Depression:
Economics . a period during which business, employment, and stock-market values decline severely or remain at a very low level of activity.

why are states in deep? lack of revenue to cover everyday operations and public support for those in need. states answer= take away more from those in need, and NOT take anything from those who can afford it.Tax breaks for corporations and bussiness so jobs can be created is a failed policy, So yes it's the chicken or the egg, but in this policy it's eat the chicken first then wait for the egg?

Well revenue certainly isn't going to come from hiring more government employees.
Government employees are servants they even call themselves civil servants.
Servants are not dynamic go getters.
Servants don't produce anything of great value with big respending factors they merely take care of things kind of like the janitors of society.
It seems you somehow expect the servants to rescue the economy.

 

[compshmoe]

Apparently, you did not actually read the Politifact article:

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.
​

If you had taken only a little bit of time to actually read, research and consider all the facts presented before you responded, you would have known that "Wisconsin's version of the congressional budget office" that you mention is the Legislative Fiscal Bureau referred to in the Politifact piece.

Deceit is in haste but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

Instead of an honest, thoughtful and civil argument, we have a cheap, hasty excuse to dismiss a counterpoint before it was given any serious consideration. That only serves to undermine your credibility by highlighting your ignorance and overzealous determination to find any excuse to dismiss an opposing view.

If all you can do is spout talking points you clearly don't understand, throw temper tantrums and generally attempt to shout down any opposing point of view, no one will take anything you say seriously. It seems pretty clear that you will not even consider any opposing viewpoint or any criticism of the talking points you spout.

There can be no productive discourse with someone who's argument is premised on the notion that their view is morally superior to the opposing view and the opposing view is not worthy of serious consideration. Anyone who has to rely on such a tactic is typically making an argument that cannot stand on it's own merits...

Obviously you did not read something correctly, it was said that Maddow lied by saying Wisconsin had no defecit, my answer was listen to the whole thing not just the part that sounds good to you.....""It seems pretty clear that you will not even consider any opposing viewpoint or any criticism of the talking points you spout."" read again, I think you're referring to yourself? you can't argue with people that argue with themselves, with that being said now go take your medication.

 

[compshmoe]

Well revenue certainly isn't going to come from hiring more government employees.
Government employees are servants they even call themselves civil servants.
Servants are not dynamic go getters.
Servants don't produce anything of great value with big respending factors they merely take care of things kind of like the janitors of society.
It seems you somehow expect the servants to rescue the economy.

well let's see here, I haven't heard of anyone arguing that more govt employees need to be hired, if that's the next misinformation headline grabber,then it's news to me. I believe if you read what you write more often it seems you put all your trust in " the servants to rescue the economy" because politicians are "servants" too. As explained earlier: some politicians or "servants" serve corporations interest, we'll call it the "darkside"....while other "servants" represent workers, we'll call them the "rebels". Who is most likely to help the economy? the darkside is only interested in hoarding $$ and making more no matter who gets run over in the process; workers want more$$ so they can buy rims and pay off credit used to buy said rims, now which one keeps the economy moving?? use the force and get back to me.

 

[compshmoe]

I heard a quote that sums it all best...." A dozen cookies were placed infront of a CEO, a member of the Tea party, and a union member. The CEO takes 11 cookies and tells the Tea party member 'the union member is trying to take your cookie' ."

 

[04SCTLS]

I heard a quote that sums it all best...." A dozen cookies were placed infront of a CEO, a member of the Tea party, and a union member. The CEO takes 11 cookies and tells the Tea party member 'the union member is trying to take your cookie' ."

The facts of life can be hard to accept.
Your argument boils down to emotionally mixing metaphors.
You don't draw any distinction between the public and private sector
workers and use examples from one to support the other.
Yes it's sad that the spoils usually go to the swift and the strong and that's the way to bet.
The union member will just eat the cookie while the CEO will use the cookies to get and make more cookies before he eats one.

 

[04SCTLS]

well let's see here, I haven't heard of anyone arguing that more govt employees need to be hired, if that's the next misinformation headline grabber,then it's news to me. I believe if you read what you write more often it seems you put all your trust in " the servants to rescue the economy" because politicians are "servants" too. As explained earlier: some politicians or "servants" serve corporations interest, we'll call it the "darkside"....while other "servants" represent workers, we'll call them the "rebels". Who is most likely to help the economy? the darkside is only interested in hoarding $$ and making more no matter who gets run over in the process; workers want more$$ so they can buy rims and pay off credit used to buy said rims, now which one keeps the economy moving?? use the force and get back to me.

Your undisciplined nebulous arguing style is colorful
It's the taxpayers who are getting run over in the process especially by the union bosses and their rackets

 

[shagdrum]

so how do these equations explain taking less from haves and taking more from the have not?

Again, here we have partisan assumtions on your part that need to be justified for your argument to have any merit.

Specifically, your argument assumes that economics is a zero sum game. This is a long time discredited notion yet it is still assumed by those who buy into class warfare rhetoric and are economically illiterate (but I repeat myself).

The ONLY way the "have's and have not's" dynamic is an accurate reflection of reality is if wealth is a constant; that is to say never truly increasing. Then it is reasonable to view the rich as having a disproportionate share of that finite wealth.

However, since wealth is typically growing in a free market system (due in large part to the efforts of "the rich"), the "have's and have not's" dynamic simply distorts reality to fit an emotionally appealing point of view. It ignores the dynamic nature of reality to be able to put segments of society into static categories.

Obviously you did not read something correctly, it was said that Maddow lied by saying Wisconsin had no defecit

Your avoidance is rather transparent.

The point I raised in the post you were responding to was that, in your haste to dismiss me, you failed to realize that "Wisconsin's version of the congressional budget office" that you mention and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau cited by politfact are one in the same.

There were no other points I raised in my post, yet you failed to confront that point.

Your "response" is, in truth, a non-response that dodges the actual point I raised. I will take that as an admission on your part that the point I raised was accurate.

Even though your argument about Maddow here is nothing more the a red herring and a dodge, I will take the bait because it is built upon a lie that needs to be highlighted.

Where did politifact say Maddow lied? They cited the main point and tag line of the original clip as stated by Maddow and then dissected that point by looking at the source cited for proof in the argument:

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."
​

They find that the argument Maddow and others were perpetuating was, in fact, not backed up by the source being cited in the argument. Was that not true?

Did Maddow not make the statement Politifact attributes to her? Did Maddow state later in the segment that the statement was false? The answer to both questions is, "no".

Interesting that you have to cite Maddow's further distortion of her own claims to defend Maddow against the truth. Let me explain...

In the clip you cite, Maddow is taking a quote of her earlier show out of context.

You can find the full clip from the original show in question (not simply a cherry picked single line from the clip as Maddow does) at this link. Here is the relevant parts of the transcript from that original segment show.

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: I’m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually. Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.

I am not kidding. I’m quoting their own version of the Congressional Budget Office, the state’s own nonpartisan "assess the state’s finances" agency. That agency said the month that the new Republican governor of Wisconsin was sworn in, last month, that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year.

So, then why exactly does Wisconsin look like this right now?

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

MADDOW: Why is there a revolt in the American Midwest tonight? Why are we in day three of massive, massive protests -- real upheaval in Wisconsin’s capital city of Madison? Why are we seeing what was described today by my friend John Nichols, a seventh-generation Wisconsinite, as perhaps the biggest protests that have been seen in that state since Vietnam? Why is this -- look at this -- why is this happening?

As the state’s own finances show, it is not happening because people who work for the state are the cause of some horrible budget crisis. It’s not because teachers are lazy and rich. It’s not because greedy snowplow drivers have bankrupted the state somehow.

The state is not bankrupt. Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus -- now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office.

Hey, wait. That’s about exactly the size of the shortfall.

What is happening in Wisconsin right now has absolutely nothing to do with public workers. The headline here, the way this keeps getting shorthanded, is workers angry after state is forced by budget crisis to crack down.

That’s not what’s going on. The state is not being forced to crack down. A lot of states do have budget crises right now, but heading into this year, Wisconsin was not one of them.
​

In Maddow's later clip, which you cite, she ONLY cites one line from the earlier show, which I highlighted. She is taking HERSELF out of context!

The original segment was arguing that, "there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin", that "Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year." She even ended the segment by saying that, "A lot of states do have budget crises right now, but heading into this year, Wisconsin was not one of them."

She then goes on to undercut those claims in an effort to smear Walker.

So, essentially, her argument is that Wisconsin is not in a budget crisis and actually has a surplus, but there is a deficit and it is Walker's fault for paying off special interests. It is incoherent but that does not mean that politifact, in any way, lied about her.

Maddow got caught making an incoherent argument with bad information and doesn't have the decency to admit it. Period.

Unless you can show me how a state that was reportedly coming up on a 2.2 billion deficit in November of 2010 was suddenly running a surplus at the beginning of this year and how only Walker's "special interest kickbacks" returned it to a deficit.

 

[shagdrum]

your argument boils down to emotionally mixing metaphors.

bingo!

Frustrating, isn't it.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, as to Maddow's misinformation and lies to cover the misinformation, it might be worth noting politifact's response to her claims:

On her Feb. 24, 2011 show, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized PolitiFact Wisconsin and how we handled a request for a correction about a Truth-O-Meter item from a statement on her Feb. 17, 2011 show.

We feel it is important to respond.

First, we have a policy on corrections and review all requests for corrections that we receive. When we've made an error, we acknowledge it, as PolitiFact Oregon did recently with this item.

Maddow's criticism in Thursday's show used artful editing and told an incomplete story. At issue is whether we checked the right factual claim. We examined her statement that Wisconsin "is on track to have a budget surplus this year." But she maintains that in the same segment, she made clear that she knew the state had a shortfall. (You can read a transcript of the entire segment here.)

We chose to examine her surplus claim because we had requests from many readers and it was the main focus at the beginning of her segment. It went on for nearly a minute. Her later statement about the shortfall was very brief and her main point seemed to be that the shortfall was created by $140 million in tax breaks for businesses. Still, we acknowledged in our article that she made that point.

In her criticism of PolitiFact Thursday night, Maddow misled viewers by repeatedly playing just a nine-word snippet of her saying that "There is in fact a $137 million budget shortfall." She neglected to include her full quote in context:

"There is in fact a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Gov. Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office. Hey, wait. That's about exactly the size of the shortfall."​

That artful editing -- plus the fact that she didn't mention the more lengthy quote that we checked -- deprived viewers of the full context for her remarks and our reasoning for checking the claim we checked. We not only examined that claim, we also debunked the suggestion from Maddow and others that the tax breaks were the cause of the $137 million shortfall.

When her producer Bill Wolff e-mailed us earlier this week asking for a correction (his correspondence to us has been posted on the Rachel Maddow blog) we reviewed our work, watched the segment and decided no correction was warranted.

Our e-mails are below. [see the link for those emails]​

Politifact has more in another article as well.

The more Maddow and her fans try to defend her lies the more egg they all get on their face...

 

[04SCTLS]

Beyond what Maddow did or didn't say and how it has been parsed is the debate about whether unions in the public sector are good or bad.
I think they are bad for state budgets and taxpayers and are slothful and gluttonous as pictures of all the fat @ssed demonstrators show while you think they are good because of your utopian opinion of what is fair.
Why is it fair to take money from the earners and give it to the loafers.
CEO pay may seem outrageous but with a few exeptions is mostly based on a successful business model.
There are only so many good leaders who have what it takes.
We pay our sports superstars and hollywood celebrities even more money than CEO's because it makes money and since you like mixing metaphors....where's the outrage about that.

 

[shagdrum]

FDR was not anti union...the sloppy attempt to put words in someone's mouth was only proved when the rest of FDR's sentences were shown,

FDR was unquestionably anti-public union and you have not cited ANYTHING that indicates otherwise. He supported private unions but no one is claiming that he didn't (and to infer that anyone is claiming that is to misrepresent them).

Citing quotes of his that support private unions do not discredit FDR's points about public unions nor does it discredit the claim that FDR was against public unions.

Can you not grasp the distinction between the public and the private sectors that FDR was making?

By missing (or ignoring) that distinction and applying through inuendo his pro-union comments to public unions (which were not around in his lifetime) you are misrepresenting FDR.

 

[compshmoe]

FDR was unquestionably anti-public union and you have not cited ANYTHING that indicates otherwise. He supported private unions but no one is claiming that he didn't (and to infer that anyone is claiming that is to misrepresent them).

Citing quotes of his that support private unions do not discredit FDR's points about public unions nor does it discredit the claim that FDR was against public unions.

Can you not grasp the distinction between the public and the private sectors that FDR was making?

By missing (or ignoring) that distinction and applying through inuendo his pro-union comments to public unions (which were not around in his lifetime) you are misrepresenting FDR.

The question is can you not grasp the fact that this isn't just about getting rid of public unions, this is about getting rid of all unions. Although the perception is the govt workers are getting rich sitting on their asses, truth is, most govt workers make less than their private industry counterparts. http://iowahouse.org/2011/02/22/myt...ake-less-than-counterparts-in-private-sector/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206424.html

NOW we find out that while the Wisconsin gov is cutting back on education, he's also eliminating caps on the school voucher program which will now include anyone making more than $38,000 a year will have their kids private school paid 69% by the Wisconsin taxpayers. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117154428.html
http://fightingbob.com/index.cfm

 

[shagdrum]

The question is can you not grasp the fact that this isn't just about getting rid of public unions, this is about getting rid of all unions

So, when you can't defend your own arguments, you simply change the subject. Got it.

Of course, we simply get more leftist/union lies about the purpose of this legislation.

Ending the union monopoly is not the same thing as "getting rid of all unions". It simply allows the unions to sink or swim on their own merit.

Of course, since you don't understand how the market works, and are functioning under an anti-capitalist false consciousness, I doubt you will understand why that is important.

If all you have are mindless talking points that you cannot reasonably defend when challenged, you have no credibility. As someone else on this forum might put it, your arguments are built on sand.