Sunday, January 26, 2014

Walker's Campaign Gimmick Gets A Thumbs Down From Public

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a poll up regarding Scott Walker's campaign gimmick to take $500 million of our tax money and give it to his supporters while trying to tell people that it's actually going to them.

Walker's goons apparently haven't gotten to it yet, since it's showing common sense prevailing:



I'm sure Walker will be releasing the flying monkeys soon to skew the numbers.  He doesn't want to admit to what people already know - that he's nothing but a con artist.

And there is a reason why people are rejecting his scheme.

It's already been revealed that the tax break is mostly for the rich, the working class and the poor need not apply:


35 comments:

  1. 56 No, 44 Yes with 2,618 votes @ 10:50 PM 1/26/14

    ReplyDelete
  2. Walker sounds like G. W. Bush and the state is tanking the same way Bush tanked the nation. Walker should use any surplus to pay the bills and his balancing the budget debt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Walker is going to use this fake surplus to gain votes. He has no interest in being a fiscal conservative, unless it wins him votes. He is not the right choice for Wisconsin & will destroy the USA if given ANY political power at the national level. Walker is corrupt, devoid of morals and ethics. The only suitable place for Walker is a jail cell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's been a poll over at Madison.com (Wisconsin State Journal/Capital Times combined site) for the past week asking, "What would be the best use of Wisconsin's $912 million budget surplus?"

    Results so far:

    "More tax cuts" -- 942
    "Increase funding for public education" -- 1623
    "Something else" -- 593


    Personally I'm most in favor of restoring municipal aid or tax breaks for low income people or paying down our State debt ("Something else"), but I have no problem with fulfilling our obligation to the next generation either. Unlike the greedy less-than-one third, who only care about getting their pizza NOW!.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I truly don't understand people who would decry a tax refund. And yes, the money should be returned to the people who paid the majority of the taxes. Government should not be about redistributing the wealth of this country. It is each INDIVIDUALS responsibility to do the best that they can for themselves. Quite frankly, the less that our government provides, the better off we all are. Perhaps it will teach us some individual responsibility rather than to rely on the efforts of others to cover our costs of health care, educate our children or provide a standard of living to our families. The best way to reduce the roll of government is to give back surpluses now and reduce further the services of government in times of deficit. In that way private enterprise will prosper and perhaps individuals will stop making bad choices about their focus in education (or lack thereof), having children they can't afford, becoming addicts, not living a healthy lifestyle, because there will be real consequence to each choice. I know that I started out with way less than zero and have worked my butt off to prosper to the point where even a job loss would not much damage my long term prospects. So don't tell me it can't be done in today's world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, you have to understand that there is no surplus. Walker's "surplus" is the money he was supposed to pay the bills with. That makes the rest of your concern about personal responsibility a little silly.

      Delete
    2. "I truly don't understand people who would decry a tax refund."

      You don't understand that people realize that the "refund" they'll be getting is largely symbolic for most, and means a continued level of reduced services? Those services aren't less necessary, and will either have to be paid for out of pocket which costs them directly more, or they will have to go without.

      "And yes, the money should be returned to the people who paid the majority of the taxes."

      Oh, really? So you're fine with spending cuts paid for out of the take home pay of middle and working class public employees, who provided valuable services to the community being disproportionately redistributed in the form of tax cuts to the wealthy who were least dependent upon those services to begin with? Who knew you were such a big fan of redistribution?

      " Government should not be about redistributing the wealth of this country."

      Now how did I know this was coming? What you really meant to say is that government should not be about redistributing wealth away from the wealthy oligarchy. You seem to be A-okay with upward wealth redistribution. Furthermore, the Constitution would seem to disagree with you (See Article I, Section 8). http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

      " It is each INDIVIDUALS responsibility to do the best that they can for themselves."

      Oh you're totally right, the problem is that people aren't trying. They aren't "doing the best they can for themselves", whatever that's supposed to mean. Never mind that the empirical data doesn't actually back that up. Never mind that productivity is at or near all time highs. Never mind that wages are at an all time low. Never mind that people are working longer, harder, and for less than any time post war, people just aren't trying. Seriously, brilliant.

      " Quite frankly, the less that our government provides, the better off we all are."

      Quite frankly, your ass must feel considerably more comfortable after removing that much bullshit directly from it. Do you have ANY actual evidence the back that up? Yes, look how well off the people in countries with very little government support are.

      http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4d94b54a4bef7/images/somalia-34-1.jpg

      http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4d94b54a4bef7/images/somalia-17-1.jpg

      Look at the blessed paradise they're experiencing, what with all that lack of government provision! Or better yet, let's look at times of little government provision in our own nation's history:

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TUNgzlcLsSw/TWAyeXxlXqI/AAAAAAAADIg/L8Fx7TiKOqw/s1600/Hooverville.jpg

      http://404systemerror.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/higheststandard.jpg

      Look at how much better off they all were! I know, they probably weren't willing to take responsibility for themselves and just work a little harder.

      Delete

    3. " Perhaps it will teach us some individual responsibility rather than to rely on the efforts of others to cover our costs of health care, educate our children or provide a standard of living to our families."

      Again, brilliant. If history show us anything, it's that the greatest, most thriving, and long lasting civilizations were built on individual responsibility and competition, and not at all cooperation and communal effort. Where do you get this crap? It's almost like you read it in some ridiculous science fiction novel or...Oh wait. Never mind.

      " The best way to reduce the roll of government is to give back surpluses now and reduce further the services of government in times of deficit."

      Um, what? Care to explain? The best way to reduce government is to reduce government, but only during deficits?

      http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/wsg/image/1338/95/1338951056807.gif

      " In that way private enterprise will prosper"

      Yes, because we all know that private enterprise has had a tremendously hard time prospering. What with their whole record profit thing:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/11/30/there-are-far-fewer-bears-on-the-stock-market-today-than-at-the-peaks-in-2000-or-2007/

      And record market high closings:
      http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/31/investing/stocks-markets/

      Or record inequality:,
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

      And, let's not forget that 95% of income gains have gone to the top 1%:
      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/

      Yes, it's clear that if anything, private enterprise not prospering is obviously the problem.

      " perhaps individuals will stop making bad choices about their focus in education (or lack thereof),"

      Yes, if only more kids went to college...oh wait:
      http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/college-going-rates-for-all-racial-groups-have-jumped-since-1980/25533

      Hmmm, that's strange. It seems like there's been a drastic increase in the percentage of kids who attend college since 1980. I wonder what the problem is? Oh yeah, college graduates can't find jobs. When they can, they're often not jobs that require degrees, part time, and/or very low paying.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/college-graduates-full-time-jobs-study_n_1496827.html

      This, at a time when tuition rates have skyrocketed, and the burden for tuition has greatly switched to the student. I'm sure you're all for more state and federal aid to help students pay for those tuition increases (much of which is a direct result of cuts to those university budgets from the states)? Yeah, there seems to be huge incentive to go bankrupt trying to attend college. Oh wait, you can't file bankruptcy on student loans. Never mind.

      Delete

    4. " having children they can't afford"

      Yes, if only people would just stop choosing to have children they can't afford. I'm sure everyone that has kids, and is poor, does so so they can ride that gravy train. It's a good thing that conservatives vehemently support things like pro choice (the vast majority of abortions are done so for socio- economic reasons), and contraception availability. Because, you know, we wouldn't want them to look like ridiculous, hypocritical fools on that issue

      "becoming addicts"

      Sure, sure, makes sense. All the addicts I've ever known, have become such solely for the purpose of benefiting from all that government money and care that rains down on them as a result of their addiction.

      " not living a healthy lifestyle"

      Absolutely. The only overweight people are poor. The only people that are unhealthy are those lazy takers. No one skips out on gym workouts and preparing healthy meals in lieu of fast food as a result of working multiple low-paying jobs, while trying to shuttle kids around. Nope, not at all. It's all because they know that they'll get a sweet ride from our wonderfully all-inclusive health care system, provided entirely by the government.

      "because there will be real consequence to each choice."

      Yes, because all of those things result from choices an individual makes, and those choices alone are the only factor. An individual's circumstance, genetics, nature, environment, and the choices of others play no part whatsoever in the outcome. Furthermore, there are no consequences otherwise for unplanned pregnancy, addiction, and unhealthy habits. Nope, none, unless we make sure that no communal support exists for those...people.

      " I know that I started out with way less than zero and have worked my butt off to prosper to the point where even a job loss would not much damage my long term prospects."

      I see. So therefore everyone's circumstances are exactly the same as yours? Everyone has the exact same support structure you had? No one has barriers that you didn't? We all have access to the same choices? Why don't you think that through for a bit.

      " So don't tell me it can't be done in today's world."

      Yeah, no one is actually. We're pointing out that due to a number of factors, it's becoming increasingly difficult. This is not as a result of too much of a social safety net and investment in the commons. Too little of a social safety net and too little commons though can, and is, becoming an issue as it creates a system that reduces opportunities for many to become "successful". No one is arguing for equality of outcomes, we're advocating for providing as much equality of opportunity as possible. Shifting the wealth away from the working class to benefit the wealthy has not achieved that. It's produced the opposite. Like it or not, we're all in this together, and we all benefit from mutual success. Gradually shifting wealth into fewer and fewer hands does not achieve this. That isn't something I read in a science fiction novel, it's something history has shown us time and time again. We ignore history at our own peril.

      Delete
    5. All I see in every one of your argument is an underlying "I can't!", That is exactly why would submit yourself to your own miserable fate. "Life is so hard, so unfair." What rubbish. Life is what you make of it. If you can't find a job when you get out of college, you aren't hustling hard enough. Were you the best student in school? What connections were you making while you were there? You know what...the simple fact of the matters is,..not everyone is going to succeed. The secret of life is to not let yourself be one of them. It's the whole..."we are in this thing together" nonsense, that keeps everyone mediocre. It like the union nonsense that inspires this website. If you live as a rugged individual rather than as some member of a group that does nothing but hold you down, you aren't going to get ahead. Success is for the few!!!

      Delete
    6. LOL! Now this is funny. Have you ever read "Lord of the Flies?"

      Delete
    7. "All I see in every one of your argument is an underlying "I can't!","
      That's because you either didn't, or can't read.

      "That is exactly why would submit yourself to your own miserable fate."
      Yes, there's nothing more miserable than objectively viewing reality. Where did I say I was unsuccessful?

      " It's the whole..."we are in this thing together" nonsense, that keeps everyone mediocre."
      No you're right, you can be successful if others aren't. You can make money if others don't have it. Our economy isn't based on demand at all, if no one else has money to buy your products, you'll still make money. All you need is Don Lapre type rhetoric, an ample supply of bullshit, and a willingness to ignore any and all evidence and history.

      So, it's fairly obvious that you are neither successful, nor serious. No one can be as frighteningly, and vaingloriously stupid as you are purporting yourself to be. Nice troll attempt, one of the better I've seen. Good luck to you.

      Delete
  6. If you are talking about debt, I am sure there is a debt schedule which allow any borrowing done by the administration to be paid over time. And, surplus or not, any attempt to reduce what government does is in my view, a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its a very appropriate strategy to reduce what government does by never allowing government to grow. When we have any extra funds,give them back. When we have a deficit, further reduce government so that whatever funds we have will then cover the current costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That way leads to deaths, lawsuits and higher taxes. How is that a good thing?

      Delete
    2. Amen brother! I get sick of having sewers, plowed roads, public schools, armies that keep us safe, food that I know I can eat, public universities and the ability to fight diseases and take care of people after natural disasters!

      Delete
    3. Armies are a federal, not a state concern. Imagine private schools, and private concerns offering road plowing on private roads, private insurers covering disasters, private certification services that attest to food as necessary. And how about relying on churches and charities rather than the government. Time and time again, the public method is the least efficient, least beneficial method of securing such protections for one's self.

      Delete
    4. federal but still government!

      the churches /charities argument is one i hear often from the righties and its truly one of the stupidest arguments ever. How many churches do you know that are loaded in money that they can step in and replace the government? Of course they money they would need would mean that people would have to donate more than they actually pay in in taxes but since we still havent recovered from our recession, the money of course isnt there.

      so we could just have a bunch of sick and poor people die horrible deaths, which would lead to population control.

      Do you guys ever even think about what you say?

      Delete
    5. Time and time again, you trot out unsupported BS. Do you have any evidence that "he public method is the least efficient, least beneficial method of securing such protections for one's self"? Because it seems to me like we keep seeing that it isn't the case.

      Delete
  8. Death is inevitable. Lawsuits are a product of the over protection of government. Taxes only further fuel what government does. What if government did so much less, like perhaps enforce a minimal code of conduct to protect private property but little else. There wouldn't be much need for taxes at all. Perhaps we can reinvent a territorial government like prior to when we became a state. Communities took care of their own school if there was any at all. Town might have a sheriff but there wasn't a public hospital or farm subsidies, or a welfare system. Men succeeded and failed by the sweat of their own brow. They were more religious, harder working, and understood what this life was. They sacrificed for their own families. And if you screwed up at life you suffered the consequences. I think I would put a whole lot more trust in my neighbor than the government if I needed a helping hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. absolutely! Down with the Hospitals! No more Doctors! Witch Doctors and snake oil salesmen is alls I need I tells ya!

      Delete
    2. Please define "screwed up in life." Does that mean being born black or Hispanic? Does that mean being born a woman? The times you talk about, women and minorities didn't have the right to succeed in life.

      Y'know, I'm starting to feel kind of sad for you. You seem to be one of those that have failed at life in the most important way.

      Delete
    3. Dang it, I'm screwed up and it's not even my fault! Damn my biology! And uh, by 'religious' I assume you mean Christian and I'm curious as to what the has to do with anything? Plenty of CEO's claim to love Jesus while Scott Walker makes em richer by doing nothing but contributing to his campaign. Is that considered "succeeding or failing by the sweat of their own brow"??

      Delete
    4. Screwed up in life is making decisions that detract from rather than enhance your future prospects. It has nothing to do with the status you were born into. It's quite a victim mentality that you think just because you were born a particular race or sex that you are disadvantages. That actually sounds quite silly to me. Our countries founding documents declare that all a created equal. Claiming that you can't get ahead because of your gender or race is just a crutch. Many many have. If you can't achieve, its probably because of the decisions you made in life. Did you skip school rather than apply yourself in every opportunity? DId you get have children before you could really afford them? Did you buy stuff on credit rather than live within your means? Did you follow a path of "happiness" rather than one of discipline, sacrifice and ambition? Did you choose bad friends, bad relationships, or inappropriate non conformity? The only reason an individual is powerless is when he or she allows themselves to be. It takes grit to succeed.

      Delete
    5. The founding documents had to be amended to declare that all people were created to be equal. But to think that is the reality of this country is rather naive and uneducated. I would advise that you get out and see what real life is all about.

      Delete
  9. Not saying down with hospitals or doctors at all...They just don't need to be propped up by the government. Medical costs would be much much lower if we all had to pay for it ourselves. In fact, doctors and hospitals might be competing to get patients The free market works if you allow it to work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. except of course they couldnt be trained or come up with scientific advances to actually cure disease, but thats all minor. Im curious when the free market has actually worked

      Delete
    2. Name one hospital that doesn't take government dollars.

      Delete
    3. What would hospitals do if there was no government money to take?

      Delete
    4. Can't answer the question, can you? That's because you are presenting a false argument.

      Delete
    5. Its not a false argument...its more of a vision. Perhaps if we rationed heath care like we ration everything in a free economy...to those that can afford it. The costs of health care would drop to the level that doctors and hospitals would be willing to supply at various prices. Think of hotel rooms. Those with the most money get the nicest accommodations. Those with less,get less. Those without resources camp out. Doesn't the theory of evolution encourage survival of the fittest?

      Delete
    6. I'm waiting for you to promote Soylent Green.

      Delete
    7. can we all just agree to get the Government to buy us all Ayn Rand books?

      Delete
  10. Could we focus on the long-time Republican game plan that Scott Walker is following? Governing Republicans gain popularity with tax cuts coupled with increased government spending. All that free stuff, that future generations will pay, wins votes. Walker is offering a tax cut while claiming a budget surplus that exists because the state borrowed $2 billion. In other words, the state claims to have extra money by running up its credit card.

    George W. Bush did the same thing, resulting in massive federal deficits, which Republicans blame on Obama. When Democrats points out that Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases, along with failed Supply Side economics that caused a severe recession, Republicans mockingly ask when will Democrats stop blaming Bush for the damage he caused? When will Republicans take responsibility for their irresponsible behavior?

    Republican support for Walker’s tax cuts coupled with higher borrowing demonstrate Republicans learned nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Republican support for Walker’s tax cuts coupled with higher borrowing demonstrate Republicans learned nothing.

    Sorry Anon. ...they learned alot! That is why they keep doing it. Because it works, they even have the editorial pages of the newspapers talking about the "balanced budget"

    ReplyDelete