It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prank call proves billionaire David Koch owns Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP

page: 17
77
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Wow, how is it they haven't recalled or impeached this guy yet????

Walker is damned lucky it was ONLY a prank call, if that had been the FBI, he'd be looking at some serious accusations.

The call raises some serious questions about Walker. He was way too open, talking about his political schemes, admitting to the idea of planting troublemakers, these are not the sort of things someone would say to a complete stranger.

Wisconsin's ethics panel had better get on this case, I hate the idea that our politicians are so completely in bed with greedy manipulative billionaire financiers.

If this had been a Democratic governor and Soros, you'd never hear the end of it, but because it's a republithug and Koch, all we see are a bunch of neo-con apologists.

Well Wisconsin, I hope you like having DAVID KOCH as your new puppet master, NOW DANCE, it will amuse him.




posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


Frankincense you make a lot of sense!
It seems that we are slowly being programmed to accept criminal activity from Republicans. This is potentially a dangerous development being that the PTB may be setting another major crime like 911 up again; of course such things are most often done by the GOP scoundrels, e.g. 911, the Iraq war, Iran Contra, and Watergate.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Interesting comment by the Koch impersonator:

Koch: You're the first domino.

Reminds me of this.... www.youtube.com...

Was our Koch impersonator acting on his own or in concert with some friends? Was this a one off or part of something much bigger?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by AntiNWO
 

Why would you assume that it would be okay from the left either? See this is exactly my freaking POINT here. NONE of them should be doing this. You're just attempting to excuse his behavior by saying they all do it? Please.


You're not getting MY point. I'm not assuming it's "right" for anyone. It shouldn't be happening, period, but no one should be saying that it's typical for one political party or another. They're both equally guilty.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by frankensence
Wow, how is it they haven't recalled or impeached this guy yet????

Walker is damned lucky it was ONLY a prank call, if that had been the FBI, he'd be looking at some serious accusations.

REPLY: If there are issues with the call, someone in the administration would be looking into it as a way to have something against Walker. Hasn't happened, has it? Why? ..... because there's nothing there.

The call raises some serious questions about Walker. He was way too open, talking about his political schemes, admitting to the idea of planting troublemakers, these are not the sort of things someone would say to a complete stranger.

REPLY: Way too open? ..... as in "transparent." No, Walker did not bring up the troublemaker issue, and you've got it exactly backwards, the prank caller wanted to know if Walker had thought of the issue of troublemakers at the protests (brought in by the unions, acorn, etc) and Walker said he'd thought about it and thought he (they) could handle it if it happened.

Wisconsin's ethics panel had better get on this case, I hate the idea that our politicians are so completely in bed with greedy manipulative billionaire financiers.

REPLY: Have you posted your disapproval against Soros and the multi-millions given to the Dem machine?

If this had been a Democratic governor and Soros, you'd never hear the end of it, but because it's a republithug and Koch, all we see are a bunch of neo-con apologists.

Well Wisconsin, I hope you like having DAVID KOCH as your new puppet master, NOW DANCE, it will amuse him.

REPLY: At least the Kock brothers are Americans, who love this country, as opposed to Soros and the current regime.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
all we see are a bunch of neo-con apologists.

Well Wisconsin, I hope you like having DAVID KOCH as your new puppet master, NOW DANCE, it will amuse him.

REPLY: At least the Kock brothers are Americans, who love this country, as opposed to Soros and the current regime.


well this thread is bulging with a whole lotta neocon apologist impersonators then...

SORO'S

Page #1, instruction #1 in the FOX's rhetorical hand book

Use the word SOROS,

(right above)

Then say ACORN



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Sure.... I'll say it again if you'd like, because the truth hurts, doesn't it? Soros..... Acorn, both of whom are Marxist groups/people.


edit on 28-2-2011 by zappafan1 because: addition



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


Hey Zappafan...just a sidenote


Republicans stand for evil, corruption, manipulation, greed- everything that Americans think is okay after being conditioned to it during the eighties. Republicans stand for all the values that Americans now hold dear. Plus they have more balloons than God, and for a nation raised on cartoons, that tells you something. Anybody with balloons, they're okay. They don't tell you what kind of crippled people had to blow those suckers up.




Republicans stand for raw, unbridled evil and greed and ignorance smothered in balloons and ribbons.


Can you guess who made those statements?...I'll give you a hint...take a look at your Avatar


Sorry, couldn't resist.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Sure.... I'll say it again if you'd like, because the truth hurts, doesn't it? Soros..... Acorn, both of whom are Marxist groups/people.


Which raises the question whether you even know what a Marxist is. Its a standard play from the GOP/Fox/Oligarchy playbook, throw around labels and demonize opposition, divide and conquer. Fox and the puppet masters like Koch or Rove et al want you fighting against the lower and middle classes because they DON'T want you coming after the "elite".



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
So you want to compare Koch to Acorn...........Wonderful.

I actually think it's a fair comparison.

Guess what happened to Acorn? They closed down.

Same thing should happen to Walker.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by zappafan1
 


Hey Zappafan...just a sidenote


Republicans stand for evil, corruption, manipulation, greed- everything that Americans think is okay after being conditioned to it during the eighties. Republicans stand for all the values that Americans now hold dear. Plus they have more balloons than God, and for a nation raised on cartoons, that tells you something. Anybody with balloons, they're okay. They don't tell you what kind of crippled people had to blow those suckers up.




Republicans stand for raw, unbridled evil and greed and ignorance smothered in balloons and ribbons.


Can you guess who made those statements?...I'll give you a hint...take a look at your Avatar


Sorry, couldn't resist.

REPLY: I like his music, not his politics. I recall very well his stand before congress, fighting both there and other places the controls the Dems wanted to impose on music, speech, etc.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Sure.... I'll say it again if you'd like, because the truth hurts, doesn't it? Soros..... Acorn, both of whom are Marxist groups/people.


Which raises the question whether you even know what a Marxist is. Its a standard play from the GOP/Fox/Oligarchy playbook, throw around labels and demonize opposition, divide and conquer. Fox and the puppet masters like Koch or Rove et al want you fighting against the lower and middle classes because they DON'T want you coming after the "elite".

Labels? If the government takes even one dollar from someone who earned it, and gives it to someone who did nothing for it, that's Marxism. There's but a hairs breadth difference between Marxism, Socialism and Communism, and there are many in the current administration who fully believe in all of those evil things. You got your education in a public school, didn't you? And, I forgot to mention the SEIU and a few others.

REPLY: Then why is it the Dems who use class warfare to reach their goals, and you seem not to have learned that? The Left doesn't care about Blacks or other minorities. But now they are used by the Dems to divide the country. For decades it was the Dems who fought against the very idea of desegregation. But in the late 60's they realized they could use it for their own purposes; none of them good. Now, the leftist colleges have Black studies; Black dorms and separate cafeterias, so who's dividing whom? All the money and loss of lives in the Civil War have been reduced to a footnote.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 



...Then why is it the Dems who use class warfare to reach their goals, and you seem not to have learned that? The Left doesn't care about Blacks or other minorities.


It sure wasn't the Repubs that gave us the civil rights act. It wasn't the Repubs who waged a war on poverty. The class warfare is tool of the right, not left.


...But now they are used by the Dems to divide the country. For decades it was the Dems who fought against the very idea of desegregation. But in the late 60's they realized they could use it for their own purposes; none of them good.


That's right, and they were called "Southern Democrats" or Dixiecrats, and when they saw desegregation being enacted by their party the majority quit and joined the Republican party. The Repubs today are in the south are still largely made up of "Southern Democrats" or yesteryear. If you go back even further, to the time of Lincoln, you'll see that the roles of the Democrats" and "Republicans" were nearly the reverse of today.

“The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968″

By 1968 Southern Democrat leaders were calling their members to quit the Democratic party and join the re-invigorated Republican party, which changed that party as well, it became for all intents and purposes, the new Dixiecrat party of the south.


... Now, the leftist colleges have Black studies; Black dorms and separate cafeterias, so who's dividing whom?


Um, that's called inclusion. First, what "leftist" college has "separate cafeterias"? None of them segregate like that. Care to back up this dubious claim, or should we just call you a liar? Black colleges were created to give blacks who were just coming out of the segregationist society of the 1950's a chance, otherwise they couldn't go to college period - all the "white" colleges wouldn't admit them. Keep in mind this is when the Police and National Guard had to be called out to hold back the mobs all so some black students could attend "the first segregated" high-school. Black colleges don't exclude whites. They exist as alternative to traditional schools.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

One of my heroes, MLK Jr. was a Republican. Well, let me rephrase that, he was a Conservative. Brown University is one college like I mentioned. Don't get me wrong..... I understand about people of any race or color wanting to be together in a new environment, especially a college, when they first get there, but to continue the "voluntary segregation" for three or four years isn't good, or right. Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democrat Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP.

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democrat Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.

Fast forward to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C., where Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." Then, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who actually "sent troops" to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Ark., were desegregated and ordered the "complete desegregation of the Armed Forces." Noticing any trends?

Blacks voted unencumbered for a couple of decades after the Civil War, the first "Progressive" (read: Communist) president, Woodrow Wilson, fired all the Blacks in government. Dems are the ones with the dogs and fire hoses during desegregation; they also are the ones who invented "Pole Taxes" and all the rest of the stupid ideas to keep Blacks down. The NAACP was founded by Republicans, but then was high jacked by poverty pimps like Jackson and Sharpton et al.

But, that was such a long time ago, right? Things really changed in the '60s, didn't they? Yes, Americans -- particularly black Americans -- really owe Democratic President Lyndon Johnson a debt of gratitude for destroying American families and causing the number of illegitimate births to skyrocket -- by pushing entitlement programs that made it much easier to have children out of wedlock. The war on poverty has been a dismal failure, which has destroyed the Black family, and the inner cities.

Remember George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? George Wallace was a Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Bull Connor was a Democrat.

But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action.

But, what about today? You'd think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won't vote for black candidates (There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you'll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas.

I also remember very well the Black neighborhoods BEFORE they started the war on poverty. Smiling faces all around; and every family had a father. Families going to church were always in suits or other appropriate clothes. Back in the day there was a movie titled "Wiley Avenue Days." I don't know where the movie was set in (the city), but it showed what it was like before then Dems "helped" Black families. I'll have to look around to see if it is still available.

edit on 1-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Addition of text

edit on 1-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: added content



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by frankensence
 


Frankincense you make a lot of sense!
It seems that we are slowly being programmed to accept criminal activity from Republicans. This is potentially a dangerous development being that the PTB may be setting another major crime like 911 up again; of course such things are most often done by the GOP scoundrels, e.g. 911, the Iraq war, Iran Contra, and Watergate.

I seem to recall most every Dem agreed that we had to get rid of Hussein. You really need to do more research on the other things you mentioned. Do you learn that crappola in school? I listened to the entire scam phone call, and Walker, 'nor the caller, said that the Republicans planned to have people there to be violent. The caller mentioned it, and Walker said they'd thought of it (if there were violent people there) and said their people could handle it. Check out the You Tube vids, and who is committing the violent acts against Republicans or Tea Party people. It's those like the SEIU and other unions who..... wait for it..... support Dem's.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Overall I agree with your history summation, but again, it was the 1964-1968 elections and the passage of the civil rights act that caused a great many "Southern Democrats" to flee the party for the Republican party, and they brought much of their racist-baggage with them. The OLD Republican party was liberal-leaning. And the pre-civil war Republican party even more so. That party was largely built on the Whig party which split along the slavery issue, the northerners opposed slavery and went into the Republican party with many of it's leaders becoming Republicans (Abe Lincoln among them), the Southern Whigs simply ceased as a party, but the Southern Democrats took in a great many of their voters. But again, it was after the civil-rights act of the 60's that saw the demise of the Dixiecrats, the recruiting of former Dixiecrats by the GOP with their "Southern Strategy” and the rise of the current GOP in the south.


[In the 1960s, the courting of white Southern Democratic voters was the basis of the "southern strategy" of the Republican Party's Presidential Campaigns. Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Johnson surmised that his advocacy behind passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would lose the South for the Democratic party and it did. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the Deep South was President Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't want to get too far off topic, but a quick summary of the parties circa Civil War:
Democrats - mostly Southern, "states rights", supported slavery, right-wing
Republican, mostly Northern, abolitionists, federalists, liberal
Whigs - North and South, split on the slavery issue, north half went to Republicans, southern half vanished or became southern democrats

So in many ways, the parties are flipped back-a**wards from their origins.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kynaccrue

Except if you want to see it as corruption, you will see it everywhere. You say that it's a phony crisis but if you look at the big picture, the current trend will not continue to give surpluses to Wisconsin.


Wisconsin has a SURPLUS, if Walker had simply NOT given $139 Million in EXTRA tax "incentives" to businesses already in the WI area; namely -- the $140 Million shortfall was precipitated BY THE TAX GIVEAWAY. Furthermore, if just kept tax levels the same in the last 4 years, they'd have a surplus -- would THAT require emergency tax giveaways to keep businesses in the area? Seems to me, that there will be LESS of a market for business, and over time, less educated people entering the work force. If Business does not pay for education -- how do unemployed teachers pay for education?



So better they try a tax cut now to boost business and maybe draw opportunities from other states than to wait until the depression gets worse and theres nothing left to cut.


That's a lot like the State Lotteries; it works great if a few states are doing it -- brings in a lot of money. When every state does it -- it brings in NO NEW MONEY. The money usually comes from the poorest and is funneled up to the Middle Class -- seems painless. But then you've got people gambling, and "wishing" and you've destroyed a work ethic -- something to consider for all those Libertarians out there who don't believe in a free lunch.

The POINT IS -- that this is a race to the bottom. It would be much better if these "kickbacks by another name" were illegal for ANY STATE to do. Businesses need access to markets, they need transportation hubs, they need convention centers, they need roads, they need educated people -- all these things and more are considered. They might pick three or four candidate locations and THEN try to see what kickbacks they can get like "no taxes for 5 years." The Governors, are merely trying to get a feather in their caps "creating jobs" -- but they've gotten less out of the deal and over time -- without the INVESTMENT in their state, they become less and less of an ideal place.

If no states could do this -- there would be the same number of "jobs created" -- PLUS, the states would get more tax revenue. Taxes NEED to come from somewhere and better they come out of profits from Corporations because they USE UP the most resources. People may like to get educated -- but people shelling out $200,000 for a Degree at a University is so that they can get a good job. Paying that off for 20 years turns people into indentured servants -- the Corporations should be paying for something, or they are merely parasites.

The real problem that is going on-- is that it's cheaper and more advantageous to merely spend money to confuse the public, than address the problem. Give money to a few well placed individuals in government, and spend money on ads on TV, and then it "makes sense" that mining operations pay almost nothing for what they take out of the land. If it's a vital resource -- eventually SOMEONE will pay to take it out of the ground.

Really, Walker is no different. The Koch brothers support his candidacy, and he gives them tax breaks and destroys Unions, and sits in front of a camera with paid "experts" (industry shills), who will all nod sagely about "incentives for business growth." It is 180 Degrees away from real "business growth" -- China is kicking our pants right now and they do NOTHING that the Robber Barons in this country suggest; they protect key industries with tariffs, they don't allow majority ownership in corporations from outside, they have universal healthcare and education --- while they DO HAVE, poor wage slaves, that is something they are growing out of. Communism is not without it's own corruption. I'm sure once the Capitalists have eaten everything we've got to spare, they will be preaching "global competition" to the Chinese.

Note, that they have easily embraced Capitalism, without a Democracy -- Democracies are expensive and inconvenient for Capitalists -- so WITHOUT a strong government control over business -- and WITH any reciprocal relationships with Business helping Politicians, a Democracy cannot survive. That's the situation we have now; business sponsors politicians, so you get the most "pro business" candidates who do not answer to what is best for the common good.



Not to mention until Walker does something I don't like politically, I'm going to support what hes doing.

What would be the WRONG thing politically? We already know he busts Unions NOT for fiscal reasons (because the Unions already agreed to the Pay cut) -- the argument is about Collective Bargaining in the future.

So is it better he steals for two rich Billionaires instead of tens of thousands of working families just so it isn't a "Class warfare" issue?



He can be as corrupt as they come but I don't expect there to be a squeaky clean politician.

Well, this is an improvement. At least now we can actually TALK. I have low expectations as well; but not this low. But it is refreshing to hear from someone I would assume is Conservative, that they aren't doing this over moral, patriotic, or spiritual reasons.

I think I can make the argument that -- YOU will not benefit from Walker and the Koch brothers winning this battle. These fat cats have been winning the battle against Unions for decades now -- and America has gone from it's height of prosperity in the 1975's (yes, before the Oil Cartels and Bank cabals got together to shut Jimmy Carter down, we had some good buying power), America has gone from a family where the Bread winner (a man), could drive a bus, and have a home and health care and put two kids through college -- to a society where the AVERAGE person, needs both parents working, and who can go bankrupt WITH Health Insurance, and if they struggle, can put one kid through college. Our buying power has gone down. And before Reagan, we almost cured ourselves of homelessness and poverty.


At least Walker believes what hes doing is the right thing. That for me is as good as it's ever going to get.

Wait, now you've gone back again to crazy; you just said; "he could be as corrupt as they come" -- and now you say that you KNOW he believes that he is doing the right thing? Maybe all those thousands of Union employees believe that keeping their right to collectively bargain (which is a very Democratic thing), is the right thing.

You cannot know what Walker thinks. And his "belief" does not supersede the beliefs and rights of others. Also; we can assume that people from Al Qaeda who blow themselves up "BELIEVE in what they are doing." Belief is about as important as opinions and farts.

By the way; my BELIEF is that Walker believes he will get more support in the future from the Koch brothers, and regardless of whether he gets re-elected, he will have a highly paid job waiting for him if he just destroys another Union. The Koch brothers take care of their stooges.


The PUBLIC unions need to be busted. Collective bargaining rights is a scary thing.

Why? Executives have boards of Directors and they "collectively bargain" to get higher bonuses and control markets and wages. So is the term "collective bargaining" just scary, or is it just OK if it isn't allowed for the poor and middle class? Why do you think that rich people spend a Quarter Million $ getting into a Country Club?

I'm not going to even BOTHER going through the lists of things that we HAVE in this country and -- will soon be lost-- that is the direct result of Unions FORCING corporations to "give us."


The government already has trouble letting people go under normal circumstances. Only when the deficit grows to a certain point can they even consider doing away with the glut of the system.


This "glut" that you speak of is false -- the government has only kept up with the growth in population in regards to the civil section. Now, if you add in "security" services like the CIA and the Military --- yes it has grown under Reagan, Bush, Bush. It has shrunk "overall" under Clinton and Obama.

WE aren't driving horses and buggies anymore -- since the Civil war, we have had an increasingly complex society. Sure, we could streamline everything -- we could cut millions of jobs if we had Universal Health Care -- no more hiring two people for every doctor to haggle with Insurance Providers, no more oversight, no more stress -- and we could really simplify the tax code without complex tax breaks. But you'd also lose millions of accountants. You could ONLY tax the Rich and Corporations like when this country BEGAN -- and you wouldn't have to track every transaction, every person, and it would take many Billions less to procure tax revenues. Millions more out of work, however -- but these are needless jobs when compared to teachers.

We could end Oxley-Sarbanes, which protects nothing and adds more paperwork. A few million jobs lost, and less barrier to entry for small and middle-sized companies (note; a lot of these regulations you think are "liberal" are actually lobbied for by big Multinationals because bureaucracy is something they are equipped to handle and reduces competition).

We could legalize drugs, and cut another few million jobs, and save at LEAST $70 Billion a year.

We could stop enforcing copyright, and have FBI agents go after people on Wall Street for a change -- instead of subsidizing the Movie and Music industry with free police enforcement.

Oh, and we have about a Million people in government, who are part of agencies like the CIA, NSA and AWA (Agencies Without an Acronym).

We could cut another Million out of our Military. We could save $380 Billion by halving our Defense spending each year. We could move to alternative energy and stop subsidizing the Oil Industry with our military and paying them to drill offshore (where the oil is). We get no benefit from oil drilled in the Gulf vs. Saudi Arabia -- ALL of that oil, goes onto a market for bidding -- the ONLY benefit we get is from the 50,000 people who get paid to work (from our country) in the entire industry, and from the taxes assessed -- Which is negligible compared to what we pay to keep their costs lower; like about a Trillion for the Iraq war.

We could also, charge transaction fees on stock exchanges and reduce the quick bidding process and force Wall Street to pay us back for bailing them out. Overnight speculation is NOT long term investment and merely games the system -- it is NOT helping corporations grow.

NOT Regulating Wall Street and Banks has cost us more than ALL ENTITLEMENTS TO THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS. So is it REALLY about the money? Or are you really not aware of how expensive the S&L Bailout right after Reagan's term was?

When you talk about "reducing excessive government" -- I'm all for it. The trouble is; your idea of NECESSARY and mine are going to differ. When a Conservative talks about excessive government


Yes I know that corporations and Wall st. are EVIL, and they did cause the economic depression. But

Well, that was good of you to mention that in passing -- there is always a "BUT..." right?


don't get caught in the duality in thinking that just because corporations are evil, unions of the people aren't.

Individuals can be evil -- groups of people can be self-serving, but it's a LOT HARDER for them to be evil; they have to be ignorant AND self-serving. So yes, I'll admit that the Tea Baggers are evil if you admit that Unions are not necessarily evil. PROOF of evil corporations does NOT prove that ALL UNIONS are necessarily evil -- there is no dynamic to corrupt the Union but the actual corporation. If a Union is corrupt -- I'd look at back room deals between the Union heads and the corporation itself.

On Wall Street and in Business -- the ONLY way for a "free market" to NOT be evil, is if it is regulated and "cheaters" are penalized. For instance; if one company can hire illegal aliens to process its food, and it is competing with a company that pays a fair wage -- by the government NOT throwing it's executives in prison (because really, they KNOW when their employee is not paying taxes and they KNOW they are not paying minimum wage), then the EVIL company, rises to the top with competitive advantage.

The hands-off approach to Wall Street, created a shark tank, and you can be GUARANTEED that every top bank, every top investment house, every one of the RICHEST has been running two sets of books, has been bribing or extorting politicians. Hank Paulson left Goldman Sachs with $900 Million tax free (because of an exemption for people "donating" their time), and Goldman Sachs benefitted greatly from non-oversight of Wall Street. Benefitted from a bailout of Mexico that covered their faulty investments. It's the revolving door of oversight and corporations that is a big part of the problem.



We gotta fix what we can and Walker's policies does that.

How?
To me, Walker is PART of the problem. I don't see how lowering wages of marginal income workers helps the economy. The money that goes to Union workers gets spent on products and services in the community. The money made in PROFITS for incentives to businesses, goes to bonuses and companies do NOT hire more workers than they need -- hence the myth of trickle down.


Unions collectively bargained many states to bankruptcy.

Name one. Then we can discuss. I'm sure a few have been blamed. Like taxes get blamed for businesses leaving. It's a scape goat, but a lot of people SAYING this is what happens, doesn't mean it is true.


There were teachers protesting on budget cuts and wants to state to raise taxes to continue to pay for their benefits.

Wouldn't you? How can you get benefits like healthcare IF YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEM? The company I used to work for, paid about $1,400 a month and I chipped in about $400 a month -- and they were ALSO an insurance company conglomerate with huge buying power. I almost went bankrupt if it weren't for my family when my wife wound up with Breast Cancer.

They protested that and LOST. The ONLY argument right now is over FUTURE collective bargaining.


The bottom line is, no one cares about anyone else. Wall st. don't care about you, and Main st. don't care about you either. Everyone just want their pot of gold and they will do anything to get it.


Well, I agree with you -- except I CARE. It might shock you to realize, that there are people who do care about innocent Iraqis being killed for oil. WE do care about you losing your job or having a decent life. Not everyone is like you. But to people who have not had security, love, respect, and lived with fear, or just were missing a conscience when born; they don't develop empathy and they don't BELIEVE it to occur in others.

I have faith in people but distrust organizations, and any ONE person should not have too much power -- should not be able to GAIN from using their power to benefit a few. But I respect your honesty.

>> I just have to tell you; YOU will benefit more from looking out for the AVERAGE WORKER in this country, than you will by looking out for the welfare of the rich and powerful. If you don't look out for others -- don't expect them to look out for you. From merely a greedy strategy -- you are better of with Unions if you are NOT going to be a millionaire. And I doubt you'd be on this forum wasting your time if you were daddy war-bucks.
edit on 2-3-2011 by VitriolAndAngst because: To fix some "quote" tags



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Hmmmmm .... "collective" bargaining. Anyone hear that term before? Here's a clue: Communist Russia. The inception of unions here in Wisconsin had a lot of support from the communist party USA and the Marxists, and still do thanks to the likes of Richard Trumpka and that slob Sweeney.

Here's something else no-one has mentioned here: the Kock's only gave Walker about $46K during the entire election cycle. No, Wisconsin has no surplus, and I haven't a clue where you got that idea. Here's a head knocker... if you figure only current and past state employees, Wisconsin owes almost $8 BILLION in pension benefits, and that's a lot of money that has to come from the vast majority of non-union workers, up to and including great-grandkids. Yeah.... the unions are for WORKING families. my ass.

Here's another kicker for you Marxist whiners, whether you're biatching about "rich" people or energy companies: the Wisconsin union members have a portion of the pension benefits invested in.... wait for it...... Koch Brothers company, just as most everyone with a 401-K has investments in "big oil."

And, VitriolAndAngst, You haven't a clue of you think the war in Iraq was about oil. show me the picture(s) of an American energy company in any of Iraq's harbors. You can't.... you know why? Because, before the liberation of Iraq's people, America was buying oil from Iraq, at market prices. Now, because of you and people who think like you, we don't buy any oil from Iraq at all. Zero oil contracts. In the meantime, the oil we secured for the use and benefit of the Iraqi people, is being sold to China and Russia.

I'm tired of people whining and crying because someone has two dollars more than they do, and think it's "not fair." Where does one get the mentality that every day they wake up, they're pissed off because a fellow American isn't getting screwed? That's rhetorical, as I know where it comes from: our crappy public schools and the elite colleges, and textbooks written by Liberal professors, ensconced in their ivory towers, who have never worked an honest day in their lives. Those that can't do, teach.
edit on 2-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Added content



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Zappa: I'm not asking you this as in insult but as a real question. You're like in your 60-70's right? Either that or you were born rich.

The whole be afraid of communism argument is from the 1950's. Trade unions were much more active than they are now and existed during the height of communism’s influence. And guess what, the US didn't turn to communism.

Funnily you talk about people complain about someone making $2.00 more than they do but then you go ahead and blame school teachers for negotiating good benefits.

Just as business can merge in order to charge a higher price, so can school teachers. This is not redistribution of wealth when either side does it. It's free market - and markets are not free when just one side is free.

Why do you want to take away rights?

edit on March 2nd 2011 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

"...Wisconsin has a SURPLUS, if Walker had simply NOT given $139 Million in EXTRA tax "incentives" to businesses already in the WI area; namely -- the $140 Million shortfall was precipitated BY THE TAX GIVEAWAY. Furthermore, if just kept tax levels the same in the last 4 years, they'd have a surplus -- would THAT require emergency tax giveaways to keep businesses in the area? Seems to me, that there will be LESS of a market for business, and over time, less educated people entering the work force. If Business does not pay for education ...."

REPLY: PLEASE tell me/us where you went to school/college and learned this crappola; you sure never took economics. Tell us so we can fire every one of the teachers/admins and hire people who know what they're talking about. Businesses already pay for education through taxes, and also the taxes of the people they employ. Businesses already pay there "fair share" by providing jobs and products/services to the community. If most cities had decent taxes to begin with there wouldn't be any need to have tax breaks, would there? The extra tax breaks you mentioned.... was that the Harley Davidson issue? They could have easily moved to another state, a right to work state, but the tax break helped them decide to stay in the state where they have their heritage and beginnings.

"...That's a lot like the State Lotteries; it works great if a few states are doing it -- brings in a lot of money. When every state does it -- it brings in NO NEW MONEY. The money usually comes from the poorest and is funneled up to the Middle Class -- seems painless. But then you've got people gambling, and "wishing" and you've destroyed a work ethic -- something to consider for all those Libertarians out there who don't believe in a free lunch...."

REPLY: There is no free anything; someone has to be paid for it. State lotteries are basically a tax on the stupid. For any state that has lotteries, every dollar is "new" money, as it's money the state didn't have in their pockets before. Most people who can afford to gamble have jobs, and they take care of what needs done before they waste it on tickets or casinos.

"... Paying that off for 20 years turns people into indentured servants -- the Corporations should be paying for something, or they are merely parasites."

REPLY: And there's a difference that paying dues to be able to work is any different? Corporations and "the rich" pay for over 80% of our taxes. The unions collect dies from people who could otherwise use the money themselves, so who are the parasites?

"....Give money to a few well placed individuals in government.... "

REPLY: You just described the unions perfectly.

"....Note, that they have easily embraced Capitalism, without a Democracy -- Democracies are expensive and inconvenient for Capitalists -- so WITHOUT a strong government control over business -- and WITH any reciprocal relationships with Business helping Politicians, a Democracy cannot survive...."

REPLY: America is not a Democracy, and the capitalism that China is trying is what has created millions of jobs that weren't there before.

"....What would be the WRONG thing politically? We already know he busts Unions NOT for fiscal reasons (because the Unions already agreed to the Pay cut) -- the argument is about Collective Bargaining in the future...."

REPLY: The collective bargaining of the future, as you put it, will only add to the unfunded mandates of the unions, and the un-funded pension benefits Wisconsin already owes; about $8 Billion.

So is it better he steals for two rich Billionaires instead of tens of thousands of working families just so it isn't a "Class warfare" issue?

REPLY: So stealing (your term) money from non-union families to give to the unions is ok? Read my other post. The Koch brothers only gave a total of 46K to Walkers campaign.

".... These fat cats have been winning the battle against Unions for decades now -- and America has gone from it's height of prosperity in the 1975's (yes, before the Oil Cartels and Bank cabals got together to shut Jimmy Carter down, we had some good buying power)"....

REPLY: you weren't alive then, were you? Ex-president peanut was and is a joke. I recall quite vividly seeing him on TV, in his cardigan sweater, telling us the we have to turn down our thermostats. His policies caused the price of fuel to skyrocket, and every single foreign policy was a disaster; and we;re paying the price right now (Iran for one.)

"....America has gone from a family where the Bread winner (a man), could drive a bus, and have a home and health care and put two kids through college -- to a society where the AVERAGE person, needs both parents working, and who can go bankrupt WITH Health Insurance, and if they struggle, can put one kid through college."

REPLY: That's due to over-taxation and over-arching government control.

"....And before Reagan, we almost cured ourselves of homelessness and poverty."

REPLY: Again; where did you go to school? Listen... lowering tax rates is not a political thing; it's an economic tool, and it worked every time it's been used. It worked for Queen Elizabeth the first, and John Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush Jr. Lowering taxes ALWAYS brings more money into the government coffers. That's why Johnson had money to burn on his (failed) war on poverty. Reagan's turn gave America over 90 months of economic prosperity, almost tripled the amount of taxes going into the government; helped to create more women and minority companies than ever before, and over half the population moved up one "class." Bush Jr, after the tax rate cuts actually kicked in, brought in about a 40% increase in taxes; employment was 100%, and created more NEW WEALTH (not redistributed) equal to the entire economy of china, consumer confidence was at an all time high;and it all happened in less than two years.

"... Why do you think that rich people spend a Quarter Million $ getting into a Country Club?"

REPLY: Ask the people who work at that country club... mowing lawns, doing dishes, tradespeople doing maintenance, etc, if they mind that there's a new member joining the club. Union dues are nothing more than money laundering. Through collective bargaining, unions negotiate with elected officials for wages and benefits. They then get the state to collect union dues for them by withholding the dues from public employees’ checks. With the accumulated cash, the union then makes campaign contributions to the favored (most always Democrat) public officials, and also lobby for bigger government and more pay and benefits. It's also very close to being in violation of the Hatch Act.

"...We could legalize drugs, and cut another few million jobs, and save at LEAST $70 Billion a year."

REPLY: I kind of agree with you there. There's way too much money being spent on the failed war on drugs; but I wouldn't legalize any of the hard drugs.

"...We could cut another Million out of our Military. We could save $380 Billion by halving our Defense spending each year."

REPLY: National defense is Constitutional, whereas money given to schools/colleges is not, and neither is the $700+ billion every year for Health and Human Services.

".... paying them to drill offshore (where the oil is)."

REPLY: The Exxon Valdez spill, and the recent BP fiasco is the direct result of environmentalists. There's so much oil and natural gas on-shore that we have enough to last for 500 years, and could actually export it. But the Dems and enviro-whackos/Luddites just don't want it to happen.

"....NOT Regulating Wall Street and Banks has cost us more than ALL ENTITLEMENTS TO THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS."

REPLY: It was government regulations that caused the mortgage meltdown, forcing banks to give home loans to people who simply couldn't afford a house... and "that's not fair" according to the Marxists in government. It sure bought the Dems a lot of votes, though.

".....If a Union is corrupt -- I'd look at back room deals between the Union heads and the corporation itself."

REPLY: ALL unions are corrupt, and all they do is guarantee someone more money than the job is worth.

"....How? To me, Walker is PART of the problem. I don't see how lowering wages of marginal income workers helps the economy. The money that goes to Union workers gets spent on products and services in the community. The money made in PROFITS for incentives to businesses, goes to bonuses and companies do NOT hire more workers than they need -- hence the myth of trickle down."

REPLY: "Marginal" income workers? Like teachers making $100K, including benefits, and only have a 40% graduation rate? Or where city bus drivers make $80K plus benefits, when a non-union driver makes about $14 to $16 per hour?.... (which is all the job is worth.) The money that union workers make does go into the economy, but that money is forcefully taken from many thousands more non-union workers, so it's a net loss. True, I know of no state where unions have caused it's downfall (but plays a large part), but look at any company today who is on the verge of closure, and in most cases you'll find a union. What do you think happened to the (failed union model) of the auto companies?

".....Like taxes get blamed for businesses leaving. It's a scape goat, but a lot of people SAYING this is what happens, doesn't mean it is true."

REPLY: High corporate taxation has caused hundreds of companies to close or move to more company-friendly states/areas. And is also many companies have had to move part or all of it's operations overseas?

"...How can you get benefits like healthcare IF YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEM?"

REPLY: And how do you expect non-union families, making real-world wages, to pay for health care or their kids college education, if they are constantly paying more and more taxes to pay for union members benefits? You can't have it both ways.

"...Well, I agree with you -- except I CARE. It might shock you to realize, that there are people who do care about innocent Iraqis being killed for oil."

REPLY: PLEASE.... not the oil thing, again. Read my previous reply.

"...I just have to tell you; YOU will benefit more from looking out for the AVERAGE WORKER in this country, than you will by looking out for the welfare of the rich and powerful."

REPLY: Again, the average worker of which you speak are non-union workers, which is 88% of the private work force. Look at the right to work states and you'll find them doing quite well, if not showing a surplus (or very close to doing so.) They're employees are happy, and more and more companies are moving there because it's less expensive, and easier to compete in the world marketplace. Why do you think the unions turned to the public sector to unionize? Because companies/corporations have a bottom line, and have to watch every dollar to keep the doors open. But, in the public sector, they see an endless supply of money they can redistribute from the taxpayers.

edit on 2-3-2011 by VitriolAndAngst because: To fix some "quote" tags



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join