Last night in an Oregon mall a man killed three people before turning his gun on himself. Are we going to have the same old, tiresome "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" debate. You betcha!

On TV a breathless announcer relates the evening's events while in the background shadowy forms glide by on the darkened street. "That was a SWAT team going in," he says. Impossible to know if he's right, the night murky, the figures insubstantial, sinister, more Orwellian than 1984.

Wartime. Sitting on a steel helmet heating C-rations over a small chunk of C-4. On the other side of a ridge, down in the valley beyond, a firefight sputters. A subconscious thought common to all soldiers in all times: Somebody else's war. Not mine.

At a candle-lit, window table in a restaurant sits a young, attractive couple. A romantic scene until you notice she's engrossed with her iPad. He's wearing ear buds, his head bopping to whatever he's listening to. On the umpteenth floor in a corporate headquarters building across the street a potbellied guy with hands in his pockets looks down at them with a smile.

Privatize everything owned by the public. Water, land, air. A city outsources its sewer system to a private company because the private sector can do it more efficiently and less expensively than the public sector. Right? Right? Uh-oh. Forgot to factor in the profit motive. Now try getting it back.

Treat the symptoms and ignore the disease. Doctor says that pain in the thigh is just a sore muscle. Here's some more painkillers. Too bad they won't help Cancer of the marrow.

Funny. Corporation begins with a "C", too.

The corporations, the 1%, Wall Street. The rest of us. Is it in their interests that the 99% pull together? Does the Right understand at all what's going on here?

Death of the Unions = further concentration of power.

Paul Ryan. Don't you just love him? A corporation's wet dream. The only question is which plant assembled him. He looks so real! Or, almost so. . . . But he does put everything into such neat little boxes.

Go shopping, said GWB. Spending sprees at the mall while Rome falls. But watch out for that guy with the automatic weapon behind the Golden Arch column.

Oh, that kind of thing doesn't happen at your neighborhood mall?

Then don't worry about it. That's somebody else's war.

John, thanks for a great post.

The "freedom" Governor Snyder is talking about is the freedom for workers to be paid less and with fewer rights. Corporations will pay less and make you work longer hours, pay fewer benefits. Thus the owners pocket an even bigger profit.

please tell your Republican leaders to quit gambling with our economic recovery.

Ames,

Please don't feed our newborn re-reg of BrianB, his time here is limited... ;o)

Jack in Portsmouth,

Very Well Stated!

Private employees, with the exception of those in the airline and railroad industries, see below, are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169. Under the Act, union members can resign their membership at any time for any purpose. Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985). Like public employees, private sector employees cannot be required to pay more than the agency fee.Commc’n Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). The Supreme Court has held that private sector employees who elect not to join a union but who are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment have a right under the Act to object and obtain a reduction of the compulsory union dues for those expenses used for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. Id. http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/unions-union-dues....................................................So you see Joe since 1947 nobody is compelled by law to join a Union if they desired to opt out for any reason. All's Right to work does is release individuals for the payment of the Agency Fees (generally less than Union Dues) for negotiating on that persons behalf.

Without going into a lot of detail, I will share the fact that Jack and I are friends. He's a Viet Nam vet as many of you know. Jack is my east coast buddy. I have a friend of very similar background who lives in Oregon - my west coast buddy. These guys are no strangers to death and extremely deadly weapons.

My west coast buddy - Tom - tells this story. He was sitting in a restaurant with some of his friends, and an idiot walks in with a rifle and two sidearms strapped on. This is perfectly legal. Open carry is just peachy keen. So, what would you think? Is this guy getting ready to shoot up the place? Do you just sit there? (Think Luby's - 23 dead, 20 wounded.) Not to worry, this guy is clearly a member of a well-regulated militia?

After all, don't we all go to malls, grocery stores, schools, and churches armed to the teeth?

So today in Oregon, we have another three dead by gunfire. We drag out our scripts, which by now we should have memorized. There are two scripts. One directs the actor - that's what they are - to put on a look of sorrow and say, "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family/survivors/bereaved." The other script directs the idiots - that's what they are - to defiantly thrust out their chins and proclaim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Wash, rinse, repeat. Tune in for tomorrow's carnage. Film at eleven.

Good morning fellow liberals, terrific posts to start the day! 

David Walker, well said.  Once again we drag out the script to discuss gun violence before putting it back in the drawer until the next time some one decides to just start shooting.

One step forward, two back. The truth is simple, Speaker Boehner will not find a "deal" to the GOP's liking until the last minute. It is about being able to tell his raucous caucus that this is the best he could get before time runs out and the GOP is blamed for taking the country over the cliff/curb/slope. It is called saving face. The Tea Party members of the GOP really do not care about what happens; they are stuck in a rigid, ideological bubble where common sense and the concept of what governing means does not exist. Boehner will need to woe democrats as well as the reasonable republicans remaining in his caucus in order to pass anything. In other words, Speaker Boehner needs to be Speaker of the House not just Speaker of the GOP.

Why are we in this negotiation? Simple. Conservatism Failed.

Why don't we have enough revenue to cover our expenses? 6 years of a Republican House, Senate, and White House fighting two wars off the books while cutting taxes.

America enjoyed 80 years of prosperity that started with the Progressive New Deal. Republican fiscal policy is the radical revisionism.

Since Reagan: Child mortality up, permanant job loss up, health care down, middle class down.

Anybody who really cared about the deficit voted for Gore in 2000 - remember under the Clinton/Gore Plan we would have been deficit-free by 2018. How quickly the conservatives forget their failures to govern. And we should give creedence to their ideas again when? Never, that's when.

IR, excellent! Thank you for posting the law that proves Right to Work isn't about choosing to join a union or not.

so in other words: The public does not have the right to know what is being said..what is being negotiated, etc...this is the worst transparency I have ever seen.

Joe in Albany,

Didn't you see the hilarious RIP (of you) by Jack in Portsmouth on the "HAHAHAHAHA!!!!" you put in every post. Was Really funny. You'd think it would inhibit your jocularity a bit!

Conservatism has failed. Isn't that clear yet?

Taxes:

High tax rates make deductible activities worth more. Hiring, for example costs an employer only 50 cents on the dollar with a 50% tax rate. Carry that forward, and a 75% tax rate makes that employee cost only 25 cents on the dollar. No wonder when tax rates were 90%, the middle class did so well--rich people were forced to reinvest in the workforce, lest they lose virtually all of their income.

Any one care to comment?

I like Rand Paul's solution to the fiscal cliff. Have House Republicans pass a bill extending all Bush era tax cuts permanently along with spending cuts and closing loopholes. Which will of course pass along party lines and die in the Senate because Harry Reid won't ever allow a vote. Then House Republicans should allow a vote on the Democrat demands to raise taxes on the top earners by all voting present which allows it to pass. It will of course pass the Senate along party lines and the Democrats will own the tax increase. This tax increase isn't a serious attempt to rein in spending or to reduce our deficit, and if the Republicans stand for lower taxes and smaller government this is the right approach to prove it. Let liberals claim it was pandering to the rich, as their party spends this country into oblivion and offers nothing that gets our fiscal house in order.

on the subject of right to work, do you all think that when you show up for an interview, you are handcuffed and forced to take the job and pay they offer??

That is the picture you all want to paint, except people who live in a right to work state know that is nothing but a scare tactic. Its like saying if you dont give me a job, ima sue you. You do not have the right to trump non union workers and keep their heads under you feet...which is what you want...and fear belonging to a free society of workers who bargain for their pay before they are hired...you too will have that freedom and the freedom to not pay dues to support a candidate you do not agree with.

Backhouse "Research shows that right-to-work laws redistribute income from workers to owners, with no increase in jobs or business start-ups."

Nonsense. Studies show that 'Right-to Work' States consistently have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment rates than 'Forced Unionization' States.

Anyway, this is just a note to let you know I admire your skill in identifying these people. To me, they just seem uniformly stupid.

Thanks David!

Not to mention, if they can't follow the rules on a political chat room, what are the chances they play by them in everyday life? lol

Cheaters never win, and winners never cheat...

ProFreedom,

Taxes do need to go up unless we stop wanting all of the "stuff" government provides. It's one or the other--either we pay, or we don't get.

There are arguments for both, but the fact of the matter is that "we" never seem to actually give up the things we get, hence, the huge budget deficits.

I think taxes need to go up, to pay for what we get, but you're right, if we do it quickly, here comes recession.

Why not let all of the Bush tax cuts go up on everybody, but have them ratchet up over 5 years? Let Medicare negotiate drug prices like the VA does. Boost SS withholding to $150K, and Medicare eligibility age to 67 (like it is already for SS for most of us). Cut defense by $100B, and I'll bet we're most of the way there.

Jody, Iowa

Good morning fellow liberals, terrific posts to start the day!

i see you vote blindly for anyone with a D, gee how liberal of you.

Arsenic-2609663

@Joe in Albany

Yes, that's a death threat to conservatives that attempt to privatize the government.

i see one of you hard-left-party liners will be going to jail tonight.

Backhouse:

Instead of celebrating & rewarding worker-management Auto industry success in his state, Governor Snyder sided with A.L.E.C/Koch/Adelson and their national anti-union agenda.

I remember how much outrage the connies that post here expressed over the fact that Obama saved the auto industry without taking the opportunity to bust the auto workers union like Mitt Whatsizname strongly implied he would have done in his infamous "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" article. Who knows? Maybe Snyder will do the job that Mitt never got the chance to do. If Snyder can't ship the auto jobs to China, maybe he can bring Chinese-style cheap labor and miserable working conditions to Michigan.

Jack, Portsmouth, excellent thoughts; well done.

Joe in Albany

while, the same time, opposing a “woman’s right to choose” not to join a union as a condition of her employment??

everyone has a choice: get a Union job or get a non-Union job. Don't like the Union? GTFO and leave the position to someone who wants the Union to represent them. PERIOD!

So, let me get this right. Obama gave a little in his proposal, and the GOP counter offer was no different and OBAMA IS SLOWING WALKING THIS???

Off the cliff we go GOP, you are giving us no choice at all.

As to union busting legislation in Michigan, just wait for 2014 and see whose left if the Republican party.

JUST GET TOGETHER A BALLOT TO FIRE THEM ALL. Over the cliff is where they should go.

We need to dump both parties in congress and start over with a MODERATE group that does not owe favors to oblivion and do not stick by far left and far right ideals. This is the 21st century of global economy and multinational thinking, and it effects you the second you wake up in the morning and still continues while you are asleep on the other side of the globe. The rest of the world does not speak Democrat or GOP and could care less.

Congress has failed repeatedly: They failed to stop Bush from undertaking his crazy world policies and they failed to stop Obama from trying to solve our problems with a half baked academic idea that is so full of holes and no cost control on the price of health care or liability control it is unreal.

In both cases they failed to do their job and are spending us to oblivion.

Now they cannot decisions which will again screw us into the ground. Once again causing the few middle to upper middle class taxpayers left behind in this country more burden.

Enough!

roadlesstraved doesn't understand the principles of collective barganing. Employeers can impose any conditions they want on the individual worker, there will always be an individual to take the job.

Collective barganing means the employer risk losing the whole enterprise if they don't employ fairly. No individual has a stick as big as an organized workforce.

Over a hundred years of unions built the US. Without unions we would all be dying in garment worker fires. Forgot about that part, eh?

Joe as the deep conservative you are, I am sure you understand the freerider dilema so I will not go on explaining that. However one of the biggest problems I can see with right to work legislation is it incentivises people not to join the union. If you can reap the benefits and not pay, why would you? Right to work does not strenghten employees it weakesn them, as it weakens the Union and provides minimal benefit to an individual.

It is strange to me that some of those on the right, at least those without means do not understand that the rich are truly using them to further an agenda. It is not about working hard or punishing success. Rich people want to get richer and the pie is only so big.

For the sake of analogies... Its like they think they are in a game of checkers when everyone is playing chess, guess what, you are not the Knight. Man the front line soldier!

FR:

Then Boehner’s side made its counterproposal, which essentially was the same as its original proposal -- $800 billion in revenue. That was their way of telling the White House, “We’re not impressed with your counteroffer.”

Wrong. That was Boehner's way of telling the country that he's still holding out to get everything he wants: huge cuts to programs that benefit the middle class and no tax increases for his wealthy paymasters. Repeating his demands is not a "counter proposal" as First Read falsely claims. It's amazing how far "journalists" will bend over backwards to ignore the fact that Boehner is negotiating in bad faith.

Joe,

The problem is that only in your warped reality is your intimidation effective. You're cowards. Only cowards use intimidation. Real men are about action, thus the real men just passed legislation so that you cowards can no longer intimidate workers into paying your thug bosses. Enjoy irrelevancy unions.

SmBusOwnerinNY "High tax rates make deductible activities worth more. Hiring, for example costs an employer only 50 cents on the dollar with a 50% tax rate. Carry that forward, and a 75% tax rate makes that employee cost only 25 cents on the dollar"

Are you for real? If labor costs are about 30% of production costs (typical), and income is about 5% of costs (also typical), then the decreased net labor cost from an increase in the tax rate doesn't even come close to offsetting the extra cost of taxes.

By your thinking, if we taxed business at 100%, their net labor costs would be 0%. But of course, there would be no jobs would there, since nobody would take the risk of starting a company if the government took all of the income.

You are obviously an Obama supporter.

Michigan Governor "Betrayed" State's trust with the Koch Baggers dirty tricks !!!!!!!!!

While begging for $$$ for his re-election campaign, Mitch "the turtle" McConnell had this to say;

McConnell continued: "As I lead the fight against his dangerous debt scheme, Barack Obama has placed a huge target squarely on my back. As I fight for you, I need your generous support to fight off his attacks."

To which I might add, wait for the BOOT on your turkey neck...

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL "Not to mention, if they can't follow the rules on a political chat room, what are the chances they play by them in everyday life?"

Wow - Feisty is talking about following the rules on political chat?

Thanks for the BIG laugh - I never thought that I would get my daily laugh from you, Feisty.

SO many clowns in here like Backhouse trying to say that RTW laws take away rights of American workers.

That couldn't be farther from the TRUTH.

RTW GIVES workers the right to secure a job and CHOOSE to join a Union or not.

Liberals wants Women to choose to have a baby or not, but not let an American worker choose to join a Union? Hypocrisy?

As for the made up fiscal cliff..... Cut spending morons, and I am sure enough Republicans will give you your precious tax hikes...

I plan on base jumping off the fiscal cliff! :)

FR:

Meanwhile, for his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is also calling on the White House to focus on spending cuts as much as the taxes. "The president seems to think that if all he talks about are taxes, and that's all reporters write about, somehow the rest of us will magically forget that government spending is completely out of control, and that he himself has been insisting on balance," he said, per the AP.

Geez, didn't First Read just mention that Obama proposed additional spending cuts on top of the ones he already proposed and on top of the cuts to Medicare that the Republicons attacked him for during the presidential campaign? McConnell is LYING. But it's politically incorrect for the news media to point that out.

What's the REAL problem with the Debt?

I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic information, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have a budget SURPLUS of more than $1.6 Trillion over the next 10 years. These figures include the implementation of Obamacare.

Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but it's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices. Here's the link to Obama's Budget to verify - See Table S-5; By the way - There has been a HUGE increase in projected health care costs since Obamacare was passed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

Hey Rick Rand,

Did'ja watch your hero McConnell propose a debt limit vote day before yesterday then was forced to fillibuster his own proposal after Reid brought the proposal up for a vote? If thats the amazing Republican strategy ya'll need to be confined to a playground where you can negotiate who gets to push the cute girl on the swings.

You won't be the one pushing the cute girl.

ROY WILSON-336103

Nonsense. Studies show that 'Right-to Work' States consistently have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment rates than 'Forced Unionization' States.

best example: Wisconsin being 41 in job creation in 2011. Yes, Gov. Walker showed us all....

I guess from a 10,000 foot view, I look at this in similar fashion to my complaint about those who complain about the mandate clause within the ACA, if you don't want the law to mandate you have healthcare, then that same Law should not have provisions on the book that guarantee you healthcare services in the event you need them.

I look at those who want to work in a unionized environment as well. If you don't want to join/pay dues, that's cool, but you should be no means have access to the same provisions contractually agreed to by the Unions and the Employer.

I don't think there is anything controversial about that understanding, but just as in the Immigration debate, the key 'x' factor is the resolution is the Employer. If you have rogue employers who will continue to hire undocumented workers and skirt penalty, reform is going nowhere and Employers who do not make a clear distinction in their workplace, than RTW is nothing more than a legislative blow against the whole premise of the Union...I don't care how any of the Governors try to portray it.

The framing of the statement SHOULD NOT BE , 'a worker should have the right to work in a shop and not have to join a Union'. The framing of the statement SHOULD BE, 'a worker is accepting the reality that they do not have access the contractually negotiated provisions between the Union and Management, so if longer hours, lesser pay, fewer breaks, less healthcare, sub-par working conditions etc are griping points...that's what you signed up for.

Wow - Feisty is talking about following the rules on political chat?

Well there you are Roy, I have asked you repeatedly to disclose which chat rooms YOU claimed I have been banned from.

You gonna finally "man up" and answer or admit you're a bald faced liar?

Given your history, my $$$ is on option "B"

I never thought that I would get my daily laugh from you, Feisty.

Why? I laugh my ass off at everything YOU post... Mr. I Pull Numbers out of my butt to fit your fantasy!

ROY WILSON

And those same Right to Work states have HIGHER intake of Federal money, higher medicaid, higher teen pregnancies, higher drop out rates, etc.

your point?

Hey road,

You wouldn't violently oppose loss of representative constitutional democracy to an unconstitutional fiat plutocracy? Coward. Traitor. Un-American.

RTW laws do nothing for workers, what it needs is to be called "Right to fire without due cause." And as far as politics go, Both parties started as the same, "Democratic-Republicans. They both are pro-business, they both screw working Americans, and they both have you divided into believing that you're right, and the other is wrong. They have played you, and you eat it up by the spoonfuls. If Obama is so unique and different, then why does he keep continuing most of Bush's policies? The only difference's I can see between the two parties is Abortion issues, the rest is rhetorical Bullsh!t.

Allen I 100% agree. When someone choses RTW they will still be recieveing many of the benefits that are brought from any legislation that the Union gets passed. RTW is not meant to empower anyone it is simply a way of turning employees against one another.

Unions have always and continue to operate in right to work states. The only difference between the two is right to work states do not force workers to join (contribute) unions unless they want. If unions really were what workers want and/or need, why do they need mandatory participation?

America enjoyed 80 years of prosperity that started with the Progressive New Deal. Republican fiscal policy is the radical revisionism.

Ha! The only reason America had any prosperity is because after WWII there was no one left to compete with! Europe was blown away, Japan was blown away, we had it all.

It had nothing to do with the Progressive New Deal!

It was all because we were the only game in town!

Roy,

Right, I'm an Obama supporter, but that's not the point, I'm making an economic argument, and you're not.

You only pay taxes on net income. The "cost" of taxes only applies to the final profit, it doesn't take away operating expenses--those are already deductible.

Is it not true that businesses get a deduction for the expense of labor? (yes)

If the tax rate is 50%, the "cost" of hiring somebody is 50 cents on the dollar because they get a deduction for that expense. Likewise, 25% tax rate means the expense is only worth 25 cents on the dollar, meaning the business pays 75 cents. Labor is cheaper with higher tax rates. It just is. Tax rates can't be 100%, or yes your'e right, there would no incentive, but you don't need 10% taxes for incentive. Clearly, even when taxes were 90%, businesses operated in this country, and operated well I might add.

When tax rates are higher, say 90 percent, there is a huge incentive to reinvest the money (to make more money). Why would you take home 10 cents on the dollar when you can reinvest the whole dollar and pay NO TAX on that?

This is why our economy grew in the 50's and 60's. People earning a LOT of money were effectively forced to reinvest.

Conversely, this is why now we have a lot of billionaires. It is cheap (15%) to just take the money out of a business and keep it for yourself.

I guarantee if tax rates were 50% or 75%, there would be fewer billionaires, and it wouldn't be because their money was "confiscated", it would be because it was worthwhile for those people to reinvest the money rather than pocketing it.

9 out of the top 10 states at the bottom of the rankings in Math, Science, employee wages, teen pregnancy, and lack of health care are right to work states. These states also rank among the highest that take in more federal dollars than the put out. The republican party... making Americans more stupid and voting more and more against their own self interest one state at a time!

The Tea Loonies have an X-Mass gift for Bonehead, Vaseline !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trust 2112, I do believe that both parties are pro-business and neither act full heatedly for the people, I personally one does more so than the other, but it's just an opinion.

Given our political system Radical change cannot happen at least not quickly or consitently. You can change the President but what happens if the legislature stays the same? Also as you have known over the last 4 years we had a Congress that was at odds with the president. The checks and balances in our government is what has slowed the rate which things can happen, and I do not think that is a bad thing just that a few of these were abused.

Not to mention, if they can't follow the rules on a political chat room, what are the chances they play by them in everyday life? lol

this coming from the hypocrite that called me a douche bag two days ago? Yes Fisty seems to comply very well with the COH it so kindly points out. Follow the rules pffft. You are a joke. Its the trucker trash like Fisty that has infected the democrat party, has given rise to the rabble called occupy (you know 'peaceful' protesting) and will continue on its path to erode the American way of life at all costs.

ROY WILSON-336103

You are right. The cost of labor is 30%++ right now. Since the advent of Obama care, the cost of insurance for small businesses has SKYROCKETED. I was speaking with someone that runs a major university the other day (larger business) In the past two years their cost per student has gone from 400 dollars to 2500 dollars. The insurance companies know they are going to lose money on obama's plan so now they are jacking the costs up all the way through 2014. (There is no way to collect the fines for not having insurance under Obama's plan. The IRS cannot impose severe penalties so you may as well not pay it) Just like banks set prices on interest rates so do insurance companies. The average surgeon blows 40% of his gross income on liability insurance and doing work for free since the hospital gets the small amount of money first. The cost of this is so high due to liability that none of this can be affordable. This is the problem of healthcare, not simply playing a shell game that declares "everyone must have it", while not curbing costs and not imposing still penalties on those who do not abide by the rules. Responsible elderly are sadly working at home depot and walmart to keepkeep insurance and get money for it. Under the new plan you may as well not bother.

non marxist,

The hypocrisy goes both ways...

Liberals wants Women to choose to have a baby or not, but not let an American worker choose to join a Union? Hypocrisy?

Conservatives want you to be able to freely choose to join a Union, but not whether to have a baby or not?

It's not really about whether you can "choose" to join a union or not anyway, it's about freeloading. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? Who would really pay union dues when you can choose not to and still get most or all of the benefits? Not many, until there are NO dues payers, the union goes bust and the owner decides to F*ck all of the workers because the union no longer has any clout. That's what this is really about. Not about choice at all.

The only spending "cuts" offered by Obama and his administration are derived from using base line accounting... So as to say he will "cut" spending from the for casted growth in spending.

Perfect example is your wife comes home and says she cut $500 dollars of spending for the family budget, but when you look into things, she really spent $2000 dollars on goods that were $2500 regular priced.

You can either provide legit spending cuts to get our fiscal house back in order, or drive us off the "cliff" Obama....it's your choice.

Unions were formed when worker abuse was rampant. I don't know how much abuse is happening in the states these days.

My thought is nobody should be "forced" to enter into a union if they don't want to. If they choose not to, they should have to negotiate their wages on their own as well as their healthcare. If they choose to enter the union, those two things are negotiated for them. Don't forget collective bargaining helps the employer as well. Would you rather negotiate with 1,000 individuals for pay or 1 union rep?

I also believe they should be fired just as "easily" as a non-union worker. You are there to work, not lallygag. Firing anyone requires cause and documentation. This is the risk an employer takes when hiring someone. They need to do their due diligence also during the hiring process.

If you feel some power is being taken away from the employee, then the law makers should offset that with some stronger laws so employees can more easily take action against an employer. Keep the balance but yet still provide choice. This is what most people can't or won't see - that there is more than one side to a debate and lots of details that get overlooked or never discussed.

Peace.

No way Taylor,

The US prospered after WWII because we're a great country with systems that promoted that prosperity. If you think we only prospered because we had no competition is downright unpatriotic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

SmBusOwner,

First off let me say that I KNOW there is hypocrisy on both sides of the isle.

Where you are wrong is this issue IS about the ability to choose to join a Union or not. Here is why.

If these Unions provide such an AMAZING product of benefit as they claim, the choice will be simple and people will stay in the Union anyway given the choice.

If not, which is the case most of the time, workers would rather keep the money they make and not have to pay dues into a Union that doesn't represent their views. This choice will keep them from sitting at the bargaining table but that is the CHOICE they have made.

This IS about freedom to choose... nothing more.

Unions just don't want to lose power, and more importantly lose the money they take from workers.

SPOT ON SIR...

ROY WILSON-336103

What's the REAL problem with the Debt?

I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic information, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have a budget SURPLUS of more than $1.6 Trillion over the next 10 years. These figures include the implementation of Obamacare.

Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but it's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices. Here's the link to Obama's Budget to verify - See Table S-5; By the way - There has been a HUGE increase in projected health care costs since Obamacare was passed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

Non,

Did you read the last paragraph in my post 1.68? That's the reason it's not about freedom.

In most unions, you can opt out of the "non-operational" deductions that pay for political things. You are only compelled to pay for direct expenses associated with employment bargaining.

Roy, non,

You can't lump Medicare and Medicaid when looking at budgets. MCare has a trust fund and revenue stream from specific taxes earmarked to pay for it. Mcaid doesn't, so there isn't a "revenue" for it--revenue comes form the whole Federal revenue stream.

You could cherry pick anything this way. The Department of Defense has a 100% deficit in it's revenue/expenditure stream!

What's the solution anyway, stop paying all health care expenditures? Cut it by 80% to make it "revenue neutral"?

The numbers are dramatic, but they don't tell a story at all when think about it for more than 5 seconds.

You can't read many posts from liberals and not see that even their underlying effort is entirely partisan. If what Obama was proposing was a serious attempt to get our fiscal house in order, it would warrant supporting. But when this is nothing more then smoke and mirrors I say let him have it, but lets not be a party to it. Let the Democrats pass this paltry tax increase which will solve nothing, and move on. Republicans in the House can all vote present to let Democrats take full ownership to the party of tax increases, and all Republicans in the Senate can vote no. Then when the nation continues to run trillion plus deficits Republicans can ask the Democrats what next? The Democrats won't like that approach because they are already trying to hide from tax increases coming in ObamaCare, and although they are demanding tax increases they want to make sure there are Republican fingerprints on them.

Non Socialist, I understand I get the reasoning behing what you said, but in my opinion it is a flawed logic. The choice between being in a union or not is short sighted. What it is, is employers giving individuals the feeling of empowerment while in actuality they are silently stripping them of power.

I would like to understand, besides the choice of belonging to a union, how else is the worker better off after making the choice? If they chose not to be in a union and want to negotiate a wage, given our economy and the large labor supply I do not see how they will be better off.

It is employers offering a short run incentive to achieve long term goals.

Welcome to 2012 SmBusOwner.... This isn't the early 1900's.... Companies can't just "F*** employees anymore, or the skilled workforce will go to a competitor...

This is typical liberalism... Set up rules for a system that already is stable AKA OVER REGULATE.

If a company does not provide competitive health care, wages ect, then no one will work for them... We don't need Unions anymore. They are obsolete like an 8 track.

Generals: Get real and cut Pentagon spending

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/opinion/gard-johns-military-spending/index.html?hpt=op_t1

@Backhouse Those poor, destitute Union bosses. How will they ever get by? :(

NON, welcome to 2012. They absolutely can F* the employee. See: Walmart.

Joe in Albany,

You are the poster child for the phrase, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

On this subject I am Progressive

Pro business
Pro worker
Pro AMERICAN

More employed = more revenue = less safety net cost

Fight over stupid party BS so they can look important?
The media loves it because we love it $$$$
~SUPERSTAR~

Hopey,

It's not about the Union bosses. They'll do find no matter what, just like our fine members of Congress. It's about what they will do for us, or against us. Having a union boss is better than NOT having a union at all. See: Walmart.

The framing of the statement SHOULD NOT BE , 'a worker should have the right to work in a shop and not have to join a Union'. The framing of the statement SHOULD BE, 'a worker is accepting the reality that they do not have access the contractually negotiated provisions between the Union and Management, so if longer hours, lesser pay, fewer breaks, less healthcare, sub-par working conditions etc are griping points...that's what you signed up for.

True. So if I sign up for "your pay will be dependent on performance and not seniority" then I can get better pay and conditions than a union negotiates? However, I will still be protected by the employment laws of my state and the federal government.

Tell me what value unions add again? Did they stop the exodus of jobs overseas? Have they protected wages and benefits of new union members, or did they throw them under the bus to protect seniority?

I see we're getting the same talking points of "unions built the middle class" and "don't expect holidays or a 40 hour week" and even a reference to "the Binghamton Factory Fire". We'll here's a little blog from a union activist regarding the current actions of unions.

"Unions did this to themselves," writes commenter NancyEJ.

Among her complaints about labor in Michigan:

"No accountability to the membership. Bull@!$%# third-world election standards. Union busting their own staff . . . Holding themselves to a different abysmal employee relations standard than they do employers. . . . Disenfranchising everyone but the toadies, advancing staff based on their ability to bootlick alone . . . "

This outraged rank-and-filer continues:

"You all tolerated this leadership and did their bidding, you turned a blind eye when they wiped their fannies with the NLRA and slept like babies every night after you saw them treat the rank and file like dues cows, annoyances, parade props and tee shirt hangers. "

Ouch.

"You can't just keep walking around in circles, chanting empty folk song lyrics, and shaking your little fist at stuff and expect the membership and the rest of the intelligent life on the planet to just buy in to your 1960s 'vision.’ And the rest of you can't just keep whining about all unions supposedly accomplished a HALF A CENTURY ago either. 'The dinosaurs who brought you the weekend.' Cripes. It's pathetic."

Is it the unions' fault?

I asked Slaughter (whose organization has been a voice for democracy and activism, not an apologist for union leadership).

In part, she says:

Labor's faults include "continually taking concessions," and "making it clear they'd let employers walk all over them in the workplace."

"You could say that the UAW is the leading union in Michigan and is the union that led the way nationally in concessions of all kinds over the last 30 years," Slaughter adds, from labor-management participation schemes to monetary concessions to two-tier pay so that new employees make half the pay of longer term employees.

"The UAW being a pioneer in concessions certainly didn't help."

If the impending right-to-work law in Michigan shows anything, it's that what Slaughter calls the "mythology that the UAW is this 800-pound gorilla and runs politics in Michigan" is total rubbish.

Now what do you disagree with regarding the CURRENT state of unions?

Please provide me ONE thing Walmart has done illegally to their workers...

I'll wait for your response.

Further on Walmart,

Walmart actually COSTS the government money with its employment policies. They pay so low that the vast majority of their employees can claim food stamps and the earned income tax credit.

How is that good for America, let alone the Walmart worker? Guess what? It's not.

Decent wages, union wages, allow lower skill workers to stand on their own, not sap from the government, and themselves contribute to the economy by having the wherewithal to actually buy non-essentials.

Sure, none of it is illegal, but if there was a union, they wouldn't be costing the rest of us money--except for a few pennies more at the cash register. I'm not even sure of that, because prices are driven by market forces. the wages would come out of Walmart profit. In other words, Walmart is now profiting from their workers sapping off the government. How is that right for you and me? We're paying for that.

Less than 5% of all workers in the US make minimum wage. Case closed. Unions are outdated.

Decent wages, union wages, allow lower skill workers to stand on their own, not sap from the government, and themselves contribute to the economy by having the wherewithal to actually buy non-essentials.

I asked this yesterday but no one wanted to give an answer. What is a fair wage for an unskilled worker?

@Backhouse In California it's never been so good for state workers. I guess their unions are adding value. Wonder how long the gravy train can last.

Nine years ago, California Democrat Gray Davis became the first U.S. governor in 82 years to be recalled by voters. The state’s 20 million taxpayers still bear the cost of his four years and 10 months on the job.

Davis escalated salaries and benefits for 164,000 state workers, including a 34 percent raise for prison guards, the first of a series of steps in which he and successors saddled California with a legacy of dysfunction. Today, the state’s highest-paid employees make far more than comparable workers elsewhere in almost all job and wage categories, from public safety to health care, base pay to overtime.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown hasn’t curbed overtime expenses that lead the 12 largest states or limited payments for accumulated vacation time that allowed one employee to collect $609,000 at retirement in 2011. The 74-year-old Democrat has continued requiring workers to take an unpaid day off each month, which could burden the state with new costs in the future.

Last year, Brown waived a cap on accrued leave for prison guards while granting them additional paid days off. California’s liability for the unused leave of its state workers has more than doubled in eight years, to $3.9 billion in 2011, from $1.4 billion in 2003, according to the state’s annual financial reports.

Psychiatrists were among the highest-paid employees inPennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey, with total compensation $270,000 to $327,000 for top earners. State police officers in Pennsylvania collected checks as big as $190,000 for unused vacation and personal leave as they retired young enough to start second careers, while Virginia paid active officers as much as $109,000 in overtime alone, the data show.

The numbers are even larger in California, where a state psychiatrist was paid $822,000, a highway patrol officer collected $484,000 in pay and pension benefits and 17 employees got checks of more than $200,000 for unused vacation and leave.

But no worries because we know that money grows on trees and is endless.

SmBus:

You keep pointing out Walmart, but almost every company in America pays "low wages" in your mind. Look at every retailer, fast food restaurant, factory. They all pay around minimum wage for the VAST majority of positions.

Your right in the fact that lots of these people are making 30K a year and still getting government benefits, which is taking advantage of the system.

Less than 5% of all workers in the US make minimum wage. Case closed. Unions are outdated.

Huh? Wearing your hat backwards today, Bobster?

Alan, my disagreement with your point in not one where one is correct or wrong, it is more a difference in belief.

When I boil your argument down, what I take from it is, "I think I am an exceptional worker, so I am okay with the idea of everyone being paid less so I can be paid more" What is flawed is by nature everyone cannot be "the best worker" at the end of it some may end up better off, but the reality is a great many more will probably be left worst off.

There is no perfect system to handle these things, unions aret flawed, corporations are flawed, our government is flawed. I know many people hate unions, I just do not see how RTW improves that situation. At least I would like to see something like Tiggle I think it was, was saying where if you take steps like to RTW there should be something that acts as a balance so workers are not worse off.

1 in 4
American workers make less than $10/Hr., $400/Wk.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060731085204AAVCOH5

Here's the thing, there are basically two philosophies in competition here: "Were in this together" vs. "you're on your own to make for yourself"

"Were in this together" got us out of the caves and into functioning societies, but there is a cost to cooperation. You have to contribute to things that don't directly benefit you (just indirectly benefit you).

Once, you've got a society, a country, a union, a baseball team, whatever, one person can shirk and the group will probably still keep working OK.

But if you institutionalize shirking, the group falls apart.

In a nutshell, this is what Republicans are for at this point. Don't want to pay for the government we have, allow people to get out of joining a union, Cayman Islands, "didn't build that" theme. They call it "freedom" but it sure looks like freedom to shirk to me.

Dan Austin, TX wrote to the Albanian idiot:

"You are the poster child for the phrase, 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.'"

Actually Dan, the operative sentence is, "You can lead a horse's ass to information, but you can't make him think."

NON, exactly. If people were paid more, they wouldn't have to sap off the government. Rich people and companies take advantage of this. They are indirectly sapping off the government.

5%, again, exactly. Unions are the reason. No one in a union makes minimum wage.

SmBus,

We don't want to pay for the government we have, because we have WAY TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. It would be like you paying huge sums of money every year to an optometrist when you don't need vision correction.

You can try and muddy the idea of freedom of choice all you want, but that FREEDOM is what built this country, not Unions or Community Organizing... This country was born under the desire to have FREEDOM of Religion, FREEDOM of speech, RIGHT to bear arms, and FREEDOM to obtain a job without having to pay some company dues because you live in Michigan...

Hey Joe in Albany -

Thought-void sewage from FOX Sheeple like you did more to convince swing-voters in the past election that the Liberal objectives are far preferable to those spewed by the Right-wingnuts (who, like you, have to take their marching orders from the Right-wing media talking heads).

To paraphrase President Obama's response to Romney's fact-void debate spewage, "By all means, Please proceed Joe in Albany."

Thank you for making America's choice CLEAR to those who aren't yet sure how our Beloved Nation should proceed!!! You and your ILK are some of the best team members on the Liberals' side.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!

The bottom line is that low wages ultimately hurt rich people too.

Fewer people able to buy products mean companies grow slower and owners of those companies make less. When all boats rise, the yachts rise just like the dinghy.

In the post-war period before Reagan, taxes were high and rich people had to spend their money on tax-deductible things, which often meant labor and capital equipment. This grew the economy for everybody.

Now, low taxes promote sequestration of the money. Nobody benefits except the billionaires that have it. The thing is, that approach costs more than just the money that is held. You can't just tax all of that existing value and things will be fine. People say that all the time:
"if you tax all of the rich people 100% you still wouldn't close the budget deficit"....or some such, but that misses the point. The point is that money would be recycled over and over if the money is spent on labor and equipment because the worker or the company that sold the capital equipment also must invest their money or face a tax consequence. It's a positive feedback loop.

Progressive high taxes. Over $10M income from any source, 50%. Over $50M, 75%. There's merit, I'm telling you.

@Akeem

You seem to think that performance is simply based on ability. I have worked in jobs where it is obvious that some are putting in more EFFORT than others. In some jobs these people are rewarded. In others, mainly those having unions they are not because the union demands that we are paid the same for the same job. Further, unions often negotiate rates based on length of service, regardless of ability and effort. Why is this good?

Should those that contribute the most not be rewarded the most? If not then you are promoting the Marxist saying (I am not throwing out insults or labels), "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

As to RTW. If union membership adds value to a job then people will join with coercion. At the end of the day even unions cannot fight the market. If they price labor too high the jobs will move to what the market will support.

SmBus:

That is easily the worst, most fact less argument for higher taxes I have ever heard.

If you want 75% taxes, please move to France and tell me how your life is in 5 years. I would like to keep the money I earn.

trust2112

RTW laws do nothing for workers, what it needs is to be called "Right to fire without due cause."

It also means right to quit if you don't like the job. It goes both ways.

I don't see why everyone is getting their panties in a twist over this, if unions are so wonderful this will mean nothing since people will be falling all over themselves to join one right?

NON,

Freedom comes with responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to take care of the country we have.

You may not benefit from everything the government does, but that was my point. You can't cherry pick. You get the whole thing. The political system has created the government and it's spending. That's your society. You have to pay for it. You and your representatives can argue about what to fund or not, but you can't just not pay for it once they have created it. Taxes are part of that. Sorry.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

1 in 4
American workers make less than $10/Hr., $400/Wk.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060731085204AAVCOH5

Nice cut and paste Dennis

The complete reply...which also 6 years old.

How many Americans make Minimum Wage?

30 Million. 1 out of 4 make less than 10.00 an hour. Who are they-Security guards, Nurses Aids, Paramedics (shocking), Nursing home helpers, Teacher's Aides the list goes on and on.

So if we assume a population of over 300 million then less than 10% of the population earns minimum wage. However, if we assume a workforce of around 167 million then roughly 18% of workers earn minimum wage. Now how many of these workers are new to the workforce and this is an entry level position?

1 in 4 American workers make less than $10/Hr., $400/Wk.

Dennis,

People making $20,800 per year are the target of RWNJ's demonizing them for paying NO income tax!

I dare any of them to try to keep a roof over their head and food on the table for their families making that kind of wage!

PS: Anyone seen Roy? Still waiting for him to answer a simple question...

record welfare and food stamps under obama going into his 5th year and the 7th straight year of Dem-majority government

own your PROGRESSIVE FAILURE you left-wing nutjobs!

Let's set this straight for once. 4.1% of the population are on welfare. I do not think think this a problem.

To educate you, here is a great website.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Sm

And my point is, when the mob is ruling, and by mob I mean the 50% of Americans who DON'T pay into the system, and receive 80% of the goods, I have a problem and so should you.

I understand paying taxes is part of being an American, but it should be a SMALL part, not 40%... When my money is paying for someones 6th abortion , and to you use term "cherry picking" companies so they don't go through Bankruptcy like every other company would, then YES I have a problem. This government is WAY out of control in it's spending and that is what we revolted against in the first place.... Taxation without Representation. When I'm not getting 40% of every dollar I EARN worth of government services, I have a VERY valid claim to stand up about it.

Looks like the FR proletariat mob is on the march today, yelling, screaming, and waving their pitchforks and torches, shouting "Off with his head!!!!". I know because I can see them down in the town through the crenels in my gas grilling castle tower as I prepare my lunch.

LMFAO!!!!!

Life is good.

Enjoy.

ROY WILSON-336103

Nonsense. Studies show that 'Right-to Work' States consistently have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment rates than 'Forced Unionization' States.

You're the one spouting nonsense. Even Fox News admits (accidentally) that workers in right-to-mooch-off-unions states make $7,000 LESS than workers in states where mooching off unions is not a right. Note the second screen shot down that they took from a Fox News video at this link:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/11/foxs-camerota-twice-repeats-false-claim-about-s/191798

Alan,

Again I understand and I was trying to get my point across without sounding like a Marxist, apparently I failed. The debate you and I are having, is not what RTW addreses, but it is what the employers are telling you it does.

We can argue the spectrum a Free market Labor vs a Socialized one but RTW does not help that debate. At least between employer and employee. The only thing I can see RTW legislation promoting is a fight between wage earners themselves.

As to your direct question I think the propper mix is something in the middle. Increased pay should be some combination of time of service (experience) and ability/effort

NON,

I made an completely coherent argument for higher taxes, you're just not reading.

High tax rates make deductible activities worth more. Hiring, for example costs an employer only 50 cents on the dollar with a 50% tax rate. Carry that forward, and a 75% tax rate makes that employee cost only 25 cents on the dollar. No wonder when tax rates were 90%, the middle class did so well--rich people were forced to reinvest in the workforce.

We had a 91% top marginal rate in the 1950's. Things were going pretty well here then, don't you think? I agree that's probably too punitive, but 50% isn't, and even 70% isn't for ridiculously high income numbers, like $50Million in a year. Easy to avoid it too, just start a business with a bunch of deductible expenses! Hows that for motivation for job creation! Otherwise, that guy could just keep the money in the bank and not invest it at all (or buy stocks of other existing companies). That doesn't create anything.

Alan,

The only COPY (not cut) and paste was the link

You make assumptions that you cannot support

Huskergal,

about 15% of Americans are on Food Stamps.... a far cry from your 4.1% nonsense. Join us in reality please.

SmBus,

The only argument you made on taxes was an argument for redistribution and socialism... Lets find a way to take away the rich peoples money... Again please move to France and enjoy.

SmBusOwnreinNY-

I have been enjoying your posts this morning. Your analysis of the Michigan debacle is excellent!

Great posts, SmBus.

Couple things to add;

1. Governor Snyder is on record saying he would not take up this controversial subject in 2012.

2. The state legislature rammed the law through in 8 hours with no debate because it's a lame-duck session.

3. The state legislature will change in January, where the Democrats would have had enough votes to defeat the bill.

4. No one can be forced to join a union now. The law dates back to to Truman Presidency.

5. A person doesn't have to join a union, but if they want to have the same rights as someone who is in a union, then they have to pay a fee, (which covers the costs of lawyer fees) so that they can have the same employment conditions as someone who is a union member.

I hope the good people of Michigan will realize that this legislation signed by the Governer is the equivalent to buying a used car. If they want to try it, then it's "buyer beware". Hopefully, after about 6 mounths, they will realize they have made a huge mistake, and go back to union jobs.

I hope by 2014 the Governor, the Republican legislature, will all be voted out of office and this bill will be overturned.

This bill is 100% For the Koch Brothers, by the Koch Brothers, and is a continuing effort to keep wages down, oppress the middle class, and keep our economy for gaining momentum.

We are a consumer society, and if consumers have no extra income, they won't consume, and the economy will not recover.

We should be demanding to be payed MORE, not less, and we should continue the fight to stop the oppressors like the Koch Brothers.

Salud

We can argue the spectrum a Free market Labor vs a Socialized one but RTW does not help that debate. At least between employer and employee. The only thing I can see RTW legislation promoting is a fight between wage earners themselves.

But that is the majority position for the private sector of the US, and always has been.

I actually think RTW is pretty irrelevant in today's labor market. Look at my post of a union activist's comments. The only place unions are relevant right now is in the public sector. If their negotiators continue to get the current contracts then there will be simply be more municipal bankruptcies.

okay i've heard you can opt out of the political donation coming out of your dues. I've read about you don't have to join the unions but you have to pay for their negotiating. so either way they got your money. so other than political backing what can a union do that osha or aclu for example can't do? back in the 70s i worked for a place that went union and lasted about a year before going bankrupt. they simply were not big enough to pay union wages but they did pay well. maybe pro-union people should look at how many 2%ers there are in the union leaders. i agree the unions did alot for work safty and pay way back in the day. i would also like to know why the dems on here are the first to call names and call people liars and most of all why so anal about punctuation. maybe you should complain to the teachers union.

LOL you clowns and your hate for the Koch brothers is too funny.

SmBus:

Do you hear yourself? Your only idea is to impose taxes so high it will FORCE people to do something YOU want them to do with THEIR money...

THEY earned this money, yet you think it's YOUR right to FORCE them to do what YOU want them to do with it.... Dictator much?? Entitled much?

You nor the Government has the right to force people to do something with their money.

NON, you're not paying 40%. I make $238,000 last year and paid 19% in Federal income taxes. No special deals there, that's just the rate married with 4 dependents. I even had to take the standard deduction to avoid AMT.

"Out of control spending" is poison somebody has fed you to make you mad and vote for them. Stop being a shill. Think it through. Obama isn't going to take anything from you, whether it's your guns or your money. It's the other guys that are going to make you pay down the road--by taking away some of the SS you've been paying for all your life, or making you wait 2 more years to get Medicare. Those guys are going to take something away form you.

Yes, NON,

I'm saying they should be forced (strongly incentivized through taxation policy) to reinvest their money in the society that allowed them to make the money in the first place.

They can invest the money any way they want. Personally, I'd like to say you don't get any deductions if you send the money overseas to build a new factory in China, but those are details. Generally, if you spend the money in a manner that is deductible according to law, you wouldn't have to pay ANY tax on that income. Simple.

If "out of control spending" is just a figment of my imagination please explain how our national debt went from 10T to 16T in 4 years? Please explain how most of the major entitlement programs are going to be non sustainable in a few short years. I would REALLY like to hear what you have to say about this. Please tell me how we are going to pay for all that borrowed money.

Secondly you are apparently too naive to realize everything you buy is taxed.... This means that your total tax rate is not 19%. When you add in the taxes you pay for food, gas, alcohol, and EVERYTHING else you purchase it is MUCH higher.

These are simple facts that apparently you have not realized, or just choose to leave out of your argument...

NoN Socialist/Marxist-

LOL you clowns and your hate for the Koch brothers is too funny.

Looks like we've hit the right nerve, as evident by the amount of bloggers on this site supporting the Koch Brother's agenda.

You nor the Government has the right to force people to do something with their money.

Unless of course, they are breaking the law.

Salud

SmBus,

Are you really just Elizabeth Warren? Society ALLOWED people to make money. That is the biggest load of crap ever. You are slowly taking off your mask, proving your nothing more than a socialist in democrats clothing.

"Out of control spending" is poison somebody has fed you to make you mad and vote for them.

So you don't think that there is an issue with the unfunded liabilities of Medicare caused by the demographics of the Baby Boomers? I tell you the CBO and Medicare Trustees should stop spreading the poison.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April (article dated 11/26/2012), the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html

Thomas,

I totally agree, if people are breaking the law by ALL means punish them. The FACT is that all the examples provided by you and SmBus are NOT breaking ANY laws. I asked for the illegal acts of Walmart, which was brought up several times, and the answer is none...

Hating people for their success is about as low as it gets. Rise above...

NON,

You nor the Government has the right to force people to do something with their money.

Actually, that's not true, the government can make you pay taxes. They can confiscate it if you don't give it to them freely, and you might even go to jail.

Again, you can wish that you can shirk your duty as a citizen of this country, but you can't.

For me, it's actually patriotic to pay taxes. I felt pretty good about paying over $40K in taxes. there were some years I paid zero, so it's all give an take. We're part of a society, and we're in this together. I didn't fight in a war, but I pay my taxes.

Looks like the FR proletariat mob is on the march today

LMFAO!!! and the Royal Fool and Idiot extraorinaire Fisty leading the charge.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Walmart actually COSTS the government money with its employment policies. They pay so low that the vast majority of their employees can claim food stamps and the earned income tax credit.

I could not agree with you more!

the people who bitch about food stamps recipients being free loaders are the same people who believe in companies like Wal-Mart having the right to earn profit at whatever cost.

The same people people who bitch about food stamps recipients are the people who buy their cheap, Chinese crap at Wal-Mart.

Yes, Wal-Mart has the right to pay non-living wage but those working there - whether by choice or out of need - are human beings just like the rest of us. For working, they deserve basic things like access to healthcare and the ability to feed their families.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart, and have not in years. My money supports local, small stores and banks. But I have no problem with the fact that Wal-Mart employees seek state funded healthcare or food stamps. It is unimaginable that, in the richest country in the world, people don't earn enough to pay for rent or food. It's sad and it's embarrassing.

NON,

I don't "hate success". What the h*ll are you talking about? This is more talking point BS you've been FED by someone. Think for yourself, man.

When I complained about Walmart, I said the owners were underpaying workers, who had to go on food stamps and collect earned income tax credits from the government. Those are PAYMENTS the government makes to low income people. Walmart is CAUSING the thing you complain about--people being takers. Not illegal, but YOU and I are PAYING for Walmart's employees. That's not right, and it sure isn't about "hating success."

Backhouse

In Depth research shows that businesses that move to Texas either would have closed or sent the jobs overseas if they had not moved to a right to work state.

Real In Depth research would show that those companies were losing money before they moved.

IF they didn't increase their bottom line, then they would not exist.

You are taking a measurement of success and making it look worse than it really is.

ALAN, don't get me started on the boomers. I'm an X-er and I'm screwed.

That said, I think most of the demographic problems with SS can be solved by simply allowing the general fund to return the favor to the SS trust fund by allowing it to borrow from the general fund for a while. The general fund has been borrowing money for 30 years, I don't see a problem with loaning money back for a while until the boomer bubble passes through.

Accounting for the future unfunded liabilities for 75 years is worthless. It's just somebody who wants to put a ridiculously high number on the screen. How much do you think it's going to cost to put a seawall around Florida in 200 years?

SmBus,

Lets look at this logically for a second. Your solution here is to take people who are HUGELY successful in business, and take 75% of their earnings. Then give it to a Government, that has 0 business savy, and is RIPE with waste. Do you really not see the idiocy in that?

That is like taking a person with no real life job experience, and voting them in as the President... wink wink, nudge nudge...

I'm still waiting on answers to my "spending problem" questions.

Bayllie,

Embarrassing is right.

If this right to mooch -- I mean "work" -- is so wonderful, then why is Governor Snyder denying this precious right to the firefighters and police of Michigan? My guess is that the cops and firefighters view it for what it would be: an attempt to destroy their unions. But Snyder doesn't want to destroy those particular unions because they contribute to the Republican Party rather than the Democrats.

Isn't that right, Alan N.J., Joe HAHAHA, Roy Wilson et al., or do you have a better explanation for this selective imposition of the new law that only affects unions that support the Democrats?

I think we can all agree with the premise that Democrats don't hate success.

I think we can all agree that people who are successful in business, who obtained their success through scrupulous ways, or through cheating, lying, and breaking the law, should be held accountable.

I think there are many successful business people who would agree that the middle class are getting the shaft, and they are willing to help.

I think there are many Americans who just want to make a decent, fair wage, and by fair I mean getting paid what they are worth per their education, and job experience.

That is how I define "fair".

Salud

NON Socialist/Marxist

I asked for the illegal acts of Walmart, which was brought up several times, and the answer is none...

well, WalMart is not breaking any laws (except the times they got caught hiring Illegal Immigrants to save on labor costs like OT or healthcare; or the times they were sued for forcing people to work off the clock) but the point it that WalMart is a prime example of a big box bully.

Take you beautifully manicured lawn, dig a whole in the middle of it, plant a gigantic tree and watch how quickly everything under that tree dies. When stripped of nutrients, everything dies. Wal-Mart is that life killing tree.

Wal-Mart does not care about their employees, and the community it's in; all they care about is the bottom line, and the $317 million Crystal Bridges museum to pat themselves on the back and say: "we are wonderful humanitarians" while they work their employees 35hrs a week to deny them basic health insurance.

You keep defending companies like Wal-Mart. Maybe someday your kids will be "lucky" enough to work there as adults.

So, fewer people working but making better than average wages is a better path forward? Give the state and the cities and the private sector the options to create jobs, get people working, and grow the economy. Obviously, what was on the books previously wasn't working.

SmBusOwnerinNY,

Like TomasGrande, I am enjoying your posts this morning. But with Non, you're talking to a head-high wall that even a laser can't penetrate. Wal-Mart is a bigger "taker" than all the people on Welfare combined, not least of all because their actions contribute to people being on Welfare.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Embarrassing is right.

one out of 5 kids is uninsured. 34% of kids live in poverty. You would think that I am talking about some third world country but I am talking about Texas...

bayllie,

You get what you ask for... Vote for Obamacare and watch healthcare costs rise. Companies are formed for ONE goal, to be profitable... When things like Obamacare threaten profitability, you will see more and more companies cutting full time hours. Liberals always want liberal policy, but don't want to deal with the nasty aftertaste. You can blame the company all you want, but they are just reacting to policy.

My company was slated to build 5 facilities in the US over the next 5 years, but with Obamacare now all that investment is going over seas. You can blame the company but the true blame lies elsewhere.

one out of 5 kids is uninsured. 34% of kids live in poverty. You would think that I am talking about some third world country but I am talking about Texas...

California and Detroit are far worse... Enjoy liberalism.

NON,

I didn't say ANYthing about taking the money or giving it to the government.

You do understand how tax deductions work don't you?

Say you have a company that has $100 million coming in (sales). Your regular cost of business is $80 million, leaving you $20M in profit. The $80M is deductible expense. You NEVER had pay tax on that under any tax policy. You only pay tax on the $20M earned profit.

Now, if you have $20M in profit and have a 10% tax rate, you'd pay $2M to Uncle Sam and keep $18M. If there was a 75% tax rate you'd pay $15M tax and keep $5M. With me?

To avoid paying tax, you could spend some or all of that $20M on deductible things--say a new machine or a bunch more people to sell your product. If you spent all 20million you'd have 100% deductions and pay NO TAX no matter what the tax rate is.

At the 10% tax rate, all the reinvestment effort would be made to save $2M. Why bother? Just keep the money.

On the other hand, if the tax rate was 75%, or 90%, you have a much better incentive to reinvest some or all of the $20M to avoid paying $15M or $18M in tax.

Investing in your own company saves tax. It's never confiscated by the government--it incentivizes you to reinvest your money, or else you will then be taxed if you don't.

Clare of KMCO

Your percentage method of recievers of federal aid is really skewed. Not only that, but there is an uneven spread of where defense money goes. A larger portion of that goes to Texas, Georgia , Louisiana, Virginia, and North Dakota were they have a larger than normal number of military bases and military supply manufacturing.

Actual dollars is a much better indicator. California receives by far the most in federal spending Dollars.

1. California $260 Billion Population 36 Million (#1)

2. Texas - $171 Billion - Population 24 Million (#2)

3. New York - $157 Billion Population 19 Million (#3)

4. Florida - $147 Billion - Population 18 Million (#4)

5. Pennsylvania - $117 Billion - Population 12.4 Million (#6)

6. Virginia - $110 Billion - Population 7.7 Million (#12 )

7. Ohio - $105 Billion - Pop. 11.4 Million (#7)

8. Illinois - $88 Billion - Pop. 12.8 Million (#5)

9. Michigan - $71.6 Billion - Pop 10.1 Million (#8)

10. Georgia - $71.1 Billion - Pop. 9.5 Million (#9)

Of the Top 10 benefactors of Federal money only Georgia and Texas voted for Romney.

NON,

My company was slated to build 5 facilities in the US over the next 5 years, but with Obamacare now all that investment is going over seas. You can blame the company but the true blame lies elsewhere.

I call BS. Obamacare is an excuse. 1 or 2% expense doesn't make a company decide to move overseas. It's the non-union $1/hour labor.

Now, if that were not a deductible expense to your company, it would be much less likely to happen, Obamacare or not!

Democrats tried to make such things non-deductible business expenses as a matter of law in 2010. Guess who blocked that? House Republicans.

Am I getting through to you yet?

NON Socialist/Marxist

You get what you ask for... Vote for Obamacare and watch healthcare costs rise.

I live in the RomneyCare land so you want scare me with the "evil" ObamaCare...somehowm my healthcare premiums have only increased a few dollars a month plus I get reimburstment if my ins does not spent the required 88% on non-admin expenses ...

BTW, since 1999 to 2008, health insurance premium have doubled in the nation - premiums went from about 6K for a family plan to about 12k while the number of INSURED went down.

Costs were going up WAY BEFORE you even heard of Barack Obama so please spare me your propaganda...

Dude what your not understanding is I GET what your saying.... I just disagree with the government setting up a system where I pay 75% in taxes unless I do what THEY want me to with MY money.

Look instead of banging my head against the wall trying to argue with useless sheep, why don't I do this.

I know this GREAT place that has been doing ALL the things you want for years. They over tax people, make sure EVERYONE has health insurance, pay GREAT wages with lots of vacation and you can even retire super early... It's called GREECE... They have a lovely coast, and a few riots right now but I am SURE that will pass. Why don't you and your socialist buddies just move to a place you would consider paradise? Then we can stop arguing about socialist policy here in the US?

Thanks Jack,

I'm writing for me (and you, and the rest my FR friends) as much as any of the rightwads. I know NON is too far gone. He doesn't even realize he's a shill. Funny, I don't see much refutation of my points in any coherent manner. You'd think there'd be somebody.

(I'm really just procrastinating on a report I have to write, but since I'm the boss I have the freedom to f*ck off when I want to!)

Best to all....

DB Akron

California receives by far the most in federal spending Dollars.

according yto your chart, take VA for example, and divide what they recieve in $ by the population and tell me how it compares to CA. Then let me know if CA still recieves the "most."

DB Akron

Clare of KMCO

Your percentage method of recievers of federal aid is really skewed. Not only that, but there is an uneven spread of where defense money goes. A larger portion of that goes to Texas, Georgia , Louisiana, Virginia, and North Dakota were they have a larger than normal number of military bases and military supply manufacturing.

Actual dollars is a much better indicator. California receives by far the most in federal spending Dollars.

1. California $260 Billion Population 36 Million (#1)

2. Texas - $171 Billion - Population 24 Million (#2)

3. New York - $157 Billion Population 19 Million (#3)

4. Florida - $147 Billion - Population 18 Million (#4)

5. Pennsylvania - $117 Billion - Population 12.4 Million (#6)

6. Virginia - $110 Billion - Population 7.7 Million (#12 )

7. Ohio - $105 Billion - Pop. 11.4 Million (#7)

8. Illinois - $88 Billion - Pop. 12.8 Million (#5)

9. Michigan - $71.6 Billion - Pop 10.1 Million (#8)

10. Georgia - $71.1 Billion - Pop. 9.5 Million (#9)

Of the Top 10 benefactors of Federal money only Georgia and Texas voted for Romney.

Don't scare these people with facts.

I call BS. Obamacare is an excuse. 1 or 2% expense doesn't make a company decide to move overseas. It's the non-union $1/hour labor.

You can call BS on whatever you want, facts are facts. And the FACTS are companies like J&J, Stryker, and others have ALL had layoffs since the election..... I am SURE this is all coincidental right? Ask ANY medical device company and they will SHOW you that it is more like a 10-15% overall tax, not 1-2.

Companies had a plan A and a plan B, when Obama won they had to go with plan B which includes layoffs and moving investment overseas.

NON,

I'm just saying that it would be good for the country. Money reinvested at the choice and discretion of the people with the money. It's still theirs. Why is that wrong? What they're doing with the money now isn't helping the country at all. It's being sent to a bank in Switzerland. It's stupid and should be discouraged.

What's going on now clearly isn't working, and even you'd agree.

It's my country too, and I want it to work. I'm not bailing for anywhere. Hell, I buy all of my parts, equipment, and supplies made in the USA unless it just isn't made here. I don't think bailing for the Cayman Islands should be allowed, and bailing to manufacture in China or Mexico should be highly discouraged--in the tax code.

That Facebook guy that bailed for Indonesia is a rat-b*astard. Rat=b*astard companies should be treated like the rotten "people" they are. But if "everybody does it" and it's viewed as just fine to shirk on your duty to your own country, guess what's going to happen?

I assure you the Chinese aren't doing that to themselves.

Isn't that right, Alan N.J., Joe HAHAHA, Roy Wilson et al., or do you have a better explanation for this selective imposition of the new law that only affects unions that support the Democrats?

No idea what you are talking about. From what I can see this union is supporting the Democrats

Michigan Association of Fire Fighters

This current State legislature has continually attacked our health care benefits, pensions and restricted our right to collect retroactivity. What is more shocking to me is the vote on all of these issues are along party lines with the Republicans voting for this legislation with the Democrats voting against. Many of our members are Republicans and have supported GOP candidates in the past. Is this our thanks?

Act 63 of 2011 reduced our defined benefit pensions. This bill was buried in the series of bills in the Governor's budget and appropriations bills. This bill limits our multiplier to 1.5%. We can go to 2.0% if we are not in Social Security. Seventy-two percent of police and fire in this state are not in Social Security. Decades ago many communities opted out of Social Security for their police and firefighters in an effort to save money. At that time Social Security laws permitted public employers to do so. Now this legislature wants to trim our pensions even further by reducing our multipliers.

Act 63 also puts limitations on what can be included in average final compensation. I guess it wasn't enough to tax our pensions.

http://www.maff.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:letter-from-the-director-

Dude, tax on profit doesn't affect the underlying business. You have to be profitable to pay any tax. If you're not profitable (for a while), you'll go out of business, otherwise going out of business when profitable is a choice.

Layoffs and hiring happen all the time at every company. Somebody that says they are closing or moving overseas "because of" Obamacare is using it as an excuse. The economics are marginal.

If moving overseas wasn't a tax deductible event, no one would do it. Thank House Republicans for voting down the rule that would have made expenses for moving overseas not tax deductible.

Answer me this: why on earth would the US Government, we, SUBSIDIZE a company moving overseas with the tax code?

Small Business

A 20% profit in a public company is a fantasy.

Here's a Forbes article with average profits per businesses.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2011/02/10/the-most-profitable-small-businesses/

Note: Doctors area at 10% and under the ACA, those with medicare are already sporting a 25% less than the cost of service will climb to 33%.

Here is another average profits group from CNN.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/performers/industries/profits/

only two industries are higher than 20% - Mining and communications (includes computers & software).

Now a little quick math. Wages and Benefits typically runs between 25% and 50% of costs. The average is about 33%. Benefits are typically 33% of total wages except in jobs that pay less than $10.00 per hour or are part time.

The ACA is projected by insurance companies to cost an addtional 30 - 45%. That means that Health insurance is going to cost an additional 5 - 15% more to the cost of operations.

The question is will those companies be able to absorb the ACA mandates in 2014. The answer is certainly not if they cannot increase prices by most to all of the cost increases, or reducing their workforces.

What I am hearing is up to a 10% decrease in employees AND up to 15% more added to the price of products and services.

Your 20% profit example is just silly.

Non socialist.

Be aware that the feeling in the economy is bases on what the bare majority feels. That majority did vote for Obama. Those who didn't will cut back, and those that did will continue to move forward with expansion.

Only half of businesses are really active in politics. The half that isn't active simply works soley on the basis of reading the market and reacting.

about 15% of Americans are on Food Stamps.... a far cry from your 4.1% nonsense. Join us in reality please.

What you are not realizing is that a total of 4.1% of the populations is on welfare. That means only 4.1% of the population do not work, but collects money to live. Food stamps also go to people who have jobs but do not make enough money so qualify for food stamps.

Your percentage method of recievers of federal aid is really skewed. Not only that, but there is an uneven spread of where defense money goes. A larger portion of that goes to Texas, Georgia , Louisiana, Virginia, and North Dakota were they have a larger than normal number of military bases and military supply manufacturing.

Federal aid is not necessarily all welfare. It goes to public fundings as well, such as schools. libraries, utilities, roads, parks and recreations. We do tend to blur lines and skewered views.

NON, AGAIN,

You're counting ONE side of the equation. You have to look at BOTH sides.

Here's a nice article on fiscal transfers by state:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Nice and legit: the economist

Federal taxes collected vs spending received.

Not until state number 9 on the list do you get a "red" state.

There are 20 "giver" states (pay more than they get), 1 neutral state, and 30 "taker" states (includes Puerto Rico).

Of the 20 "giver" states, how many do you think are Red? 4, yep, 4. 16 to 4 blue to red ratio

Of the 30 "taker" states, how many are Red? 21, yep, 21. 9 to 21 blue to red ratio

Aren't there Republican voting Americans who are members of unions?

Aren't there unemployed Republican voters who had to file for unemployment benefits for a couple months?

Aren't there Republican voting Americans who get Social Security?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

Perhaps if they think these programs are "socialism", then they should donate the money towards paying down the debt.

Salud

DB,

20% was just easy math. I could have made it 10%, but the points are the same. Low taxes promote taking your marbles and going home. High taxes encourage reinvestment.

The ACA is projected by insurance companies to cost an addtional 30 - 45%.

I find that hard to believe. Got a reference for that?

Now, on the other hand, my HDHP has gone up 20% two years in a row before ACA, so who know what the baseline is. 30% over several years might not be so crazy (and perhaps less painful than it was going to be). That was the idea after all, coverage for everybody would cost less overall than 15% of the population not paying for health insurance at all (again with the shirking theme)

First of all, the White House DID offer spending cuts of $400B...not sure why McConnell is complaining. Secondly, does the GOP realize that when they speak of "government spending," that also includes them!! They have put in so many "pork" projects, voted many times for bills that were voted on before (ACA, for example), and wasted their share of taxpayer money!! It irks me that they seem to think that it's only the Democrats that are on a spending binge. Democrats, in the past, have been the ones who have spent the most conservatively compared to Republicans!! If President Obama gave them ALL they wanted.....they'd still want more!! It's ridiculous!

@NON

And my point is, when the mob is ruling, and by mob I mean the 50% of Americans who DON'T pay into the system, and receive 80% of the goods, I have a problem and so should you.

I don't think you get it. We (as in many liberals) do have a problem with them not paying taxes. Our answer is that we would like people to be paid more so they CAN pay taxes!

Also, when you said Walmart is not doing anything illegal, you beautifully contradicted your own point that unions are not needed because certain things they achieved have been written into law now.

Oh, and $10/hr is NOT $30k a year. Assuming a 40hr work week, it's only just over $20k. When my wife and I were earning $50-55k between us we had to give up things most people take for granted (like a car) and live in a fairly iffy, transitional, neighborhood in order to be able do other things like going for a beer every now and then. And that is median income.

This bill is 100% For the Koch Brothers, by the Koch Brothers, and is a continuing effort to keep wages down, oppress the middle class, and keep our economy for gaining momentum.

We are a consumer society, and if consumers have no extra income, they won't consume, and the economy will not recover

EXACTLY! The bottom 50% who allegedly do not pay taxes don't make enough $ to do so. But what about the top 2% or those corporations --the wealthy billionares--who also DO NOT PAY TAXES? Hmmmmm? The wealthy takers (how much is ever enough for them?) are shooting themselves in the foot--because without the middle class consumer the economy will never recover.

BTW I did not want to pay for those 2 Wars Bush started and kept off the books--so I guess the Government does force people to do something with our money, doesn't it?

After reading the above posts, thank you liberals for proving beyond doubt progressivism is just another word for fascism.

"To which I might add, wait for the BOOT on your turkey neck..." and other threats of violence prove that when progressives lose through normal channels they take to the streets enforcing mob rule. Violence, threats, intimidation, etc. are all fascist tools to enforce their rule on an unwilling populace.

To all the liberals who say this was done without debate in the middle of the night, I guess you forgot about how Obamacare was passed. What goes around comes around, deal with it.

RTW IS about freedom. Most unions support democrats, I do not want one dime of my money going to any powerful organization that supports those I oppose. That is freedom. Likely half of union members are republican, why should any one of them be forced to support an organization that the antithesis of their beliefs?

In typical left wing fascist style, we are supposed to pay whether we like it or not because it is good for us in the long run. In other words they demand the right to our money because THEY have decided what's right for us. Who the hell do they think they are!

And feisty calling out trolls? Wow is that a laugh. She is the biggest troll of all, on most every thread, many times the first poster, spewing her hate filled leftist propaganda like the above quote.

Unions are failing for the same reason most socialist endeavours eventually fail, they punish success and reward failure. You are really motivated and crank out the work? Sorry you still make the same as the lazy slug beside you. Short of raping the bosses daughter or child molestation will you ever be fired? Not likely, and even in those cases you will likely only be suspended with full pay while a union grievance is filed. Teacher abuse stories are regularly reported on but the same crap goes on with all unions.

Also like most socialist endevours they inevitably promise more than they can deliver, leading to eventual collapse. Is there any real difference between Greece and GM? In one case government caved in to demands without regard to how it would be funded, in the other case executives caved in to demands without regard to how it would be funded. Both ended up in the same boat when realty reared it's ugly head.

And progressive use of statistics is pathetic. RTW states pay less? Their cost of living is also less. They get more federal aid? CA gets huge sums from the feds for multiple military bases, ports, military contractors, etc. Trying to boil an extremely complex issue like this down to one or two numbers is beyond stupid.

Reality is in the numbers that really count. The UAW regularly tries to unionize the south and regularly fails. That's the bottom line. Unions have declined from a majority of workers to about 8% of the private sector. That's the bottom line. When WI's law passed AFSCME went from 58,000 members down to 29,000. That's the bottom line.

The real issue for progressives is loss of money and the power it brings. And as many above posts have shown, they are openly advocating violence and even murder to regain that power. Pathetic.

Too add, another point Non missed is a 75% tax will NEVER exist. It is not the way a MARGINAL system works. The extra taxes you mention including consumption taxes are irrelevant because poor people pay them too and in almost all cases those taxes are a greater % of income for a poor person compared to a rich one.

If the highest rate was 50-70% only EXCESSIVE earnings would hit that bracket. For instance it would be most likely everything up to 500k will be taxed at 40% or below and only earning ABOVE 800k-1mil+ will see those higher rates leaving an effective tax much less than 75% unless you were earning much over 1million dollars in ONE YEAR.

People earning that much money do not need tax relief, they are not small business owners, and taking the money will have NO impact on their business. It will only impact their lifestyle. It is the point that is trying to be drilled in to those on the right. The people this tax increases effect do not need the breaks. They have fooled you in to believing they do.

DB Akron

You must REALLY enjoy the PRETZEL position to come up with THAT set of statistics, eh?

Per capita, my friend, per capita.

Perhaps the RED states get all of those DOD contracts cuz' they are WARMONGERS? ha!

To narrow your scope to only DOD really trivializes your point. I'm talking about the FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAID, etc. Got to add it ALL up, there, buddy!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and on the Wal Mart deal from above,...hyperbole would be to limit it to only ONE violation - there is an entire website devoted to Wal Mart Infractions. A very dear friend of mine is an attorney with the EEOC and her entire docket for the past 15 years has been nothing but Wal Mart and she rarely loses.

So I'll sum it up with SYSTEMIC Worker Right violations

http://www.wal-martlitigation.com/

Valhalla you are clueless.. Two post advocated violence that I saw, that was it, if there was 1 or 2 more again that was it. I do not think unions are needed everywhere but for some very low paying jobs, yes they are.

I understand the concept that some jobs do not require a lot of skill, or the business does not make the money to pay a living wage. My arguments for those companies are different. The problem with a company like Wal Mart is you speak of billionaires with EXTREMELY high paid executives and outrageous profits. I am not saying write out a 50k check to every employee, but their stance towards any labor organization in combination with the way they squeeze work out of their employees says a lot.

I can agree to disagree with unions, but if you think opposing the style of business Wal Mart does makes me a fascist... well that says enough about you.

Valhalla,

I know there are 150+ posts, but I don't think your reading comprehension is quite there yet.

First of all, fascists are extremists of the right. Communists and Anarchists are extremists of the left. Any can be violent. Just because you're violent doesn't make you fascist.

ACA took 8 months to cobble together, and there was plenty of debate. the last of it was quick and dirty, but lots of legislation is completed like that. THIS one in Michigan was much more aptly described as "shoved down your throat" than ACA.

Again, anything I've said is not about "taking your money." First, it's not your money. Your country is trillions in debt, and you owe a part of it. That's just reality. Second, what I've suggested is just to encourage (force, if you will) people that earn a lot of money to use it in this country.

Regarding unionization and Wisconsin, yes, you're exactly right (if your numbers are correct anyway) that union membership went down by half. If that's not using government itself to decimate your political opposition, I don't know what is. That's anti-democratic, it's the most divisive thing a party in power can do, and it will come back to haunt all of us because that's the cause of back and forth retaliation that only ends in everybody in a worse spot. Even the rich are worse off if the middle class does not prosper.

RTW IS about freedom. Most unions support democrats, I do not want one dime of my money going to any powerful organization that supports those I oppose. That is freedom. Likely half of union members are republican, why should any one of them be forced to support an organization that the antithesis of their beliefs?

Then don't apply for those jobs where you would be represented by them. There ARE other jobs!

Clara,

See economist article about what states pay and get what. Very enlightening. Doesn't look good for the red states--bunch of takers they are. (or I guess depending on how you look at it, it's very good for the red states)

Better than even per capita, it's proportionate to the state's GDP, so it's probably even a little more generous to relatively unproductive states.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

two posts advocate violence and you minimize it Akeem? Funny if a repub or right leaning individual did it oh the humanity from the left. SMBuz owner thinks that fascism is strictly tied to republicans and the right however considering the discontent the left has for capitalism and guns (fascists), i guess one can correlate they, as in you lefties, bear similar attributes to fascists. Well today i saw a video of some reporter getting accosted by union rioters er i mean protestors. Yeah how peaceful and civilized. Funny how when the left gets out and protests, things get violent and then you have nerve to defend it.

CA,

Read a book.

Fascists are extremists of the right.

Anybody can be violent.

I didn't tie fascism to Republicans, and I didn't defend any violence.

CA I was responding to Vahalla saying we are all advocating violence... my opinion is those post went too far, you happy? I did not see anyone advocating that would rationalize the grandstanding he was doing and that you are doing now. Read my post, where did I advocate it? Now you have seen me speak against it. You claim the "lefties" would make a huge fit over it as YOU make a huge fit over it.

If that is true, why are wages lower in right to work states? Why are there no decent benefits? I believe there are good business owners who work at giving their employees a decent wage and decent benefits. I also believe that there are business owners who will cheat their employees at every turn and take advantage of them to the greatest degree possible.

As for going elsewhere if the wages are not competitive, there are a whole lot of places where one industry pretty much controls the town. There is no "elsewhere". That industry is pretty much the only game in town, so if they offer crap wages, crap wages is what you take. That argument just doesn't work. Has anyone noticed Walmart knocking themselves out to provide their employees with good wages and benefits?

Besides which, the closed shop does not require people to pay union dues, only to pay for the cost of negotiating wages and benefits, as the non-union employee is covered by the union contract. If the non-union employees wish to negotiate their pay and benefits separately from the union, let them. We'll see how well they do.

my opinion is those post went too far

Akeem,

Not sure if you are referring to my "boot on the neck" comment, I was only comparing it to Rand Paul's goons who physically carried out the act on an Obama supporter in 2010!

I didn't see the right wing nitwits condemning an actual act of violence then, yet, here they are pissing themselves over the friendly reminder...

If it wasn't for double standards, these clowns wouldn't have any!

PS: I enjoy your comments!

No Feisty, I actually wasn't. There were two post one that said oppressed people should take to the streets and another that doubled down on it.

I understand when you make those comments they are not literal, and I won't cut and paste to change intent. Some on the other side are not as considerate, so all I do on here is try to have a reasonable discussion with those on the right. As calm as I try to make my responses, I hit the backspace button quite often knowing even the slightest sneer will be taken as partisan ranting. Of course even I am probably to liberal for some.

As calm as I try to make my responses

Always appreciated amongst the sea of insanity! ☺

I enjoyed these comments too, with the exception of a few most were a sane discussion. I agree with Small Business almost a 100%. Quite a few others. Good topics.

I am on medicare, I go to the Dr he charges $140, I see him for about 10 minutes which includes my prescriptions that he writes as we speak. Electronic records, he types and my prescriptions are ready at Rite Aid before I get there. Now medicare only will pay for some of that, and it only pays 80% of what it deems to be proper charges. I pay 20% and it is under $20. The doctor writes the difference off as his loss. If I am uninsured I pay $140. If I am uninsured and poor I go to the free clinic, which is understaffed and under funded. The republican view of this is I get what I deserved, my bad choices, etc.

Think about it, who on this planet is worth $560 per hour? This countries health system is one of the worst, 38th in quality of care last time I checked the World Health Organization's web sight. Yet we have the privilege to be number one. IN COST. USA,USA,USA. Were number one in cost the the republican view of that is status quo, Don't change things. ObamaCares is a step toward lowering the cost of health care and the before mentioned electronic records will lower cost. I personally would rather everyone was folded into medicare, including congress, and the president. That move alone would lower the cost of health care in this country considerably. ObamaCares is not going to cost money in the long run, after the initial set up cost the cost of maintenance it is suppose to save this country 1.3 trillion dollars in the next decade, per C.B.O.

RTW GIVES workers the right to secure a job and CHOOSE to join a Union or not.

Liberals wants Women to choose to have a baby or not, but not let an American worker choose to join a Union? Hypocrisy?

I'm going to assume most of you guys don't do shift work in a RTW state. A long time ago I used to. From my own experience and stories from friends,I know that in RTW states,if the company thinks you and your co-workers are trying to go union you get fired. If you can get a majority together before they find out and call a vote your safe. But as soon as they think your going for that your out. I don't call that "getting to choose" to join the Union or not. Its a scam in RTW states that they allow Unions. Sure,if the company is OK with it.But that's not many. Otherwise its a battle to get unionized. You guys don't really think workers in RTW states don't want union scale wages and benefits do you,really? You don't really think workers down here think these shi& wages are just " peachy keen" and hate those mean Unions do you,really?

Clara - read the whole response. The percentages are due to disportionate military spending in facilities and Defense contractors resident in them.

Georgia & Texas have rather large military installations that are a staging areas for training personnel for overseas and debriefing them when they return. North and South Dakota area where the largest portion of our land based missles are kept. The Fed puts huge dollars into states bordering the mississippi river to maintain barge traffic and provide flood control for farmland and cities.

When you remove that spending then you can look per capita. The way you are presenting this as though the states money is from welfare, which earning defense installations and winning defense contracts is not welfare.