Moderator: Mod Squad
Please excuse me for saying so, but as funny as Jon Stewart is, he is not a very trustworthy source of information. For how moderate he claims to be, he's very firmly slanted to the Left and seems to shut out most if not all Right-wing ideas, and dismiss them as stupid. I've seen this a lot, and I know he picks fun at Democrats too, but he's not as critical of actual *policy* as he is with things that he can make jokes out of.Glahardt wrote:Conveniently leaving out the fact that Walker tried to remove collective bargaining rights completely.
RuffDraft wrote:Hey, someone needs to balance that fat fuck's scale.
RuffDraft wrote:I've just been under a lot of stress recently. It's nothing that you guys would be interested in hearing about, though.
Stanisław Lem wrote:I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet.
Within the video clip.RuffDraft wrote:Please excuse me for saying so, but as funny as Jon Stewart is, he is not a very trustworthy source of information.
Did you read the stuff after that? It says that there's a lot of stuff not taken into account in the study. It tries to suggest that most people in public sector jobs are basically overqualified for the jobs, and therefore when you "control" for education level (I'm not even sure how that exactly works--are they dividing them into categories or removing them from the picture?) private sector workers earn more. Doesn't this ignore the fact that the average public sector worker is paid substantially more and has almost iron-clad job security?Whatis6times9 wrote:Did you read the undercompensated part, Ruff? Have they factored in that many people don't want to work in public sector jobs as a reason to draw in workers with better benefits?
That amounts to a little over 40% of the state. I don't think public sector workers account for 40% of the state. But even if they did, how exactly did this plan punish his opponent's supporters? Forcing them to take a small pay cut? I thought they were government-employed workers and that their wage was influenced by how much the state can realistically pay them. Would you have preferred he raise everyone's taxes to cover that $3.6 billion deficit?Whatis6times9 wrote:Scott Walkers game wasn't about financial conservatism it was about hurting a group that supported his opponent,
First of all, the figure I read was $1 million in tax cuts; if you have something different, I'd like to see it. Second, the idea behind cutting taxes is that companies will have more capabilities to invest their money back into the company and could expand their production by hiring more people or building another factory. If that happens, revenues from taxes increase. Third, yes, teacher's unions are a problem; they seem to think that paying a teacher more and guaranteeing that they have a job helps children learn more. Studies have shown there is no correlation between education spending and test scores.Whatis6times9 wrote:it was funny that he could complain about how the teachers' union and the education system was bleeding the state after he passed 2.3 billion in tax cuts.
Okay so four of Walker's aides have been charged with, what specifically? Improperly reporting how much money they got and from where? And the Koch brothers admitted to donating $43,000 to his campaign. Are you saying it's wrong, morally? What are you suggesting this says about Walker's character?Whatis6times9 wrote:Walker is just in it for his own power trip, 4 of his former aides have been charged with campaign violations, the Koch brothers have pretty much admitted to trying to buy Walker's way into power, that sounds like a role model of a politician.
What would you suggest he do to cut $3.6 billion from the deficit? How can you expect him to cut spending without making tough, fiscally responsible decisions?Whatis6times9 wrote:And it's funny how for all of this he still has a budget shortfall and the tax cuts the state is actually in the red for employment gains.
The government IS the public sector. That's all "public sector" means. They are all government workers.Glahardt wrote:Whatever reason is, it's irrelevant. Taking away the collective bargaining rights is overdoing it. What else are they going to do when the cuts go above the limit? What's preventing the state government from utterly messing up the public sector? They've already agreed to taking cuts to their pay so why do it?
I actually posted it because I thought it was a horrible argument based on the 2 horribly flawed premises that violence is inextricably embedded in Middle Eastern culture and Western culture has a flawless record on protecting human rights. It is the kind of stuff you here from your racist grandpa.RuffDraft wrote:"...or in England, where it's the other way around." That line made me laugh so hard.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 4 guests