However you feel the need to justify it I guess. I think its pretty chickenshit of BOTH sides.
My folks? :D:rolleyes:
They should be compelled the same way any other citizen is compelled to follow the law when they are not.
Speaking of moral relativism…love the qualifier. Its certainly wrong in any case of Dems doing it, even possibly illegal! But when Reps do it, you leave the possibility open that it may not have been wrong. The difference in the situations is that in WI, you have hundreds of thousands of people protesting the Reps actions, but in the instance of the Reps it was simply a politically motivated ploy that not one person was protesting.
And the difference here is I believe they are both wrong, while you believe this instance is wrong, even illegal, whereas the Reps were “probably” wrong. I don’t think votes should be blocked in any case.
Dude, you are so full of it. I have no specifics of the case you cited beyond your claim of the case. I was basically agreeing with you, conditional upon it actually being true and that the laws in California regarding legislators attending are basically the same in WI. That is all. There is no moral relativism in my reply. In fact I was giving you a point, mostly.
Moral relativism is to me where you look at the results only and not the morality of how you got those results. The case of Republicans blocking DADT etc through legislative rules etc is MUCH MUCH different than what is happening in WI where the Democrat legislators seem to be breaking the law.
You people.
The main problems with the public sector are the generous pension and health care packages that can only be found in the private sector in companies that have gone bankrupt because of them, like GM and Chrysler.
It is pretty funny to watch these people freak out when asked to donate 5% of their pension. Out in the real world most people have to invest their own money into a 401k with an employer match and make other investments to protect themselves in their old age.
Whatever money they make starts to become lots more if you consider it can all be disposable with a generous pension fully paid for by the State.
The example you gave does not seem to have been “block[ing] the legislative process”. It seems to have been PART of the legislative process. These bodies have rules on how legislation is to be made and those rules allow bills to be blocked.
See, I’m against it when BOTH sides do it. Apparently you’re only cool with it when your side does it :suicide:
The law simply isn’t that clear cut in this case.
If you have no idea what you’re commenting on, how can you even comment on it?
Thats not even close to what moral relativism is.
Thats your opinion and thats fine. I think its wrong in both instances.
Except the unions have agreed to Walker’s provisions about providing more money to their pensions and healthcare, they just want to retain their collective bargaining rights.
Jon Erpenbach, said all state and local public employees – including teachers – have agreed to the financial aspects of Walker’s requested concessions on paying more for employee health care and pensions.
“In return they ask only that the provisions that deny their right to collectively bargain are removed,” Erpenbach said. “This will solve the budget challenge.”
But Walker has refused to negotiate at all.
The collective bargaining rights are how they ended up with such lavish benefit packages in the first place. Where is the disconnect? The election went the way it went because the citizens are tired of being blackmailed and held hostage by the “public service” unions.
And where in there are the republicans fleeing the state to avoid having to execute their constitutional duties?
It is as clear cut as many other laws that shaft common citizens. How does the state compel? They better start compelling.
If you have no idea what you’re commenting on, how can you even comment on it?
Easy, you provided enough information to provisionally allow me to agree with you. It is not hard.
Thats not even close to what moral relativism is.
Sure it is. There are lots of forms of moral relativism and the one I mentioned is tied to the idea of there not being any absolute right or wrong. It is a practical application of it.
I did do a little background research before I posted.
Thats your opinion and thats fine. I think its wrong in both instances.
Whatever you want. I would say my “opinion” is less “opinion” and more “fact” as the WI situation the legislators are in violation of the law it appears. The other situation is working within the system as given. That is pretty clear cut.
What lavish benefit packages? They’re ranked 28th in teacher pay in the nation.
And you can bet your ass none of these legislators are reducing their own pay or benefits! But Walker is sure gonna keep that tax cut for people making over $300,000!!! I think its quite obvious whats going on here, its straight up class warfare.
Go read the law on attendance for legislators and then read the law on DUI for example and you can really tell me they are both as clear cut? Really?
Thats quite different from “where you look at the results only and not the morality of how you got those results.”
See that phrase “it appears”? Thats your opinion. There is no precedent here and the law is not clear cut at all. In a way one could make the argument that they are working the system as given.
actually, no its not. It is basically the same thing.
See that phrase “it appears”? Thats your opinion. There is no precedent here and the law is not clear cut at all. In a way one could make the argument that they are working the system as given.
The law seems to be pretty clear cut to everyone but the democrats.
??? Cutting taxes that affect everyone (I seriously doubt that they passed a tax cut that is only valid for those making over $300k) is not “class warfare”
“the idea of there not being any absolute right or wrong”
is the same thing as
“where you look at the results only and not the morality of how you got those results.”
Its two completely different statements. :blink:
But the basis behind them is the same. They come from the same line of thinking.
If you only care about the results, and not the morality of the path there, you have no moral framework through which you are working. Same idea as having no moral framework to base right or wrong. You have no moral framework through which you are working.
In all fairness, he didn’t pass it yet. Just a campaign promise.
Cut income taxes for the top one percent – people earning more than $225,000 [“UpFront”, WISN-TV, 11/8/09; La Crosse Tribune, 11/24/09; “Here and Now,” Wisconsin Public Television, 9/17/10; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 07/08/09]
Just one list of promises in a line of tax cuts that add up to a 3.8 billion dollar deficit. So he’s taking money from the middle class to give to big business and the wealthy. Great move.
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/10/tracking-walkers-tax-cut-promises.html
$287 million – Cut income taxes for the top one percent – people earning more than $225,000 [“UpFront”, WISN-TV, 11/8/09; La Crosse Tribune, 11/24/09; “Here and Now,” Wisconsin Public Television, 9/17/10; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 07/08/09]
• $187 million – Reopen the “Las Vegas Loophole” which allows multi-state businesses to shelter their tax obligations from Wisconsin by opening phantom “offices” in state without [“UpFront”, WISN-TV, 11/8/09; La Crosse Tribune, 11/24/09; “Here and Now,” Wisconsin Public Television, 9/17/10; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 02/23/09]
• $920 million – Shelter the assets of the wealthiest Wisconsinites even more by a radical end to tax on retirement income, regardless of income. [La Crosse Tribune, 11/24/09; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 01/25/10]
• $243 million – Repeal changes made to the capital gains tax deduction, despite that 70 percent of capital gains filings are from those making more than $200,000 a year [La Crosse Tribune, 11/24/09; “Here and Now,” Wisconsin Public Television, 9/17/10; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 07/08/09]
• $1.032 billion – Transfer $1.032 billion from the general fund to the transportation fund, creating a $1.032 deficit in the general fund [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/20/10; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 09/12/10]
• $892 million - Phase out hospital assessment [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 09/12/10; Walker Press Release, 6/23/08, 5/21/09; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 2/23/09, 7/8/09]
• $159 million – End the estate tax, which only affects heirs and heiresses of the state’s largest fortunes. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/02/09; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 1/09]
• $35 million - Eliminate tax on private Health Savings Accounts, which are used primarily by those wealthy enough to save money in advance for future health problems. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 09/20/2010; Legislative Fiscal Bureau, AB74]
TOTAL COST: $3.8 billion.
Cutting taxes is not “giving” someone money. You can’t give someone something that wasn’t yours to begin with.
No.
Just because you only care about the results does not mean you have no moral framework. It just means you are willing to sacrifice your morals to get the political results you want.
But whatever, we can just agree to disagree on this minute, off topic point.
Oh jesus, now we’re going to argue semantics? :rolleyes:
Show me that he promised to give a tax cut to ONLY those making more than $225k. Not that a tax cut also would affect those making $225k. In the language of “journalists” what you quoted does not support the contention that he was giving a tax cut only to those making above $225k. Only that it would apply to those people.
In fact NONE of the things you listed (which I did not quote in total) show that he is passing laws that only affect the wealthy and are not applied to the the “middle class.” In fact the contention that Health Savings Accounts are only a tool of the wealthy is ludicrous! We have a health savings account and are only lower middle class. Most people should have a health savings account – they would save lots of money on their total health care.