Documented, Wisconsin's Debt. Result Of Corporate Tax Breaks, Not Unions!

reply to post by 46ACE


What are you prattling about?

Left? Right? commie?

I'm none of those and find it odd you frame a discussion of economics with such silly ideas.

I have worked a full range of jobs thus far in my life, from flightline to shrimping to sales to management to owning businesses to teaching to grower. I'm pretty famiiar with all aspects of working life.

I daresay if you spent a weekend working alongside me, you'd wimp out fairly fast: most do. Those who can keep up with my thought seldom match my labor, and vice versa.

I work my shovel, my machete, my library and my computer prettty hard at all times.

I'm currently reading the following:

The True Believer Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer

Dirty Little Secrets The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics by Larry J. Sabato and Glenn R. Simpson

The Two Koreas A Contemporary History by Don Oberdorfer

Zen In The Art Of Archery by Eugen Herrigel

I'll be finished with them in a week or so and haven't decided on any new book yet.

What I say about corporations is not due to any left/right issues, but rather pragmatic right/wrong ones.

The current multinationals are being run in a manner that has endangered the lives, livelihoods, and futures of the vast majority of the planet for the ego satisfaction of a tiny minority of sociopaths and their pathetic admirers/enablers in government.

Their destruction is necessary for humanity to advance, simple fact. The world won't end, it will change, not the same thing.

You anti-union corporate lackys suck you spew nothing but lies.
Try responding to the facts presented in this thread instead of rambling on with your anti-union drivel.
Corporations have no morals or ethics, they don't respect the air we breath the water we drink or the soil we plant in.
Human and animal life means nothing to them only profits and money at any expense.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by 46ACE

 

What are you prattling about?

Left? Right? commie?

I'm none of those and find it odd you frame a discussion of economics with such silly ideas.

I have worked a full range of jobs thus far in my life, from flightline to shrimping to sales to management to owning businesses to teaching to grower. I'm pretty famiiar with all aspects of working life.

I daresay if you spent a weekend working alongside me, you'd wimp out fairly fast: most do. Those who can keep up with my thought seldom match my labor, and vice versa.

I work my shovel, my machete, my library and my computer prettty hard at all times.

I'm currently reading the following:

The True Believer Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer

Dirty Little Secrets The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics by Larry J. Sabato and Glenn R. Simpson

The Two Koreas A Contemporary History by Don Oberdorfer

Zen In The Art Of Archery by Eugen Herrigel

I'll be finished with them in a week or so and haven't decided on any new book yet.

What I say about corporations is not due to any left/right issues, but rather pragmatic right/wrong ones.

The current multinationals are being run in a manner that has endangered the lives, livelihoods, and futures of the vast majority of the planet for the ego satisfaction of a tiny minority of sociopaths and their pathetic admirers/enablers in government.

Their destruction is necessary for humanity to advance, simple fact. The world won't end, it will change, not the same thing.

Real Renaissance man?
What am I "prattling" on about:? "
specifically :
"You were claiming forcing companies to hire 200k for no reason other than to hire; makes any sense. As if those 200k paychecks were going to magically appear every week. Here's my Overly simplistic idea: business's need to profit or there's no reason to be in business...and every one of those additional 200k people needs to add to the bottom line. Don't know if you've noticed but the worlds economy has turned to "zheit" lately.Markets "aint what they used to be" that's all..

Corporations pay for fuel to transport their goods which helps pay for the infastructure. They pay their energy bill or it gets shut off.

Which ends up as operational expense = MAJOR tax write OFF

Here is an article from before anyone was elected, Journal Sentinel, certainly no bastion of Conservatism.

Next Wisconsin governor faces big deficit

The state faces a looming $2.7 billion budget shortfall, but that hasn't kept candidates for governor from piling on with what are likely to be hundreds of millions of dollars in new commitments to cut taxes or increase spending.

Link

And here would be some words from Doyle, our last Governor, to the yet un-elected Scott Walker:

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's administration on Friday told Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker that he would have to cope with a $2.2 billion deficit in the state's upcoming two-year budget, but this brighter-than-expected forecast contained more than $1 billion in hidden pain. .

To arrive at the favorable estimate, the Doyle administration's estimate assumed that Walker and lawmakers would make spending cuts that have yet to actually happen - two more years of state employee furloughs, no pay raises, a virtual hiring freeze and belt tightening in state health programs.

Without that $1.1 billion in savings, the state's projected shortfall rises to $3.3 billion - a significant increase over previous estimates that put the gap at between $2.7 billion and $3.1 billion.

Link again

Now why would Doyle himself be telling Walker that these cuts had to be made?

reply to post by Flatfish


Many corporations large chain stores pay no state income tax , Sales tax is all that is ever paid and it is passed on to the consumer in the form of gross receipts tax or whatever sales tax your state has. But no-way will they ever pay state income tax. States lose lots of money giving these breaks. WalMart does this in every state in the union. The loop-hole is that large chain stores only pay the income tax in the state where they are incorporated or the most popular loop-hole is where their main office is, which is usually outside the borders of the USA, then no tax is paid at all.

My state representative have brought this question up more than few times and it seems like the motion is always shot down by powerful lobbies or someone one the take. The study for Walmart alone IF paying state income tax in my state would net the state a little over 5-7 million per month. Now mulitply that by all the other big chain stores in your state, Your state is now on the way to recovery and the needs of the state expenses can be met.

It's time these Large chain stores and corporations start paying there keep, if they want to stay and do business. This country has fallen to whim's of the corporate lobbyist and crooked law makers.

The Reality : Now the country is flat out broke- I'm sure it's not that far off when these corporations will start kicking and screaming because they will at some point have to start paying state income tax. I really see no other options at this point. All the states in the union are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now . I give it about 4- 6 months for state laws to change in favor of chain stores paying state income tax. I'm sure they will come back with , " but we employ over x amount of people " that wont get it anymore, because were broke anyway and the people are tapped out , not to mention the unemployment insurance is also tapped. so the cash is going to have to come from someplace, that someplace in the big chain stores and business paying state income tax in your state. Prices will go up, and yet more large chains will fail, because they wont be able to meet the state income tax., Thus the viscous cycle begins. Unions will still have some bargain power, but not like before. Most states will follow the lead of Wisconsin. So Unions will have to pay more for there insurance and benefits. The state of Wisconsin seems to be subsidizing the union on the benefits. ( not sure ,but that what it appears like to me.) At the same time the state needs to meet their expenses, they can't lay everyone off. The state has to function, your children need to go to school, teachers have to be paid as well as all necessary state workers. The unions will have no choice other than to play ball, otherwise there will be more layoffs. sure you will pay more for you benefits, food , etc. but you will still have a job. For now Anyway.


Just a small note from the news here: A larger retail store is closing it's doors now. But, get this the store wanted some tax breaks to stay in business through revenue bonds. tax payer should not be bailing out business let alone a chain store. They were denied.

Hello, I recently posted this as a reply in another thread, but it seems the thread died after my post...
So in hopes of clearing up a few misconceptions I wanted to re-post it.

The people protesting the cuts are mentally unstable. They have an abnormality of the brain that allows them to believe that a government can spend more than it takes in forever without any consequences. They are like children that want to eat nothing but candy all day. Eventually, the mature adult has to step in and say "No". Because of this mental imbalance, these protesters are a danger not only to themselves but also the decent and civilized people that go to work everyday and whose taxes pay their bloated salaries. The governor is doing his job, standing up for the taxpaying citizens of his state instead of the parasitic union special interests. Unions are parasitic scum that need to be broken up and dissolved.

I'm sorry, you seem to misunderstand how the world works so please let me correct you.


The people whom are for the dissolution of organized labor are the ones whom are mentally unstable. Yes, if the situation was black and white as you describe, and these people had overspent money they didn't have, and were personally responsible for this, then perhaps forcing "austerity" upon them is justified. Unfortunately, and I know this may upset some of the selfish people who look to displace their rage onto a certain population segment i.e. unions, teachers, govt. employees., etc. but these people are NOT responsible for this mess.

Here, let me try to make this more simple for those who may not comprehend this. Anyone who has EVER, at ANY time, paid attention or studied economics of "capitalism" at ALL realizes that in capitalism there are only 2 segments of the population. These two, are Capital and Labor.

Since the majority of the population has little to no capital or access to means of productions, they sell their "labor" at a price to be able to use said means of production. Thus, this segment of the population is able to survive.

Capital, the other faction in the equation, are those whom own the means of production and possess "capital" for which to invest. Thus, Capital, employs the use of labor so that it may continue to thrive.

Now, notice how each of those descriptions end. One ends to survive, and the other to thrive. Inherently, since profit (for those uneducated, true profit is an act of creation and addition of value, not a high-speed trading program) in this physical world is inarguably limited, when either side gains an advantage it comes at the disadvantage of the opposing class.

Now to the point. Economics is governed by another law known as 'supply and demand'. How S&D fit into the equation is where our story truly begins in terms of globalization. I'm sure anyone reading this forum has been paying attention for a decent period of time so it comes as no shock to hear "our" (see Their) media exclaim of the benefits of globalization.

And Yes, globalization does have benefits, but only for the capital class. Back to the concept of S&D. In a free market, prices and wages are set by the consumer and the market based on value, and this is where the agreed upon compensation between employee (Labor), and employer (Capital) is formed. As history as well as statistics has shown, wealth tends to aggregate toward a small percentage over time thus providing leverage for which capital may negotiate their prices.

Imagine a small city, and in this city are 100 people. Now out of these 100 people, only 5 belong the Capital class, and the other 95 belong to labor. Now what do you suppose happens, when all of the other 95 people, with no means of production (see manufacturing)are able to survive, eat, and afford shelter only by becoming employed through said Capital class. No problems yet right?

Next we'll add an extra dose of reality to our example by saying that these 5 Capital owners only have a need for 85 employees and not 95. (See Unemployment rate of approx 10%)[Or if you really read between the lines, they do have a need for atleast 90, but will pronounce in various 'owned' media publications how times have been rough for them so they can only hire 85] Well the employees begin offering their services to Capital for lower and lower rates, because as we can see their is a heavy demand for such employment if it the only way to SURVIVE and eat. Now what happens one year later to our town? Well, Capital, has gone through the city and has searched the lowest bidders, and then proceeded to explain to the unemployed if they will not lower their bid (Wages) to meet the reductions of other citizens, than they will remain unemployed.

Now the whole town is awash with chaos as wages continue to decrease through demand, but prices remain the same and the people who now have employment, don't have enough resources. They must now choose, will they eat, or will they have a place to live... and thats just the beginning...




While I admit the above story could have been slightly more articulate, you'll have to forgive me as I incinerated a few plants prior to opening and reading this thread.

Now, the real question... How can this time tested fact/tragedy of the economics of capitalism in which Capital, using shortages (real or artificial) to take advantange of and exploit labor, be prevented.

Well for those of you who still haven't gotten it, its called COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Now let me make this even more painfully clear. Here's how our example goes in our small town with COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (See unions). Well now, our 5 members of the Capital class have decided to go around town to find the lowest bidder so that their profit margins can be as high as physically attainable. Unfortunately, and to their suprise, Labor, as a society, rather than fighting amonst themselves, paid attention to what Capital did the last town they came through, and instead of fighting each other to see who can be paid the least, they decided to form a COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Agreement (See union).

All 95 of the towns people recognize the need to work and desire to do so. They also realize that capital maintains leverage while they are divided and competing amongst themselves, but should they be able to reconcile their (meaningless) differences with each other and if they ALL agree to REFUSE to work for any amount of $$ (money), less than said agreement, then the power of balance and leverage now swing in the opposite direction. Now Capital has two choices, let itself die (or as Gerald Celente likes to say, "take a hair cut" because production shuts down with out the needed labor input. Or Option 2, they agree to pay fair and reasonable wages. Now, while capital remains profitable(See Thriving), Labor, now has the resources it needs to not only afford shelter, food, and fuel, but now has capital of its own to use to invest in society, and perhaps escape the bondage known as wage- slavery. Now Labor AND Capital thrive!!

America, really the world, is like the above mentioned town. We have two choices, we can thrive together, or we can do as the poster I quoted and complain, blame, and displace our feelings of true cause of society's problems.

Sure its the "greedy teachers" or the "evil labor unions" or "those people who have a different skin tone or religion than 'us". Its all their fault.

Perhaps, rather than being critical of people whom have the spine and courage to stand up, shake off the chains of division and hatred, and truely fight for a better future, perhaps, you should rethink, whether or not you are the problem...NOT them.

One last point: The finances of all 50 states as well as the federal entity are beyond repair. Aside from a bankruptcy which clears the fiat debt heaped onto our society, there is little to nothing reduced benifits or spending cuts can do.

Yes, something must be done to fix our fiscal soundness. But, NO, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the correct solution to force "austerity" on ANY segment of the population. We may have run into fiscal trouble, but our solution to this problem needs to come from an entirely different archetype.

For centuries, organized capital has exploited the divided common people and aggregated as much power and wealth as it could, from whatever source was easiest to take it from. Do you understand why the elite are referred to as INTERNATIONAL Bankers? Because they have no allegiance to any country.

Would you like to know why they are so eager to set up a one world government? Because they are AFRAID of the Power of the state (please do not associate our current fascistic regime with the word state, I am referring to "the state" as any free government that understands quite well the laws of economics and employs safeguards(and regulations) to level the playing field between capital and labor. The state is one of the only vehicles with enough wealth, resources, and power that can prevent the "Giant Vampire Squid" from sucking the life out of humanity.

Now second only to the state in power to protect citizens of the Labor class, are the unions. So if you want to erase one of the last vestiges of power that the Labor class has to defend itself, please feel free. But perhaps history may not agree with your interpretation of the solution.

So I rebuke you, and say that those fighting against the people protesting the cuts, are the ones whom are mentally unfit. No, it is not possible for a government or entity to spend more than it has forever, but asking the citizens of state to pay for this fiat "debt" is akin to this example.

Imagine a family, a father, a mother, and two sons sitting together around a dinner table (yes in America, I know this is a shocking concept that may be hard to imagine) discussing their new budget. As it turns out one of the sons recently placed some huge bets on a new gambling attraction in New York called Toxic MBS. Unfortunately he leveraged himself to the hilt prior to going and after losing, he now owes millions. Well like good parents they say, our child is "too big to fail" so we'll bail him out. And so they do, thus liquidating their retirement, 401k, IRA, and all other investments including a beach house and all of their property other than the house they live in.

The parents now have tough choices, as the amount they raised to cover the bad bets still was short of the figure necessary to clear the debt. They decide to take on emergency loans with astronomical interest, as there is no other way to raise capital, but they have no choice since those are all they are approved for. Now looking at their income statement and balance sheet, the family realizes they now have to cut back on their lifestyle drastically since the interest is so high on all of their loans.

Ok so what gets cut from the budget? Does dad cut his Martial arts classes? He swears they are for self-defense but the majority of the classes are really about aggressive and confrontational "interventionalism"?

Does mom cut her HomeYard Security Budget, which she swears prevents terrorists from destroying the garden, but she has no actual proof?

Ok well surely they wouldn't cut funding to little Johnny's music class would they? And they definitely wouldn't cut back on how much they pay for food for their children, not when they could cut back on just those two and have more than enough to at least temporarily alleviate the fiscal burdens, right?

Unfortunately though, The Answer, if you live anywhere in the western world is YES. The only items on the budget that are cut are ones whom affect the children. But hey who cares, we don't have to acknowledge their input, their just children, useless eaters really...

And that is what you are asking. You are asking the children of the American family (and please do not interpret that condescendingly, it is used only in relation to above story), to stop their education, and deal with "eating a little less", because they don't want candy, they just want to achieve atleast slightly above sustenance.


Conclusion: Read the REAL history of labor day. And since certain people seem to be incapable of understanding, I'll use your own example. Guess what? If you want to sacrifice your own and others well being and dissolve society's protection against exploitation, then please, LET ME BE THE MATURE ADULT and step in and say:

"NO"

reply to post by mwfinad1211


Thanks for your contribution to this topic, it was dead on and greatly appreciated. I thought you did a pretty good job of laying out the actuality of the situation, despite the incineration process that preceded your posting, although I doubt that the union bashers will get the point. Furthermore, I doubt very seriously that any of them will take the time to read this nation's history with respect to the labor movement nor do I believe they have the capacity to understand it. A perfect example of what happens when they begin to study american history is the renaming of the early slave trade as the new "triangle trade." When history does't fit their view, they just change it to fit.

My only hope it that, you didn't make this post with the intention of it being a thread ender. LOL
IMO, when your post ends a thread it just means that you left your opponent with little or no room to factually respond. Good work.

Feel free to chime in on my thread at any time as I need all the help I can get, these union bashers are a pretty tough crowd.

To the OP: I'm glad someone posted this link and it got attention. I posted a similar topic around an hour ago and did not know this one had been posted.

Another point to add: Republicans claim that Democrats are socialists with calls for higher taxes for the rich in order to help the less-wealthy; isn't Governor Walker doing the same here, only with the roles switched?

There is a simple and obvious solution to all these problems:

CAP WEALTH.

Talk about people who feel "entitled"! Billionaires seem to think that they are "entitled" to be trillionaires.

All the distortions in our economy result from a tiny class of sociopaths who don't understand basic kindergarden rules:

Don't hog, leave something for someone else, share.

Respect others.

Don't hurt others.

I fail to discern a single moral, ethical, legal or economic reason not to cap wealth at $1 billion per person and require mandatory economic retirement at that point, taxing any increase in wealth at 100%. The only thing it would hurt would be the billionaires' egos. Please don't argue that if they were deprived of adding to their wealth we would suffer fewer jobs: they don't create more jobs than they destroy, that's what "business efficiency" is all about. If an increase in the wealth of the wealthiest translated into more jobs, why are so many unemployed now?

Capping wealth may be the ONLY way to save capitalism.

reply to post by 46ACE


So you admit that the Americxan corporate class is so incompetent and bereft of ideas, that despite sitting on trillions in cash graciously given to them by taxpaying workers, they can't figure out how to profitably employ 200K Americans per month.

Sad, really.

Perhaps we need a new management class who actually remember what doing business is actually about: making tangible stuff that people want and need, finding the folk to help make it distribute and sell it, while paying them enough to afford to buy it.

Now all that seems too slow to our corporate types, so they'd much rather gamble with other people's money and take a guaranteed commission even when the bet sours.

Greedy unions?

No.

Greedy CEOs/Corporate boards?

Absolutely.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

You anti-union corporate lackys suck you spew nothing but lies.

Which is worse... lies, or slander? In your case, slanderous lies - so you get the best of both worlds either way.

Try responding to the facts presented in this thread instead of rambling on with your anti-union drivel.

Try using your brain, hmm?

The two largest portions of most states' spending is in employee wages, benefits, pensions - and entitlement programs.

The economy took a -huge- hit. Federal subsidies have been keeping most states afloat to stave off a collapse, but the states are completely unlike the national government (that can magi-poof money out of a printing press and hope it stimulates the economy before inflation adjustments catch up) - their budgets are completely finite. There's no more federal money coming in to support state budgets, and a number of states have failed to address their budget spending.

I am a federal employee - a second class in the USNR. We kind of are our own union, in a sense, as the military is a pretty tight community... but we can't pull the # they are pulling in Wisconsin. Know what happens if we strike? UA - Unauthorized Absence, disobeying a lawful order. That's grounds for all kinds of CO-discretionary discipline (Restriction, half month's pay -times two-, etc). The cool thing - they don't give a damned - they'll hold up a carrier for months doing an investigation into a rape case, they'll process you and everyone else "striking" (has a completely different meaning in the Navy - although I believe it is obsolete as there are no undesignated contracts anymore) out of the Navy.

I completely understand feeling underpaid and overworked. However, it is not a union issue what to pay teachers. It is a state issue with authority and oversight directed to the people. If teachers want to strike, they can strike - I don't really care. However, from the viewpoint of a school administrator or board member, I also have a school to run. Employees are expected to show up to work and to give notifications of vacation and use illness leaves with close discretion. Failure to comply leaves me with a school that doesn't have teachers. Unacceptable. Terminate and replace the contract, noting the reasons for contract termination should you be cited as a reference for a former employee's application elsewhere.

You don't play chicken with me - I'll kill us both.

Corporations have no morals or ethics, they don't respect the air we breath the water we drink or the soil we plant in. Human and animal life means nothing to them only profits and money at any expense.

Of course. The closer workers are to illness, suicide, and other life-destroying statuses, the more productive and profitable a business is. Likewise, the more inefficiently and carelessly a business handles its materials, the more profit - as well as the worst landscaping you can possibly show to the customers you are competing for.

All of that is the best way to make a profit and utilize your capital resources. Paying death benefits and legal liabilities to families of dead workers (who died in the line of servitude) is also the quickest way to start rolling in the dough. Putting your employees and local residents six feet under places your profit six feet higher!

Friggin' douche-bag.

If you look up the last few budget measures supported by the GOP, you realize they're doing only one thing:

Redistributing money from the poor and middle class to the rich and corporations. Every single tax cut they proposed is futile as the tax breaks they pushed through are a ton higher than any cuts they propose.

The GOP is a fully owned subsidiary of corporate America, if you vote for them, you are voting for CORPORATIONS and NOT people!!

Hey, check this out.
This is from the same blog that put your documented proof up.

Only difference, this is from when Walker wasn't Governor, yet.

Todd A. Berry: The $2.7 billion state deficit no one told you about.
Posted: Thursday, December 31, 2009 4:45 am

According to its just-released financial statements,
state government closed its 2008-09 books with a $2.71 billion deficit in its general fund.

True, this year’s deficit is the largest ever reported.
But it is the fifth consecutive year that the GAAP shortfall exceeded $2 billion
and the ninth that it has topped $1 billion. We have not had a recession every year since the late 1990s. This recession didn’t really get under way until early 2008.

There's plenty more interesting reading here. host.madison.com

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

You anti-union corporate lackys suck you spew nothing but lies.
Try responding to the facts presented in this thread instead of rambling on with your anti-union drivel.

I believe I did respond, with facts posted from the same blog as the O.P.'s facts.

Now, Old Hippie Dude, you tell me which set of facts we are to believe?

Originally posted by ffman

Another point to add: Republicans claim that Democrats are socialists with calls for higher taxes for the rich in order to help the less-wealthy; isn't Governor Walker doing the same here, only with the roles switched?

Yes, that's exactly what they're doing here. This is precisely why the republicans have switched their slogan from "Balance the Budget" to "Reducing Spending." There are two ways to balance any budget, you can cut spending and/or you can increase revenue, but there's only one way to reduce spending, or at least, so I thought. Problem is, the republicans can't even get that right. According to the republican controlled Wisconsin legislature, their plan to "reduce spending" includes passing 117 million in additional tax cuts for corporations.

God forbid that we might consider raising taxes on the ultra rich to help pay for the debt incurred while our children were off fighting on foreign soil to secure raw materials for their oil companies while simultaneously cutting taxes for the rich. Furthermore, now we're being sued for 1 billion to pay for damages incurred while securing those resources.

God forbid, we consider eliminating tax abatements given to corporations by states and municipalities to attract their business, which is nothing more than a race to the bottom that ends when corporations get their zero tax rate, cities and states go broke, and the tax paying monkeys of society get to pick up the tab.

You are absolutely right, this is redistribution of the wealth in reverse, taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Thanks, Flatfish, for the objective post. I get so tired of the polarizing in this country and hearing people literally repeat what either Fox News or CNN says, that it is disgusting. If we should learn anything from our attendance here on ATS, is that the truth is ultimately a little more slippery and harder to grasp than would be apparent.

I am not going into the information in this case, as I am not from Wisconsin, haven't been keeping up with it and only briefly learned about the divide by reading a few articles. I do want to present this, because I think it seems quite logical.

1. TPTB via their banking cartels don't like it when government runs a surplus, as in the case of Wisconsin. Otherwise, their well establish "wealth transfer system - (a.k.a taxation system)" isn't happening like they would like. I do know that this guy is new, but I don't know the back story of why the old governor left. If he was outvoted, I bet you big money went into debasing the previous governor in the media to sway public opinion. Realistically, if it ain't broke, why fix it, Wisconsin? Again, I don't know if I am out of context here, just thinking it out loud.

2. New governor implements crony rules the create an immediate budgetary deficit. If this indeed is the case, why is this not obvious to the whole world? Nonetheless, he has implemented the debt system needed by TPTB/banksters.

3. You were right that this is a two-for, as now the Republicans can go after their longtime nemesis, the unions. It's no secret that the owners of these companies will make more profit if the current system is changed and the unions will lose out. Think of the recent scenario with Wall Street banksters - even though the banks were/are insolvent, they are having record years a la our tax dollars, future inflation, etc.

4. Finally, it creates chaos in the system and potentially across the US. This wasn't just a random thing, meaning the the timing was well orchestrated to match the current global unrest that is developing. National chaos is what TPTB would like for the Problem-Solution-Reaction method to be applied or stated another way, order out of chaos. That is how change takes place in this world.

So, place the state in debt and bust the unions (or minimize them) via your stated two-for method. I would be willing to wager that if the Republicans get their way and bust up the unions, the state will operate in a deficit from here on out, regardless of change.

Note: I am taking no sides here, only stating some mechanics as they may or may not be happening.

[

reply to post by Oaktree


Thanks for the heads up on the article, it was an interesting read but I'm not sure what it has to do with the current 2011/2012 statistics. According to everything I've read, since these deficits were identified in 2009, the state's legislature has made numerous changes to address the problem, one of which included negotiating with public sector employees resulting in them agreeing to take days off without pay as a measure to reduce cost and preserve jobs. It was my understanding that the January 2011 Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Report, (included in the original article sourced in the OP) reflected the current fiscal situation as a result of those initiatives.

However I did notice a peculiar thing in the article you sourced and that was the fact that the Bush/Republican policies didn't seem to fair very well upon the states. It was this section here;

"Even more troubling than the size of the deficit is its trend. Since 1999, the shortfall has grown in every year except one: $830 million in fiscal 1999, $1.21 billion in 2000, $1.48 billion in 2001, $2.24 billion in 2002, $1.93 billion in 2004, $2.12 billion in 2005, $2.15 billion in 2006, $2.44 billion in 2007, $2.50 billion in 2008, and now, $2.71 billion in 2008-09."

This is what happens when cities and states start competing for businesses to locate within their confines by lowering and/or eliminating their tax rates through abatements. Even if your state isn't doing it, if neighboring states are allowed to do it, the businesses in your state will leave for the "No Tax" zone offered up next door. The end result is that both states end up broke for lack of a tax base and one of them has no jobs left to boot.

Working americans pay taxes and in more ways than one, corporations don't.

who could've ever seen this coming?



there's a bit about unions in there