Government Spending

Is This How a President Should Act?

|

Told ya!

From the Washington Post:

The president's political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to mobilize thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.

By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were working to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. […]

The White House political operation, Organizing for America, got involved Monday, after Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy M. Kaine, a former Virginia governor, spoke to union leaders in Madison, a party official said.

The group made phone calls, distributed messages via Twitter and Facebook, and sent e-mails to its state and national lists to try to build crowds for rallies Wednesday and Thursday, a party official said.

Just think–there once was a time (for more than a century, actually), when the president of the United States thought it too imperious to deliver the State of the Union via a speech to a joint session of Congress, since that would smack of telling a co-equal branch of government what to do. Now we have a president not just taking rhetorical sides in a state issue, but actively mobilizing his political organization to affect the outcome(s), even though (to my knowledge) nothing that Gov. Walker or any other belated statehouse cost-cutter is doing has a damned thing to do with federal law.

Actually, "Hosni Hitler" is not a bad band name

I have written in the past about how libertarians are pretty lonely in the political scheme of things in terms of constantly being challenged to defend themselves against the "logical conclusion" of their philosophy. But I think it's time to amend that. We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party's philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people's money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street's fault. Anyone who doesn't agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler.

The president's heavy-handed involvement, along with House Republicans' refusal to sign off on any new bailout of the states, means that this may very well be America's biggest and most widespread political fight in 2011. It's a cage match to determine first dibs on a shrinking pie. A clarifying moment.

Advertisement

NEXT: In the Long Run, Are We All Undead?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fire them. More than enough people willing to take these jobs.

    Fire them all, without pension benefits. Cut them off from the public trough completely and forever.

    1. I’d take a tax hit if the state fired every person that calls in sick, and pulled their teaching credentials the state.

      Looky there, one time that stupid licensing laws come in handy.

      1. In obama’s eyes he is fighting slavery and this is his little rock. Are they issuing cold weather gear to 3/82nd Abn? Perfect for his base seeing an airborne invasion in WI to battle the evil Nazi Replicans.

        1. Are they going to restore basic government services by teaching classes and serving school lunches to poor kids? I don’t think that would play so well to TEAM BLUE when some $19K/yr private with a GED is teaching the same class better.

        2. It’s the 3rd Infantry 1st BCT and 10th Mountain that are training in the US for operations in the US.

          1. maybe that’s why the army has requested rubber bullets?

            1. Old, but still relevant.

              http://www.armytimes.com/news/…..d_090708w/

              I think Ft. Drum still has government 101 as well. (but that’s prefaced with being applicable to running cities in Afghanistan and Iraq, cause you know those cities run just like US cities)

      2. It is an interesting thought. Wisconsin law calls for the revocation of the license of any educator for incompetence if it “endangers the health, welfare, safety or education of any pupil” which would probably apply to multiple sick days so that schools are canceled. And if they aren’t sick it is immoral behavior. Hmm, revoke the licenses then the schools will have to fire them for cause without benefits.

      3. It is an interesting thought. Wisconsin law calls for the revocation of the license of any educator for incompetence if it “endangers the health, welfare, safety or education of any pupil” which would probably apply to multiple sick days so that schools are canceled. And if they aren’t sick it is immoral behavior. Hmm, revoke the licenses then the schools will have to fire them for cause without benefits.

        1. “Hmm, revoke the licenses then the schools will have to fire them for cause without benefits.”

          You think the union would allow that without screaming?

          1. licenses are state controlled for education.

        2. You can’t revoke a teachers license for refusing to accept the pay package, but you can accept their non-acceptance or resignation and replace them with teacher who will accept the pay.

          1. It isn’t legal to engage in political activities on the taxpayers’ dime/time.

            Every one of them could be fired for cause at this point.

    2. You know who else liked to cut pensions?

      Oh wait liberals said we couldn’t make that joke anymore.

  2. Gosh, was it only last week that I predicted that the fight over pubsec pay would be the most brutal we have seen in a long time?

    And doesn’t our President have a gift for alienating everyone who isn’t a Party member? To the extent people are aware that he is spending his days trying to gin up mobs in Madison, WI, its bound to hurt him.

    1. it’s that awareness thing that’s the problem. I’m trying to imagine Diane Sawyer putting on that phony concerned look as she reports the President is fomenting the fight in Wisconsin.

      1. I was just thinking about the dissemination of information regarding this. Wonder how it plays out.

        By the way, ABC used to be the best of the big three. Now, I get my network news nowhere.

  3. I might actually have the urge to go counter protest, or just outright harass in a legal manner, any union protests in MO. Sounds like a good way to spend an afternoon.

    1. Looks like a counterprotest is being put together in Madison tomorrow. Instapundit has a link up.

      1. I have to admit, my motivation would be more to just piss off people that I can’t stand. The political overtone is just icing.

      2. Looks like a counterprotest is being put together in Madison tomorrow. Instapundit has a link up.

        I wonder if all three libertarians will show?

        1. “I wonder if all ‘of Wisconsin’s fed up taxpayers’ will show?”
          unions make up 12% of the work force, at best…

    2. I’ve got my Gadsden flag at the ready and my ear to the ground. I’ll see you at the counter-protest, hmm.

      1. I’d be more likely to have a smart ass sign. Or dress as the easterbunny and strike for bunny rights, cause 364 days off is not enough.

        1. Hmm wonder what a giant pink bunny costume costs.

        2. Please film if you decide to go full Easter bunny and start putting hardboiled eggs in socks and beating people.

            1. nobody’s grass is safe…

    3. If I lived in WI I’d go.

      Oh wait — I couldn’t, because I’d actually have to show up to work or be fired.

      1. If you lived in Wisconsin, you’d have to be home because the teacher’s unions “sick out” canceled your kid’s school, and you’d have to be at home to supervise them. Win-Win.

        1. Think of the unprecedented education advantages, though.

        2. Take the kids to the counter protest. They will learn more than if the were in school.

          1. Sounds like plenty of those school kids have already been bussed to the union protest by their state-approved parents, the teachers.

            1. Words cannot begin to describe the magnitude of hypocrisy and world-class irony of this situation.

              1. just think, 13 major metropolitan cities with graduation rates less than 50%…
                these protesters must “ring” when they walk…

        3. In California, the kids would be better off if the teachers went on strike.

    4. If you are close to the SW corner of MO, hit me up, and we will car-pool.

  4. I not only miss Tricky Dick, but I would welcome Zombie Tricky Dick.

    1. I’d welcome Zombie Carter.

    2. The one to watch out for is Zombie Cheney. He will fuck you up.

      1. I get no respect

        1. Do hairplugs continue to grow after assuming room temperature?

          1. We prefer “assuming thermal equilibrium”.

            1. Zombie-American|2.18.11 @ 11:39AM|#

              We prefer “assuming thermal equilibrium”.

              We prefer Human Un-Dead.

          2. Yes, and if you cut back on the light exposure they start to bud.

      2. Is there a difference between zombie Cheney and the regular one? Because I’m not sure I can tell.

        1. I thought Sith Lords don’t age?

        2. There’s a regular Cheney???

          1. Sure… He is less angry.
            🙂

        3. Zombie Cheney doesn’t shoot you in the face. He eats it.

  5. Bought, paid for and delivered.
    It’s not surprising our liar-in-chief is for sale; it’s surprising he’s so obvious about it.
    Hell, he needs a sandwich board instead of a tie.

  6. Why shouldn’t the president do whatever is within his legal ability to push back against the plutocrats? I suppose it’s OK when the president holds secret meetings with industry leaders in order to facilitate their every wish.

    1. yeah, those taxpayers sure are plutocrats

      1. Monocles and top hats for all!

        1. What I love about Tony is that he flings these cliches like chimps fling shit, without even knowing what they mean or even conceptualize them.

          1. I like that analogy. I know a few Tonys real time, I think I’ll use that chimp flinging shit analogy on them.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Why shouldn’t the president do whatever is within his legal ability to push back against the plutocrats?

      Do you mean the Union plutocrats, or the plutocratic politicians in the Democratic party, or those in the Republican party, or the Goldman Sachs plutocrats in government…? I mean, WHICH ONES do you mean?

      1. The ones your entire political philosophy is designed to enrich. People who vote for and fund the campaigns of Republicans.

        1. Re: Tony,

          The ones your entire political philosophy is designed to enrich.

          Oh, compared to the ones YOUR political philosophy is designed to enrich?

          People who vote for and fund the campaigns of Republicans.

          So Democratic plutocrats, those are OK with you, no?

          By they way, there’s nothing libertarian about the Republican party – it is nothing more than one of the wings of the same vulture, the other being the Dems.

          1. Yes my political philosophy supports ensuring that working people have a decent standard of living. Yours, on the other hands, supports making sure wealthy people have a better standard of living than they already do, even if it means using government coercion to steal from the real contributors to this society. I know you don’t think you believe that, but you do. However utopian your motivations, the real-world consequences favor Republicans and their nihilistic corporate thievery campaign.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Yes my political philosophy supports ensuring that working people have a decent standard of living.

              That’s a lie.

              Yours, on the other hands, supports making sure wealthy people have a better standard of living than they already do, even if it means using government coercion to steal from the real contributors to this society.

              You haven’t learned anything, have you?

              I know you don’t think you believe that, but you do.

              I know you think you have intelligence, but you don’t. And that’s because I say so.

              However utopian your motivations, the real-world consequences favor Republicans and their nihilistic corporate thievery campaign.

              “Nihilistic”?

              Bwa ha ha ha!!!

            2. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:40AM|#
              “Yes my political philosophy supports ensuring that working people have a decent standard of living.”

              Those angel’s wings wouldn’t lift a flea.

            3. Tony,
              Not only has your philosophy kept people in poverty, but it has also been responsible for the slaughter of tens of millions of people.

              Go fuck yourself.

              1. Alex, that is the sound of your credibility crumpling.

              2. Alex: Hundreds of millions, not tens of millions.

            4. Wait, are you saying that working people can’t be wealthy people and vice versa, or are you using “working people” as some kind of code?

              1. Yes, people who earn money rather than just make it.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  Yes, people who earn money rather than just make it.

                  Fallacy by semantics. You sure know ‘m all, Tony!

                2. You must not be talking about government employees if your discussing folks who “earn” money.

                3. lol.. Hey Tony ever get a job from a poor person?

                  Yeh me neither.
                  Tony you have any Idea what someone puts at risk to start a business?
                  Do you have a clue the 80% of all new business fail in the first 5 years?
                  Lastly Tony the average Millionaire fails at least 4 times and losses everything before they finally figure out what was keeping them from success in the first place.
                  Would you like know what their problem was the first 3 times?
                  It was hiring idiots like you who couldn’t earn their worth and their unwillingness to fire such fools!
                  Next time when you get a check Tony look and see the name of the person that signs it then go and kiss their ass!
                  My money it’s some securtary of state and it’s a welfare check!
                  So start kissing my ass because thats who’s paying you and I would at this time like to fire your ass!

                  1. Awesome response, Darth.

                    Asking liberal tards if they ever got a job from a poor person is great.

                    There is no response to that. Make them answer it too. Refuse to keep talking to them until they answer that question yes or no.

            5. Yes my political philosophy supports ensuring that working people have a decent standard of living.

              We’re talking government employees here, Tony. There’s nothing ‘working’ about em.

              And a decent standard of living includes six figure salaries, gold plated pensions and free insurance?

              1. How many teachers do you know make six figures?

                You have a caricature of public servants in your head. On the whole public servants do more for society than most workers and get paid less than they deserve. And they’ve been under assault from Republican policies for decades.

                I just want you guys to spend five minutes talking about the real leaches in this society, the wealthy and corporate elite. You act as if they couldn’t possibly be influencing policy to enrich themselves. Only the poor and downtrodden are capable of that!

                1. On the whole public servants do more for society than most workers and get paid less than they deserve.

                  You truly are shameless, you gutless little turd.

                2. Tony. I live in a community of 20,000. We have more than 100 teachers who are making more than 90,000 for 9 month’s work. They do not pay for their health insurance. They signed a contract two years ago that promised them 3.5% annual salary increases over 3 years.

                  That’s no caricature my friend.

                3. So Tony, you believe it is somehow just to force, for example, parochial school teachers who are already paid less than public school teachers, to pay for the public school teachers’ zero-contribution retirement pensions while also having to contribute to their own 401k out of their paycheck?

                  All the governor of WI is saying is that public sector employees should have no exceptional benefits over the private sector, which is being very austere these days. Even with this legislation, the public employee benefits package will still be better than and require them to contribute less than the private sector averages. Maybe that’s why the public has very little sympathy for their whining and sense of entitlement.

                  How many more decades of teacher’s union-driven public education policy failure will it take to convince you that they have done little but exacerbate the cycles of poverty in this country. How can spending jump exponentially even adjusted for inflation with not only no performance improvement, but actual regression over the past few decades? You should be ashamed if you think that’s progressive — or anything other than tragic.

                4. Re: Tony,

                  How many teachers do you know make six figures?

                  You mean with benefits or without?

                  You have a caricature of public servants in your head.

                  There’s no need for that. They are pretty much a bunch of living caricatures themselves.

                  On the whole public servants do more for society than most workers and get paid less than they deserve.

                  That’s a grotesque lie. Taking someone else’s money by force and then pretending to give back some service nobody asked for is NOT doing “more for society.”

                  And they’ve been under assault from Republican policies for decades.

                  Only if that were true, but the size of government just keeps growing – so you’re basically lying again.

                  I just want you guys to spend five minutes talking about the real leaches in this society, the wealthy and corporate elite.

                  Why would they be leeches? I *know* public officials are leeches because they take money that does not belong to them, BY DEFINITION. But you better explain why the so-called “wealthy” are leeches.

                5. I’m one of those public servants. I don’t need you speaking for me, Tony. I can speak for myself.

                  1. Same here.
                    Actually feel fortunate that scientists where i work are NOT union. The city’s geeks are, and actually fare worse … at least the competent ones. The incompetent are extremely lucky to have civil service protection.

                6. There are teachers making 60K, 80K and over a 100K and plenty of adminstrators with 6-figure pensions you fucking provincial twit. Are you a paid shill?

                7. “On the whole public servants do more for society than most workers and get paid less than they deserve”

                  The Dems are in big, big trouble if this is what they’re selling in 2012.

                8. “You have a caricature of public servants in your head. On the whole public servants do more for society than most workers and get paid less than they deserve. And they’ve been under assault from Republican policies for decades.”

                  BS. I live in a state with an area of a state with a modest cost of living and marginally more sane policy on public sector compensation than nutcase states like NY or California. My neighbor has been a grade school teacher for 15 or 16 years, has a master’s in education, and makes around 60 k. She skips out of work about 40 or 50 days per year and recently played sick for a couple of months so that she could get reassigned to a different school mid-year. By all realistic metrics, she is massively overpaid and should have been fired long ago. But she’s safe, because of a little thing that makes it next to impossible to can her butt: TENURE. Its quite a nice racket if you’re in the privileged class.

                  “I just want you guys to spend five minutes talking about the real leaches in this society, the wealthy and corporate elite”

                  You couldn’t be further from the truth. My father was an entrepreneur. He put in insane hours at the office, doing his own little bit trying to make the world a better place. Growing up, my family life really sucked. In return, my father’s company went public and he became very wealthy. It provided him a minor degree of recompense for the health problems, strained relationships with me and my siblings, and other issues. He became wealthy BECAUSE he, his company, and his employees were so incredibly productive.

                  1. But, but, but – he didn’t EARN money, he MADE it! Waahhhh! It’s not FAIR!!!

                9. I know 0 teachers who make 6 figures.

                  I do know a dozen who are making 90k though, where SAT’s are roughly 500 in each category, where professors make less. It’s real, and it’s not uncommon at all.

                10. You are just a complete idiot. I have seen your beloved “public servants” in action and they are nothing more than lazy overpaid underworked who couldn’t cut it in the private sector.

                11. I know four teachers that make six figures. I live near Pittsburgh. We pay our teachers quite well around here.

                12. We all know Tony doesn’t work. Hell he even likes to kill babies.

                13. Man, I wish I could paid over summer months for doing next to zilch work. That’s what I feel I deserve. LOL

                  (I don’t know how/what WI teachers are paid over summer, but I know they are in other states)

            6. “supports making sure wealthy people have a better standard of living than they already do, even if it means using government coercion to steal from the real contributors to this society.”

              MWTF!!?!?!? THIS is reason enough for everyone on here to ignore you or insult you. Comments like this give you away. You are either A) Trolling or B) So mentally challenged, that even the most basic of concepts slips your grasp!

              1. It’s interesting what gets you guys worked up. As in challenging the axiom you hold that wealth=productivity=virtue.

                You would have me believe that only the poor and working class are capable of influencing government to enrich themselves, and that the rich aren’t. What kind of sense does that make? Why are they still poor if they’re so powerful?

                1. Tool… I mean Tony, no one has ever said anything remotely close to that. We have lamented countless times how the corporatists have used government to drive out competition and give themselves bigger and fatter pay checks. They get to bi-pass rules and regulations that the little folk are forced to abide by.

                2. Tony had been fully indoctrinated by the Obama regime. Besides, he likes to kill babies and global warming is his religion.

            7. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:40AM|#

              Yes my political philosophy supports ensuring that working people have a decent standard of living.

              Yes, because telling people that they can’t work for the market rate for their skills due to price-setting minimum wage laws, thus making them unemployed, results in a “decent standard of living” for them.

              1. We’ve had full employment in this country with minimum wage laws in place, and we’ve had 10% unemployment too. Seems like they have nothing to do with unemployment. The current employment picture has nothing to do with minimum wage laws, but with a deep recession caused by the financial sector’s recklessness.

                1. “Seems like they have nothing to do with unemployment.”

                  Just because you do not perceive the effect, does not mean it is absent. Minimum wage laws distort the labor market.

            8. —“the real-world consequences favor Republicans and their nihilistic corporate thievery campaign.”—

              Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

              1. Ve are Nihilists! We beleive in nozink! Ve will fuck you up Lebowski!

            9. Dear Dear Tony,
              As one of the ‘working people’ those of your political philosophy claim to support, I’d like to tell you right now to take your ‘righteous working-class’ philosophy and shove it up your fucking ass. Thanks to ridiculous taxation levels, heaps of insane regulations that ensure the top-level businesses are the only ones with market share, and ridiculous wage and cost of living distortions, the ability to start a small business in the hopes of getting out of a blue-collar, shit-paying job no longer exists.
              Seriously, fuck you.

              -Working Man

              1. Don’t forget devaluation of the dollar…….

            10. To Tony, making public employees contribute more towards their own pension and healthcare benefits is “using government coercion to steal from the real contributors to this society.” Riiiiight.

            11. Why do we always see the term “working people” when we are talking about those wanting the biggest handout from those of us that actually work and pay our own bills? When ever I hear that code phrase, I know that someone is putting their hand into my pocket.

              1. working people = social justice

            12. Yes my political philosophy supports ensuring that working people have a decent standard of living.

              And if their work is not worth that standard?

              . Yours, on the other hands, supports making sure wealthy people have a better standard of living than they already do, even if it means using government coercion to steal from the real contributors to this society.

              Which coercion is that?

        2. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:33AM|#
          “The ones your entire political philosophy is designed to enrich. People who vote for and fund the campaigns of Republicans.”

          Poisoning the Well:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
          You should read that if you expect to be taken as other than an ignorant asshole.

          1. Comically misusing names of logical fallacies is OM’s job.

            I’m not poisoning the well. I’m saying explicitly that libertarianism is consciously designed as the philosophical lipstick on the pig of Republican corporatism.

            1. ..and you’d be wrong.

              1. It’s just a coincidence that you believe all the same things with respect to economic policy?

                1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:41AM|#
                  “It’s just a coincidence that you believe all the same things with respect to economic policy?”

                  Uh, this is a site promoting libertarianism.
                  Exactly how dumb are you?

                  1. Uh, this is a site promoting libertarianism.

                    Which, I’m arguing, is little more than corporatist, plutocratic, Republican apologetics.

                    What’s most baffling to me is the fact that it is totally possible to be an intellectually and morally fulfilled liberal who doesn’t spend his days licking the boots of the wealthy elite. But you choose not to on “principle.” There are better principles out there!

                    1. Go suck a diseased cock, Tony.

                    2. Right, because Republicans, like libertarians believe that workplaces should be able to hire whomever they want regardless of visa status since they support a free market for labor.

                      Also, like libertarians they support the end to the military-industrial complex, no more subsidization and favoritism for corporations through targeted tax breaks, and free markets for all activities that don’t violate peoples’ rights. We’re like exactly the same…

                      Same goes for far-Left progressives and the Democrats. That’s why they all supported propping up megabanks and Wall Street with TARP.

                      It’s officially Ingenuous Day for Tony.

                    3. Well done.
                      Falls on deaf ears, but still.

                    4. Why are you bringing morality into this, Tony?

                    5. The whole issue is that Tony grew up in a wealthy family and he feels guilty.

                      In addition, he hates his parents and thus loves hating the wealthy.

                    6. it is totally possible to be an intellectually and morally fulfilled liberal who doesn’t spend his days licking the boots of the wealthy elite.

                      Fuck you, loser. Explain why your hopey changey asshole put the same people in charge of the financial sector that have rigged the system for years.

                      Your time’s coming to an end. People won’t pay for your bullshit anymore.

                      Go fuck yourself.

                2. “It’s just a coincidence that you believe all the same things with respect to economic policy?”

                  No, republicans don’t. They’re close to democrats though.

                3. Come on Tony, you’re being disingenuous. You know damn good and well by now that we don’t support corporatism any more than socialism or communism. Republicans don’t think the government should get out of all business, just the businesses they like.

            2. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:37AM|#
              “I’m not poisoning the well.”

              I see you still haven’t read the assignment.

            3. Speaking of logical fallacies Tony, labeling libertarians as Republicans so you can argue against Republicans while claiming to be arguing against libertarians is textbook straw man.

              1. It is not a strawman when my very argument is that libertarians are Republicans who hate Jesus. Are you or are you not siding with the Republicans on this issue? What is a Republican except someone who believes in Republican policies?

                1. I’m a libertarian, and I don’t believe in the legal concept of corporations. I also loathe Republicans. Therefore your statement is falsified.

                  1. I know I’m late to the party, but I love Jesus and am not a republican.

                2. “Are you or are you not siding with the Republicans on this issue? What is a Republican except someone who believes in Republican policies?”

                  Your first question refers to a single issue, your second refers to multiple policies.

                  Your implication is that siding with Republicans on a single issue means one believes in all of their policies.

                  That implication fails basic logic, and an argument based upon a faulty premise is by definition a fallacy.

                  At least you’re consistent in your complete and total disregard for logic.

                  1. sarcasmic,

                    I don’t think so, because there is absolutely no reason to side with Republicans on this issue unless you’re just a Republican shill. This is a political fight. There is plenty of rhetoric about fiscal policy, but that’s all it is. It’s really about Republicans trying to take down the vestiges of their political opposition in public sector unions. And you guys are twisting yourselves in knots agreeing with their every move, whether it has anything to do with freedom or not.

                    1. “I don’t think so, because there is absolutely no reason to side with Republicans on this issue unless you’re just a Republican shill.”

                      You are saying that I must either support the unions or oppose them for political reasons, when in fact there is another option which is to oppose public sector unions as a matter of principle.

                      That is a textbook example of the fallacy known as Excluding the Middle, also know as False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, and Bifurcation.

                      Did you graduate from the College of Fallacious Arguments?

                    2. “there is absolutely no reason to side with Republicans on this issue unless you’re just a Republican shill”

                      What an asshole. No reason? If you say so, Butch.

                    3. Tony,
                      My theory is that in college you thought you were majoring in Fallatio when you signed up for Fallacy.

                3. He’s Born-Again Barack. You have blind faith in him and everything he does.

                4. “It is not a strawman..” and pouts as he stamps his little foot.

                  Sorry, it’s just the visual I get from the way you argue.

                5. incif is failing on this thread, so I see this shit, dont know why Im replying:

                  my very argument is that libertarians are Republicans who hate Jesus

                  Im a born again christian. I just disproved your argument. Go fuck off.

                6. Given the context — that Tony is always here — this is one of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve ever heard. Tony is baiting you. Anyone who spends two days at reason knows the difference between R’s and libertarians.

                  Tony, you should really go away unless you need this attention.

                  Oh, and a lot of us have advanced degrees. And even though we all do it, you misspelled “leeches,” without the possibility of a typo. Not smart, seeing as how you’ve been trying to play the smart card recently.

            4. Tony, you used to be hall-of-fame troll material. Now you’re getting soft. I for one am disappointed.

              1. He’s like the Nick Cage of trolls — he’s prolific enough that he can’t really help but have a lot of crap along with the gems.

                1. I would prefer the Nick Cave of trolls

                  1. @Lord Humungus — first real laugh of this whole thread. I think I love you.

                    (in a manly, y’know… bromance sort of way.)

        3. Ouch, Tony, too much truth there.

        4. Here’s the fundmental disconnect, in a nutshell. Our philosophy in no way enriches any designated person. It merely gets the State out of the way of those who desire and can obtain riches through voluntary, mutual agreement.

          It’s the left’s philosophy that uses coercion to distribute and enrich, Tony.

        5. Now, THIS is the real Tony. Missed you. Those pretenders just don’t make me laugh like you do.

        6. Fuck you, Tony. Engage in arguments, tell us why we are wrong, that is all fine. But don’t presume to know my motivations. Is it really that hard to understand that some people actually believe that government shouldn’t favor any group or any particular outcome?

          1. You may claim to believe that, but you never spend any time bellyaching about the special favors corporations receive, which amounts to so much more in unjustifiable welfare.

            My problem is that you don’t apply this principle consistently, because it seems to be filtered through a class-based lens. As in, poor people are icky and dirty and morally unfit, so they don’t deserve a crumb, and rich people are nice and pure and good, so all the welfare they receive can be overlooked. They deserve it.

            1. Are you freaking kidding? We bellyache about corporate welfare all the time.

              You’re officially trolling.

              1. No you don’t. The only time you ever mention corporate welfare is when someone accuses you of not caring about it. That means it’s, at best, something you care about in theory. Then you carry on trashing on the poor and downtrodden and claiming they’re bringing society down with all their political muscle.

                1. poor working-pals, Tone-Tone: Insolvent Diane Feinstein, Busted Harry Reid, Poor Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedy Paupers, and all the rest of the “for the poor” gang.

                2. Allowing a corporation to keep its own money, aka lower taxes, is not welfare.

                  Giving a corporation money that belongs to someone else, aka crony capitalism, is welfare.

                  1. ^^THIS^^

            2. “poor people are icky and dirty”

              Which is basically how you treated me in a thread a few days ago, because I don’t make some magical minimum amount of money.

              1. Well poor people are icky, that’s objective fact. The difference is I am not basing my economic policy around punishing them for it.

                1. You just showed your true elitist-fuck colors, Tony.

                  Oh, and… fuck off.

            3. As in, poor people are icky and dirty and morally unfit, so they don’t deserve a crumb, and rich people are nice and pure and good, so all the welfare they receive can be overlooked. They deserve it.

              Rich people are not, on average, nice and pure and good, but, on average, they are nicer and purer and gooder than poor people.

        7. Hello Toni honey, it’s me. Just in case you don’t remember out little chat the other day; it still sucks to be you.

    3. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:25AM|#
      “Why shouldn’t the president do whatever is within his legal ability to push back against the plutocrats?”

      Poisoning the Well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
      You should read that if you expect to be taken as other than an ignorant asshole.

    4. No, actually, that’s unforgivable too. Wasn’t this administration supposed to be about openness and not business as usual? Were his secret meetings with healthcare leaders OK because they advanced a disastrous plan that his supporters agreed with?

      1. I don’t give a shit who the president talks to in public or private. I give a shit what policies come out of the government.

        1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:50AM|#
          “I don’t give a shit who the president talks to in public or private. I give a shit what policies come out of the government.”

          Your fig leaf is even tinier that that thing you’re trying to cover.

        2. The end justifies the means.

        3. So ramming a special interest law through with no review, after meeting with industry leaders and carving out special exemptions for them is cool with you. Which is what Obama and Bush both have been guilty of and is what’s pushing us further into debt.

          Congrats! That’s so incoherent and one-sided it’s really amazing you can state it and then rail against us for objecting when both parties do it. Are you just playing a huge joke on us?

          1. It’s not cool with me. But I’m aware that the decades Republicans have been spending giving power to corporate interests is not something that goes away with the election of a Democrat. That’s why it’s called power. If negotiating with those power centers means getting some good policy, so be it. It’s better than them using their power to completely destroy any attempts at good policy at all, which they were perfectly capable of doing.

          2. Of course it’s one sided. Tony doesn’t believe in any absolute right and wrong. He has been explicit on this point. Therefore, his morality revolves around defending the side he has chosen. His loyalty to the statists has no moral of a philosophical underpinning than a dog’s loyalty to the turf he has chosen.

            1. *no more of a philosophical …

            2. It absolutely has a moral underpinning. A much, much better one than libertarians have. I just happen to believe that separating real-world consequences from morality is itself an immoral stance.

              1. But how are you judging what is a better? Remember, it has to be pragmatic, so any standard you use is invalid if I pragmatically decide so.

                1. What constitutes human well-being is not arbitrary, but something that can be figured out.

              2. of mass murder if it furthers your idea of social justice….

                1. find a Mao, Stalin, and Hitler apologist underneath.

                  1. better than scratch-n-sniff ‘cuz I don’t like my fingernails smelling like shit.

              3. It absolutely has a moral underpinning. A much, much better one than libertarians have. I just happen to believe that separating real-world consequences from morality is itself an immoral stance.

                The only morality is God’s might makes right.

        4. I suppose it’s OK when the president holds secret meetings with industry leaders in order to facilitate their every wish.

          25 minutes later …

          I don’t give a shit who the president talks to in public or private

          Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s?

          1. Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s?
            No, just dishonesty and stupidity.

          2. I didn’t make a claim about the wrongness of Bush and Cheney’s corporate puppet dancing. I just suggested that you all are hypocrites.

            1. Shorter Tony:
              Republican Corporatism Bad
              Democrat Corporatism Good
              You Libertarians are all hypocrits!

            2. Shorter Tony:
              Republican Corporatism Bad
              Democrat Corporatism Good
              You Libertarians are all hypocrites!

            3. Shorter Tony:
              Republican Corporatism Bad
              Democrat Corporatism Good
              You Libertarians are all hypocrites!

              1. Damn stutter!

            4. And where did Tony go?

              What a pussy.

        5. Tony 11:25 – “I suppose it’s OK when the president holds secret meetings with industry leaders in order to facilitate their every wish”

          Tony 11:50 – “I don’t give a shit who the president talks to in public or private”

          In answer to 11:25, yes, I suppose it is.

    5. I suppose it’s OK when the president holds secret meetings with industry leaders in order to facilitate their every wish.

      Union leaders yes.

      Industry leaders no.
      Except for the financial industry, they support dems, so thy’re ok.

      Oh and corporate leaders that are sucking on the government teat, they’re ok too.

    6. “Why shouldn’t the president do whatever is within his legal ability to push back against the plutocrats? ”

      I’d settle for him not putting them in charge of the henhouse, *cough*geithner*cough*.

      The president doesn’t give a shit about fighting plutocrats, all he cares about is that, whether the people are getting chomped by megasharks like Goldman Sachs CEOs or ripped to pieces by piranhas like the pubsec unions, he and his gang of hyenas get their share of the leftovers.

    7. in what world do you live that republicans are the only corporartists? Is corpratism not corpratism if its done in the name of carbon credits or green energy?

      1. He explains that. See, that’s just a necessary means to an end:

        But I’m aware that the decades Republicans have been spending giving power to corporate interests is not something that goes away with the election of a Democrat. That’s why it’s called power. If negotiating with those power centers means getting some good policy, so be it. – Tony

        See,

        Republicans + Corporatism = EVIL!!
        Democrats + Corporatism = Good policies

        Because, you know, Tony likes Democrats.

        1. Down with compassionate conservatism!
          Up with compassionate statism!

        2. Because, you know, Tony likes Democrats.

          And that is the sum total of his ‘argumentation’.

          Color me shocked if there isn’t a financial connection to Tony’s ‘advocacy’.

    8. I suppose it’s OK when the president holds secret meetings with industry leaders in order to facilitate their every wish.

      Obama seemed to think it was OK when he had talks with insurance companies about ObamaCare.

    9. did you really use the term Plutocrats? That’s like something out of communist indoctrination literature from the 50’s. Very retro, I like

    10. Plutocrats?
      talking out of Uranus again…

    11. Tony means mommy and daddy since he grew up in a wealthy family.

      He thinks those 2 evil plutocrats should be punished by funding incompetent teachers and cops who can’t be fired.

      He is a fucked up kid with serious issues.

  7. Listen up, Republicans: if you cannot conjure up a nominee capable of kicking this moron out of the White House….

    1. Oh, if anybody can fuck up winning in 2012, it’s the Republicans. You’re talking about the same stodgy, pompous, clueless assholes who nominated Bob “Viagra” Dole to defeat Bill Clinton, the smoothest, slickest-talking president in history. When it comes to defeating Obama, the Jimmy Carter of our time, the Republicans are perfectly capable of nominating a Sarah Palin or another Bob Dole or somebody else without a chance in hell of winning.

  8. yea obama coulda axed the koch bros & armey to astro-turf in alotta corporatist zombies for dat true home-grown cookin.

    1. Re: OhioOrrin,

      yea i coul ve takin an englesh bok and learn to read and writ, allota fagina.

      1. Now I’m reading OhioOrrin posts in an Ali G accent. That’s about its IQ.

        1. Hah! Perfect.

        2. Awesome. I will now approach his comments that way.

    2. OhioOrrin|2.18.11 @ 11:31AM|#
      “yea obama coulda axed the koch bros & armey to astro-turf in alotta corporatist zombies for dat true home-grown cookin.”

      Poisoning the Well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
      You should read that if you expect to be taken as other than an ignorant asshole.
      Target-rich this morning and every one of ’em has a bulls-eye a mile wide.

      1. sevo|2.18.11 @ 11:36AM|#
        polly is a, i mean wanna cracker?

        1. OhioOrrin|2.18.11 @ 11:48AM|#
          “sevo|2.18.11 @ 11:36AM|#
          polly is a, i mean wanna cracker?”

          Go ahead, paint a bigger bulls-eye.

        2. Hello Shit Facktory!

      2. Orrin’s just fine with liberal astroturfing. Of course.

        Either it’s always wrong, or it isn’t.

    3. I think OhioOrrin is the latest iteration of the FARK ebonics filter.

  9. The quality of education affects how productive a person will be as a worker. A more or less productive work force will have an impact that goes across state lines, not to mention that sometimes people educated in one state will sometimes work in another. It is therefore the right of the US Congress to regulate education under the Commerce Clause.

    1. i think that might be sarcasm

    2. The Truth|2.18.11 @ 11:35AM|#
      “The quality of education affects how productive a person will be as a worker.”

      So you agree we need to abolish the teachers’ unions?

    3. Re: The Truth,

      The quality of education affects how productive a person will be as a worker.

      Balderdash – many a Rhodes Scholar are as unproductive as teenage girls in a strip mall.

      A more or less productive work force will have an impact that goes across state lines, not to mention that sometimes people educated in one state will sometimes work in another. It is therefore the right of the US Congress to regulate education under the Commerce Clause.

      Non sequitur, TT. The Commerce Clause does not grant Congress any power to do such thing, and you cannot derive that conclusion from the premises you posited. Learn to argue, or leave the adult conversation to us adults, take your Stud magazine and play with yourself for a while.

      1. Balderdash – Sadly, many a Rhodes Scholar are as is unproductive as picking up teenage girls in a strip mall.

      2. I’ve known a few Rhodes Scholars. While they all are quite intelligent, few could be classified as “productive,” especially in a business sense.

    4. joe is back! Did you get kicked off some other site, joe?

      1. It can’t be joe. He was more nuanced than that. He might say that at his most disingenious moments, but he had to work himself up to it in the course of mounting an increasingly desperate defense of some poorly thought out yet seemingly reasonable comment he had made earlier that prompted the regulars to hand him his ass on a platter.

    5. Well, MNG would argue that ‘regulate’ means ‘make rules about’, and that education has an effect on ‘interstate commerce’, so therefore the federal government can of course make any rules they like about education, including how the states must compensate education workers. QED!

    6. The teachers’ union is primarily a negative influence on the quality of education, as much of its efforts go into protecting the worst teachers from accountability for their failures.

      Or are you one of those trendy suckers who assume that if something is ridiculously expensive, it must be good?

    7. What, no blather about Chinese trains?

  10. I think zombie Tricky Dick is waiting in the wings, as we speak. I do not doubt for an instant the Chairwarmer-in-Chief of this country devoutly believes we need wage and price controls in the private sector.

    1. naw, nixon effed that up

  11. The public sector guys fucked themselves when they got out of sync with the private unions. You think the Steelworkers and Pipefitters, who are spending their dues on supporting an ever growing number of out-of-work members, are going to show solidarity with these people who are screaming about contributing 6% to their state guaranteed pension? I’m thinking not.

    1. An interesting point. I’ve worked with many an industrial union member, and the ones that work as contractors generally work quite hard with quality results. It’s when you get an employees’, as opposed to a contractors’ union, that the productivity:pay ratio drops significantly. Union contractors understand that they have to perform to get called back.

  12. We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people’s money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street’s fault. Anyone who doesn’t agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler.

    I think Matt has been reading The Truth’s comments.

    1. “then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street’s fault. Anyone who doesn’t agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler.”

      I’d say a good paraphrase of Tony and da troof.

    2. I don’t get why it’s so obvious that we can’t raise taxes on the rich to cover budget shortfalls, but we can demand an effective 7% pay cut for teachers. Is it really the latter who are living too large?

      1. Is it really the latter who are living too large?

        Yes. It really is the latter. The cost of the salaries and the pensions are crowding out every other government priority.

      2. Some of us never had benefits and have taken 10%+ cuts in pay to keep our jobs in the last 2 years. Imagine how little I give a shit that teachers are taking smaller cuts to keep theirs.

        1. Because public sector workers should have to have as shitty a situation as the rest of us. Just as long as we don’t touch the pockets of the poor wittle billionaires!

          1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:48AM|#
            “Because public sector workers should have to have as shitty a situation as the rest of us.”

            Well, go find a job if you have a shitty situation.

          2. actually many public unions have taken pay cuts & furloughs tony.

            1. …whoops i meant when asked & bargined with in good faith.

              1. OhioOrrin|2.18.11 @ 11:52AM|#
                “…whoops i meant when asked & bargined with in good faith”

                IOWs, practically no cuts and damn few.

            2. OhioOrrin|2.18.11 @ 11:51AM|#
              “actually many public unions have taken pay cuts & furloughs tony.”

              Not nearly enough.

          3. income != wealth

            Taxing income does not affect wealth.

          4. Its a recession you dumbass. By definition there’s less money now than there was before. Everyone is taking a bite of the shit sandwich. The only question is: how big a bite. Their bite ain’t bigger than the one I had to swallow.

            1. No, everyone isn’t. Working people, the middle class, and the poor are all being asked to sacrifice. But the people who actually caused the recession are making more money than ever. Point your pitchforks at them for a while so you might seem the slightest bit consistent.

              1. “But the people who actually caused the recession are making more money than ever.”

                You’re right. Congress and the Fed are laughing all the way to the bank.

              2. I have too suffered during this recession, Tony. Stop denying it! Just last week my beloved Jerold had to be shown the door. Hard to believe he couldn’t pull down some serious money in our little escort business with that incwedably tight ass of his, but his heart wasn’t really into it.

              3. But the people who actually caused the recession are making more money than ever.

                They sure are, thanks to us!

              4. We Greedy Public Unions are the only ones who shouldn’t have to “share” the burden.

          5. Man, it’s always THIS argument… We can’t do anything to these millions of people who are grinding the system to a halt with their demands on the public funds, because there’s a bunch of billionaires out there who are paying nothing into the system.

            What??? What does one have to do with another? And it’s easy enough to disprove with data.

            But no matter, it’s a whole lot easier to pander to class warfare.

          6. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:48AM|#
            Because public sector workers should have to have as shitty a situation as the rest of us. Just as long as we don’t touch the pockets of the poor wittle billionaires!

            Because the people being forced to pay for this are private sector workers, and you seem to think they ought to keep getting ass-raped so that their earnings can provide better compensation and benefits to the government employees then they get themselves. Fuck off, slaver.

          7. Because public sector workers should have to have as shitty a situation as the rest of us. Just as long as we don’t touch the pockets of the poor wittle billionaires!

            Working people are paying for teacher salaries & benefits, Tony, and they just can’t afford never-ending increases.

            What you want is for people struggling to make ends meet to keep paying for raises and gold plated benefits for another group of people, for no reason other than their membership in a protected class.

            1. No, I want the wealthy to pay for it.

              1. Why isn’t 34.5% enough, Tony?

                1. It’s more than enough if we got rid of the loopholes and giveaways.

                  1. I guess we’re making progress. Tony appears to be endorsing the flat tax.

                  2. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

                    The top ten percent paid Nearly 75% of all taxes in 08. Fucking citations, how do they work?

                  3. Bullshit. You tax’n’spenders want 90% tax rates.

          8. Because public sector workers should have to have as shitty a situation as the rest of us. Just as long as we don’t touch the pockets of the poor wittle billionaires!

            What did you do to deserve a portion of the billionaire’s money.

        2. The teachers have jumped the shark. No one sympathizes with them.

          1. Other than the President, that is.

      3. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:44AM|#
        “I don’t get why it’s so obvious that we can’t raise taxes on the rich to cover budget shortfalls, but we can demand an effective 7% pay cut for teachers.”

        Please point out your ignorance to those who haven’t figured it out by now.
        I don’t care and am not surprised you ‘don’t get it’.

        1. So why don’t you educate me? Oh, because you’re sevo, and you never do anything but hurl insults and claim to be right without ever offering a cogent argument about anything.

          1. Re: Tony,

            So why don’t you educate me? Oh, because you’re sevo, and you never do anything but hurl insults and claim to be right without ever offering a cogent argument about anything.

            I’ll educate you:

            “I don’t get why it’s so obvious that we can’t raise taxes on the rich to cover budget shortfalls”

            Because it was not the GODDAMNED FAULT OF THE so-called rich that the GOVERNMENT CAN’T DO ANYTHING RIGHT! That’s why.

            Asshole.

            1. First, it was the moneymakers (not the money earners) who are at fault. Second, who gives a fuck whose fault it was? What’s important is what makes fiscal sense. That’s not continuing to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy and expecting people making less than 50K to pick up the slack. You cannot get the economy moving by reducing the spending power of most of the people in the country.

              1. “First, it was the moneymakers (not the money earners) who are at fault.

                Second, who gives a fuck whose fault it was?”

                Third, go suck a diseased cock, Tony.

              2. Re: Tony,

                First, it was the moneymakers (not the money earners) who are at fault.

                Again with the semantic fallacy? A person that makes money also earns it. Only marxoid Statist Fucks believe people that do not toil fields or machinery are not really working.

                Second, who gives a fuck whose fault it was? What’s important is what makes fiscal sense.

                That’s a red herring. You cannot overspend and then lay a bill on someone else’s footstep, calling it “fiscal sense.”

                That’s not continuing to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy and expecting people making less than 50K to pick up the slack.

                Nobody is asking 50K earners to pick up any slack. Myself, I call for tarring and feathering all public employees and send them to find real productive jobs, instead of plundering us all.

                You cannot get the economy moving by reducing the spending power of most of the people in the country.

                Oh yes I can! You think it can’t be done because you’re pathetically ignorant of economics.

                1. A person that makes money also earns it.

                  Except public employees, I gather. It’s not possible for policy to enrich the rich, is it? Only the poor are powerful enough to have government do their bidding, right?

                  1. Only the poor are powerful enough to have government do their bidding, right?
                    Government workers are not ‘poor’, asshole. They are compensated on average at a significantly higher rate than comparable private sector workers, who are being told by fucksticks like you that they should sacrifice even more to continue to provide government workers with compensation far in excess of what they get themselves. Fuck off, slaver.

                  2. Re: Tony,

                    Except public employees, I gather.

                    Of course – STEALING is not making or earning. MAKING implies productivity, EARNING implies obtaining it through voluntary exchange. So-called PUBLIC EMPLOYEES receive ALL THEIR MONEY from thieving, from plundering.

                    It’s not possible for policy to enrich the rich, is it?

                    Sure it is possible. So?

                    Only the poor are powerful enough to have government do their bidding, right?

                    The government couldn’t care less about the poor… or anybody, for that matter. Government types only care about government. What some rich companies or people do is at least cull some favors with the almighty state, but that’s an indictment on the State, not on the rich.

              3. …it was the moneymakers (not the money earners) who are at fault.

                I would love to hear the doubtlessly hilarious explanation of this distinction.

              4. earners of all they get. They have grossly bloated levels of compensation.

                1. If you can make that determination about public workers then I can make the same about people who make 3000 times they do and produce less.

                  1. No you can’t, because the guy who makes 3,000 times more typically produces more — real wealth, jobs and economic activity — while the public “worker” just steals money from everyone else’s paycheck to perform 5 to 6 hours’ worth of work in a 38-hour work week, at a 150% premium to the market rate.

                  2. I can make the same about people who make 3000 times they do and produce less.

                    Nope. If the compensation for the ‘rich’ is too high, then the company will go BK, (unless you have a friendly administration to bail you out) while gubment workers are all but guaranteed employment.

                    You’re full of shit. You’re arguing that pubsec union workers are just as productive as the private sector, and at the same time decrying the implementation of a system that would actually treat them as such.

          2. “I don’t get why it’s so obvious that we can’t raise taxes on the rich to cover budget shortfalls…”

            Because union benefits were set to rise higher than the price of inflation…

            The problem isn’t a lack of revenue; it’s that the government employees wages and benefits are set to rise above the rate of inflation!

            You make it sound like the solution to drunken sailors spending too much money is giving them more money to spend. …and that just doesn’t make any sense to anybody.

            1. …and that just doesn’t make any sense to anybody.

              …except drunken sailors.

              1. …and that just doesn’t make any sense to anybody.

                …except drunken sailors.

                …and Tony

                1. Tony the drunken sailor

                  His beach house is just out of frame. Did he mention he had a beach house? Also, he fully expects taxpayers to pay for the damage, somehow.

              2. Fuck you.

      4. …demand an effective 7% pay cut for teachers…

        Maybe that means their benefits were too generous before, not too small now.

        1. How would you like a 7% pay cut? How would you like it if it came about because your political opponents unilaterally decided just to snatch it from you?

          These are real people, and like most workers in this country can’t absorb cuts like this. If this was actually in the service of fiscal soundness, that would be one thing, but it’s not. It’s political warfare.

          1. The people of Wisconsin have a right to legislate their own budget, Tony.

            Even if Barack Obama hates them for it.

          2. “How would you like a 7% pay cut? How would you like it if it came about because your political opponents unilaterally decided just to snatch it from you?”

            How does Tony not see the irony in this re: his constant argument for higher tax rates.

            1. Well how come government employees have to make tough choices?

              How come working taxpayers never have to make any tough choices?!

              /sarcasm

          3. They should be fired for violating the terms of their contract by calling in sick without actually being sick.

            Then they can be replaced by people who are happy to take on the job at a lower salary.

            Sympathetic doctors who give them fake doctor’s notes should be stripped of their license and put in prison for defrauding the state government.

            That’s much better than giving them a pay cut.

          4. How would you like a 7% pay cut?

            I’d have to slash my monocle budget in half.

          5. How would you like a 7% pay cut?

            Given inflation and my recent (small or non-existent, depending on the year) raises, I’d say I’ve been given one. But I have neither the power nor the inclination to browbeat others into taking a “pay cut” via higher taxes so that my salary and benefits continue to grow.

          6. Right, because unlike everybody else, they are entitled to that pay. That’s the important thing to remember. Entitled.

          7. Ok, I usually just read all you folks. But Tony’s argument here is just over the top stupid.

            It is NOT a paycut to have to contribute to YOUR OWN retirement and heath insurance!

            If they don’t want to pay a portion of the costs for things that are benefiting them, then maybe they should opt out of the state provided pension & healthcare insurance plans.

            The average teacher in Wisconsin is making $77+k a year. They can afford to cover some of their own costs.

            1. ^This.^ Thank you, flicka47.

          8. How would you like a 7% pay cut?

            I took a 25% one to help tide my employer through the recession. Then again, I care about my coworkers and the health of my employer. I wish I could say the same for a bloated public union, which has only contempt for the struggling working people who richly line their nest.

          9. These are real people, and like most workers in this country can’t absorb cuts like this. If this was actually in the service of fiscal soundness, that would be one thing, but it’s not. It’s political warfare.

            Then they should get another fucking job.

      5. I always love these kind of comments, because the presumption is that peoples incomes belong to society as a whole.

      6. Is it really the latter who are living too large?

        Actually you and Teh Troof have been bitching about teachers but school districts determine their wages not the state capital.

        You are intentionally lying Tony. The people who will see the big cuts are not teachers.

      7. The rich don’t just live large on their income, they put a much greater portion of it towards investment because their base consumption needs are already met.

        If we were talking about a progressive consumption tax, you’d have a better point; consuming your seedcorn is a bad idea, even if times are a little rough.

      8. I don’t get why it’s so obvious that we can’t raise taxes on the rich to cover budget shortfalls, but we can demand an effective 7% pay cut for teachers.

        Cuz Wisconsin gets its revenues from sales and property taxes.

        Sales are down because they have over 10% unemployment and property values are down because…well if you don’t know you are blind and dumb.

        if they raise any of those taxes it will only lower sales and lower property values…thus no gain. If they invent a new “Tax the rich” tax then the rich will leave or stop working and stop hiring….thus again the government still has low revenues and can’t pay its employees.

        it should also be noted that teachers are not payed by the state. So technically it will be up to the the various school districts and their budgets how much teacher pay/benifits is to be cut.

        1. Anotehr note:

          If school districts do not have to deal with collecive bargining they can choose who to hire and who to fire.

          They can now get rid of the crappy teachers and pay the good teachers more on merit and ability rather then seniority.

          Cuts are inevitable…the economy says so. By taking away collective bargaining the districts can mitigate the damage this will have on the actual service they are providing…which is believe it or not to teach children.

          I know it is hard to believe but the purpose of schools and their teachers is not to pay union members….its purpose is to teach kids.

          Far out claim I know….but a true one.

          1. Well, no. That is not the “collective bargaining” they’d be dealing with.

            The Wisconsin law would only limit collective bargaining for pay increases. Instead of negotiating yearly raises, those raises would instead be based on the Consumer Price Index, unless the voters approved a wage increase. So, in reality raises would be a COLA.

            More than most non-government folks get.

            Other negotiating between the gov’t and the union would still take place, though obviously more limited in scope. And unions would still represent workers in individual employee/employer disputes.

  13. People who work for the government are PUBLIC SERVANTS, they are there to serve us, they should be grateful for the PRIVILEGE of working for us at our expense. They shouldn’t even have unions. And I don’t want to hear about how they pay taxes to. That’s like you giving me $100 dollars, me losing it in Las Vegas, and then bitching that I lost my money when I actually lost yours.

    No smokers need apply: Why you should care even if you don’t smoke.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..hould.html

  14. My grandfather was born in the US to parents to immigrated from the Ukraine before WWI. the entire family did not come over and I’m told that contact was lost during the great purge. The dictator nonsense really pisses me off.

  15. re: alt text “Told ya!”

    Yes, you’re very smart. Shut up.

  16. This ought to be a huge scandal. What the hell right does the President have to interfere with the politics of a state? The President is using the political power of the Presidency to organize protests agaisnt a lawfully elected govenor and legilsture of a state engaged in state business. That is appalling. That rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeaor.

    1. It’s almost cute how Republicunts pee themselves in anticipation of Obama doing something to merit his ouster. If the consequences for the world weren’t so dire, I’d almost hope a Republican gets elected in 2012 just to shut up your incessant whining and pouting.

      1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:47AM|#
        “…Republicunts…”

        You should save that for recess. Your 1st grade classmates will just howl with laughter.

      2. This is a lot to expect of you I know. But use your imagination. What if George Bush would have had the West Wing creating pro iraq war protests all over the country during the run up tot he iraq war. Or had his political operative building counter war protests designed to disrupt the antiwar protests. Or had people protest the California governor over some enviromental law.

        You would have been calling for his impeachment. This is no different.

        1. Bush did quite enough with his anti-protest suppression tactics, secret policy-forming meetings with energy CEOs, oh and torturing people and starting wars based on lies. There’s plenty he deserved to be impeached for.

          1. And so that makes it OK for Obama to do the same? You are as bad as MNG Tony. There is nothign Obama does that you won’t defend.

            1. How many wars has Obama started under false pretenses again?

              1. How many wars has Obama started under false pretenses again?

                He has continued to fight two wars under false pretenses…and he even promised to end one of them….which he did end…at exactly the time Bush planned on ending it.

                He continues to the fight the other one.

                1. And as a nonpartisan libertarian you’re so not interested in shuffling off as much blame as possible from the actual people who started the wars and onto the guy who inherited them. Why didn’t Obama just snap his fingers and end them?

                  1. shuffling off as much blame as possible from the actual people who started the wars and onto the guy who inherited them.

                    Obama got more then a few libertarian votes because he said he would end the war.

                    When he did not end it is it not fair that he should receive blame for lying to us?

                    Also Bush is dicking around in some ranch in Texas probably annoying the crap out of his wife. Obama on the other hand is in the white house fucking up the whole country.

                    Bush sucked ass…but he is not the one in power right now.

                2. Not just fight. Escalate.

              2. Barack or Michelle?

          2. Shorter Tony: “But…the other team did it too!”

            1. No. The other team is much worse on every single count, and I do not live under the illusion that I have more than 2 choices.

              1. Shorter Tony: The other team did it worse!

              2. I cannot see but I believe. I apologize for the mass-murdering socialists of the past, but My Party is different: their goals are the same but they would never…..

              3. Which is hilarious, because you just accused us libertarians of doing the same thing with Republicans on spending…

                He’s just trolling folks. We need to stop feeding him.

                1. Yes I believe in picking the major party that most reflects your values and influencing it from within. Yes I will call out libertarians when they claim to hare both parties equally but then do free shill work for republicans.

                  1. So what about when we did “free shill work” as you call it for the Democrats against the Iraq war? Against the Patriot Act?

                    1. A pittance of intellectual consistency? Congratulations, you still believe all the destructive plutocratic economic policies republicans do, but you sure are against a couple of the most egregious abuses the country has known!

              4. Tony, would you prefer being raped by a bear, or by a gorilla?

                That’s the Team Red/Team Blue “choice” menu.

          3. Tony – “Anything is ok if my guy does it”.

          4. 5 minutes earlier …

            I don’t give a shit who the president talks to in public or private

          5. And now Obama is doing all of those things too (maybe not starting wars, but continuing and escalating wars based on lies is almost as bad).

          6. Tony on Obama, 11:50:

            I don’t give a shit who the president talks to in public or private

            Tony on Bush, 11:55:

            Bush did quite enough with his … secret policy-forming meetings with energy CEOs…There’s plenty he deserved to be impeached for.

            1. Glorious.

        2. I think it would have been a little different, John.

          Because if George Bush had done that, it wouldn’t have interfered with the ability of the people of Wisconsin to run their own state government.

          Barack Obama, on the other hand, may effectively shut down the Wisconsin legislature ’cause he didn’t like what they were doing.

          That’s a big difference!

          1. Oh noo Republicans are all for federalism, like telling women what they can do with their reproductive systems, gay people what are allowed to do with their sex organs, oh yeah, and students which stupid standardized tests they have to pass.

            1. None of which has anything to do with Barack Obama interfering with the people’s right to representation!

            2. And Tony, you democrats tell everyone what we can do with our incomes, what foods we are allowed to eat and cars to drive and force us to buy health plans we dont want… so please tell me why you think you are so morally superior?

              You have things you want to force onto people because you think its better for society, and conservatives have things they want to force on people because they think it is better for society. You guys are one in the same – you just have a slightly different view of what “good” is.

              1. We are morally superior because we care about the well-being of people other than the most privileged people on earth.

                Leaving people with the crappy options of the status quo in healthcare does not equal more freedom than giving them better, cheaper options.

                1. Yeah Tony you care so much you are willing to sacrifice the education of the children of Madison so you can keep from paying 5% of your pension. Yeah, they really fucking care.

                2. “We are morally superior because we care about the well-being of people other than the most privileged people on earth.”

                  That’s why you rich snob Progressives try to stop Wal*Marts from moving into poor neighborhoods.

                  That’s why your disgusting public employee unions fight school choice programs and trap underprivileged children in substandard school districts!

                  There isn’t a political movement in the country that’s done more to hold back the poor than the Progressives.

                  …and now Obama is hiring 1,054 IRS agents to go after poor people who can’t afford to buy health insurance.

                  You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

                  1. There isn’t a political movement in the country that’s done more to hold back the poor than the Progressives.

                    Yeah, except conservatives, for whom holding back the poor is there raison d’etre.

                    You have to do better than relating the studied wisdom of Professor Beck.

                    1. I’ve never once watched anything with Beck in it…in my life! …unless Gillespie happened to be covering a live event or something.

                      The Republicans around here hated me for bashing Bush on these pages for pretty much the entirety of his presidency…

                      But I understand! Progressives are indefensible on their treatment of the poor–on three items I just pulled off the top of my head! …so indefensible that you felt it necessary to lash out at me personally.

                      It doesn’t change the truth, Tony. Progressives may tout themselves as being all about helping the poor–doesn’t make it so. Their recent record on the poor is indefensible.

                      …and you just proved that.

                    2. What recent record? Progressivism has been struggling just to stay relevant during the decades-long dominance of supply-sider bullshit. Sure they haven’t been terribly successful in making society more progressive, but progressives aren’t the ones championing policies that shit on the poor. We’ve had modest success with the election of Obama, though, including the biggest change in the (incidentally budget-killing) healthcare status quo in generations.

                    3. “What recent record?”

                      All three of those items I mentioned were pulled from the pages of Hit & Run over the past few days!

                      Go look them up yourself.

                3. Tony|2.18.11 @ 12:21PM|#
                  We are morally superior because we care about the well-being of people other than the most privileged people on earth.

                  This has got to be a spoof Tony – this is too idiotic even for him.

                  1. Oh, no he is not.

                  2. Re: WTF

                    Dude, NOTHING is too idiotic for Tony.

                4. We are morally superior because we care about the well-being of people other than the most privileged people on earth.

                  Then write those people a fucking check and leave me out of it.

                5. What libertarian have you ever heard defend the status quo of health care? You are so fucking full of shit today, Tony. You really can’t see why this is a totally inappropriate thing for the president to be doing?

                6. wind him up and watch him go.

                7. —“We are morally superior”—

                  This type of statement scares me, because people who feel they are morally superior have no compunction at all about forcing people to do their bidding.

                8. We are morally superior because we care about the well-being of people

                  No you don’t. You’re perfectly happy to take an ever bigger slice of my ever-shrinking paycheck to pay yourself and your supporters ever richer benefits. You don’t “care” — you don’t give a fuck about real working people.

                  It shows in the rhetoric about real poor people that your party indulges in. When a homeless person comes up to the limousine of a prominent liberal politician and the politician shrinks away from the “icky” poor person. When your own presidential candidate described working people in the rust belt as “stupid and bitter” in a high-end wine and cheese party in a San Francisco mansion.

                  And so on.

                  No, you don’t “care.” You feign concern in order to help yourself to other people’s earnings.

                9. we care about the well-being of people other than the most privileged people on earth.

                  You’re fucking thieves. Nothing moral about that.

            3. you love Sharia law states, cuz your dream progressive state would be very similar.

            4. Oh noo Republicans are all for federalism, like telling women what they can do with their reproductive systems, gay people what are allowed to do with their sex organs, oh yeah, and students which stupid standardized tests they have to pass.

              What federal anti-sodomy laws are there?

          2. Because if George Bush had done that, it wouldn’t have interfered with the ability of the people of Wisconsin to run their own state government.

            Actually if you remember Katrina Bush’s hands were tied by federalism and the left still blamed him for the mistakes of Louisiana’s Governor and New Orleans’ Mayor.

            1. Ha… Yes it’s such a strawman when I call you guys Republican cocksuckers.

              Bush has a well paid team of knob polishers doing his history-rewriting propaganda. Why do you need to do it for free?

              1. Bush has a well paid team of knob polishers doing his history-rewriting propaganda. Why do you need to do it for free?

                So you think the US president should be allowed to just send in troops into any state he wants to when ever he wants to without consent from that state’s government?

                I know your answer to that question.

                But as you well know i am a libertarian. Now in your small brain can you conceive of a possibility why as a libertarian I might not want the federal government to have that kind of power? regardless of which blue/red team member is in the white house?

                I am not defending Bush. I am defending a libertarian value; limiting the power of the federal government. Bush just happened to be the guy that did the right thing….and the left just happened to be the creeps that attacked him for it.

                I have no favorites…if the roles were reversed I would not have an issue with calling the offending parties out for it.

                1. A natural disaster like Katrina is a national issue, and the federal government should have the power to deal with it. And it did. The Bushies, because they agree with you on the role of the federal government (but only apply it to poor black people), seriously dropped the ball.

                  1. I HATE HATE HATE you cocksuckers, and my guy can do no wrong. If he does it’s Bush’s fault.

                  2. A natural disaster like Katrina is a national issue, and the federal government should have the power to deal with it. And it did. The Bushies, because they agree with you on the role of the federal government (but only apply it to poor black people), seriously dropped the ball.

                    Then we disagree..I think in order for the federal government to take action in the states it must first follow due process and get permission from the state…

                    but the point is that my position is a principled one….and not about republican worship or a love of Bush like you accused me of.

                    1. We are not a collection of 50 countries, the nation has its jurisdiction, interests, and responsibilities too. If its role isn’t to respond to large (multi- state) natural disasters, then we might as well just be 50 independent countries. But keep up the good fight, the civil war may be won yet!

                    2. We are a collection of 50 soverign states with their own elected governments, their own laws, and their own clearly defined local authority to act on emergencies. Otherwise there’s no reason to have states. The federal government doesn’t have the authority to do any damn thing it pleases just because someone like you says it should. Don’t like it? Don’t argue with me – argue with the Constitution. Pass an Amendment. Stop whining.

                    3. The federal government has broad powers, and they are not constrained by your fantasies of what the constitution says.

                      They’re just lines on a map anyway. It is prudent to have governments to fit jurisdictions, and there is some sense to having states with the ability to enact policies to fit their communities. But I don’t think it’s all that important. In the modern world, commerce and society are increasingly homogenized, thus necessitating more policy-making powers on larger scales.

                      Have never understood what’s so libertarian about sanctifying state powers.

                    4. Have never understood what’s so libertarian about sanctifying state powers.

                      The check on power thing.

                      The states check the power of the federal government and the federal government checks the power of the states.

                    5. You know, Tony, you’re awfully free with the insults in cyberspace. Somehow I feel that you’d be a bit more reticent in a place where your dental work would almost certainly be rearranged as a consequence of your free expression.

                    6. Oh irl I’m unflappably polite.

      3. It’s almost cute how Republicunts pee themselves in anticipation of Obama doing something to merit his ouster.

        Of course he should.

        If the consequences for the world weren’t so dire, I’d almost hope a Republican gets elected in 2012 just to shut up your incessant whining and pouting.

        Which consequences would they be, boy?

    2. Every fucking week Obama does something that astounds me. Every time, I think he really can’t get any more stupid/craven/dangerous than this, but next week he’ll do it again.

    3. The President is using the political power of the Presidency to organize protests…

      Organizing protests is his only experience and qualification.

      When all you have is a hammer…

      1. True. He was a “community organizer,” and has never had a job apart from that role.

    4. If W had devoted staff time and White House resources to organizing protestors to pursue Democrat legislators prior to key votes on his policies, the left would have gone berserk.

      There’s supposed to be a division between policy and political operations and it doesn’t seem to have be honored here.

      1. And they would have had a right to go bizerk. This is downright Nixonian.

    5. The reality here is that the teachers “called in sick” AGAIN today, and the taxpayers in Wisconsin who had to rearrange their day to make sure their kids have something else to do since school is closed are none too happy at the Teachers right now.

      The WI Teachers Union is pulling the same shit the Air Traffic Controllers did with Reagan, and they picked a BAD time to do it. No matter what Obama does, he isn’t governor of Wisconsin and if the teachers keep playing these games they will be out of work eventually.

      1. I’m sure you’d take a 7% pay cut forced on you by your political opponents in stride, and thank your employer for the privilege.

        1. —“I’m sure you’d take a 7% pay cut forced on you by your political opponents in stride, and thank your employer for the privilege.”—

          So if I decide to put aside, say 7%, for my retirement, do I get to complain about the pay cut I just took?

          1. You can pull your pockets inside out and play kiss the rabbit for all I care. How is that situation analogous to what I described?

            1. So what’s the alternative? Bouncing paychecks? That’s what would have happened at my employer years ago if we’d not taken a cut to support the business and ensure no layoffs hit.

              But then that requires concern for colleagues and for others — not a perpetual assumption that one can just steal an ever larger amount of money from others’ stagnant paychecks to pay for fancy pensions and gold-plated health care.

        2. it’s not a pay cut, idiot. They are being told they will have to contribute more of their pay for their health insurance and pension. As a resident of WI and a person who currently contributes 10% of my pay for my health insurance, well my sympathy registers in the negatives.

          The average retirement age for WI teachers is between 55 and 59. Me, I am quite sure it will be 65 or later. yep, sympathy < 0

          Oh, and when my employer increases the percentage I must pay, I don’t get to skip work and picket in front of the CEO’s office.

          at least I don’t if I want to continue to work.

          1. Oh and WEAC (teachers union) strongly suggests that the teachers, upon retirement, go live in Florida because the taxes are lower.

            There is a very good reason why the Governor and the Legislature flipped so hard this last election.

            A pox on al of them.

        3. You are one giant disingenuous prick aren’t you?

          IT ISN’T A FUCKING PAY CUT.

          They won’t get paid less, they will have to contribute more to their benefits than they have in the past. And by more I mean SINGLE FUCKING DIGIT PERCENTAGES of increase.

          I’m sure you remember how sympathetic the nation was to the plight of the ATC workers in the 80’s right? Guess what’s gonna happen this time?

          1. Republicans are going to do to the rest of the country what they did to the airlines?

            1. Oh, you mean make them affordable to normal people?

              1. Actually, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter were the main drivers of airline deregulation. Yeah, I know, hard to believe…

                1. Broken clock and all…

                2. Carter’s three successes:

                  1. Airlines
                  2. Trucking
                  3. Afghanistan (yes, Reagan finished it, but Carter set up the groundwork which allowed Reagan to succeed)

              2. Oh, you mean make them affordable to normal people?

                If they had not done so, high speed rail would be profitable.

            2. Republicans are going to do to the rest of the country what they did to the airlines?

              What did Republicans do to the airlines?

  17. The guy holding the “Scott = HITLERRRRRRR!” sign is probably a history teacher.

    1. I’m sure the media will be outraged at the reckless Hitler analogies.

      1. remember, we are in the new era of toning down rhetoric… waiting for Ed Schultz to report on this one tonight.

  18. “Scott Walker” that is.

    1. The Texas Ranger guy?

    2. What a fantastic musician…

  19. Dumb motherfucker never even heard of Mubarak until it was in the news last week. Short attention span or what?

    1. I’ve entertained a notion of carrying a map of the middle east with no names on it. Anyone opening their piehole about said reason is presented the map and asked to fill the names in. Less than 80% filled and correct needs to STFU.

      1. region, not reason. Ugh, I should STFU.

        1. It’s called an iron law for a reason.

  20. “We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy.”

    Hear, hear!

    1. …although I’d probably take it further than that.

      The logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy is that “We Our tax dollars exist to make the public sector unions happy.

    2. Anybody see Rachel Maddow talk about this?

      Her very distilled point was that if the Parasites lose this one it means the death of the Democratic party. If Glenn Beck had been saying the same stuff it would have sounded like a ridiculous exaggeration.

      1. I hope she’s right!

        …because they’re gonna lose this one.

        All the spin in the world isn’t gonna make being gouged by public employee unions okay with average Americans. …and the longer this goes on, the worse it’s making the government employees unions look.

      2. I’d say that the Democrat party of today will ‘die’ in the sense that it will change very dramatically.

  21. Time for Obama to have another beer putsch. I mean, summit.

  22. Could Obama be brought up on charges of Treason against the state of Wisconsin? I would call this levying war.

    “Treason. Section 10. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the same, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

    1. That depends. Do you consider nonviolent protesters (however misguided their demands might be) to be the equivalent of an armed rebellion or foreign invasion?

      If so, please leave your libertarian card here with me, I’ll go get the scissors.

  23. “We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people’s money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street’s fault.”

    Public Schools are nothing more than a retirement ponzi scheme that uses children as human shields

    1. Public Schools are nothing more than a retirement ponzi scheme that uses children as human shields

      Simplify this: Public schools are nothing more than cradle-to-grave daycare for teachers and students.

      1. Yes let’s just do away with public education. The better to create an underclass of slave workers for those oh-so-victimized employers you spend all your time fellating.

        1. Gay Kettle? You’re black.

        2. Yes let’s just do away with public education.

          Might as well considering the quality of public education these days.

          Public education is needed to create an underclass of slave workers for those oh-so-victimized employers voters for the benevolent progressive ruling class

          FIFY

        3. Yes let’s just do away with public education. The better to create an underclass of slave workers for those oh-so-victimized employers you spend all your time fellating.

          Public schools already do that.

          Why waste the money?

    2. I think that they are a bit more than that. But not too much at this point.

  24. we can demand an effective 7% pay cut for teachers.

    Wrong.

    We want them to pay for what they are currently demanding for free. Like, you know, normal people.

  25. Why are Libertarians anti-union?

    Shouldn’t people have the freedom to bargain collectively? Or do Libertarians believe that this should be regulated by the government?

    Please educate me.

    1. Re: horchata,

      Why are Libertarians anti-union?

      First of all, don’t you dare call yourself after my favorite rice drink.

      Second, nobody here is against unions. Libertarians are against COERCION.

      Shouldn’t people have the freedom to bargain collectively?

      Yes, and equally employers have the right to tell union collective bargainers to go fuck themselves. Statist fucks believe employers are plutocrats that deserve to be coerced by government fiat.

      Or do Libertarians believe that this should be regulated by the government?

      Government ‘regulation’ requires COERCION, a sine qua non, so clearly, being against coercion would mean being against government action. QED.

      Please educate me.

      Really? I’m skeptical – when I see it, I’ll believe it.

      1. There used to be a burrito place here in Cleveland that had lovely horchata, but now it’s gone. I doubt if there’s good horchata anywhere within 300 miles now. So very sad.

      2. Old Mexican. How dare you name yourself after many of my favorite people. And, thanks for the response.

        In the Wisconsin case the state government is trying to take away the people’s right to bargain collectively, while the President is interceding on their behalf.

        Shouldn’t a libertarian agree with the President on this?

        1. Because we also believe that the employer (in this case, the government of Wisconsin) has the freedom to tell the union to fuck off. Nice try though*, thanks for playing!

          *It really wasn’t a very nice try. It was abysmally ignorant.

          1. Is it a libertarian position that governments should have the right to tell people to ‘fuck off’?

            1. Yes. There was an election. They lost. They now want to intimidate the lawfully elected representatives into disobeying the wishes of the electorate.

              If their natural rights (rather than their civilly-granted “rights”) were being threatened, I would feel some sympathy. That’s not the case, though. I believe Governor Walker should phrase his message more artfully than that, but you got the gist right.

              1. “Yes. There was an election. They lost. They now want to intimidate the lawfully elected representatives into disobeying the wishes of the electorate.”

                We’re cool with that.

            2. When it comes to employment, absolutely. Working in the service of the people is an honor for the worthy, not a right.

            3. I’m going to go ask the government for a billion dollars. When they tell me no, I’m going to file a civil discrimination lawsuit because they told me no. I win!

        2. “In the Wisconsin case the state government is trying to take away the people’s right to bargain collectively,”

          Re read, (or read for the first time) OM’s response.
          BTW, there is no “right” to bargain collectively; that is a favor granted by the government.

          1. BTW, there is no “right” to bargain collectively; that is a favor granted by the government.

            Then there is no right to start a business and make money, that’s just a favor granted by government.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Then there is no right to start a business and make money, that’s just a favor granted by government.

              Tell that to the black market taxi drivers and hairdressers. People ACT, whether the government likes it or not.

              Collective bargaining only works when government coerces employers to bargain with collective bargainers EXCLUSIVELY. This is called “racketeering”. Under any other circumstance, employers can tell collective bargainers to go fuck themselves.

            2. Then there is no right to start a shitty business that treats its customers as the enemy and tries to rip them off to the greatest extent possible and make money, that’s just a favor granted by government.

              See, now it’s not just a better analogy for unions, it’s a criticism of rent-seeking too!

        3. Re: Horchata,

          Old Mexican. How dare you name yourself after many of my favorite people.

          Maybe because I happen to be Mexican.

          In the Wisconsin case the state government is trying to take away the people’s right to bargain collectively

          That’s not true. The government of Wisconsin is simply putting into law that the government will not bargain with collective bargainers. A person does NOT have a right to coerce someone into bargaining with him or her, no matter if collectively or not.

          ….while the President is interceding on their behalf.

          Actually, he is just giving his opinion. Not that it matters, he can’t do anything.

          Shouldn’t a libertarian agree with the President on this?

          A libertarian can do whatever the fuck he or she pleases. *I* don’t agree with the President and I would not agree with him even if I weren’t libertarian, as it is not his fucking business.

          1. Thanks for the discussion, Old Mexican.

            I agree that it’s ‘not his fucking business’.

        4. Read the Fucking Library Collection because you are completely lost in a maze of ignorance, moron.

        5. Not if the union is public. Libertarians generally don’t want to recognize a federally granted right for public workers to bargain for funds that come from taxation. It would seem to be the heart of libertarianism, actually, because you have services that might otherwise be private, and you have tax dollars funding these services, and the only requirement for any sort of bargaining — initially only private — came from a federal law to do so, a law overseen by what was probably one of the most economically collectivist presidents in our history.

          I hope that makes sense.

          1. somehow i missed that in the “Inalienable Rights” part…

    2. Hi, I’m conducting a poll for trolls that are new to this site. A “troll-poll,” if you will. Please answer the following:

      1) How did you find this site?

      2) Do you troll at other sites? If so, which ones?

      3) Do you have to shield your eyes from the light when emerging from your parents’ basement?

      Thanks for your participation!

      1. Tony sucks my troll-pole.

      2. 1) How did you find this site?

        THE URKOBOLD HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE.

        2) Do you troll at other sites? If so, which ones?

        NOT UNLESS PAID TO DO SO. THE URKOBOLD WILL TELL YOU WHICH ONES IF YOU PAY HIM TO DO SO.

        3) Do you have to shield your eyes from the light when emerging from your parents’ basement?

        THE URKOBOLD IS FUCKING YOUR MOTHER AS HE TYPES. WAIT A MOMENT. . .MOM SAYS HI.

      3. 1. I saw Nick and Brian on CSPAN and was impressed

        2. I use to troll Environmental Economics blog…but now you have to sign in with facebook or some shit so i stopped posting…i still read it.

        3. yes

        Wait…am i a troll?

      4. Anyone who uses the term “troll” is a ridiculous nerd, and it’s almost never used correctly here, as it is not a term for someone who merely disagrees with you.

        1. Ok so you are not a troll…we get it. You are an earnest leftist who comes here to bitch at all of us liberatards.

          But the questions were obviously directed at you…and i am sure quite a few people are wondering how you would answer at the least the first two questions.

          1. Fine I’ll humor you.

            1) I found this site via Arts & Letters Daily.

            2) I post on some liberal sites, such as Salon, Huffpost, and Slate but mostly here, because for some reason I only like debating with people I disagree with, rather than circle jerking with those I agree with. And frankly you guys are the least insane of the right-wing internet community.

            1. 2) I post on some liberal sites, such as Salon, Huffpost, and Slate but mostly here, because for some reason I only like debating with people I disagree with, rather than circle jerking with those I agree with. And frankly you guys are the least insane of the right-wing internet community.

              LOL. While we are almost diametrically opposite in ideology, I totally agree with you in this regard. I wouldn’t spend much time in the comments section if not for you, MNG, Chad and the few antagonists that pop up now and then. I can’t listen to talk radio anymore because I tire of the echo chamber that is perpetuated by most hosts. If I can’t support my beliefs against an opponent, then it better to not even bother thinking.

              I’ve got to admit that I respect your determination to continue taking the insults from this board.

              1. Thank you. And there’s a lot I disagree about with some hardcore liberals, especially in the idealism vs. pragmatism realm. But for some reason they’re even nastier and less pleasant than the folks here, so I can’t take much of that.

                1. “But for some reason they’re even nastier and less pleasant than the folks here”

                  That would be because the vast majority of their arguments revolve around the Ad Hominem fallacy. Rather than engage a person’s argument they engage the person, and that often gets really nasty.

                  Didn’t they teach you that one in Fallacy school, or were you too busy performing fallatio on the professor?

                  1. I see what you did there.

            2. And frankly you guys are the least insane of the right-wing internet community.

              You are aware that this is not a right-wing website, right?

              1. You are aware that this is not a right-wing website, right?

                Yeah like everything else here, that’s the case in theory, if not practice.

                1. Yeah, pot-smoking bisexual atheists are really hard-right-wingers.

                  1. It means there’s hope, you just gotta stop believing everything the republican/ chamber of commerece propaganda mill feeds you.

        2. For once, you’re on to something. The correct term is goblin.

          1. In Tony’s case it’s knob-gobbling goblin.

        3. “Anyone who uses the term “troll” is a ridiculous nerd, and it’s almost never used correctly here, as it is not a term for someone who merely disagrees with you.”

          Anyone who gets into an internet argument over the meaning of the term “troll” is definitely a nerd. Actually, anyone in an internet argument is a nerd until proven otherwise.

          P.S. – You are correct, the word troll is not always used correctly, as a true “troll” comes not to debate but to throw bombs in an effort to work a forum into a frenzy. But of course, being a nerd, you already knew that.

      5. 1) How did you find this site?

        We were looking for a conservative site to bitch on but like left wing sites conservative sites will not let people post or have heavy moderation. We are incapable of seeing how both sides are equally as stupid on this issue. Conservatives censure us while left wing sites keep the riff raff out and the message pure.

        2) Do you troll at other sites? If so, which ones?

        No…no other site will allow us to post or will moderate us

        3) Do you have to shield your eyes from the light when emerging from your parents’ basement?

        No we work for the government and post during business hours…want a drivers license? HA! the line is empty and the wait is 5 hours you fucking sheeple!!!

        1. Just for the record, I don’t think joe belongs on that list.

          We may not have agreed on much, but I never doubted that joe a) knew what he was talking about and b) put a lot of thought into what he was saying…

          The other three? I have those doubts every time they type.

          Tony’s like a Magic 8 ball–he’s always got the same six answers no matter the context…

          The Truth? He’s like a parrot that’s been trained to talk by listening to someone flip back forth between news channels…he says things, but he has no idea what they mean.

          1. Agreed. Joe scrupulously applied clear and consistent logic to a gawd-awful set of premises.

          2. Just for the record, I don’t think joe belongs on that list.

            We may not have agreed on much, but I never doubted that joe a) knew what he was talking about and b) put a lot of thought into what he was saying…

            I put him on that list because of the context of the questions.

            ie why do lefties come here.

            I agree joe at times did show self awareness….tony does as well…but still joe did have a talent.

            That being said joe also had demonstrated at times to be even more intentionally deceptive and divisive then Tony has ever been.

            Basically joe was a better left wing commenter but tony is a better man.

            1. He spent too much time playing rhetorical games and misusing wiki entries for my tastes. But he wasn’t all bad when you were off politically charged topics.

        2. What, no love for my Maxie?

    3. Unions exist to increase their members pay by restricting competition. This is flatly illegal behavior for an other entity.

      It also requires compulsion and violence to enforce.

    4. Sure they should be able to form groups for bargaining purposes. One of the responses available to the entity with the money who is actually purchasing the labor should be “your fired”. And when the entity with the money is the government, it should represent the people who are supposedely “purchasing” the labor, instead of colluding with the union in a big boondoggle/vote-buying scheme.

    5. I don’t think that libertarians are against private-sector unions, just in the public sector.

      1. I don’t think that libertarians are against private-sector unions, just in the public sector.

        Only because they can’t figure out a way to be against them and be intellectually coherent.

        Not that it’s coherent to be against the liberty of public employees to collectively bargain.

        1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 12:38PM|#
          ” I don’t think that libertarians are against private-sector unions, just in the public sector.

          Only because they can’t figure out a way to be against them and be intellectually coherent.”

          WOW!
          A true Gold in the stupidity event!
          You’re griping *because* libertarians are consistent!
          Can we print and frame this? It’s gotta be a record!

        2. Actually, it’s completely coherent. Even that progressive fucker FDR saw the dangers of public sector unions. They hold the government hostage to their demands for more money

        3. Stop trying to guess what people think. You are really bad at it. Believe it or not, I at least, really do believe that people should be able to associate in any way they want, including forming a union and trying to collectively bargain. I also believe that employers should be able to decline to bargain with unions. Unions still have a lot of power without government force behind them. It is not good for a company to have to fire their whole workforce all at once. But the case of public sector unions is different. The legislature controls the purse strings, period. Binding contracts with unions strip them of that power.

          1. Stop trying to guess what people think.

            Tony’s not trying to guess what people think. His method of argumentation is mis-stating an opponent’s position and then attacking the fallacy.

            He’s a regular internet Ray Bolger

        4. Employee—“I have the right to bargain collectively”
          Employer—“I have the right not to bargain with your collective”

          (I admit to stretching the definition of “right” for illustrative purposes)

          Both are right. Until we reach that point, fuck unions, and public employee unions in particular (because I have to pay them but don’t get any say in the process)

          1. In context, should be:

            Freedom, not right

            1. I’m only for private-sector unions, and only if one is not forced to join or contribute.

              Tony? What say you?

              1. Addendum:

                Those who pay union dues get a say in how any portion is spent on political donations.

              2. Sounds good to me except I think all workers should have the right to unionize. Look the reason public employee benefits look so generous is because everyone else’s have been decimated. I’m not about to endorse destroying the last bastion of the middle class.

                1. Allowing public servants to unionize is a hugely bad idea.

    6. We’re mostly concerned that employers have the same freedom to NOT be coerced by unions. Employees are given the freedom to associate, but employers would be denied the same freedom.

      In the public sector, the problem is exacerbated because the unions’ primary weapon is withholding employee production through strikes. In libertopia government services are either so necessary that a strike would be literally endangering lives of citizens OR the employees’ jobs are nont necessary and should be abolished anyhow.

      Additionally, striking is usually (wrongly) protected from employer retribution. In this case, the state of Wisconsin cannot fire employees who have refused to show up for work in violation of agreed to contract rules.

      1. Thanks for this.

        I agree that a balance must be struck.

        Do you think that there is a problem with undue coercion of employers by unions? If so, what is the best way to solve that problem? Would it be to take away the right to collectively bargain? Or is there a middle ground?

        1. “Do you think that there is a problem with undue coercion of employers by unions?”
          Yes.

          “If so, what is the best way to solve that problem? Would it be to take away the right to collectively bargain?”
          There is no “right” to exclude other workers from bargaining on their own. That’s what is coerced by the government.

          “Or is there a middle ground?”
          Like giving the government smaller-caliber weapons? Is there a middle ground between a thief and a victim?

        2. The right to collectively bargain does not include the right to be collectively bargained with. You need to brush up on the difference between rights and privileges. The problem is not coercion of employers by unions, but the coercion by government of employers to deal with unions.

    7. People should have the freedom to bargain collectively. An employer should also have the freedom to consider a strike a mass resignation.

    8. “Shouldn’t people have the freedom to bargain collectively?”

      But their employers should also have the freedom to tell them to go pound sand and quit if they don’t like it.

      This becomes complicated when the employers become the government, but then that’s another reason to be wary of putting the government in charge of such businesses.

  26. There is interesting article on MSNBC frontpage right now is Chuck Todd pseudo-ed-blog thing about the ‘Newtonian’ physics of politics, every action has opposite reaction…blah-blah.

    Basically its the Republicans now who will face town-hall ire he says, because of what they want to do. Just like the health-care bill!

    He misses a critical difference. When people read what’s at stake with the Wisconsin tax-suckers, they’re like “Stop crying that you’ve got to pay 12.6% of your healthcare costs.” All the mainstream support seeps away after you get through the jingoisms.

    With healthcare law, it was exactly the opposite. I don’t think the Toddster grasps that. Neither do any of the other clowns at MSNBC.

    1. Basically its the Republicans now who will face town-hall ire he says

      Interesting. Except it looks like they’re literally facing Town Hall Ire, in that the employees of Town Hall are the ones with the ire.

  27. Is this how a President should act? You bet !!! The best historical analogy that comes to mind was JFK’s intervention when Governor Wallace also attempted to thwart the civil rights of his citizens, in that case the integration of the state university. And as I recall, that wasn’t too popular with libertarians, either….

    1. Awesome use of the race card when race isn’t involved at all. Please work in SOMALIA and ROADS too for full credit. And don’t forget to show your work.

    2. THIS NOT HOW STEVE SMITH SHOULD ACT. NOT HAVE OPINION, ONLY RAPE.

      1. What about opinions on rape?

        1. RAPE ONLY NATURAL THING TO DO WITH UNCONSCIOUS HIKER. IF THIS MAKE STEVE WRONG, STEVE NO WANT BE RIGHT.

    3. Is this any way for a President to Act? No and Hell No! The Wallace analogy is false because the equal protection clause provided minorities with a civil right not to be segregated by race.

      There is no civil right to collective bargaining. You have a civil right to freely associate, and you have have civil right to bargain–but that does not mean that the other guy has to bargain with you or your association. Instead, he has a civil right to ignore your association and ask to bargain directly with you. If you don’t want to bargain directly with him, then exercise your civil right to go elsewhere.

    4. So a lawfully elected governor and legilsture curring public sector salaries is like Jim Crow?

      I know we make fun of you for being a man raping ape man and all. But you really are disgusting Steve. You just pissed on the fucking grave of every person who ever suffered under Jim Crow by trivializing their suffering.

    5. Wow, dude. So making public servants contribute slightly more to their over-stuffed pensions is the same as hanging niggers from a tree. That’s the kind of intellectual craftsmanship that could spark up a tea light.

    6. Steven Smith|2.18.11 @ 12:04PM|#
      “…The best historical analogy that comes to mind was JFK’s intervention when Governor Wallace also attempted to thwart the civil rights of his citizens…”

      And you admit that sorry piece of crap is the BEST you can come up with?

    7. STEVE SMITH RAPE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS! sTEVE SNITH ALSO LIKE FRENZIED RAPE OF GEORGE WALLACE CRIPPLED CORPSE ON STEPS OF STATE UNIVERSITY!

      1. STEVE SMITH RAPE ‘PREVIEW’ TOO!

    8. Sheesh. Nobody else caught the JFK/Eisenhower confusion? Tsk tsk.

      1. Hey, Eisenhower may have done it, but JFK was thinking it.

    9. and all this time I thought Steven Smith was just a figment of the collective will of Reason.

    10. OK OK NOT MY FINEST MOMENT. I NOW GO RAPE UNION MEMBERS FOR PENANCE.

  28. It’s looking more and more like Obama’s politically calculated move to center last all of about sixty days after the November massacre.

    If he keeps this up, look for his poll numbers to start tanking again in fairly short order.

  29. Is it me or has Tony gotten dumber? Or is someone spoofing? I suck at telling when people are spoofing.

    1. Judging by the saliva dripping off my cock I’d say it’s the real Tony.

    2. I think he has gotten dumber.

      he seems to be letting The Truth lead on this…co-opting the “teachers are being hurt” meme even though the state capital does not determine teacher benefits…school districts do.

      Maybe they both get their orders from the same left wing blog.

    3. I think he’s just overly emotionally invested in this topic. I imagine at this point his face is red, tears are streaming from his eyes and his voice is nearly hoarse from screaming about how the evil libertarians hate the poor people.

      1. I think it’s a spoof. Or he really has gone from just plain stupid to incandescently idiotic.

      2. but I do hate poor people… and rich people… and well…

    4. It may just be the topic. Some topics really bring out the dumb in some people.

    5. You never know, but this sounds like the real Tony. As somebody else pointed out, I think the topic just struck a nerve.

  30. So Scott Walker started a war and now the DNC’s and their biggest supporters are fighting it. Personalizing this as something Obama is doing is kind of silly (kind of like calling Walker Hitler). Basically, I would liken this to Rove getting gay marriage on the ballot in as many states as he could to increase evangelical turnout in swing states.

    These are what special interests do and in a democracy you have special interests – which everyone hates until they are your favorite special interests.

    If you’re gonna hate (and I do often) then hate both national parties.

    1. Hey –

      I was right there with Greenwald demanding that Rove face prosecution for using federal resources for electioneering purposes.

      So I do hate both sides.

      I have no problem with the DNC doing any of this. At all. But if Obama did it, or if any of his staff using WH resources did it, then I do have a problem with it.

      1. Just a hunch, but I bet Greenwald won’t be demanding any federal prosecutions over this.

        And I would be curious to see what Rove actually did and what resources he used.

        1. Rove organized and proctored meetings at federal departments where he asked staffers to produce materials trumpeting the success of Bush policies to help with the upcoming election campaign.

          1. Isn’t that pretty much the same as what Obama has done with Obama care and all of the federal signs talking about how great the stimulus is?

            1. Personally, I would say so.

              Unfortunately, there appear to be lots of precedents out there for signage referring to the sponsoring legislation and sitting officers behind a particular project. It’s galling, but par for the course.

              Rove went into uncharted territory.

              I think Obama is also going into uncharted territory here.

          2. The nerve of that man!

    2. So Scott Walker started a war and now the DNC’s and their biggest supporters are fighting it. Personalizing this as something Obama is doing is kind of silly

      Do you know what the URL for Organizing for America? Do you know how URLs and personal names work legally with respect to being able to take a URL that is using your name for purposes you do not wish?

      http://www.barackobama.com/

      Would you like to rethink your point?

    3. actually i thought Christie started it but, it seems there are more people unemployed in neighboring states to Wisconsin that wanted a bus ride and a hot lunch for a few hours of holding Hitler union made Hitler signs and chanting progressive spew…

  31. Folks, don’t argue with the communists. Prepare instead, to shoot them where they stand and bury them where they fall. There is no rational argument to be had with thieves.

    1. “bury them where they fall.”

      Buzzards gotta eat and I’m lazy.

    2. Abiss, I’m almost completely certain it’s going to come to that. I’m waiting for the Preston Brooks moment to come again. It’s probably not far off. When it does, I’ll be ready.

  32. Jesus, this is like watching the Islamic Student’s Union march on the government. A popular uprising that you’re really, really gonna fear if it prevails.

  33. Community Organizer in Chief.

    1. Aka, Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers writ large.

  34. Tony|2.18.11 @ 11:51AM|#

    Uh, this is a site promoting libertarianism.

    Which, I’m arguing, is little more than corporatist, plutocratic, Republican apologetics.”

    And coming from a brain-dead jackass, that’s what I presumed your lie to be.

  35. Time to call a spade a spade . . . Obama is a spade.

    1. Re: Chaps,

      Time to call a spade a spade . . . Obama is a spade.

      And, unfortunately, we’re all the sheath.

    2. Racist.

    3. Racist! (yawn)

  36. Tony|2.18.11 @ 12:23PM|#
    “Yes let’s just do away with public education.”

    But then who would you blame for your stupidity?

  37. Sorry if someone already addressed this, but does anyone have the feeling that this is all going to end in a revolution or a civil war? And soon?

    1. Well, I am already gathering powder, shot and wadding, and knapping a few fresh flints… Just in case.

    2. I certainly hope it doesn’t, but if it happens, ol’ Leftykiller is locked, loaded, and ready to go.

    3. It is after all a casus belli when a Democrat gets elected president.

      Conservatives are such children.

    4. yea we’re all terrified of some fat ol white dudes.

    5. We were promised an Abraham Lincoln, and we got a James Buchanan instead.

      1. No we got a Jimmy Carter minus the sweater and 3 times the malaise

    6. Sorry if someone already addressed this, but does anyone have the feeling that this is all going to end in a revolution or a civil war? And soon?

      If by “this” you mean a bunch of government employees whining at some Midwest state’s capital…then no.

      And if you think otherwise then you should seek help.

    7. When your revolution comes I’m going to wait it out on the 2nd floor of my house if the fat fucks you see at Tea Party rallies are any indication. After it’s over I’ll clear the heart attack victims from the stairs.

      None of you are going to do shit but piss and moan on the internet. I visit this site when I want to see impotence in Arial Black.

      1. Too bad that’s not the font used. Idiot.

      2. Lol, as opposed to the fat white f—s marching in Wisconsin? Have you seen any pics of those people?

    8. Hope not. I can’t shoot guns for shit. Now, archery, that I can do. Maybe I’ll get a bow and work up some high tech arrow prototypes.

    9. No. That is definitely not going to happen.

  38. The case against public sector unionism
    …The very nature of many public services ? such as policing the streets and putting out fires ? gives government a monopoly or near monopoly; striking public employees could therefore hold the public hostage. As long-time New York Times labor reporter A. H. Raskin wrote in 1968: “The community cannot tolerate the notion that it is defenseless at the hands of organized workers to whom it has entrusted responsibility for essential services.”…

    1. This is exactly why Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Some government functions are simply so critical that you just can’t allow the people carrying them out to hold you hostage.

      1. yeaa plus the alzheimers & astrology!

  39. Re: Tony,

    First, it was the moneymakers (not the money earners) who are at fault.

    Again with the semantic fallacy? A person that makes money also earns it. Only marxoid Statist Fucks believe people that do not toil fields or machinery are not really working.

    Second, who gives a fuck whose fault it was? What’s important is what makes fiscal sense.

    That’s a red herring. You cannot overspend and then lay a bill on someone else’s footstep, calling it “fiscal sense.”

    That’s not continuing to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy and expecting people making less than 50K to pick up the slack.

    Nobody is asking 50K earners to pick up any slack. Myself, I call for tarring and feathering all public employees and send them to find real productive jobs, instead of plundering us all.

    You cannot get the economy moving by reducing the spending power of most of the people in the country.

    Oh yes I can! You think it can’t be done because you’re pathetically ignorant of economics.

    1. Re: Tony,

      Except public employees, I gather.

      Of course – STEALING is not making or earning. MAKING implies productivity, EARNING implies obtaining it through voluntary exchange. So-called PUBLIC EMPLOYEES receive ALL THEIR MONEY from thieving, from plundering.

      It’s not possible for policy to enrich the rich, is it?

      Sure it is possible. So?

      Only the poor are powerful enough to have government do their bidding, right?

      The government couldn’t care less about the poor… or anybody, for that matter. Government types only care about government. What some rich companies or people do is at least cull some favors with the almighty state, but that’s an indictment on the State, not on the rich.

      1. As long as you’re not conflating public sector workers with the evil bogeyman “the state.” They’re just people looking out after their own interests, and I don’t think there are many private sector workers who do more for their society than teachers.

        And you know perfectly well that we have a fundamental disagreement about whether taxation is theft. You’re wrong, but you won’t accept it so there’s no point in you ever bringing that argument up again.

        1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:09PM|#
          “As long as you’re not conflating public sector workers with the evil bogeyman “the state.” They’re just people looking out after their own interests…,”

          Bull…………….
          shit.
          Using the state to collect money for your salary means you ARE the state.

          1. So what? We need a state, and it needs employees. They aren’t evil. In fact many public servants forgo a much higher salary in the private sector in order to contribute to their society. EEEEEVIL!

            1. Re: Tony,

              So what? We need a state, and it needs employees.

              What’s with this “we” business, Kimosabe?

              They aren’t evil.

              Thieves and rent-seekers don’t see themselves as evil either.

              In fact many public servants forgo a much higher salary in the private sector in order to contribute to their society. EEEEEVIL!

              So never mind their acts (their thieving, their lies) – it’s their good intentions that count. Right.

              1. To the gas chambers go? Talking about classes of human beings in such a broad and viciously negative way betrays something other than clear headed rationality.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  To the gas chambers go? Talking about classes of human beings in such a broad and viciously negative way betrays something other than clear headed rationality.

                  You think so, Mr. “The-Wealthy-are-evil”?

                  I judge acts, Tony, not anything else. The ACT of accepting payment that came from thievery is the same as committing theft. Ergo, public servants who are paid with taxes are thieves. That’s a fact.

                  1. Haha fact. Theft only means something if it is defined legally. It’s not whatever you say it is. Taxation is a user fee for civilization. It’s much more correct to say that not paying taxes is theft. That is, theft of government services.

                    And I don’t think wealthy people are evil. I’m friends with more of them than inal poor people, after all. I just think that they have their interest and by definition the means to secure them, and therefore part of the role of government should be to protect the interests of the nonrich.

                    1. Taxation is a user fee for civilization. It’s much more correct to say that not paying taxes is theft. That is, theft of government services.

                      If the mob extorts money for protection, it’s not really extortion if they really offer protection.

                2. Ah, you mean like the way you talk about the rich and libertarians?

                  1. You think so, Mr. “The-Wealthy-are-evil”?

                    Ah, you mean like the way you talk about the rich and libertarians?

                    The rich are not a class suspected of discrimination or oppression. They are BY DEFINITION the most privileged of society. This little trope is one of the things in libertarian rhetoric that really needs to die (the idea that the rich are a class of people that need protecting from oppression).

                    1. You are either deliberately lying or dumb as a box of rocks. I’ve worked both USG and private industry. The USG people were lazy, unmotivated, uninterested, and not half as productive as the private sector workers in the same industry.

                      Public sector workers should not have the right to unionize because the reality is that politicians indebted to public union bosses for their election sat at negotiating tables with those same union bosses and made deals for unsustainable wages and pensions at taxpayer expense.

                      The taxpayer, the actual entity who was being stuck with the bill, had no effective representation at all, which is why he was so badly served. Public unions should be disbanded and public employees barred from having the right to unionize. Nor should they be able to make political contributions. If they’re taking the public’s wage, they have an obligation to remain scrupulously apolitical in the public media. The military knows this and abides by it. So should all other public workers.

                      Mish is all over this and he’s absolutely right. The exorbitant salaries and pensions negotiated to public workers in the past are either going to be repudiated through bankruptcy or taxed back at punitive rates because they are simply unsustainable. Moreover, since they were effectively obtained through fraud and collusion this is exactly what should happen.

                      What’s going on now in Wisconsin is the beneficiaries of criminal activity demonstrating against the fact that some of their ill-gotten gains are going to be removed. They haven’t the slightest bit of moral justification for this action. They just make the situation worse for themselves when you add lying (falsely claiming sick time) and unjustified defamation of character. Walker as Hitler? Really? Give me a break!

                      I hope, for the sake of the taxpayers of Wisconsin, that Walker is their Margaret Thatcher and breaks their public unions utterly beyond any hope of reassembly. The public unions deserve such treatment and worse.

            2. So what? We need a state, and it needs employees. They aren’t evil. In fact many public servants forgo a much higher salary in the private sector in order to contribute to their society. EEEEEVIL!
              reply to this

              How did Amadou Diallo, Eurie Stamps, and Timothy Cole benefit from the state?

        2. I don’t think there are many private sector workers who do more for their society than teachers.

          Private sector teachers do a better job of teaching then public sector teachers.

          We should make all teacher jobs private sector jobs, we would get better teachers.

          What the Governor of Wisconsin is doing is moving in that direction, by exposing public sector teachers to the same market incentives that private sector teachers are exposed to.

          1. And private school teachers are on average paid A LOT less than public school teachers. and they don’t get the sweet bennies either…

        3. Re: Tony,

          As long as you’re not conflating public sector workers with the evil bogeyman “the state.” They’re just people looking out after their own interests,

          So do thieves.

          […]and I don’t think there are many private sector workers who do more for their society than teachers.

          Really? Like farmers, for example?

          You should be careful about what you write, fool.

          And you know perfectly well that we have a fundamental disagreement about whether taxation is theft.

          I know – thieves say it isn’t. I disagree.

          You’re wrong, but you won’t accept it so there’s no point in you ever bringing that argument up again.

          There’s no point because you simply construe taxation as something else besides the forceful taking of property, as it would make your view of the state that much tacky.

          1. Sorry I’m not an anarchist, just like most people. Why don’t you try resting an argument on something else besides a premise almost nobody believes? It’s kind of a cop out.

            1. I’m not an anarchist and support taxes on land and corporate value. But taxes on income are theft (I’d call it slavery but we aren’t necessarily forced to work.) That money is our money, and we work for months a year to earn that money only to be forced to hand it over to government on threat of imprisonment and to pay for all the typical elite and politically connected interests while I’m getting next to nothing in return.

        4. “I don’t think there are many private sector workers who do more for their society than teachers.”

          Yeah, it’s a good thing it was the NEA jumping in to offer relief in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and not Wal-Mart.

          Cause Nagin, Landrieu and the NOLA PD had it all under control!

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01598.html

          Ooopsie!

          *Slaps herself for responding to a troll more than 12 hrs later*

  40. Worst.

    President.

    In.

    History.

    1. Everything looks worse when you are living through it. Give it a few years and he will blend in with all the other shitty presidents we have had.

  41. To take a moment off from reading Tony’s troll posts:

    What are the odds that the WI Dems can prevent a quorum forever?

    Who blinks here?

    Opinions?

    1. I don’t see anyway that the Dems can continue to stay away, so they’ll be the ones blinking. Not that the fight will end there.

    2. Just a suggestion. Stop the auto-transfer of pay checks; make ’em come in to pick them up.

    3. What I don’t understand is why the fuck did they write a law that stops the legislature from running its business if a minority goes on holiday?

      What if those same people died in a disaster? Do the survivors have to wait for a new election to pass emergency relief legislation?

      1. If the government dies, who cares what happens afterward? From their perspective, that is.

      2. You need rules about a quorum to make sure legislatures can’t be called into session in the dead of night by 3 guys who then pass laws by votes of 3-0.

        1. Why not just make the quorum one vote over half of the body.

          ie if you have 100 senators 51 can be a quorum. And any vote must get a majority of the 100 to pass. So if 51 form a quorum them they all must vote yes to pass a bill.

    4. Wisc. Senate Dems Game Plan:
      1) Run to Illinois
      2) ?
      3) The bad bill goes away

    5. I’ve always heard that “shutting down the government” is politically unpopular, but maybe the Dems can succeed where the Repubs failed.

      1. I’ve always heard that “shutting down the government” is politically unpopular, but maybe the Dems can succeed where the Repubs failed.

        They will succeed only because the network media carries water for them.

    6. I think it is time to change the quorum rules. They all know perfectly well that there is a quorum call and they are all perfectly capable of getting there and voting. It’s not the 19th century. I say give them a week to show up, then hold the vote anyway and consider everyone who doesn’t show and abstention.

  42. Rome really began it’s full stride toward decline when it’s first African – Septimius Severus – was Emperor. Trade declined, inflation soared and public corruption was basically acceptable. Just sayin . . .

    1. We don’t need racist fucks cluttering up the blog dude

  43. The GOP must be happy to see BHO bleeding his own campaign chest on stuff like this.

  44. Oh my, certainly animated comments…so I will jump into the fray! All of the teachers that “called in sick” should be FIRED, immeidately. Secondly, why should public employees be guaranteed benefits at the cost to tax payers, and without any standards? Our education system is falling apart as teachers are more worried about tenure rather than the students and quality of education. I have worked my A** of my entire life, paid into to SS, contributed to my IRA; where is my guarantee of 100% of my salary throughout retirement? This is ridiculous. Think about it people. And Tony should be barred from this site based on his language and overall disrepect for others.

    1. I like the cut of your jib, Allie F.

    2. 100% of your salary PLUS Social Security and Medicare, lest we forget.

  45. If he was Presidential material,it would be different!But he’s NOT……….

  46. I wonder if the governor can “compel” the legislature to assemble and vote; I would love to see footage of those clowns being delivered to the Capitol by the state Police.

  47. The notion that all of these huge bills being racked up are going to be payed for by “soaking the rich” is as utopian as anything any libertarian ever believed.

    In the first place, there simply aren’t very many rich folks. Progressives are always going on about what a small percentage of the population they are; well, can you remember that now? Can you work out the implications of that? Namely, that even if you take every last dollar that the “rich” have it won’t be close to enough. Especially since you’ve already figured to use those dollars to “solve” federal revenue problems.

    And you’re not going to get those last dollars, anyway. Your precious big government, that protector of the little guy? Ha. A plutocrat’s best pal. You REALLY think that the rich lawyer politicians are going to clean out their country club buddies?

    No, if the public sector unions win it isn’t the rich who will suffer.

    1. Yes the rich are a small proportion of the population. That in itself is the problem. We can’t fund government just by taxing them, because there aren’t enough of them.

      Without getting into a pointless discussion about what’s “fair,” the brass tacks is that the top 1% have 70% of the nation’s wealth. Once some of that is distributed downward, there will be more people with more money, and hence more of a tax base. This is really the only solution to fiscal problems. Squeezing more out of the 99% who share 30% of the wealth won’t do it. In fact it is counterproductive.

      1. Jesus H. Christ on a stick with cheese fritters.

        Really, it’s the only solution.

      2. “Without getting into a pointless discussion about what’s “fair,” the brass tacks is that the top 1% have 70% of the nation’s wealth.”

        So………………………
        what?

        1. So do you think that’s the case because the top 1% started working so much harder, and the bottom 99% started being lazier?

          That can’t be the case, since productivity was rising the entire time wages were sinking for most people.

          So the point is there is absolutely nothing “fair” or “freedom-filled” or “not government coerced” about that wealth distribution. But you’re going to go on defending it (and proposing it get even worse) anyway.

          1. I don’t care why the case exists…

            I do care when morons like you try to rectify what you think is wrong by infringing upon others.

            1. It’s weird how you guys go from being utopian idealists to stalwart defenders of the status quo, depending on whether it’s the poor or rich benefiting from it.

              1. Yeah! Let Tony pick the winners. He’s better than any of your silly ‘markets’.

              2. I don’t know who the fuck “you guys” are, but I learned a long time ago saying that makes you look like an idiot. About the same time I learned that I can’t fly and sticking pennies in my nose was a bad idea.

              3. “depending on whether it’s the poor or rich benefiting from it.”

                We understand that allowing someone to keep what they earn (aka tax cut) is quite a different thing than taking one person’s earnings and giving them to another person.

              4. You really don’t understand how giving people stuff that was taken by force from other people is different from letting people keep stuff that is already theirs?

                1. You really don’t understand how giving people stuff that was taken by force from other people is different from letting people keep stuff that is already theirs?

                  I understand that this formulation begs the question. You are entitled to exactly what money you have after taxes. If it’s taken in taxes, it is not yours anymore, it is the national treasury’s.

                  1. Um in order to take the object of the taking must have belonged to someone regardless of how or why the object is taken.

                    Your foot has to have more holes…

                  2. So Tony, if this argument is true, you have just accidentally justified the government taking 95% of every minimum wage slave’s salary, since that money is “the government’s” and not “the worker’s”. The workers have no right to that money, therefore the government would be able to grant that money to whomever they choose, which would likely be the politically connected elite, since they, under your reasoning, owe nothing to the people they took the money from.

                    But you’re trolling so I don’t believe you have any philosophical reasoning skills or self-awareness.

                    1. I don’t follow. The only reason they are entitled to minimum wage instead of third-world rates is because government requires it. You have the right to whatever money you acquire by legitimate means, minus taxes.

                    2. The “minus taxes” part IS my point. That tax money is YOUR money. Otherwise, the government can set a 95% tax rate and say that’s not “your money”, it’s the government’s — and you have no rights to it.

                      If you can pay for government in a way that’s not stealing (for example, corporate value taxes, which pay for artificial legal protections those entities claim from government), there’s no justification for stealing the productive fruits of individual labor, no matter how rich or poor the victim is.

                    3. Hobo – There is nothing that says the government cannot enact a 100% income tax and then divvy it out as they see fit.
                      Well, nothing except that some of us (excluding Tony) would rise up and overthrow the government.

      3. How do you intend to perform this magical redistribution?

        How will that create more wealth? Remember, the dollars in the hands of the “rich” (I use quotes because I don’t know how you define the term) aren’t enough–simply sticking the dollar into someone else’s hand doesn’t make it grow. It sounds as if you think wealth is created simply by seizing it from someone who has “too much” and giving to someone “more deserving”.

        How much do you think this will increase the nation’s wealth, and how do you know it will be enough?

        1. Change tax policy so that it’s more progressive. Bolster the safety net. Make rules for the financial sector so that reckless gambling with the nation’s money is discouraged, and actual productivity is encouraged (after all, the only reason the financial sector exists is to support the economy–if all it’s doing is making money for the top 1% and causing huge recessions, why is it there?)

          The more people with disposable income, the more money goes into the economy, and the more taxes are collected. Rich people simply don’t spend as much of their money as the middle class does. That’s just an obvious reality.

          It has nothing to do with who’s more deserving, but I guarantee you someone who makes 30K worked harder for every cent than someone who makes $30 million.

          1. Change tax policy so that it’s more progressive
            Because the fact that the top 10% of earners already pay 70% of the taxes is not progressive enough? Fuck off, slaver.

            1. Thats because they have almost all of the money!

              1. Wrong again – the top 20% have about 50% of the wealth, yet pay 70% of the taxes, so they already pay taxes disproportionately large relative to their wealth. The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes, and 47% pay no federal income taxes at all – not surprisingly, these are the people voting themselves more goodies at the public’s expense.

                1. Oops – the top 20% actually pays about 80% of the taxes.

          2. If value was based on how hard one works, you might have a point. But I can work my ass off digging holes and filling them in again and it is still not worth anything to anyone.

          3. So you disagree with how they do taxes in Europe? Since our tax system is far more progressive in nature.

      4. Once some of that is distributed downward, there will be more people with more money, and hence more of a tax base.

        Just as an aside, I find you to be a curious “benefactor” to the working class. It sounds as if you just want to fatten them up for the slaughter.

      5. the top 1% have 70% of the nation’s wealth.
        Citation?

        1. *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

      6. Without getting into a pointless discussion about what’s “fair,” the brass tacks is that the top 1% have 70% of the nation’s wealth.
        Surprise! Tony lied.

        1. and people died

      7. Except the top ten percent pay 75% of the taxes right fucking now Tony.

  48. wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    wealth=productivity=virtue
    not spam
    wealth=productivity=virtue

    1. I think you’re conflating Objectivism with Libertarianism

      1. Baaah!

        1. Please, don’t fuck sheep here.

          1. Don’t knock it ’till ya try it.

      2. And libertarianism with libertinism.

  49. The President should not have his own groups of astroturf brown shirts busing around the country intimidating individuals and local governments. It’s vulgar, and its totalitarian. But this is the only thing this President knows how to do. He’s a joke; he’s destroying this country and creating a foreign policy mess so massive it may prove catastrophic. I think the next administration should enact policy which prevents future presidents from such blatant power abuse. What’s that you say? The Constitution already contains such provisions? But that’s too ‘oldey-timey’ for lefties to take seriously; let’s give them something modern.

    1. The Constitution already contains such provisions?

      Who knows…it was written in Sanskrit over a hundred years ago…no one knows what it says today.

    2. But this is the only thing this President knows how to do. He’s a joke; he’s destroying this country and creating a foreign policy mess so massive it may prove catastrophic.

      It is pretty remarkable indeed; he’s only been in office for two years, and now it seems like virtually the entire world is on fire and in danger of burning to the ground.

      I knew exactly what this creep was all about well before America made the mistake of electing him, but I honestly never thought that the disastrous repercussions of his election would be felt so quickly.

      1. Custodian is to janitor what community organizer is to . . .?

        Public nuisance?
        Rabble rouser?
        Dirty hippie protester?

  50. Collective bargaining only works when government coerces employers to bargain with collective bargainers EXCLUSIVELY. This is called “racketeering”. Under any other circumstance, employers can tell collective bargainers to go fuck themselves.

    I brought this down here because it’s important. Please name the policies that exist that make collective bargaining a coerced activity. Union membership is voluntary.

    Yes, there are laws that prevent employers from harassing or interfering with workers’ right to collectively bargain, or to fire them for being in a union. (The right to collectively bargain being recognized internationally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) So what? There are also laws that prevent employers from hiring children or paying people below a minimum standard or sexually harassing their employees.

    When you get down to it, what matters is not principles of freedom. It’s a balance of power between employers and employees. Places where collective bargaining rights are robust have higher-paid workers with better working conditions. Is it possible for power to tilt to far in their direction? Theoretically yes, but that’s not been the way it’s been in this country for a very long time. Not that the anti-union rhetoric has changed at all.

    1. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms

      Funny, I feel like I’m slaving for a gov’t that is working for the public employee unions.

    2. Article 20.

      * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
      * (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

      Number 2 is of interest

      1. Well, you don’t HAVE to work there, you know…

    3. Re: Tony,

      I brought this down here because it’s important. Please name the policies that exist that make collective bargaining a coerced activity. Union membership is voluntary.

      The Wagner act being a never mind to you, I fancy…

      And the coercive part is in making employers bargain with unions exclusively, by government fiat.

      When you get down to it, what matters is not principles of freedom. It’s a balance of power between employers and employees.

      You’re begging the question.

      Places where collective bargaining rights are robust have higher-paid workers with better working conditions.

      Wow, shit, that’s some consolation when the company folds due to higher cost of labor – “I am a proud unionized ex-employee.”

      Yes, there are laws that prevent employers from harassing or interfering with workers’ right to collectively bargain, or to fire them for being in a union. (The right to collectively bargain being recognized internationally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) So what?

      I though you said there was no coercion involved, not two paragraphs ago.

      1. It’s only coercion when it stops things Tony likes.

    4. Union membership is not voluntary in any industry they have their tentacles in. Not if you actually want to get a job.

    5. Tony, you’re really pretty shockingly ignorant of what the law says.

      The Wagner Act says that if employees form a union, employers are obligated to negotiate with that union and a contract can be imposed upon the employer by an arbitrator if the employer refuses to negotiate.

      That’s coercive.

      It also says that only one union can exist for a given unit of employees.

      So if I don’t like the union I’m in, and try to get other employees together to form a DIFFERENT union for the same plant, I’m barred from doing so BY LAW.

      That’s coercive.

      Antitrust law also allows workers to join together to blackball an employer [that’s all a strike is, ultimately] but makes it a crime for employers to join together to blackball a worker.

      That’s coercive.

      Extending an associational right to workers and denying it to employers also is a blatant violation of the principle of equal protection. Not that the left gives a shit about equal protection when the party being denied equal protection is “da rich”.

      It also amuses me that you post a DEMAND for examples of ways in which the law is coercive – but then list several examples, only to discard them by admitting you don’t give a shit. Why are you disputing the law is coercive, when you already had your own examples? Why didn’t you cut out the middleman and just admit you don’t give a shit if the law is coercive or not?

    6. No, like Fluffy said, it’s coerced under the Wagner Act, which was a Congressional policy decision to end labor strife and productivity stoppages by forcing employers to collectively bargain with an official bargaining unit.

      You’re just wrong.

      Tony — dipshit to the rescue!

  51. Obama supported TARP.
    TARP was a wealth transfer from the taxpayers to Big Banker.
    Tony supported Obama.
    Therefore, Tony has no one else to blame for the fat cat plutocrats living the good life while ‘teachers suffer’ more than himself.

    Pretty fucked up what you are doing to those teachers, man.

  52. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:18PM|#
    ” Collective bargaining only works when government coerces employers to bargain with collective bargainers EXCLUSIVELY. This is called “racketeering”. Under any other circumstance, employers can tell collective bargainers to go fuck themselves.

    I brought this down here because it’s important. Please name the policies that exist that make collective bargaining a coerced activity.”

    Unbelievable! Ever heard of ‘right to work’ states? The others legally *require* union membership to work.

    “Union membership is voluntary.”
    1) It isn’t.
    2) Even if it was, that’s irrelevant; what’s relevant is *requiring* businesses (and governments) to bargain with them.

    1. Yeah I live in a so-called right-to-work state. It’s also one of the poorest. Go figure.

      Coercion is a red herring. Life is full of coercion. You are coerced not to sexually harass your employees. Oh well. Even a business isn’t an absolute dictatorship in this country.

      1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:44PM|#
        “Yeah I live in a so-called right-to-work state. It’s also one of the poorest. Go figure.”
        The state’s glad you moved; things got immediately better and the average IQ jumped 15 points.

        “Coercion is a red herring.”
        You’re a lying sack of shit, asshole.

      2. “Yeah I live in a so-called right-to-work state.”

        So do I. Minnesota. And we are very well off compared to other states. But that could change given that our new governor has a plan to make us the most taxed state in the nation. It’s kinda funny too because he got rich off of inheritence (the Dayton’s / Target fortune) and yet I have never read about him donating his own wealth to the state. But he’s got an eye on mine.

        1. It’s kinda funny too because he got rich off of inheritence (the Dayton’s / Target fortune) and yet I have never read about him donating his own wealth to the state. But he’s got an eye on mine.

          You’ll find that a common occurrence among those who champion the ‘poor and downtrodden’. Maybe people need trace the money on these individuals, and find out just how their incomes are structured.

          1. You’ll find that a common occurrence among those who champion the ‘poor and downtrodden’. Maybe people need trace the money on these individuals, and find out just how their incomes are structured.

            George Skelton, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has written a lot of articles critical of budget cuts because they might hurt the poor or the sick, and yet he never tells his readers how much he gives to the poor and sick.

  53. Re: Tony,

    We are morally superior because we care about the well-being of people other than the most privileged people on earth.

    I am morally superior to you because, UNLIKE YOU, I care about the well being of EVERYBODY. I don’t rely on special pleading fallacies.

    Leaving people with the crappy options of the status quo in healthcare does not equal more freedom than giving them better, cheaper options.

    You’re absolutely right. It would be EXTREMELY CRUEL, something coming out of the mind of a veritable sadist, to impose by fiat a SINGLE OPTION to a people already saddled by very few other options as it is.

    1. I care about the well being of EVERYBODY

      Only in theory, and only according to your warped definition of well-being.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Only in theory, and only according to your warped definition of well-being.

        I can say the very same thing about you – it would not really matter, you’re still relying on special pleading fallacy, whereas I am not.

  54. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:21PM|#
    “So what? We need a state, and it needs employees.”

    Yes, and they should be paid as cheaply as possible, just like any employment.

    1. I find it the case that people who are underpaid are easier to bribe. Should we not want the best and the brightest in government? Oh no, that would contradict your article of faith that they are all worthless parasites, and confirming your preconceived biases is more important than having good government.

      1. Re: Tony,

        I find it the case that people who are underpaid are easier to bribe.

        Yet you said a few posts above:
        “In fact many public servants forgo a much higher salary in the private sector in order to contribute to their society. EEEEEVIL!”

        So which one is it, Tony? Are they underpaid and thus bribable, or are they selfless public servants? They can’t be both.

      2. Should we not want the best and the brightest in government?
        You really believe the best and brightest are in government? Holy shit, that’s stupid.

        1. God no, we shouldn’t want the best and brightest in government.

          We want them out in the Productive Sector, where their bestness and brightness will make a positive difference.

          1. You mean where they’re working for the sole purpose of increasing one firm’s bottom line. There is an ever-present irony when libertarians spew their market worshipping government hating bullshit on the Internet.

            1. It’s not ironic at all.

              The state had imposed a monopoly in communications services for the first century of the existence of the telephone.

              It’s not surprising that in that context there was no market innovation in communications.

              “Look! Look how the market fails to innovate, just because it’s illegal to do so! Silly libertarians!” – Tony

            2. Tony|2.18.11 @ 3:03PM|#
              “You mean where they’re working for the sole purpose of increasing one firm’s bottom line.”

              You’re a lying sack of shit, asshole.

      3. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:47PM|#
        “I find it the case that people who are underpaid are easier to bribe.”
        What an asshole! Take a bribe, get fired. See how easy that is?

        “Should we not want the best and the brightest in government?”
        Yes, at the absolute cheapest we can.
        BTW, want to have a discussion with the teacher’s unions so we can get data on the teachers’ skills and fire the incompetents?
        I’d appreciate it, thanks.

        1. What an asshole! Take a bribe, get fired. See how easy that is?

          Actually, this is Tony’s admission that it’s almost impossible to hold government accountable for its actions.

          The only course of action is to therefore reduce the size of government.

      4. “I find it the case that people who are underpaid are easier to bribe”

        And I’ve heard that if you build a Walmart in DC, the darkies will rob it blind. It’s in their DNA you know.

        1. When the minoratahs say things like that, you would think we would be happy, but we’re not. It’s so pathetic it makes even a hatemonger like me cry.

  55. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:20PM|#
    “So do you think that’s the case because the top 1% started working so much harder, and the bottom 99% started being lazier?”

    So do you think you should learn to read?

  56. Without getting into a pointless discussion about what’s “fair,” the brass tacks is that the top 1% have 70% of the nation’s wealth.

    And they pay 40% of income taxes, more than the bottom 95% combined.

  57. The answer to your question is no, this is not how a president should act. But then Barry the Clown is no president.

  58. By the way, I’m actually intrigued by how the Wis. Governor is putting this collective bargaining thing together. I’ve been advocating for years that public sector unions- if allowed to exist at all- should have their contracts come before the people as a public thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote. That way, the Unions’ true employers have a direct say in their compensation package.

    The problem as it exists now is that if the public sector goes on strike, they’re not striking against the government, they’re striking against me. So shouldn’t I have a more direct hand in their negotiations?

    1. They’ll argue that we elect people to represent our interests and make those decisions.

      1. Great, then I’ll pile up my uncollected garbage (which pays a median salary of $71,000 a year) on the lawn of my elected official. You know, since I elected him to represent my interests…

    2. “The problem as it exists now is that if the public sector goes on strike, they’re not striking against the government, they’re striking against me. So shouldn’t I have a more direct hand in their negotiations?”

      “third-party” problem. Yes, and the reason it’s screwed is that a third-party (the government) negotiates in your behalf.
      Similarly, Obamacare is going to cost and arm and a leg, rather than save them.

    3. We live in a constitutional republic and we appoint representatives to, among other things, negotiate contracts for state services. We can throw out those reps every so often.
      I recommend we do. Since we can, contract periods should not run beyond the term of the sitting legislature.
      The incoming legislature can renew or change terms as it sees fit.

      1. yes, but we have bicameral legislatures, and they are often staggered or have different terms? (2 years for reps and 4-6 for senators). So, which do we go by?

        1. In NH, every state level elected official, including governor, legislators and executive council are up for election every 2 years. Really makes
          “throw the bums out” years interesting.

  59. SERIOUS QUESTION: why is it so controversial to require a citizen to be a net tax payer in order to vote?

    That would make it difficult to vote yourself a bigger welfare state, no?

    1. “SERIOUS QUESTION: why is it so controversial to require a citizen to be a net tax payer in order to vote?”

      And I think the slogan can be:
      “No representation without taxation!”

    2. That would make it difficult to vote yourself a bigger welfare state, no?
      I think you provided your own answer.

    3. There is merit in the principle, agreed. Time to kick up the voting age to 21. Youngsters who don’t know their behinds from holes in the ground have no business voting themselves more bennies like reduced colleg loan costs. Those receiving more unearned or over-compensated handouts than they pay in should not be able to vote. And there should be an accounting by SSN for every penny received by an individual. If they do ever come out ahead, then they can start to pay it back.

    4. What is with you people and your assumption that the rich can’t vote themselves welfare ( favorable policies)?

      Elitist fuck. The right to have a say in your government comes from the fact that you are governed by it. You are literally arguing to bring back slavery, to have people with means determing policy for those without against their will. If you don’t like the policies that come from democracy, then convince others to change their minds, dont argue for dienfranchisement of those who would disagree with you.

      1. You see, this is the answer I was looking for. I wasn’t asking how one would go about it. I was genuinely asking why it is taboo to broach the subject. Spoof, poofter or not, you provided an excellent response.

      2. Re: Tony,

        What is with you people and your assumption that the rich can’t vote themselves welfare (favorable policies)?

        Talk about missing the point.

        The right to have a say in your government comes from the fact that you are governed by it.

        Circular thinking: “Vote for government you are governed by your vote for government you are governed by your vote….”

      3. So, you would be willing to put your civil liberties t the vote? Don’t want to be an elitist you should accept the fact that the state can determine what you do in your bed room if the voting public allows them to do so.

        1. What about my post suggests I favor a strict majority vote on civil liberties? But if the people don’t have journeys control over the policies that affect themselves, who does?

          1. Journeys = ultimate. Stupid iPhone autocorrect.

          2. “But if the people don’t have [ultimate] control over the policies that affect themselves, who does?”

            Uh, folks who got elected in gerry-mandered districts by brain-deads like you?
            The same folks who can’t be bothered to read the Constitution?

    5. In a more libertarian friendly system, I think that that would be a reasonable policy. But as things are, government is too involved in too many aspects of everyone’s lives. I think that means that everyone needs to have a little bit of a say in who runs things.

      1. I do however think that only property tax payers should be able to vote in local budgeting votes/town meetings.

        1. Forward to the future! The 18th century!

          1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 5:43PM|#
            “Forward to the future! The 18th century!”

            Uh, tony your ignorant support of choo choos is different thread.

            1. To Tony, like all “progressives,” progress only goes one way. If something happened in the past, it must, of course, have been worse than what is happening now.

  60. Tony|2.18.11 @ 1:37PM|#
    “It’s weird how you guys go from being utopian idealists to stalwart defenders of the status quo,…”

    It’s weird that you seem to be able to type, but can’t read.

    1. Even more humorously, the Left epitomizes this notion far more than libertarians. Defending the status quo (defend public sector workers’ benefits packages even if it makes us insolvent) and utopian idealism (tax the wealthy until everyone has more or less an equal share of the pie and can live in harmony).

  61. What a beautiful site! Angry mobs expressing their wrath! Demanding social justice! Oh, Obama, you are a man after my heart! I just hope you can keep your head and strive forward!

  62. With the demonstrations in Madison, does anyone wonder anymore why so many are afraid of card check? Vote for us or we’ll come to your house works, but is it America?

  63. Re: Tony,

    As long as you’re not conflating public sector workers with the evil bogeyman “the state.” They’re just people looking out after their own interests,

    So do thieves.

    […]and I don’t think there are many private sector workers who do more for their society than teachers.

    Really? Like farmers, for example?

    You should be careful about what you write, fool.

    And you know perfectly well that we have a fundamental disagreement about whether taxation is theft.

    I know – thieves say it isn’t. I disagree.

    You’re wrong, but you won’t accept it so there’s no point in you ever bringing that argument up again.

    There’s no point because you simply construe taxation as something else besides the forceful taking of property, as it would make your view of the state that much tacky.

    1. The taxman’s gun at our heads taking more and more and more is NOT just–just rationalized thievery. The mere fact that a guvmint says it thinks it should have more of what you create by your tact of mind and sweat of brow is NOT rightful–no more than was the German guvmint taking Jewish property for all of what they insisted were the “right” reasons. We do have some obligation, especially for defense, as per the Constitution. But the astoundingly grotesque greed and class envy of the leftists is an abomination (Obamination?). As soon as any man or woman loses 35% to taxes in combination at federal, state, and local level, he or she should not have to pay a penny more in taxes that year.

      1. We do have some obligation, especially for defense, as per the Constitution

        And with this you completely undermine your premise. Either taxation is theft or it isn’t. If you’re ok with it paying for some things then you just have a policy difference, not a fundamental one. Even if your fringe interpretation of what the constitution allows were correct, which it’s not, just because something is written in the constitution doesn’t change the nature of taxation to pay for it.

        1. Re: Tony,

          And with this you completely undermine your premise. Either taxation is theft or it isn’t.

          It is, by definition: the taking of property under threat of violence.

          If you’re ok with it paying for some things then you just have a policy difference, not a fundamental one.

          “Paying” implies a voluntary act. Taxes are NOT voluntary, so whatever I wanted or not is irrelevant.

          […]just because something is written in the constitution doesn’t change the nature of taxation to pay for it.

          The Constitution can say the moon is made of green cheese, that does not make the moon green cheese or taxation anything else besides theft.

          1. So thanks for confirming once again why it’s completely pointless to debate with you about anything. Even the armed forces are illegitimate. Having a government at all is illegitimate. Yet somehow we’re all supposed to agree on what theft is? And we’re supposed to agree to refrain from it by the honor system?

            1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 3:29PM|#
              “So thanks for confirming once again why it’s completely pointless to debate with you about anything.”

              Pretty sure you’d have a hard time ‘debating’ a pumpkin.

              1. And that is not just low hanging fruit, that’s ground fruit.

            2. Re: Tony,

              So thanks for confirming once again why it’s completely pointless to debate with you about anything.

              Of course it is, if you keep bringing up red herrings and misconstrued concepts – it WILL be pointless… for you.

              Even the armed forces are illegitimate.

              Of course they are, even Constitutionally – the Constitution does not grant power to keep a standing army or air force, only a NAVY. Congress only has the power to raise an army, but that’s it – raising one does not mean KEEPING one.

              Having a government at all is illegitimate.

              I haven’t said that! You can have a government, of your own, to pet and play with.

              Yet somehow we’re all supposed to agree on what theft is?

              Depends – who’s “all”? Because you and your mommy are not “all.”

              And we’re supposed to agree to refrain from it by the honor system?

              Not if you want to – you can alway try to confront my two good friends: Smith, and Wesson.

              1. So your preferred society is one which is governed by whoever has the biggest weapon. Lovely. And theft is whatever the person with the biggest weapon says it is.

                We used to call that barbarism, pre-civilization, the Stone Age, stuff like that.

                1. So your preferred society is one which is governed by whoever has the biggest weapon. Lovely
                  You mean like the government? Or are you so stupid you think the government doesn’t operate based on a monopoly of force?

                  1. Ya that’s the point, it has the authority and also the checks and balances and democratic legitimacy. Om wants everyone to be a government unto himself.

                    1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 7:49PM|#
                      “Ya that’s the point, it has the authority and also the checks and balances and democratic legitimacy.”

                      So, yeah, WTF, that’s what Tony “thinks”.
                      With irrelevant asides tossed in.

                    2. Ya that’s the point, it has the authority and also the checks and balances and democratic legitimacy.

                      Absolutely. 85% of Americans opposed TARP, yet it was passed overwhelmingly.

                      55% of Americans opposed the Iraq War, but it was pushed into place without regard to their opinion.

                      And 60% of Wisconsinites are in favor of the governor’s bill to rationalize state employee compensation, but the unions aren’t interested in allowing the lumpenproles to slow down the gravy train.

                    3. Actually, support was high in the beginning.

                      3-16-2003 Poll

                      1. Would you favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in the next week or two to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
                      * Favor: 58%
                      * Oppose: 40%

                      2. Do you think the United Nations is doing a good job in handling the situation with Iraq?
                      * Good job: 43%
                      * Poor job: 53%

                      3. Do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
                      * Approve: 56%
                      * Disapprove: 41%

                      That was a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll.

  64. The Governor should stop imperiling our children’s education…. He should hire teachers who are going to show up to school.

  65. Tony is the Jacket posting to boost site hits! I read it on DailyKOS!

    1. Aren’t we all the Jacket?

      1. Are you a comuniss? Also if libertarians are hivemind why cannot reporduce like Zerg? Are inferior hivemind, destined to suck on the dregs of society and be tossed bones like so many oysters.

        Sensemaking is not my fucking business.

  66. Hey! Remember when people were all snarking about how the Republicans, once given power, would quickly prove themselves to be just as big a bunch of craven sellouts as the Dems? Meet the new boss same as the old boss and all that?

    Well, yeah. Looks like that’s wrong, so far. Holy shit, Scott Walker is a hero if he pulls this off. Don’t give a shit what he thinks about the drug war, or gay marriage…if he breaks the back of the public sector unions he’s done more for the state of Wisconsin than anyone in 50 years.

    1. Scott Walker cleaned up J*ck*ss Party corruption in Milwaukee County, too. God bless him and his rightful, noble cause. Stand fast, Governor! Compel their performance and obedience. If they won’t behave, fire them!

      1. Enacting a halfway-reasonable policy does not a hero one make.

        Him cutting public employee benefits, while admirable, does not detract one iota from the injustice of the drug war or discriminatory policy based on sexuality

        1. Him cutting public employee benefits, while admirable, does not detract one iota from the injustice of the drug war or discriminatory policy based on sexuality

          You have to pick and choose your battles.

          With respect to marriage, this definition was used for centuries. The Supreme Court noted in ober dicta that marriage was a “union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony” (Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45)

          1. Then the state should take their fucking noses out of everyone’s business.

    2. yeah, but if he does not have the support of the people, they’ll vote him out. Then they’ll bring in another asshole who will reinstate things.. and probably make the deal a lot more cushier to make up for it, on top of back pay and a bunch of other crap.

    3. “Remember when people were all snarking about how the Republicans, once given power, would quickly prove themselves to be just as big a bunch of craven sellouts as the Dems?”

      I think they were thinking that in terms of the special interests that give both parties a share of the loot; unions are a staunch Democratic ally, and are therefore at a state of war with the Republicans. If SeeYou and AssFuckMe starting putting more of their campaign funds behind Republican candidates, they wouldn’t be where they are right now.

  67. You forget. President Obama hasn’t done a darn thing in his entire career except community organizing. That’s his resume. This is all he knows how to do.

  68. The time to remind public employees for whom they really work is long overdue. If they don’t like the terms and conditions, they should have the honesty and guts to resign and seek their fortunes in other occupations. They are so removed from reality that when they are expected to pay as much for their medical as the private sector producers who generate the wealth that handsomely compensates them, they whine like stuck pigs. Enough! If they don’t get back to work, fire them and hire others who will do as well or better in performance despite the modestly adjusted compensation scheme.

    Collecting dues for private organizations? Heck, yes! Just as valid and appropriate to collect them for my church and my membership in the NRA. Yes, let’s have more public sector administrative effort for personal and political organizations.

  69. Lawyer people:

    1) Isn’t this strike a violation of the collective bargaining agreement?

    2) Can’t the Organizing for America and possibly the administration be charged with interfering with a contract, a collective bargaining contract?

    1. “1) Isn’t this strike a violation of the collective bargaining agreement?”

      A little late but the school board has now ordered them back to work (essentially saying one more day of this will constitute a strike and a breach of the CBA). We’ll see what happens if they ignore the order, but my guess is they know better.

      1. I heard many superintendents got an injunction.

  70. Isn’t this strike a violation of the collective bargaining agreement?

    Not technically a strike, more of a sick-out. I wonder if a teacher who falsely claims to be sick can be fired under the agreement.

    Can’t the Organizing for America and possibly the administration be charged

    I can see a pretty solid case being made that they are engaged in tortious interference with contract. The contract requires teachers to come in, except in certain specified circumstances. Attending political protests is probably not one of those circumstances. Thus, the teachers are in breach, and their breach has been induced by their unions, Organizing for America, etc.

    1. Not technically a strike, more of a sick-out. I wonder if a teacher who falsely claims to be sick can be fired under the agreement.

      Dude, please. Teachers can’t be fired for having sex with students, you think taking a sick call when they really might not have an owie will result in termination?

      1. sicky!

      2. No, I’m pretty sure teachers get fired for having sex with students. At least where I’m from.

        1. Check out how NYC deals with ’em — “rubber rooms.”

          http://www.wnyc.org/articles/w…..e-process/

  71. So I just heard that the good Rev. Jesse Jackson will be speaking in Madison, WI soon.

    1. So how is a group of fat old white people his audience? What can he possible say to them?

  72. There’s a basic reason why public sector unions should have restricted collective bargaining rights. Unlike the private sector, public sector workers can vote themselves benefits.

    Which they have. Public sector workers enjoy better benefits and more job security than private sector workers, a direct outcome of their ability to influence elections.

    In my opinion, working for the public sector should be something people do out of a sense of civic duty. It SHOULD be a sacrifice. It shouldn’t be something you go for because you can’t hold down a private sector job and want the security and cushy benefits.

    Leftists are always talking about how doctors shouldn’t get exhorbitant salaries. That they should work out of the goodness of their hearts, from a moral desire to help save lives. Well, why doesn’t this same logic apply to public sector workers? If money is not a primary motivating factor, why don’t public sector workers accept lower pay and benefits than private sector workers?

    1. In my opinion, working for the public sector should be something people do out of a sense of civic duty.

      You lost me here…

    2. The government was supposed to work on what I sometimes call “The NPR” model. Your lower level workers were supposed to get living wages and stable employment whereas your upper level government employees were supposed to make far less money as they were truly in it for the service aspect.

      While it can be argued that say, the President probably makes far less than he will in the private sector (doing what I can’t imagine), at the municipal and local levels, this has been far from the truth.

      I’ve had plenty of progressive friends continuously compare the CEO of Coke or Apple to the guy who runs 50 employees for the county Park system.

      The fact of the matter is that’s a bogus comparison. Many of these extremely well paid municipal mangers make way, WAY more than they ever could in the private sector– as if they were in the private sector (and those who do) more than not end up in middle to upper management jobs in obscure companies which pay “good” salaries, somewhere in the high five to low six figure range.

      Add into that all the stories (at least here locally) where these managers game the system with byzantine overtime rules which sometimes pad their salaries to even double or triple what their official base pay is.

      1. Certainly there can be abuse. But if the public sector pays more at the bottom and less at the top than the private sector, then it would seem to be doing things better. Nobody can call the gap between the top and bottom in the private sector the product of fairness or supply and demand. Its just distorted beyond all sanity. Maybe we should invert the republican mantra, and business should act more like government?

        1. business should act more like government?
          So you want business to be inefficient, insulated from market competition, and able to finance itself by confiscating citizen’s earnings by force? Sounds stupid enough to be Tony.

        2. Nobody can call the gap between the top and bottom in the private sector the product of fairness or supply and demand.

          Sure I could.

          It depends on the underlying circumstances, but I can think of plenty of cases where it could.

          Let’s consider an example like Goldman Sachs.

          That’s a company I fucking hate, so I can’t be accused of being biased in their favor.

          Goldman Sachs generates very large fees on certain transactions. Handling the underwriting for a major new stock issue, for example, can easily generate fees in the tens or hundreds of millions.

          You know how you get those transactions? Through relationship sales. Those “financiers” you hear about who get big bonuses? At the end of the day, they’re salesmen. They design and pitch financial instruments to the relatively small set of people who have large transactions like that to bring to market.

          That means that the difference between landing an underwriting deal worth 8 figures and not landing that deal can often, for Goldman, boil down to the skills of two or three salespeople.

          So yeah, to Goldman, it makes perfect sense to compensate those salespeople more than the guy who sweeps the floors. The guy who sweeps the floors has absolutely no impact on the outcome of whether or not Goldman gets that hypothetical deal. The salesman does.

        3. Nobody can call the gap between the top and bottom in the private sector the product of fairness or supply and demand.

          Sure I could.

          It depends on the underlying circumstances, but I can think of plenty of cases where it could.

          Let’s consider an example like Goldman Sachs.

          That’s a company I fucking hate, so I can’t be accused of being biased in their favor.

          Goldman Sachs generates very large fees on certain transactions. Handling the underwriting for a major new stock issue, for example, can easily generate fees in the tens or hundreds of millions.

          You know how you get those transactions? Through relationship sales. Those “financiers” you hear about who get big bonuses? At the end of the day, they’re salesmen. They design and pitch financial instruments to the relatively small set of people who have large transactions like that to bring to market.

          That means that the difference between landing an underwriting deal worth 8 figures and not landing that deal can often, for Goldman, boil down to the skills of two or three salespeople.

          So yeah, to Goldman, it makes perfect sense to compensate those salespeople more than the guy who sweeps the floors. The guy who sweeps the floors has absolutely no impact on the outcome of whether or not Goldman gets that hypothetical deal. The salesman does.

        4. Tony|2.18.11 @ 3:24PM|#
          “Nobody can call the gap between the top and bottom in the private sector the product of fairness or supply and demand.”

          You’re a lying sack of shit.

        5. Lie lie lie-Public employees make on avg about 80k yearly. private employees make about 60k yearly. And the numbers have rocketed in the last 2 years. BTW Tony, its easy to tell a Soros troll. You cant think without repeating talking points. All you hiding in the basement lefties are the same. Stupid.

          1. Citation for those numbers? Free Republic perhaps? The bathroom wall at Ammo-n-Camo Express?

            1. “The typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation. Median annual salary:
              Federal: $66,591
              Private: $55,500
              Difference:$11,091
              And this is salary, not including the bloated benes. Probably close to the numbers t-r found.
              http://www.usatoday.com/news/n……htm#chart

              1. Haha the fact that you linked to the same crap article with fake data that OM did proves that both of you are cherry-picking idiots.

                1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 5:42PM|#
                  “Haha”

                  You dumb shit, that’s because it tops the search engine lists.

                  “Illinois has ponied up. Its average teaching salary of $58,686 in 2008 reflects a 43.4 percent increase over the last decade. The research firm TeacherPortal.com ranks Illinois No. 1 in its “salary comfort index,””
                  http://articles.chicagotribune…..ate-sector

                  “The average salary for a CalPers employee in 2004 was about $46,000 and the average per capita income for all Californians was $35,000. Since then the gap has gotten bigger.”
                  http://napavalleyregister.com/…..f514f.html

                  I had four links, but the limit is two, so you’ll just have to get along with these. Or maybe even try to support your lies.

                2. sevo showed you his, now why don’t you start providing citations for your made-up numbers?

            2. And Tony runs away.

              What a pussy.

    3. United we stand
      United we stand
      United we stand
      United we stand

  73. I’m beginning to believe that Obama is interpreting his own election, little more than a repudiation of his predecessor and his policies, as a wholesale endorsement of every Democrat party position. I can’t wait to see the look on his face when it all ends up biting him in the ass.

  74. There should be no public sector unions. The ‘protests’ in Madison are a perfect illustration of the gross conflict of interest in having public sector unions. Those unions shout about collusion between politicians and corporations? How about the collusion between the politicians and the unions? They are not loyal American public servants any longer. They are anti-democratic thugs out to line their pockets with tax payers funds. Fire them all. Every last one.

  75. I see all of this as a good thing. I encourage the public employee unions to make asses out of themselves. It will be educational for everyone else.

  76. This is in the running for the best thread evar!

  77. People need to stop talking as though the Dems and the unions are separate entities; they are literally one and the same. The Left has always accused the Repubs of being owned by big business, but the truth is that the unions have literally bought the Dem party and dictate terms to it.

    1. It’s just that republicans have been infinitely more successful getting their puppetmasters what they want.

      But by all indications, apparently that’s freedom. Teachers and janitors defending their salaries? Soshalist conflict of intrest bad evil!!!

      1. Toni…Toni…Toni….

        You don’t always have to play catcher. I suggest you pitch for once and that just might help with your thought processes. Just a little suggstion.

      2. It’s just that republicans have been infinitely more successful getting their puppetmasters what they want.

        So Republicans are more effective than Democrats?

        That does not exactly sound like an endorsement of the Democratic Party.

  78. Due to the sheer number of Tony posts, I can only conclude that

    a) there are multiple Tonys or
    b) he should be writing novels since he can output so much material in such a short time. or
    c) he’s nuts

    1. I’m caught up at the office and don’t have anything better to do, until office hours are over and it’s time to start drinking.

      1. So you’re a public sector employee? Makes sense.

        1. For the record I work for a private corporation, as in it doesn’t even sell stock.

        2. +100000000

          🙂

          1. tony, you work for an EVIL CORPORATION!?
            too bad they don’t know how you feel…
            wait a minute, bet your Co. has to store all of it’s e-mail…
            be afraid, be very afraid…

  79. President Obama should just keep out of this. I agree.
    Kudos to those Govenors trying to keep their states functioning…
    It seems the unions are running out of others peoples money to spend.

  80. No this is not how a president should act but then this president hasn’t really acted anything like a president in so many ways whether it is apologizing all day long or sticking his nose in situations where it doesn’t belong. I can only hope the people in this country are as fed up with him as I am and vote him out in 2012.

  81. It’s about time this public union feedback loop stopped. Cancel it all.

  82. Salon’s Andrew Leonard, who is always good for a larf, has fabricatin’ Joseph McCartin explain to us why FDR would support the union members:

    Because what happened for the most part over the next 20 years was that collective bargaining worked pretty well in the public sector. The fear-mongering that broke almost immediately when Mayor Wagner signed that act in 1958 never played out.

    Seriously, the man utterly ignores the 1975 near-bankruptcy.

    This, my friends, is the left’s “those weapons of mass destruction are in Syria!” moment.

  83. I think this would make it “The Kaine Mutiny”

    1. As my former governor, I can attest that Kaine is worthless. He wouldn’t even participate on local radio talk shows unless there was an agreement that no phone calls would be taken during his appearance.

  84. “The president’s heavy-handed involvement, along with House Republicans’ refusal to sign off on any new bailout of the states, means that this may very well be America’s biggest and most widespread political fight in 2011.”

    No true libertarian would ever expect the federal government to bail out a state government!

  85. Where are the brown shirt comments and outcries about civility?

  86. Once the host is destroyed, our power will be even greater!

  87. I find it fascinating to see all the libertarian thinkers rooting for government to eliminate the right of individuals to join together and bargain for their working conditions. I guess big government is only evil when it raises taxes or protects the rights of women and black folk.

    1. Hi, I’m conducting a poll for trolls that are new to this site. A “troll-poll,” if you will. Please answer the following:

      1) How did you find this site?

      2) Do you troll at other sites? If so, which ones?

      3) Do you have to shield your eyes from the light when emerging from your parents’ basement?

      Thanks for your participation!

      1. 1) friends
        2) Yes, list is too long
        3) my wife lets me out of the closet and I have to shield my eyes

        you’re welcome

      2. 1)Brick Brats changed my life.

        2) Oh, no. This is the D-Lux apartment in the sky of trolling sites.

        3) The sun is not my friend.

    2. The issue in this case has to do with UNIONIZATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES and their selling their votes to the politicians w/ whom they negotiate pay, benefits, pensions, etc.

      This is CORRUPTION.

      1. John Lee-Ur Correct-public employee unions need to be eliminated. Its not my business to be paying for both there healthcare and retirement also? Screw them.

    3. No fair! The host is NOT suppose to bite back! We’ve had enough. We’re taking our marbles home. Better yet, we’re staying in our Beach House for the next few months to recuperate from this nonsense. I’ll give you the address where you can send out checks to. And you better send ’em! Or else! We mean it this time!

    4. DJ Bensonhurst|2.18.11 @ 4:01PM|#
      “I find it fascinating to see all the libertarian thinkers rooting for government to eliminate the right of individuals to join together and bargain for their working conditions.”

      Actually, no. We’re here to laugh at brain-dead lefty justifications for coercion; the dumber the better.
      You and Tony are tied.

      1. Ah, so ending collective bargaining rights doesn’t constitute a form of coercion? I’m sure all public servants will work in coercion-free environments once their union rights are stripped away.

        1. DJ Bensonhurst|2.18.11 @ 9:59PM|#
          “Ah, so ending collective bargaining rights doesn’t constitute a form of coercion?”
          Ah, you stupid shit, no.

          “I’m sure all public servants will work in coercion-free environments once their union rights are stripped away.”
          As a brain-dead lefty, I’ll bet you actually think there’s something a rational person could understand in that word salad.
          Hint: There isn’t.
          Further hint: “up” /= “down”.
          And I’m sure both of those are a surprise to such an ignoramus.

        2. Oh, and you and Tony are still tied.

    5. Hey moron, since when do Homos, blacks and UNIONS deszerve special PRIVILEDGES. Yes, Ive seen what so-called “civil rights” has done to the inner cities. I have nothing to do with 70% illegetimacy. Niether does any UNION have the PRIVILEDGE of asking me to pay for there retirement and healthcare-especially when , as a whole, they do a TERRIBLE job.

      1. Please ignore this paleo troll and do not try to conflate his views on civil rights on the rest of us here.

      2. Fuck off, ding-a-ling. My queer Jewish inner-city ass has been paying taxes to get you and your Teatard compatriots “your” Medicare and “your” Social Security.

    6. I find it fascinating to see all the libertarian thinkers rooting for government to eliminate the right of individuals to join together and bargain for their working conditions.

      Who here has argued that people should be fined or imprisoned for collective bargaining.

      People have a right to bargain collectively.

      And employers have the right to say no.

  88. Isn’t all this pointless? Public Sector Unions on one end, Defense Contractors on the other. In the middle there is the corrupt banking sector. The Bedrock of the whole failing system being two generations of Americans who expect full retirement and healthcare benefits. At the end of the Day didn’t Greenspan sum it up by stating they could ensure the money but not the purchasing power of the money. Let them ask for all the benefits they want, they’ll all turn to dust anyways.

    1. It’s a real pisser for anyone who actually managed to save any money.

  89. This issue, and some states’ refusal to implement ACA, will sooner or later get Odumbo to a tipping point:

    1. NOT intrude into state level issues and infuriate his base/unions

    2. Intrude into issues of state sovereignty and infuriate the country NOT in his base.

    Gonna be a big one especially if SCOTUS shoots down ACA.

  90. I wish my state legislature was short of a qourum and thus not doing a damned thing today.

  91. I seriously don’t know why they can’t be compelled to appear by subpoena before an assembly committee, pass legislature to close senate and assembly proceedings, arrest one of the fuckers on contempt, haul his ass back to the senate floor, lock the doors, open senate and vote, unlock doors and wish him well.

    Preferably arrest him with a SWAT team.

  92. Why would dopebama care? This is what the commie moslem grew up on . These mobs of overpayed, lazy, the reason Johnny cant read rent-a-mobs are what Dopebama is. He hates America, and he wants the lazy and the stupid with him. Or in the case of the public employee unions , the bribed. Kasich, Walker and Christie have it right. Dopebama, as always, steps in it again. Go off and kiss Soros backside again, Dufus.

    1. *groan*

      WorldNetDaily called. They need their troll back.

      1. ^^ This.

  93. This thread is rockin’

  94. Nobody can call the gap between the top and bottom in the private sector the product of fairness or supply and demand.

    I fail to see the unfairness in compensation that is earned via voluntary transactions.

    The fact that some make more and others less has nothing to do with fairness, unless your moral and ethical development topped out in kindergarten.

  95. Oh god the freepers have shown up.

    On second thought, maybe Glennbeckistan should secede. You’ll be back, hopefully before mass cannibalism sets in.

    1. Somalia!111!!!! eleventyone

  96. A good take by Robert Reich.

    As I’ve noted, this demonizing of public employees is premised on false data. Public employees don’t earn more than private-sector workers when you take account of their education. To the contrary, over the last fifteen years the pay of public-sector workers, including teachers, has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education ? even if you include health and retirement benefits. Moreover, most public employees don’t have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year.

    Bargaining rights for public employees haven’t caused state deficits to explode. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights, such as Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, are running big deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many states that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.

    Last year, America’s top thirteen hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each. One of them took home $5 billion. Much of their income is taxed as capital gains — at 15 percent — due to a tax loophole that Republican members of Congress have steadfastly guarded.

    If the earnings of those thirteen hedge-fund managers were taxed as ordinary income, the revenues generated would pay the salaries and benefits of over 5 million teachers. Who is more valuable to our society — thirteen hedge-fund managers or 5 million teachers? Let’s make the question even simpler. Who is more valuable: One hedge fund manager or one teacher?

    1. Bargaining rights for public employees haven’t caused state deficits to explode

      *cough*California*cough*

      Reich is a goddamned tool. Proof by repeated assertion — his favorite rhetorical device, used consistently throughout his career — doesn’t make anything he says any truer today than it was back in the Clinton administration. Also, some of the worst effects of public employee unionization have happened at the municipal level (as witness New York’s near-bankruptcy in 1975), where “deficits” aren’t strictly speaking allowed.

      1. Even if it were mere parity, why would public sector workers, who don’t generate any revenue to speak of, get paid the same amount as workers in the private sector, who generate enough revenue to cover their own salaries–and government workers’ salaries too?

        And when Reich is comparing private industry workers to government workers, how’s he adjusting for professions like firefighters and policemen? I’m not sure there’s much in the way of apples to apples to compare there.

        And teachers? Here’s a chart for teachers from 2009…

        http://nces.ed.gov/programs/di…..errer=list

        I’m seeing public school teachers getting an average base salary of $49,630 nationally, and private school teachers are getting an average base salary of $36,250…

        I don’t think that includes benefits, and I suspect public school teachers get more and better benefits.

        Call it a hunch.

    2. So why don’t teachers go start hedge funds? I know, because it’s easier to have all summer off, the risk v. reward has a larger spread, and I don’t know a single teacher with a masters in anything but education which is like a masters in basket weaving, while I can name more than one hedge fund manager with econ degrees, finance degrees, math degrees, one in chemistry…

      Basically in comparison teachers are fucking dumb.

      1. Basically in comparison teachers are fucking dumb.

        So true.

    3. Re: Tony,

      “As I’ve noted, this demonizing of public employees is premised on false data. Public employees don’t earn more than private-sector workers when you take account of their education.”

      Reich, you fool – they DO, even when taking into consideration their education (such as it is).

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/n…..-pay_N.htm

      “Bargaining rights for public employees haven’t caused state deficits to explode.”

      “Somewhere, over the rainboooooow…!”

      “Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights, such as Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, are running big deficits of over 30 percent of spending.”

      “Hi-ho! Hi-ho! To spending here we go!”

      “Many states that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.”

      “One of these things is not the same as the others!”

      “Last year, America’s top thirteen hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each.”

      “We represent,
      the Red Herring Guild!
      The Red Herring Guild!
      The Red Herring Guild!”

      1. That USA Today article is crap and its data are wrong.

        1. Re: Tony,

          That USA Today article is crap and its data are wrong.

          “Because I said so, that’s why!”

          1. Oh the irony.

            1. “Oh the irony.”

              Oh, the stupidity.

        2. Tony|2.18.11 @ 5:18PM|#
          “That USA Today article is crap and its data are wrong.”

          Why not act a bit older than you norm? Stick your fingers in your ears and scream: “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

    4. Tony|2.18.11 @ 4:47PM|#
      “A good take by Robert Reich.”

      There is no such thing; Reich is as predictable and as stupid as you.

    5. I can’t speak for the other states mentioned, but until recently, North Carolina was run by Democrats. Sadly, they continued to spend vast amounts of money on non-essential programs even as the recession got worse. Hopefully, the new legislature will be able to establish a responsible budget.

    6. You sure can troll but you can’t do math for shit.

      13 hedge-fund managers making $1 billion average: $13 billion

      (assuming a tax rate of 50 percent) income tax on the $13 billion: $6.5 billion

      divide by 5 million teachers: $1300 per teacher.

      $1300 is enough for their salaries and pensions?

      1. For some teachers it should be.

  97. Average city teacher salary tops $100,000
    February 18th, 2011
    Share |

    [Milwaukee, Wisconsin] MacIver News Service ? For the first time in history, the average annual compensation for a teacher in the Milwaukee Public School system will exceed $100,000.

    That staggering figure was revealed last night at a meeting of the MPS School Board.

    The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500. When fringe benefits are factored in, the annual compensation will be $100,005 in 2011.
    This is what Fat Cats really means and they still want Tax payers to pay for their Health Care and retirement policies ?

    1. “So our state is going broke…can we cut $7000 out of your $100,000 a year salary and benefits?”

      “No Way!!! We will shut down the schools!! We will shut down the Government!!! Go tax the other rich people!!!”

  98. sooo…any one read this:

    http://investmentwatchblog.com…..ps-100000/

    So much for claims that these teachers are poor and under paid.

    “say our state is going broke can we cut $7000 from your $100,000 a year benifits so our state does not default?”

    “No way we will shut down the schools!! we will shut down the government!!!

    Tax the the other rich people!!!”

  99. 601 comments!!!!

    Not all of them stupid!!!

  100. EPIC THREAD!!!!

    over 600!!!

  101. E-MAIL I sent to Ed Schultz:

    Ed,

    Non-union and private-sector employees are people, too.

    I’ll bet he finds “hate speech” in it.

  102. Tony you care so much for the downtrodden poor, don’t you think that instead of wasting your time here, you could be help out in a soup kitchen or helping out at an orphanage. Being charitable with OTHER peoples money is not charity no matter how much you try to convince yourself how good a person that makes you.

    1. Fuck charity and fuck morality. It’s about what makes the most economic sense. Having vast numbers of impoverished people is a direct threat to you and the stability of the society in which you are able to prosper. And you can’t very well prosper if there is no one who can afford to buy the shit you sell.

      1. At least you admit you have no morals nor is charity important to, that however still does not mean are not an arsehole.

        There are vast numbers of impoverished people in Africa, India, China etc. So you will have no problem if redistributing your wealth to make sure those regions are no threat to the stability of the society and thus be able to buy the shit others are selling.

        And of course having bankrupt states and chasing away business makes perfect economic sense.

        1. Oh there is a perfectly sound moral argument too, but you guys believe taxes are worse than starvation so there is little common ground there.

          Ya it makes economic sense for the increasingly globalized world to increase in prosperity too, but one thing at a time.

          1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 7:55PM|#
            “Oh there is a perfectly sound moral argument too, but you guys believe taxes are worse than starvation…”

            You’re a lying sack of shit.

      2. Tony|2.18.11 @ 5:35PM|#
        “Fuck charity and fuck morality. It’s about what makes the most economic sense. Having vast numbers of impoverished people is a direct threat to you…”

        You’re a lying sack of shit.

      3. By this argument, shooting the poor people is the way to go. I mean, fuck charity and morality, right? We shoot anyone whose income drops below the poverty line and the rest of us get to divvy up their stuff. It makes more economic sense!

          1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 7:57PM|#
            “Swoosh!”

            And I’ll bet your Mommy told you that meant something other than you are an ignoramus.

          2. Of course you can’t debate the point.

            1. I was not claiming that morality should be absent from policy discussions, I was ignoring it for the moment because you guys have no moral coherence. I’m right morally, but, more relevantly, I’m right economically. You guys are wrong on every count.

              1. Your argumentation is at a 4th grade “I’m right, you’re wrong!” level, yet you’re clearly not in the 4th grade.

                Seriously, what is the financial component in this for you? You talk about beach houses and laptops, but when some commenter here destroys your arguments, or even challenges them, you disappear like the morning fog.

                The only people I’ve met in my life who practice this sort of constant straw man, distraction style method of argumentation are lawyers and PR managers (I’m sure there are others). Both of them represent professions that are paid to continuously spout talking points and avoid an actual search for the truth.

                Even MNG has the ability to address pertinent arguments made against his assertions. You don’t, and don’t seem to want to.

                Yet you’re here, getting pounded into the ground at each appearance, and fleeing out the window when the paint approaches your corner.

                You can spell. You can form a sentence and organize a thought, yet there’s something unnervingly phony about your entire presence.

                Worst of all (for you), you’re only helping to destroy your own arguments by this behavior.

      4. Funny how you selectively use “morality” in your welfare arguments, Tony…

      5. Fuck charity and fuck morality.

        No Tony, fuck you. Charity that is not freely given is not charity, no matter what your idiot college professors told you.

      6. Charity and morality make economic sense, where coercion and collusion do not. One is more common in freer markets, the other is more common in government restricted markets.

      7. Having vast numbers of impoverished people is a direct threat to you and the stability of the society in which you are able to prosper.

        Define poverty.

        For those without knowledge of basic economics, poverty is not defined in terms of absolutes. It has nothing to do with absolute measures of subsistence, or health, or quality of clothing or standards of living. It is simply based on income percentiles; if you rank financially in the bottom third of the population, then you are below the poverty line (the exact placement of the poverty line may vary from country to country).

        To put this concept in stark relief, consider this: if everybody in North America experiences a tenfold increase in wealth over the next 30 days, the number of people living below the poverty line won’t change one iota. The “poor” grocery store clerks might have 6000 square foot homes and Porsches, but the “rich” people would have 30,000 square foot homes and McLarens (insert whatever ostentatious displays of wealth you prefer, if you’re not into cars).

        In other words, a general increase in the standard of living cannot possibly eliminate poverty, no matter how high that increase is. It’s all relative, so even the most comfortable country in the world must have poverty … unless the government forces everyone’s standard of living to be the same.

    2. Being charitable with OTHER peoples money is not charity no matter how much you try to convince yourself how good a person that makes you.

      I wish we could shout this from the rooftops and tattoo it on the foreheads of every leftoid schmuck in the country. It’s easy to be generous and charitable with other people’s money. Is it moral? Not by a long shot.

      1. Is it moral to knowingly put millions of people into misery over a stupid philosophy? Nope.

        1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 9:17PM|#
          “Is it moral to knowingly put millions of people into misery over a stupid philosophy? Nope.

          Shut up and sit down, assshole.

        2. Ask Stalin and Mao, your philosophical cohorts.

        3. You are the master of absurd assumption. You have a career in modeling progressive and Keynesian public policy.

  103. Translation from Tony-ese to English,

    Re: Tony,

    Change tax policy so that it’s more progressive.

    Steal more.

    Bolster the safety net.

    Include more thieves.

    Make rules for the financial sector so that reckless gambling with the nation’s money is discouraged, and actual productivity is encouraged

    Encourage rent-seeking.

    (after all, the only reason the financial sector exists is to support the economy

    I believe the economy is a thing, not a phenomenon.

    The more people with disposable income, the more money goes into the economy

    I’m a Keynesian. I see things backwards.

    Rich people simply don’t spend as much of their money as the middle class does. That’s just an obvious reality.

    I am a nitwit who thinks spending is productive.

    Oh, by the way Tony: People spend because they produced previously. it doesn’t work the other way around. Try learning some economics, at least for a refreshing change.

    Anyway, I’m done with this post.

  104. Obama is a scary narcissist, a would be dictator with a fake smile and a heavy hand. People in this country are so dumb they think he’s a “great guy.” I can’t help the stupid, but hopefully enough people will see the light by 2012.

    As for Tony and other economic idiots on this board, probably a waste of breath. 2% of wage earners pay 40% of the federal income tax. Can’t get much more progressive than that. What Tony wants is for someone to babysit him, for the little boy that he is….

    1. Obama is a moderately liberal pragmatic Democrat who was actually elected to office legitimately unlike his predecessor. Fox News rots the brain.

      1. Where’s the difference? They both suck.

      2. Obama is a moderately liberal pragmatic Democrat

        A leftist moderate would not organize the DNC and his former community group to shut down a state capital and shut down schools over a government union squabble with the state’s Governor and majority legislature who are trying to balance their budget.

        The most a moderate would do is say a few words about it to the press.

        1. Radical action requires a more radical response. The Republicans want to destroy unions and they know if it gets done in Wisconsin, it can get done anywhere else. Obama has a duty as a Democrat to do everything he can to stop them.

          1. Tony|2.18.11 @ 9:16PM|#
            “Radical action requires a more radical response.”

            Shut up and sit down, asshole.

          2. Obama has a duty as a Democrat to do everything he can to stop them.

            Wow. Thanks for arguing that Obama’s duty to his party trumps his duty as President.

            You’ve summed up in one sentence exactly why people such as yourself should be locked up in cages and thrown into the ocean. You have nothing more to offer in your philosophy but glorified managerial feudalism.

            1. And here you are doing free prostitution for Republicans. Such self-motivated entrepreneurs you are!

              Republicans are the enemy to everyone in this country, even the planet, who’s not a billionaire who plans to die within the next 10 years. Fact. Eat it. Who cares about anything else.

              1. Republicans are the enemy to everyone in this country, even the planet, who’s not a billionaire who plans to die within the next 10 years. Fact. Eat it. Who cares about anything else.

                I can not tell if this is the real Tony or the fake Tony.

                1. It’s gotta be fake Tony. Either that or he was really pissed off.

          3. And by the way, a truly “radical response” is going to result in deaths in the end. I hope you’re prepared to accept that.

          4. “Obama has a duty as a Democrat to do everything he can to stop them.”

            Sooo…

            He has no duty whatsoever as President of the United States to any of the citizens of Wisconsin (or any other State for that matter) who are NOT Democrats?

            As far as you and he are concerned…

            Got it.

            I had long suspected as much but it is going to be delicious watching your type and Obama spell this out so explicitly in the months to come to the mushy middle!

            Thank You!

            8 years of GWB and just 2 years of Obama really ARE going to wake up a goodly portion the ESPN and TMZ zombies aren’t they?

            (BTW, I fully support the IDEAL of a society where a majority of people can exercise their right to be bored shitless by politicking and not bother to exercise their franchise if there is a super-cute guy who texted them to meet up at the “Zanzibars!” next Tuesday!)

            STG I must be the ONLY person under the age of 70 who regularly shows up to vote in the small beans “penny ante” local elections not on leave from a government job.

            Its “Educators” and AFCSME workers all the way down at County or City level referendums.

            20 to 1 just by eyeballing it (I do make it a point to go to the actual polling station) and my estimations have largely been proved correct by election results.

            I would be, I think what Tony would class as “a worker”.

            P.S. Tony! I have family and friends to support so I am doing whatever I can to transition to someone who MAKES money rather than merely EARNS it.

            Call me crazy but I’ve had some very good experiences “extorting” some OUTRAGEOUS fees for what amounts to about 6 hours of my time for some very basic unskilled labor. As an Independent Contractor!

            “Deety we really need someone like you up in Gotham to take care of XYZ”.

            “You KNOW that I charge a base of $100 just to drive up there from here in Springfield! You MUST have someone in Gotham for something like this, should cost you $60 total! That’s what I would charge if it were in-town for me.”

            “No, it’s an important client. We need them done right and we need them done on deadline. No room for error!”

            “Why would you tilt your hand this way if you weren’t desperate? Do yourself a favor call around for a few days and source this out!”

            “Don’t you want to know what the exact scope of work is, the deadline?”

            “No! Hang up now and call someone cheaper! I’m mentioning to you NOW that I am committed to my “real job” down here thru Friday and have a family event all Saturday…”

            * 4 hours later*

            “I tried, Deety but we still want YOU.”

            “I don’t WANT to, not this week, not driving up to Gotham, I hate that shit! Nothing personal.”

            “What if we offered you $600?”

            “For six hours worth of my time including commute on a Saturday? For 3 BS 30 min. projects like this? You must be crazy, let me talk to Abigail (the big boss)!

            *Abigail cuts in*

            “It’s an important client. I authorized this. It’s not just important that you can complete the job. [Any monkey could!] You work very well getting those jobs completed in retail locations with enthusiastic feedback. It reflects well on us and it reflects well on our clients.”

            “Well, shit.”

            (Flattery and a bit of cash will get you EVERYWHERE with me it seems.)

            “It’s not like my cousin’s daughter isn’t likely to have many more birthdays in her life and even if SHE won’t I have like 15 other Aunts and Uncles and upwards of 40 something cousins to supply any lack of rug-rats in my life!”

            “I’m in!”

            Aaaawww!!!

            See Tony, how exploited the little guy can be by the evil “free market” Plutocrats?

            Too bad I don’t have a union to NEGOTIATE a “fair” wage for me, no?

            I discerned what a ‘fair’ wage for those projects on a piece-work basis was, in town, for me.

            I even TOLD the recruiter that it was probably wasteful to try to import my labor to a far away city.

            I don’t know exactly WHY they hired me at that outrageous sum for such a simple shit job but they did and they keep hiring me for other jobs as well.

            (Some of them ARE kind of crappy $20 per location jobs that require I hang out in gang-banger territory [in Town] after dark.)

          5. Radical action requires a more radical response.

            I don’t disagree but it does make Obama a radical not a moderate as you claimed above.

  105. Tony|2.18.11 @ 5:46PM|#
    “Obama is a moderately liberal pragmatic Democrat who was actually elected to office legitimately unlike his predecessor.”
    Lies.

    “Fox News rots the brain.”
    I take it you’re an example.

  106. If we do not address this enormous problem of ever growing, politically motivated entitlements now, we will not be able to address it in the future.

  107. By his many, many unconscionable actions since he was elected, Obama has shown that he does not have the best interests of the United States at heart. In fact the vast majority of his actions have been decidedly un-presidential. To accurately reflect this I will hence forth always refer to him as the UN-President. I hope that you might also consider doing this.

  108. By his many, many unconscionable actions since he was elected, Obama has shown that he does not have the best interests of the United States at heart. In fact the vast majority of his actions have been decidedly un-presidential. To accurately reflect this I will hence forth always refer to him as the UN-President. I hope that you might also consider doing this.

  109. By his many, many unconscionable actions since he was elected, Obama has shown that he does not have the best interests of the United States at heart. In fact the vast majority of his actions have been decidedly un-presidential. To accurately reflect this I will hence forth always refer to him as the UN-President. I hope that you might also consider doing this.

  110. We have a new contender for, well, stupid as rocks:

    Tony|2.18.11 @ 4:23PM|#
    “…You are entitled to exactly what money you have after taxes.”

    So, according to dumbass, we get to keep whatever the government doesn’t want.

  111. Yeah, I’m against Obama on this one. Its pure politics, and bad policy. The Republicans deserve it, the American people don’t.

  112. Your a rasist!

  113. This was Tony’s thread.

    This is Tony’s theme

  114. Just in case I wasn’t clear, Republicans want to destroy unions (and public employees have the last big one), because unions give money to Democrats. This is not about workers having too many rights, it’s about Republicans trying to make policy that makes it easier for them to win elections. That is what you guys are supporting. Are you proud of yourselves?

    1. “Just in case I wasn’t clear, Republicans want to destroy unions (and public employees have the last big one)”

      Did the UAW and AFL-CIO implode when I wasn’t looking?

      “because unions give money to Democrats.”

      And if unions were purely voluntary organizations, then there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that. But sadly, right-to-work laws have not been passed on a national level, and thus most unions are still labor cartels.

      “This is not about workers having too many rights, it’s about Republicans trying to make policy that makes it easier for them to win elections.”

      So it’s good political strategy to stoke the rage of unions, some of the most influential organizations come election time?

      “That is what you guys are supporting. Are you proud of yourselves?”

      Yes, we do support requiring gluttonous public-employees to pay for more of their own retirement. Yes, we are against union monopolies. Yes, we don’t believe collective bargaining is a “right”, if such things exist in the first place.

      I for one am very proud of myself, thanks. Making statists cry is one of the greatest pleasures for a libertarian, right up there with kicking old people in the teeth and running over the poor in gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalades.

      1. “kicking old people in the teeth and running over the poor in gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalades.”

        Hey, careful there! Not only is Tony an ignoramus, his/her sarcasm detector is out of order.
        S/he’ll take that seriously!

      2. You ignorant tool, before you focus on teachers and firefighters, why don’t you give a second’s thought to the people who’ve been actually stealing from society, the ones benefiting the most from government policy?

        You aren’t wrong because of your principles, you’re wrong because you apply your principles selectively, as in, however Limbaugh or whatever plutocrat mouthpiece tells you to. God damn you people are hopeless.

        1. Limbaugh? LOL.

        2. You ignorant tool, before you focus on teachers and firefighters, why don’t you give a second’s thought to the people who’ve been actually stealing from society, the ones benefiting the most from government policy?

          That would be people who would rather do drugs than work.

          They should be left to starve to death on the streets.

          1. That would be people who would rather do drugs than work.

            I disagree. That would be the crony insiders of GS, GM and Lawrence Summers, etc. who, after their organizations miraculously survived the “shake-up”, were appointed to top positions in the Obama administration. Tony doesn’t like to talk about how corrupt his Chicago hero is.

            The difference in relevence lies in the differentiation between the Federal and State budget deficits.

            State deficits are cracking precisely because of PubSec unions and their control on the individual legislatures, along with other unfunded entitlement programs. California’s unfunded pensions are estimated at 500B – 1Trillion.

            Unsustainable.

            The end is coming, and these people have run up their compensation over the last decade + so that, when the time for ‘cuts’ actually happens, their negotiated “reductions” will leave them still far ahead of the rest of society.

            It’s a ponzi scheme and wealth transfer, and has nothing to to with ‘rights’.

        3. Would that be GM, or one of the many banks that Bush/Obama gave taxpayer money to?

    2. That would be tax-payer money. It is a slight conflict of interest don’t you think?

    3. Actually, not true. The largest donors to the Democratic Party the last two election cycles were Wall Street/banking interests and lawyers. Unions were a distant third place.

      1. Brian Miller|2.19.11 @ 12:49PM|#
        “Actually, not true. The largest donors to the Democratic Party the last two election cycles were Wall Street/banking interests and lawyers. Unions were a distant third place.”

        Bullshit:
        http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
        Quit lying.

    4. Just in case I wasn’t clear, Republicans want to destroy unions because unions give money to Democrats.

      does not equal

      That is what you guys are supporting. Are you proud of yourselves?

      I want to “destroy” (not really destroy just level the playing field) Unions for completely different reason then what you claim are the reason why the Republicans are doing it.

  115. No this isn’t how a normal President should act, but then Obama isn’t a normal President. Obama is and extreme left wing ideologue that is heavily invested in the corrupt deal the democrats have made with the public employee unions. The unions provide billions of dollars and votes to get democrats elected and democrats tax working people to pass provide every increasing payoffs…I mean salaries and benefits to the unions. If that corrupt deal breaks down the democrats and Obama might not get the money and votes they need to keep their extreme left wing ideology alive. So Obama is mobilizing to protect his corrupt compact. Its a result of his extreme left wing ideology, and more than that…its the Chicago Way. Meaning corrupt!

  116. Tony|2.18.11 @ 9:14PM|#
    “Just in case I wasn’t clear, Republicans want to destroy unions (and public employees have the last big one), because unions give money to Democrats.”

    Oh, you are *very* clear. And *very* stupid.
    I see you have yet to provide one piece of evidence to back your brain-dead claims.
    And yet you continue to post this sort of drivel which would embarrass anyone with a GED.
    You are a lying asshole with all the redeeming qualities of a train-wreck.
    Go away, asshole.

  117. How can libertarians oppose citizens bargaining for a contract

    1. timb|2.18.11 @ 10:02PM|#
      “How can libertarians oppose citizens bargaining for a contract”

      Uh, who said libertarians are?
      The people in question are “bargaining”; they’re trying to use the coercion of the government to rent-seek.
      But I have a feeling being busted on your lie isn’t what you had in mind.

      1. Correction:
        “aren’t “bargaining””

  118. Jeesh why are you guys even conversing with Tony?

    Democrats, Republicans, whatever. If he cannot grasp the simple fact that it is just plain old immoral to force one group of people, against their will, to subsidize the lifestyle and retirement of another group people then the guy is a total twit.

    This whole thing is absurdly simple. What you have with this situation is a small percentage of the population pitching a fit because the rest of us are coming to the conclusion that the services they are providing are no where near the compensation they are demanding. Well, fuck them. Fire them all and get a group of people in there that can do the job.

    1. No, nowhere is it written stone that coercing people is bad. No.

      I know it sounds terrible, but its the foundation of civilization.

      1. Just so you know?

        When you hear in our founding documents somebody talking about “liberty”? They’re talking about the opposite of “coercing people”.

        When you hear them talking about “justice”? They’re talking about the government protecting people from coercion.

        Seriously, your ideas about how “coercing people” isn’t a big deal?

        They’re bogus. Our founding documents are all about liberty and justice–which means not coercing people–and everybody who still cares about liberty and justice and isn’t drawing a paycheck from the government?

        Is disgusted by the public employee unions.

        Everybody. They’re a parasite on the American people, and if you work for the government and you’ve come to imagine yourself entitled to the fruit of their labor, then you’re a disgrace to the American people too.

        1. I mean, holy smokes…

          These union members are interfering with the right of the people of Wisconsin to govern themselves!

          It’s indefensible.

        2. I didn’t say it wasn’t a big deal. A Constitution or social compact that binds government to protect liberty implies coercing politicians and those with public power NOT to pass certain laws.

          I’m saying that if you base your entire argument on the simple moral point that coercing = wrong, then your argument is on its face weak.

          1. There’s nothing weak about it.

            Coercion is crime.

            If you’re saying we can’t put a stop to crime without coercion, then you’re in some kind of circular argument. Stopping people from coercing others isn’t coercion. The only person here having trouble keeping up is you.

            And the kind of coercion we’re talking about here can’t even be conflated with coercive things like tax collection!

            I may think income taxes and property taxes are coercive, much more so than sales taxes, which are more or less figured into the price of things and paid voluntarily–but the kind of coercion you’re openly defending isn’t even comparable to that!

            At least with our coercive taxation, we can vote the politicians who support that taxation out of office if we want to. How do I vote the public employee unions out of office?!

            “No taxation without representation.”–do you understand what that means?!

            The people of Wisconsin voted for their state politicians–and the government employee unions are inflicting themselves on the people of Wisconsin…over and above any authority by their legitimate government. The government employees aren’t even accountable to their own politicians?!

            That’s a subversion of the basic premise of government by the consent of the governed! That’s the coercion you’re defending?!

            You’re saying that the people of Wisconsin have no right to complain about the coercion they’re being subjected to by their own government workers–because…

            …because coercion has become so ubiquitous that it’s unacceptable to object to it?!

            That’s worse than absurd. That’s sick.

            1. “The people of Wisconsin voted for their state politicians–and the government employee unions are inflicting themselves on the people of Wisconsin…over and above any authority by their legitimate government. The government employees aren’t even accountable to their own politicians?!”

              I mean, in your world, how do the people of Wisconsin get the government employees unions under control?

              Is there any option other than moving out of state?

            2. The most basic functions of government are coercive. Before you can even talk about preventing theft you have to acknowledge that government coerces people from stealing. Living among other people requires coercion. Grow up and deal with it.

              1. Because no one has the right to steal, the government employee unions have a right to override the legitimately elected politicians the people of Wisconsin chose to run their government?!

                Because no one has a right to steal, the people of Wisconsin should suffer whatever the public employee unions decide to inflict on them–regardless of what their legitimately elected representatives legislate?!

                Even if protecting people from coercion like theft were the same thing as coercion, what you’re suggesting doesn’t even pass the smell test.

              2. If the only reason you aren’t stealing is brcause it’s against the law, that makes you a pretty fucked up individual.

            3. Well, first of all, I’m not arguing in favor of the public employee unions, as I made clear earlier in this thread. So do yourself a favor and stop creating that straw man.

              Second, “stopping people from coercing others isn’t coercion”? Really? Thats exactly what that is. The point isn’t that coercion is wrong, it’s that certain types of coercion are wrong due to some underlying theory or value. I’m arguing that the underlying theory of coercion = bad is simplistic and easily rebutted.

              1. Justice isn’t coercion.

                In fact, the whole idea of justice is about when the government can use force without it being coercive.

                Generally speaking, the government is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone used coercion on another party–and intended to do so–before they can use force and deprive someone of their liberty or property.

                That’s what justice is all about.

                The use of force isn’t necessarily coercion either. If someone uses the courts to enforce a contract–an agreement both parties entered into quite willingly–that’s hardly coercive.

                Justice is the opposite of coercion. That’s why they call it “justice”. Coercion is crime when ordinary people do it, and when governments do it, it’s called “injustice”.

              2. “Second, “stopping people from coercing others isn’t coercion”? Really? Thats exactly what that is. The point isn’t that coercion is wrong, it’s that certain types of coercion are wrong due to some underlying theory or value. I’m arguing that the underlying theory of coercion = bad is simplistic and easily rebutted.”

                Only for those willfully ignorant.
                There are two ways to get someone to do something:
                1) Persuasion.
                2) Coercion.
                Coercion may be necessary in the case of self-defense, but it is always bad.

                1. “Coercion may be necessary in the case of self-defense, but it is always bad.”

                  See? I’d argue that self-defense is a legitimate justification for shooting someone because “self-defense” means you didn’t have any choice…

                  You were coerced!

                  Coercion is always the difference between criminal behavior and freedom.

                  The difference between sex and rape is coercion.

                  The difference between a contract and fraud is coercion.

                  The difference between accepting a charitable donation and armed robbery is coercion.

                  The difference between murder and justifiable self defense is coercion!

                  The determining factor is always coercion. Coercion is the definition of crime. …without exception.

                  And justice is the opposite of crime.

                  I think most of our political problems come from people like GMAC, who, for some reason, can’t seem to tell the difference between justice and crime.

                  In this instance, it’s particularly egregious too! It’s one thing when you’re defending some supposed right of the majority to elect leaders to “coerce” the rest of us to do things.

                  …much worse to suggest that the people of Wisconsin have no right to complain about government employee unions inflicting themselves on their democratic process–because coercion is ubiquitous?!

                  It was an absurd suggestion to begin with.

                  1. “See? I’d argue that self-defense is a legitimate justification for shooting someone because “self-defense” means you didn’t have any choice…”

                    It is or would be justified. And it still would be ‘bad’; I’d rather not have to do that. I’d rather people not resort to force or have to resort to force.

      2. “I know it sounds terrible, but its the foundation of civilization.”

        Ken, you probably beat me to it.
        G Mc, you’re full of it.
        Coercion isn’t the ‘foundation of civilization’, it’s the sad admission that there are those who must be kept from harming others. Further, without constraint, it’s the end of civilization.
        Given that, we grant government the monopoly on coercion and do our best to limit its use.
        The ‘foundation of civilization’ is the voluntary truck between those who wish no harm to others.

        1. So . . . we grant government a monopoly on coercion just for the fun of it? Not because its the foundational notion of Western civilization? You rebut what I say, then fail to establish why.

          Why is it a “sad admission”? Is it always sad to acknowledge facts of human behavior?

          1. G Mc|2.20.11 @ 12:38PM|#
            “So . . . we grant government a monopoly on coercion just for the fun of it?”
            No. Having trouble reading? Please try again.

            “Not because its the foundational notion of Western civilization?”
            No. Having trouble reading? Please try again.

            “You rebut what I say, then fail to establish why.”
            No. Having trouble reading? Please try again.

            “Why is it a “sad admission”? Is it always sad to acknowledge facts of human behavior?”
            I find it sad that some people resort to force to gain what they wish.
            Are you happy about that?

      3. I know it sounds terrible, but its the foundation of civilization.

        Woo hoo! Repeal of the 13th Amendment, here we come!

      4. I know it sounds terrible, but its the foundation of civilization.

        Woo hoo! Repeal of the 13th Amendment, here we come!

        1. You are coerced from enslaving another person.

          1. You’re confused. An inability to control the behavior of another person who is not threatening you does not constitute ‘coercion’.

            Without the approval of the government, ‘enslaving’ others becomes quite tricky.

            But you’re welcome to try it yourself if you think you’ll be successful.

          2. G Mc|2.20.11 @ 12:33PM|#
            “You are coerced from enslaving another person.”

            Bullshit.
            The claim is that the government “stopped” slavery. It didn’t; it simply stopped enforcing it.
            It stopped as soon as the government stopped enforcing slavery through coercion.
            No, coercion is not the basis for civilization.

            1. For clarity:
              “It [slavery] stopped as soon as the government stopped enforcing slavery through coercion.
              No, coercion is not the basis for civilization.”

          3. Holy shit that is stupid.

    2. Force? Those poor corporations entered into these contracts against their will?

      Is this a joke?

      You pea brains have been brainwashed with this Ayn Randian fantasy.

      You’re all probably not much different than the working class yet you have been hoodwinked into attacking those like you and you run interference for the fascists.

      It’s simply amazing. You would allow the courts to crush a powerless individual that had a contract with a corporation (because you believe in free market fairies and the “sanctity of contract”) yet when an immensely powerful corporation that is protected by the government doesn’t get all the terms they want in a contract you fascist goons attack those with less power with relish.

      You are mindless hypocrites that simply hate the working class. Here’s hoping you get a fucking steel toed boot up the ass you fascist boot lickers.

  119. Preach baby Preach.
    The public is fed up.
    Here in Michigan our new Gov just laid out a ton of proposals.
    Has the lib’s over at the freepress all up in arms.. as the days past the freepress writers find themselves alone asking where’s the outrage LOL. The people are done listening to the we have to have more crowd.
    I’ve been screaming it since I was 10 that was 35 years ago. I believe the rest of America is finally catching up and I’m loving it.
    Dem’s and their union thug buddies are imploding on the capitol steps in Madison and them appear to be completely oblivious to it.

  120. The thing that is most telling to me is that so much of the emphasis seems to be on teachers, when it is cops and firefighters who are guilty of almost all the pension-spiking gimmickry, and are most likely to be honestly overpaid.

    But since these groups are more divided at the polls, Republicans give them a free pass. LIBERAL unions, however, are held to a different standard.

    I almost think the Wisconsin bill could be considered a Bill of Attainder, in that it exempts for no logical reason groups that endorsed the governer’s campaign. It seems specifically designed to attack his political opponents, and therefore could be considred unconstitutional.

    1. Bill of Attainder, probably not…

      But I agree that cops & firefighters are just as bad and/or worse in a lot of cases. Also, those groups have powerful abilities to use emotional appeal. “If you don’t give us a raise, your house will burn down and we won’t be able to stop it!”

      Regardless… The teachers here aren’t exactly in the poorhouse and they’re just being asked to contribute more to their own pensions – something other teachers across the country already do (I think my mom contributes about 15%).

      1. “If you don’t give us a raise, your house will burn down and we won’t be able to stop it!”

        Even more, there’s some speculation that houses will burn because of a lack of raises.

    2. Yeah, those huge endorsements. I mean, 4 out of 314 endorsed Walker. Those are staggering numbers and indicate a clear bias on Walker’s part.

  121. EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON o. HE IS REALLY SCARY. CAN YOU RECALL ANY OTHER PRESIDENT- TAKING SIDES AND ATTACKING ANOTHER GOVENOR….

  122. Chad I think it has more to do with work related death and risk issues.. as well cops ain’t paid so well you might want to look into it teachers are way better off in pay and benefits.

    1. Exempting cops means admitting that unions bestow some benefit. Again this is a political attack it’s not about principles or saving the budget. Wisconsin doesn’t even have a big budget crisis and I fail to see how taking away collective bargaining has anything to do with that anyway.

      1. Tony|2.19.11 @ 1:19PM|#
        “Exempting cops means admitting that unions bestow some benefit.”
        Tony, ask for a refund on your straw grasper; it’s broken.
        Oh, and you’re a lying shitbag.

        “Again this is a political attack it’s not about principles or saving the budget.”
        Oh, and you’re a lying shitbag. Did I mention that?

        1. And you’re a worthless vaginally-discharged carpet stain. You know how I’m right? You never make an argument. You just call names.

          1. Tony|2.20.11 @ 3:54AM|#
            “And you’re a worthless vaginally-discharged carpet stain.”
            Says the lying shitbag….

            “You know how I’m right? You never make an argument. You just call names.”
            Who can’t read.

  123. Tony dun shat all over this thread. I’m impressed at his body of work today. You deserve a day or several thousand off.

  124. Scrap the entire school system, fire everyone and start over. Destroy the damm Unions.

  125. For the sake of argument let’s agree that the forerunners of AFL-CIO were the ones who stopped coal-mine owners in West Virginia from working a 7 year old boy to death. Even if it was the “union” that saved the children from slave labor then, how can that be compared to the “union” now trying to save an ineffective schoolteacher a 5% cut in her 50k/yearly salary? I don’t believe there can be any comparison. I suppose there must be exceptions but generally speaking today’s union worker doesn’t seem to be much of a worker at all. P.S. Cops, firemen, nurses and schoolteachers should not need an AFL-CIO “union” to help them do their job.

    1. You’re absolutely right–there’s no comparison.

      Furthermore, if recent history has taught us anything, it’s that the unions won’t make any meaningful concessions until they’ve reduced everything around them to smoldering embers.

      Just look at Detroit. Public employee unions are more entrenched in our governments than the UAW was in Detroit–and if you want to see how bad things have to get before the unions will make any substantial concessions, just look at what they did to Detroit.

  126. I’m getting the feeling Tony is a union teacher, or government union member or employee.

    1. Nope, unlike libertarians I don’t base my policy beliefs on myopic shirt- term selfishness.

      1. Tony|2.19.11 @ 1:20PM|#
        “Nope, unlike libertarians I don’t base my policy beliefs on myopic shirt- term selfishness.”
        Did I mention you’re a lying shitbag?
        Just in case I forgot.

      2. obviously tony doesnt comprehende the libertine gawd annie randy who famously belched “i gots mine so fuck youse”!…in ruskie acourse

        1. Tony|2.19.11 @ 1:20PM|#
          “Nope, unlike libertarians I don’t base my policy beliefs on myopic shirt- term selfishness.”

          Read a review of Atlas Shrugged once, did you? I figure that’s about the depth of your knowledge.
          BTW, you’re an ignorant lying sack of shit.

          1. Ooops; shit bags get conmfusing.
            OhioOrrin|2.19.11 @ 1:38PM|#
            “obviously tony doesnt comprehende the libertine gawd annie randy…”

            Read a review of Atlas Shrugged once, did you? I figure that’s about the depth of your knowledge.
            BTW, you’re an ignorant lying sack of shit.

            1. i red the small sections we burnt to warm the homeless. annie never felt soo gu:t und pass da ripple

              1. Yeah, Barack Obama encouraging government employees to deny the people of Wisconsin the right to manage their own fiscal affairs is all justified–because of something Ayn Rand wrote?

                Government employees’ salaries and benefits spiraling out of control is okay…and the legitimately elected government of Wisconsin trying to bring those costs in line with inflation? …that’s completely unacceptable–because of something Ayn Rand wrote?

                Note to sevo: Their handwaving is meant to distract us.

                1. “Barack Obama encouraging government employees to deny the people of Wisconsin the right to manage their own fiscal affairs is all justified–because of something Ayn Rand wrote?”
                  Hey, you’re looking for logic from these shitbags? Not a chance.

                  “Note to sevo: Their handwaving is meant to distract us.”
                  A bit of amusement never hurt; we can always toss bananas to the monkeys.

              2. OhioOrrin|2.19.11 @ 2:26PM|#
                “i red the small sections we burnt to warm the homeless.”

                I’m sure you did read “small sections”; there weren’t too many single-syllable words.

          2. I read the whole steaming pile of horseshit, actually. On the toilet, very appropriately.

            1. Tough stuff.
              I read Krugman and Reich on a regular basis, and steaming piles of shit doesn’t begin to describe those two, or their special pleading.

            2. I’m interested about what parts you found shittiest.

              1. Characters, plot, the hamfisted lecturing.

    2. I’m also starting to think he has a liberal arts education and has never bothered to educate himself beyond that in the areas he’s choosing to discuss.

      At least MNG and Tulpa understand the arguments and both sides, they just disagree for varying reasons.

      1. I’m starting to think that, even if Tony is employed in the private sector, the company that he works for has some serious government contracts.

        1. No need. Computers are now cheap; janitors can afford them and no manager cares about a janitor’s political views.
          Plus, a janitor can finish the rounds early and spend time proving his/her ignorance on the web.

          1. Please.

            Janitorial work takes attention to detail, and an ability to actually produce results.

            There’s no way Tony’s a janitor.

            Upper management. Maybe daddy’s company.

            1. “Please.
              Janitorial work takes attention to detail, and an ability to actually produce results.
              There’s no way Tony’s a janitor.”

              I stand corrected, and apologies to those who do good janitorial work.
              Seriously, that was unfair on my part. Good work by anyone is good work. And I’m sorry to have compared anyone who does so with Tony.

  127. It’s odd watching the non-finance talking heads this morning. The Democrats seem to be implying that the WI Governor is ramming legislation down the someone’s (I assume the voters) throats. Not a one of them has been challenged on the ramming and tap dancing done to get the healthcare bill passed by the Democratic party.

    We need to make professional politician a capital offense after 5 years of being one.

  128. Fire the truant teachers!

  129. Obama is scum.

    I’d like apologies from all the reason staffers who voted for the fucker.

    1. David Weigel?!

      Who else voted for Obama?

      1. Who else voted for Obama?

        Ron Bailey i think. Be he had a pretty good excuse.

        ‘The Republicans needed to be punished’

        Hard to argue with.

      2. here is the list:

        Peter Bagge: Barr; Obama if close
        Ronald Bailey: Obama
        Radley Balko: Barr
        Drew Carey: “Anybody but McCain/Palin”
        Tim Cavanaugh: Obama
        Shikha Dalmia: Nobody
        Brian Doherty: Never votes
        Nick Gillespie: Barr, if he votes
        Katherine Mangu-Ward: Never votes
        Michael Moynihan: Won’t vote
        Charles Oliver: Won’t vote
        Bob Poole: McCain
        Damon Root: Probably nobody, maybe Barr
        Jacob Sullum: Barr
        Jesse Walker: Barr
        David Weigel: Obama
        Matt Welch: Probably Barr
        Cathy Young: Probably Barr

        Tim also voted for Obama.

        https://reason.com/blog/2008/10…..ies-get-it

        1. I don’t know what’s weirder, seeing the votes for Obama–or seeing only one vote for McCain.

          It’s hard to believe that was only a couple of years ago.

          Obama-lama ding dong sucks so bad, McCain couldn’t have been much worse.

          1. And you’re going to have to reach to claim Biden is ‘better’ than Palin.

          2. McCain couldn’t have been much worse.

            Not worse, just differently bad.

        2. GET THE PITCHFORKS!!!

  130. what about the rest of america?

    1. OhioOrrin|2.19.11 @ 4:00PM|#
      “what about the rest of america?”

      Doctrinaire dems, assorted brain-deads voted *for* Obama; no suprise.
      Seems the rest (like the Reason staffers) voted *against* McCain.
      I didn’t vote for either one; the stench associated with both was too great. Couldn’t hold my nose that tight.

    2. Oh, and apologies from “the rest” would be appropriate, too.

  131. I started an Epic Thread list

    http://reason.wikia.com/wiki/Epic_Thread

    Feel free to add others you know about.

  132. THE “TONY TELLS THE TRUTH” GAME!!!

    the game at which if Tony were intellectually honest his own beliefs destroys his whole argument.

    “So Tony should US soldiers be able to unionize?”

    “No, that would be awful. In time of war they just walk off the job in protest. Our military is a primary service of our nation.”

    “Well what about Teachers and Police and firemen.”

    “No they are not primary service”

    “If they are not a primary service then why don’t we farm those jobs to the private sector”

    “No we can’t trust the private sector to police our streets and teach our children. Corporations would be a corrupting influence.”

    “So only government can do that work”

    “Yes”

    “So it is a primary service that only the government can do”

    “….well yes it is”

    “So how can we have primary government services exposed to Union strikes. If police can walk off the job during a crime spree or if teachers leave work for months at a time on fake sick leave then our country is at risk. Just like if the military went on strike.”

    “My god you are right.”

    “No I am not right. I don’t believe nearly anything I said. I only told you what you believe and showed how it completely conflicts with itself”

    “Wow you really are not a Republican or a Democrat….it is almost as if you hold different values and a different political philosophy then either of those two wings.”

    “yup”

    1. If you think he’d actually come to that conclusion, I don’t think you really “get” how Tony works. Once you thoroughly defeat him with his own words he simply ignores you. It happens time and time again in this thread and every thread he’s been on. For a perfect example, Vermont Gun Owner’s comment on 2.18.11 @ 1:23PM.

      That’s why he’s the epitome of a troll and why arguing with him is generally waste of time, unless you’re testing your own patience skills to practice for a counseling job with the mentally handicapped.

      1. Goes like this, where X= Tony, Da Troof, OrinOhio, SM, etc.

        1) X makes ridiculous claim.
        2) X’s claim gets busted with data/links, etc.
        3) X posts: ‘those are wrong!’
        4) X gets more evidence slammed in X’s face.
        5) X posts ‘I’m morally superior to you!’

        After which, I get tired of it and post ‘You’re a lying asshole.’

    2. Maybe soldiers should unionize. It’s not like we are facing an imminent threat of invasion, and even with their flag-waving chest pounding, Republicans seem fine with cutting soldier and vet benefits.

      Whatever their issues, public sector unions are simply the last vestiges of a once strong advocacy for a middle class in this country. Since nothing you believe in has EVER worked, I choose the ones supporting workers. Billionaires can look after themselves. That goes for all of you.

      1. Tony|2.20.11 @ 3:50AM|#
        “Whatever their issues, public sector unions are simply the last vestiges of a once strong advocacy for a middle class in this country.”

        This is stage 3; it’s been pointed out and supported that this is bullshit, so now X simply says “THAT’S NOT TRUE!”
        Asshole.

  133. I have never seen such arrogance. Obama can’t stop himself from interjecting himself everywhere!!!!Let’s get rid of this wolf in sheeps clothing.

    1. quad post…might be a record.

      1. I have never seen such arrogance

  134. I have never seen such arrogance. Obama can’t stop himself from interjecting himself everywhere!!!!Let’s get rid of this wolf in sheeps clothing.

  135. I have never seen such arrogance. Obama can’t stop himself from interjecting himself everywhere!!!!Let’s get rid of this wolf in sheeps clothing.

  136. I have never seen such arrogance. Obama can’t stop himself from interjecting himself everywhere!!!!Let’s get rid of this wolf in sheeps clothing.

  137. No state bailouts. They were fiscally irresponsible and they should not be rewarded. It would be just a DNC stimulus.

  138. No President of the USA has ever acted quite like this charachter/We do not have a real President at present

    We all KNOW Unions have become organized thugs We all KNOW nobody wants to give up ANYTHING

    This is what the Organizer-in-Chief wants. He wants the WORLD to go up in flames as “CHANGE” comes to everywhere….he is truly a madman. He believes that we can unite as one world and be all equal.
    Watch as the race baiters and race haters he has enabled become ever more violent and evil and step in to own this situation.
    The Organizer-in-Chief became President to do ONE thing: END Capitalism and Western Civilization as we know it. THE WORLD HEARS HIS CALL.
    Arise, non whites, and all Statists, and overthrow the rule of law and let blood run in the streets. I can hear Madame Defarge calling………counting..
    As usual with all revolutionaries they don’t really have a workable plan, just cling to power
    I’m going to go hide under some rocks somewhere until this is over. All I want is reasonable reform, and instead I get a flaming extremist revolution…..
    We had better support the real reformers: the Tea Party

    1. But wouldn’t you sleep better knowing you’re rioting in favor of worker and middle class rights instead of the rights of billionaires to be even bigger billionaires, as the tea partiers do?

      1. Tony|2.20.11 @ 3:46AM|#
        “But wouldn’t you sleep better knowing you’re rioting in favor of worker and middle class rights instead of the rights of billionaires to be even bigger billionaires, as the tea partiers do?”

        Stage 1), but so ridiculous, it’s not worth dragging up cites.
        Asshole.

  139. I’m not sure how yet, but I KNOW that William McKinley is behind this somehow.

    Yo, FUCK McKinley!

    1. Warren G. Harding aint’ nuttin to fuck wittt!!!

  140. 881? wow….this must be a big deal

  141. Q. Is this how a president should act?

    A. Yes.

    1. Riddle me this Jane. Why?

  142. Q. Is this how a president should act?

    A. Yes.

    1. OMG, OMG, OMG double post, so beautiful…

  143. I’m crying

  144. That’s for hmm’s comment above.

  145. From CNN:
    “So he’s (Obama’s) reportedly sent his outside political team, Organizing for America, to help build even larger crowds.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITI…..index.html

    Bussing in organizers? Is this how a president should act?

    1. I’d love to see a lawsuit filed against them.

    2. It goes to show how similar this situation really is to Egypt’s when the head of national government is the one bussing in protestors to defend the government status quo/Wisconsin bankruptcy.

    3. Apparently the only appropriate way for Obama to act is to shut up and let the republicans destroy the middle class. Right wing delegitimization of left wing protests in action!

      1. Tony|2.20.11 @ 3:46PM|#
        “Apparently the only appropriate way for Obama to act is to shut up and let the republicans destroy the middle class.”

        Stage 5.
        Shut up and sit down, asshole.

      2. The middle class has been decimated by government regulations and favoritism, along with the diversion of legitimate infrastructure and operational funds into the pockets of the non-terminate-able pubsec unions and their political cronies.

        This is just a ponzi scheme. The government will be cut. Then and only then will the ‘middle class’ revive itself.

      3. But when it’s left-wing delegitimization of right wing protests in action it’s ok, because those protestors are all radical, unhinged militant billionaires and their paid shills, and not taxpayers honestly concerned about injustice and impending bankruptcy. Right Tony?

      4. Actualy, the appropriate thing for him to do is sit down and shut the fuck up. This is a state fucking matter. And if Bush had done the same thing I woul tell him to sit down and stfu too.

      5. Apparently the only appropriate way for Obama to act is to shut up and let the republicans destroy the middle class.

        Perhaps if you weren’t such a prison bitch for the managerial class, your comments would have some authority.

  146. How do I get the President prosecuted for spending my tax money on politics?

    1. Fuck you crony-capitalist parasite. You live in a fantasy world that if the working class was destroyed Jamie Dimon and the other capitalist parasites would wave the magic wand and all the disaffected retards (aka right-wing libertarians) would be magically lifted up as they were under the socialistic practices of the mid 1900s.

      You fools side with the fascists and guess what? They aren’t on your side. You’re attacking your fellows in a race to the bottom.

      You are the fucking parasites you Ayn Rand fools. And who bases their whole philosophy off of one author? Go lick another fascist boot you scum sucker.

      1. Jesus you are stupid. Jamie Dimon isn’t paying for state employee salaries, working people are. And they’re being asked to take on an ever growing burden just so this “protected class” won’t have to pay into their own retirement and healthcare. Sorry, but that’s crap, and it has to stop.

  147. Libertarians – republicans without the direct support for homophobia or empire building.

    1. Proud union thug–“MY THIRD-TIER CLERK’S JOB IS THE LYNCHPIN HOLDING OUR SOCIETY TOGETHER!!”

      Some realtalk here: “Too often, your average branch or division of state government is packed with unskilled hausfraus and other losers who owe their positions with great benefits, pay and zero responsiblity or standards to their backslapping buddies. The end result is dealing with lazy employees more interested in watching funny online videos and reading magazines at their desks who can’t even take a phone message correctly after years of office “work,” and powertrip on the unfortunate civilians they’re supposed to serve. Plus they bristle with hostility at any co-workers who might actually be competent at their jobs.”

  148. Can any libertarian explain to me why the government should decide for unions whether they have a right to use collective bargaining or not? Isn’t that… *Fascism*?

    Oh wait, I forgot, you guys see public employees as subhumans, and you thoroughly approve of using democratic *force* to subjugate them.

    Taxation even via democracy is theft, forcing public unions to disintegrate via democracy (and faked fiscal problems that busting unions won’t solve) is not fascism.

    Why do you libertarians insist you are free-thinkers who abjure both parties equally? You weigh republican to the degree where you even abandon your own philosophy just to side with them against the hated Obama. Fucking scum.

    1. Can any libertarian explain to me why the government should decide for unions whether they have a right to use collective bargaining or not?

      Better yet, we could let the people who pay the salaries of the public sector unions–the taxpayers–decide whether or not they can use collective bargaining.

      Of course, this works both ways–the teachers can feel free to form a union, and the governor can feel free to fire all of them. Freedom of association doesn’t just work in one direction, you know.

      Isn’t that… *Fascism*?

      No, it’s not.

      Oh wait, I forgot, you guys see public employees as subhumans, and you thoroughly approve of using democratic *force* to subjugate them.

      Proud union thug, ca. 2009: “ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES YOU DUMB REDNECKS!!!”

      Proud union thug, ca. 2011: “DON’T USE ELECTORAL RESULTS AS A POLICY BLUDGEON, YOU FASCISTS!”

      Fucking scum.

      Feel free to jump in front of one of your beloved high-speed trains, you feudalistic waste of carbon molecules.

      1. So the people are the employers, and employers should get to decide whether their employees have rights? I’m sure that will turn out fair.

        You guys are for almost the least amount of freedom possible, in the name of freedom.

        1. The Pols are the employers in this case, they are the ones doing the bargaining. The Pols were generally elected by the unions so the unions were bargaining with themselves. The people decided they didn’t like those pols, now we can bargain the way we want.

          Collective bargaining has never been listed in any list of fundamental rights I have seen.

          1. Almost every western country in the world treats it as a right.

            It’s only the Ayn Randian paradises you fascist parasites have set up around there world where the playing filed has been so dramatically tipped in favor of the crony-capitalist class where workers have no right to organize. Like Iraq.

            You hate the working class and you sympathize with our fascist overlords. Got it.

            Now fuck off and die you terrorist crony-capitalist.

            1. Walter Wit Man|2.21.11 @ 1:45PM|#
              “Almost every western country in the world treats it as a right.”

              Almost every brain-dead ignoramus thinks that means something.

        2. I realize the concept of “freedom of association” is one you don’t fully grasp, Tony, but try to keep up here.

      2. Hey, the republicans didn’t get elected in sufficient numbers – so when the dems scarpered to Illinois, that was democracy in effect.

        If the people of WI had wanted the republicans to be able to force through these kinds of bills, they would have elected more republicans :D.

        If a democratic governor had conjured up a fiscal surplus and raised taxes on corporations only to be able to butter up unions and permanently increase their power, I would have supported republicans fleeing the state to prevent that from happening?

        You know why? Because I am not a disgusting retard who is incapable of taking every situation on a case-by-case basis, and I don’t have any preferences towards different power-hungry organizations and collections of people. I fear unions and corporations equally, because again I am not a retard.

        1. Why the continued name calling? Libertarians fear both unions and corporations, both of which are corrupt, powerful welfare queens obviously seeking political favors if they get involved in politics at all. Megacorporations use government to regulate away competition, just like the labor unions do.

          1. “Libertarians fear both unions and corporations, both of which are corrupt, powerful welfare queens obviously seeking political favors if they get involved in politics at all.”

            So why are the little scumbags here cheering on Walker, who is giving corporations free money while wanting to hamstring unions? Answer: they are lower citizens than you and MUCH lower citizens than me.

            You are a decent, honest and nuanced person – you most certainly do not represent the maggots populating most of this site.

            1. a.) Does “free money” mean cutting corporate income taxes, which are regressive taxes that are simply passed down to consumers like hidden sales taxes via inflated prices?

              b.) If he is giving certain corporations favors and subsidies, libertarians would absolutely oppose him on those and still support him on attempting to bring public sector pay in line with private sector equivalents. They’re two separate actions – just like we can support Obama’s willingness to cut Defense department spending and criticize his excessive domestic policy spending.

              These salary, pension and benefits costs make up the biggest part of state budgets (especially compared to corporate welfare), so perhaps the latter is why you hear us disproportionately supporting him.

              If you’re unwilling to renegotiate the public sector status quo, I’d like to know what you think the solution is to solving the fiscal crisis it these Midwest states. Illinois is doubling their corporate taxes and corporations and their jobs are now leaving the state as quickly as possible. Raising taxes puts more of a burden on an already austere private sector and individual families.

        2. Also, why bother to claim you fear unions and corporations equally, when your moniker is “Proud Union Thug”?

    2. “Can any libertarian explain to me why the government should decide for unions whether they have a right to use collective bargaining or not? Isn’t that… *Fascism*?”

      When a group of workers collectively says “we’re not coming into work until you give us what we want”, either the employer has the option of saying “no” or the employer is forced by law to say “yes.” The former is called a free market and the latter is called socialism.

      Since America is not the Soviet Union, government workers can certainly ask for a billion dollars a year each, and taxpayers (their employers) can tell them to go take a collective hike. Teachers can likewise quit en masse right now and the government couldn’t stop them.

      Raises, pensions and benefits for public employees negotiated years in advance remove the budgetary power of the legislature and democratic oversight by taxpayers. Workers in a free society always have the right to negotiate because they have ownership of their own labor, but they don’t have the right to get everything they want.

      1. Typical right-wing fantasy. It’s not even logical. You have to resort to throwing words around, like “socialism”, that you have no idea what they mean.

        Corporations (entities that were severely limited by government in the first 100 years or so of our Republic) have all the power in our society. This is Fox News style propaganda.

        Workers have not gotten everything they want. Corporations nearly have, though.

        And such hyperbole! They ask for a billion dollars a year? It used to be every worker got a pension and health care. But those poor and defenseless corporations must have gotten lucky when they were able to push labor around so that labor is weaker now than probably any other time the last 100 years or so.

        And you right-wing terrorists attack working people as you lick the boots of the fascists.

        Go back to watching your stories on Faux News. Go fill your little doughy head with images of worthless black people getting free money from you Masters of the Universe with their fancy union contracts.

        God. I hate you fucking people. Lickspittle servants of the fascist elite.

        1. Wow. Guess I touched a nerve there. Try again. I’m a left-winger – just not a state socialist or Keynesian. I don’t even believe in the artificial legal concept of corporations. Business owners should be fully and personally liable for the violation of rights and not be able to pass those costs on to society.

          That is neither here nor there since we are talking about PUBLIC sector unions, which FDR himself vigorously opposed for the exact same reasoning I laid out above.

          Workers have the right to bargain en masse by withholding their labor, because they alone have dominion over that labor. The employer has the right to fire them all, meet their demands or work out a compromise. This is the only voluntary arrangement possible. Legal interference involves either coercion against the employer’s dominion over the voluntary distribution of their capital (socialism) or against the worker’s dominion over the control of their own labor (fascism), neither of which are acceptable to people who believe in natural rights and freedom.

        2. Oh by the way…speaking of hyperbole…yeah…

        3. Walter Wit Man|2.21.11 @ 1:33PM|#
          “…It used to be every worker got a pension and health care….”

          Until it bankrupted the companies.
          Typical brain-dead lies.

        4. God. I hate you fucking people. Lickspittle servants of the fascist elite.

          Ahh, another prison bitch of the managerial class speaks.

  149. Every class gets its right to pursue its interests and status in society whatever world has developed.The key lies in how government to deal with this problem, or in other words balancing even better such condition which ensures protesters go back home and that then get jobs or at least should not worry about tomorrow’s dinner..

  150. This essay exposes the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the right-wing libertarianism.

    They have bought into the right-wing Republican fantasies that unions and working people have undue influence on our economy and government. In reality, it is the elite capitalists that have undue influence and have captured our government to funnel the wealth of the productive class to their parasitic hands.

    Right wing libertarians are the regime goons that engage in lies to obscure who they really work for–the rich.

    What about the sanctity of contract? You fucking fanatical hypocrites want to enforce contracts when it benefits the largest oligarchical immoral parasites (the corporate class) but when those with less power, the working class, have a few contracts left that benefit them, you jackals attack.

    Fuck off and die you terrorist fuckwads.

    1. Obviously you are misinformed and know only what the media tells you about libertarianism. We agree with you that the powerful elite and corporations are welfare queens and should be cut off completely. We also believe that’s a function of big government, which protects their donors (large enterprise) and regulates away the smaller fish who can’t compete or are blocked entry in the first place. Why do you think Goldman Sachs backed Obama’s financial regulatory bill?

      Also the moral hazard caused by detaching personal responsibility from profit via the government-created legal status of the corporate entity results in abuse of workers, environmental degradation and bad/fraudulent business practices.

      We believe in the sanctity of contract, which requires both sides are able to enter voluntarily. If the taxpayers elect officials to say that we will only agree to negotiate pay but not benefits with the unions, the union can either accept this, attempt to renegotiate or lose the contract altogether. They can determine whether they will strike or not, knowing that there are potential consequences for doing so. They can also convince voters into recalling the existing legislature or electing politicians to re-establish their contract (and advertise for them thanks to the Citizens United decision).

      To argue that this bill somehow oppresses workers’ rights diminishes real events of oppression globally and historically. If you want a real example of oppression of workers by government, try the income tax, which steals workers’ hard-earned money by threat of imprisonment. I don’t enjoy getting robbed for 5+ months worth of salary a year, receiving very little in return. It’s all going to pay for higher-paid upper middle class state workers’ retirements instead of my own.

    2. Walter Wit Man|2.21.11 @ 1:27PM|#
      “[a series of brain-dead lefty lies]…Fuck off and die you terrorist fuckwads.

      Same back atcha, asshole.

    3. In reality, it is the elite capitalists and the political class that have undue influence and have captured our government to funnel the wealth of the productive class to their parasitic hands.

  151. Good post, really helpful to me. Thanks for sharing.

    1. You’re welcome.

  152. If you libertarians had argued to remove the undue political power of corporations as well as unions in Wisconsin, I would have supported that.

    But you don’t, because you are bad people, so now I hope you all die instead. My hands: tied.

    1. God you’re dumb. Learn more about libertarianism before posting things that show you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      1. I don’t see the glibertarians here arguing that Walker’s bill is ridiculous.

        But that’s what it is – it wants to permanently screw over unions over a temporary problem Walker partially caused by buttering up corporations. He isn’t spreading the hurt equally but pursuing a vendetta in a way he did not campaign on.

        Most of the little insects I see here don’t want to admit that, showing once again that they hate certain entities more than others.

        Never trust libertarians.

        1. From the perspective of non-union taxpayers everywhere, it has been the government that has been completely unwilling to share the hurt. In comparison to private sector, even after passage, public sector workers will still have superior pay, benefits and pensions over private sector workers. And yet they complain? That’s why the rest of us see the public sector unions as the truly greedy ones.

          I’m in agreement with you on corporations, but that’s got very little to do with the debate we are currently having. As pointed out repeatedly, FDR himself opposed public sector unions.

  153. I know there are 1000 comments here and I might’ve missed something, but why didn’t anyone mention to Tony the practical point that soaking the rich doesn’t work?

    The rich are capable of moving to another place to make their money, hence fleeing areas with higher taxes and going to a place with more favorable ones. The rest of the populace generally doesn’t have this recourse (at least not at the same level).

    This is even more pronounced when it comes to a state-to-state situation, as opposed to whole different countries. Someone may talk about moving to Costa Rica, but they’re much less likely to do that than move from Madison to Minneapolis.

  154. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

  155. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

  156. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

  157. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

  158. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

  159. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

  160. explain the change in debit cards–

    if it is going to cost me I will just
    cancel it–debit card is the last thing
    I have to have—I can use cash,credit
    cards,checks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.