"The governor is largely doing what he said he'd do: Fix the budget mess without raising taxes or resorting to raids and tricks" What!!!!
Excerpt from, once again, page 197 – 198 of the book “Griftopia” by Matt Taibbi published by Spiegel & Grau:
I cannot believe this guy represents me. What an ass.
Please add your favorite morsels of Thom’s wisdom to this list. I have begun with three of my personal favorites. We all need to have these kernels of truth at the ready to shine light and expose the commonplace lies and deception which we confront every day:
One of the things MISSING in the public conversation about income distribution is a SPECIFIC template for or EXAMPLE of how we should be taxed (progressively).
I have never seen (or heard of) a 'PROGRESSIVE TAX PLAN' other than in general terms.
So-o-o-o, I'm proposing one.
But I don't know how to 'SPREAD THE WORD' to get this template (spreadsheet) out into the public forum for discussion. And, of course, the proposal DOES need important improvements. (I don't mind collaboration!)
Ronald Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, and Scott Walker vows to be the new Ronald Reagan. And that’s the agenda for most, if not all, Republicans…and a few Democrats as well. That agenda is “take it from the needy, give it to the greedy”. This song I recorded is as vital today as it was when Reagan was in office. Just exchange the word “Reaganomics” with “Walkernomics” and it still fits like a glove. The song is called “SOLIDARITY”. It’s in Pete Seeger’s Labor Songbook - “CARRY IT ON!
Green Bay Packers CB Charles Woodson backs Wisconsin union protesters
The only way to restore a just top-tier tax rate for the super rich is to put it in human terms and where rationality trumps rhetoric. I think the key to making this tangible to the American public is to put the benchmark for excessive wealth at the marker of 1000 families.
I had a thought on taxing the rich. If they (the wealthiest 1-2%) had their taxes increased and then were required to pay $1M + in increased taxes per year, that money would not have gone to fund their party in order to keep taxes low. This may be why our president gave in on this (where would he get his donations?). The rich would no longer see the investment of millions of dollars going towards candidates. Of course there is irony in this as the same money is being spent either way....
Obama didn't come out and say this, but it sure seems to fit Obama's approach to dealing with the republicans
This is all about starving the state so that public revenues can become sources of private gain for big money; sell off public utilities, privatize schools, pensions, services, etc. Everyone, and everything in this logic becomes a commodity, bought and sold, without social, civil, or public rights. What astounds me is that about 40-45% of people in Wisconsin still support Gov. Hubris. Do they somehow accept the wholesale restructuring of their state, without a discussion, without deliberation, without debate or without a real vote on the plan?