E
estesbob
Guest
Did you read this article before you posted it .? It says there is no problem if the Governor pushes through 140 million dollars in tax increases-on the “wealthy” naturally
- Status
1
1voice
Guest
That said …
Medical and retirement costs will bankrupt the country if not addressed. Over 20 states have sued in response to Obamacare and the list of companies that have been given exemptions/waivers is in the hundreds … and growing. All of a sudden when a Republican Gov addresses that problem by forcing people to pay for the boonedoggle that they voted for and people start acting like France.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
That’s one of the secrets! People there are quite helpful and friendly, but by showing a tough exterior we can keep the riff-raff out. And, it’s the safest large city in the U.S. - with over 40,000 cops.
But, don’t think of taking a handgun to New York. NYC doesn’t recognize even New York State carry permits (which are very hard to get in their own right).
P
pnewton
Guest
I checked out your article. This was a group called DC Votes, not a labor union.
1
1voice
Guest
Thank you Rudy!
E
estesbob
Guest
And of course when 41% of pregnancies in the city end in abortion it helps keep the riff raff out also, correct?
A
a_priori
Guest
B
Big_Ro
Guest
I did indeed read the article. What you claim it says is no where in the article. These were not $140 million dollars worth of tax cuts. They are spending measures for specific programs which are listed in the article. Now, you may feel that those programs are more worthy than spending on governent employee salaries. That’s fine. But, to try and pretend that the $140 million was for tax cuts which you then reverse in to a tax increase if not passed (typical consevative dogma) is simply dishonest.
E
estesbob
Guest
They were NOT spending measures. they were “tax breaks” that the self described progressive newspaoper you quoited thought should be eliminated.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
I guess you can twist the facts any way you want. I would prefer an argument with some level of integirty. How does the bill he proposed address the issue of the New Healthcare Bill? Your reaching. And, you totally ignore my point. This is a manufactured problem to go after unions. The Gov manufcatured the problem by spending the surplus that was created by very hard cjoices by the last legislature which, by the way, included numerous concessions by the government workers unions negotiated with a Democratic gov.
And, doesn’t it bother you that non-partisan OMB has said the repealing “Obamacare” would add tot he deficit?
E
estesbob
Guest
The bill reqjuires States Workers to pay 12.5% of their health care costs. now personally i would take that deal any day of the week-as would my employees
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Ahh yes, attack the medium when the fact expose your duplicity. I’m sure that since it’s a progressive group you will be able to dismiss it as total lies but as a person integrity I felt it needed to be included. This is a quote form the article.
"One Wisconsin Now, the progressive watchdog group that has provided the closest monitoring of Walker’s budgetary gamesmanship, explains:
“Since his inauguration in early January, Walker has approved $140 million in new special-interest spending that includes:
“• $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation that still has $73 million due to a lack of job creation. Walker is creating a $25 million hole which will not create or retain jobs.
“• $48 million for private health savings accounts, which primarily benefit the wealthy. A study from the federal Governmental Accountability Office showed the average adjusted gross income of HSA participants was $139,000 and nearly half of HSA participants reported withdrawing nothing from their HSA, evidence that it is serving as a tax shelter for wealthy participants.
“• $67 million for a tax shift plan, so ill-conceived that at best the benefit provided to ‘job creators’ would be less than a dollar a day per new job, and may be as little as 30 cents a day.”
Where does it say they were tax cuts. You’re being dishonest. Oh, but I forget, you will twist the facts any way you want. Private health savings plan a tax cut. $67 million for “job creators” that don’t create jobs a tax cut not a giveaway to the rich. If you have to be dishonest in order to prove your point…well you get it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The article INTERPRETS them. Mostly, it doesn’t describe them factually. When some article doesn’t want to give you the facts, but only the writer’s interpretation of the facts, you can be pretty sure you should ignore the article altogether.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Yes, I would too. But, this only applies to State healtcare costs. What does that have to do with the New Healthcare Bill? I wrote something really uncharitable and then erased it. I am really put off by dishonest debate.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Ok, then enlighten us all. What are the facts? You can cast aspersions but without facts your just blowing smoke, which is what you are accusing the article of doing.
E
estesbob
Guest
Tax deduction
Tax credits
“•
Tax deductions
Tax Credits
{quote]Where does it say they
were tax cuts. You’re being dishonest. Oh, but I forget, you will twist the facts any way you want. Private health savings plan a tax cut. $67 million for “job creators” that don’t create jobs a tax cut not a giveaway to the rich. If you have to be dishonest in order to prove your point…well you get it.
ALL of these are tax benefits the progressives want to eliminate-in short they want to raise taxes. only in Liberal land is allowing people to keep their own money called “spending”.
E
estesbob
Guest
We have quoted facts-you quote misinfomation from self professed “progressive” publications.
S
SamH
Guest
You link to an opinion piece whose sources are other opinion pieces?
Why would you do that?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So far, we pay 100% of our employees’ insurance costs. But we have a big deductible, (for now) so we “self-insure” in part with health savings accounts. Of course the current administration doesn’t like those; possibly because the employees own them. Too bad, because employees can keep the money in the long run if we and they build up a surplus, and thus have a stake in their own utilization. Tends to discourage thoughtless overutilization. But then, why should we do anything to discourage overutilization?
We would much rather tax high earners and cause everybody’s costs to go up even so, in order to make dead certain that no employee can ever gain anything by NOT overutilizing his/her insurance. Why, those employees might actually end up owning something instead of being dependent!
E
estesbob
Guest
very misleading opinion piece at that. What the peice is suggesting is the Governor raise taxes-but not, of course, on Public Employees
- Status