Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) Reigning in spending is good. Making it impossible for relatively low wage individuals to come to the table with some leverage against much stronger interests is not. My understanding was his bill specifically excludes bargaining for employee wages, so that's not really a concern. It's more about the benefits they would bargain for, which are probably better than the average American's already.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) Defense spending Ah yes, Wisconsin's famed army does cost quite a bit to maintain. edit: (and I agree that defense spending is too high and should be cut)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) Actually, we WERE doing that with Hussein, with the no-fly zone. And by all accounts, it was having its intended effect. It wasn't solving Iraq's problems, but it was preventing what it aimed to prevent. We can't address every dictatorial problem in the world, but we can be selective and smart to get the biggest bang for our buck. And right now, it sure would be nice if we had the military and political capital left to do a relatively small thing to help innocent people. It would probably pay some nice dividends. Doesn't matter though, because we DID go into Iraw, and we ARE still in Afghanistan, and we ALREADY will be seen as trying to take over yet another country, even if we are not. So its no longer a smart option. A no fly-zone and a direct military operation (or many operations) are a little different. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what the line is for intervention. If it's helping innocent people, there's a ton we could do around the world.

What's the biggest budget problem out there right now (and specifically growing into the future)? Entitlements right? Who receives those? Public employees. I'm not saying that's good or bad, that's just a fact, and it's been a building problem for decades now. Government and the evil billionaires had zero control over it because the public employees ALWAYS won the PR battle. Who remembers the HUGE uproar when Daley would ask city workers to take some vacation days to help? While I agree that it's a bit much to still refuse to negotiate with the unions because they're conceding everything he wants, I can still see why he wants to do this. It's a power play for the future when the economy is rolling again and voters will be less apt to agree to reign in spending.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) Yes So, when a guy like Saddam Hussein does these types of things it's bad to intervene, but here it's ok? I don't get it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 22, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) Krugman with a good article on the Wisconsin union bulls***: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=1 Oh come on, the issue isn't so one-sided. These unions are the cause of a lot of the budget issues around the country precisely because they had way too much power and kept raping states for more money. Governors/state legislatures couldn't very well campaign against funding for teachers/cops/fireman, etc. until we hit these huge budget deficits. He's just taking advantage of the timing of it all.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) Smiley didn't equate treatment of women in America to treatment in, say, Iran. He was arguing that while we're better, we've still got a ways to go for true equality. It could be that Maher just got a little hyperbolic and said something stupid that doesn't accurately reflect his beliefs. That wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last. As it stands, it was a bigoted statement, but I wouldn't say one stupid statement makes Maher a bigoted person. Yes, he did. He was given about 5 opportunities to say "No I agree with you, they're worse, but...." but he didn't. He specifically said there was no "grey area" on the issue.

Sure, if you ignore the entire context of the argument he's having, which is that until you civilize "man" you're not getting anywhere, and that in those countries where woman are clearly second class citizens there's still a long way to go. Then the moron on the panel tries to says it's apples to apples here in America which is clearly idiotic and not true. So Mahr responded with a poorly worded phrase. But yes, detract attention from the actual point of his argument and focus on how he's an Arab-hating bigot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) Dating any random muslim is an invitation to being treated poorly? No bigotry there whatsoever. That wasn't his point and you know it.

Lol, you're f***ing ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) And Bill Maher is drifting rapidly into straight-up anti-muslim bigotry. (Video at link). Wow, seriously? He makes a spot on, general point about the treatment of women. He never said we're perfect, they're f***ed up. He said as a matter of degree, they're worse. I dunno how you can refute that given some of the laws those countries have.

Finished AC Brotherhood over the weekend. Pretty meh after AC 2. A "chapter" or two less and it could have just been a DLC add-on. Anyone have any guesses on the new location in AC 3? I'm thinking Paris or London.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) You've missed the point. Businesses don't create jobs for the hell of it. Demand creates jobs. It's hard to generate demand if your pay is stagnant or shrinking and all of your basic needs costs (housing, food, medical, transportation) keep rising. Cutting corporate taxes won't solve that problem. It won't stem the ever-widening wealth gaps. It won't spur companies to invest some of the estimated $1.3T of money they're collectively sitting on. And, again, Walker created this budget problem and then used it to attack a political enemy and strip away workers rights. That doesn't lend itself to a rational discussion on whether public workers in Wisconsin need to pay more for their benefits (which they accepted in exchange for having lower wages than private sector on average). Democrats in Wisconsin didn't run away to "hide from responsibility." That's a terrible mis-characterization. They are doing this to force a discussion before the vote in response to large public protests. So, what's your answer? Unless you mandate certain salaries for certain positions (communist!) then the only thing you can do is offer big incentives for companies that spend their profits on their employees (i'd be fine with this) or keep taxes on people as low as possible (ditto). Neither of which the Democrats want to do (or have done), however. Instead it's spend money to help those people, and then tax everyone else, including businesses, to cover those costs. The problem isn't solved. I work for a small law firm. I see first hand how my firm, which is pretty successful, basically can't expand despite the fact that we need more help because the cost of doing business in Illinois just jumped. Stifling growth is what Quinn is doing, and in a couple years after I hopefully get out of this s***hole of a state I'm going to laugh at how Illinois is even worse off than it is now. And yes, they did hide from their responsibility. I thought Walker made an excellent point when he said show up and voice your displeasure, show the people who voted for you where you stand. Instead the did literally hide in Rockford to evade the state troopers. Absolutely comical is what it was. I have a hard time believing that you'd be ok with the Congressional GOP simply walking out of any Senate vote they're opposed to just to make a point.

Can't the second graph be explained by a lowered corporate tax rate? I assume since the upper personal income tax bracket in the 40's was like 90% that corporate tax rates were also a lot higher in those days as well, but that's just a guess. And the first graph shows corporate greed, no doubt about that. But that's why the government should be offering incentives to corporate investment moreso than just straight up revenue. Pretty sure I've been calling for massive corporate tax credits for companies that hire new employees/invest in green energy, etc for a long time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) Yeah, but what's the source of money that businesses take in as revenue? Businesses don't invest in capital resources and expand employment unless there's demand to be met. Demand doesn't grow very well when wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Cutting corporate taxes while cutting workers' pay isn't going to spur demand. It isn't going to drive economic activity and increase Wisconsin GDP. Businesses have other alternatives to obtain money (investment), people normally do not. I just love the liberal mentality we've got right now. Instead of cutting government spending, we should increase taxes on everyone. Instead of actually paying off our debt, we should borrow MORE money to pay it off, the future be damned. Instead of addressing the 800 lb gorilla in the room (entitlements ruining every budget), we should run away to a different state to hide from our responsibilities. Instead of addressing the economy, we should devote a year of the presidency to passing healthcare reform that doesn't do jack s*** to fix the major problems of the system. I don't agree with HOW the governor in Wisconsin came about his mess. BUT, as NSS said, at least he's doing SOMETHING to TRY and address the problems of his state. And i'd argue further that the state unions are a big part of the problem since they've successfully negotiated with moronic politicians to get us to where we're at. Who wants to campaign to take away money from teachers/police/fire/civil workers? No one, but it's gonna have to be done at some point if states are going to fix their budget problems.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) but dont we want the consumer to spend and invest too? Yeah, but what's the source of the money they have to spend/invest with?

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) Corporations have a pretty sweat tax deal if you ask me. Company takes in $1,000,000 in Revenue and has $1,200,000 in expenses, they pay $0 in taxes. Individual makes $1,000,000 in Revenue and spends $1,200,000 in expenses, they pay $350,000 in taxes. Seems fair. Yes and no. We want businesses to spend and invest. That keeps the economy going and gives more money to businesses to hire people/keep people employed. The problem is the company that makes a ton of money and gives 90% of it to the CEO as a bonus.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) Fed vs State taxes. Fed taxes won't change from state to state. well sure, but clearly if there's a benefit to cutting the federal corporate tax rate, there's a similar benefit to cutting the state corporate tax rate. that's my point

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) The National corporate tax rate is another issue entirely. Even you ought to be honest enough to admit the current system is a joke. 2/3 of U.S. companies pay nothing in corporate taxes. If you actually got the majority of corporate entities paying 1% in taxes, you could substantially cut the "nominal" tax rate. How is that another issue? It's a tax businesses pay (assuming they have income after deductions). It's all factored into calculating whether doing business in State ( or Country) A is better than State B.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) When people actually run the numbers on which businesses or high income individuals move into/out of states because of tax rates, the impact tends to wind up very small. Service industries can't move. Industries that require a lot of infrastructure, like manufacturing or transportation, can't move. Banking centers can move, but rather than chasing corporate tax rates, they tend to chase lax regulations. In terms of building new facilities, the availability of space, cost of energy, cost of transportation, education of workforce, and most importantly health care costs wind up winning as well. That doesn't mean if you immediately increased your tax rate to 2x New Jerseys you wouldn't sustain losses, but really, people don't get up and move, or really decide where they're putting facilities, based on 1-2% differences in corporate tax rates between states. Wealthy people don't move out of NYC or Chicago because of high tax rates, at least not in the aggregate. In addition, since you're taxed on income earned in the state, even if you move your headquarters out of a state, it doesn't matter; you still pay IL taxes on things built or sold in IL. But that ignores the role a company plays in the market. Here's an article from my "hometown" in Champaign, where this tax hike is really going to screw people. It's a pretty weak economy to begin with, and this just makes it even worse. "Trickle down" is a very real threat in these communities that depend heavily on big businesses, who quite frankly have had enough of footing the bill for society. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/...-out-illinois.h So no, maybe Jimmy John's isn't directly affected, but if he moves his headquarters now you've just potentially closed a hotel or two in town, a bar or two, restaurants, and other service-based businesses. And for what? To pay for what? Services the states shouldn't have any business providing at the level they provide it? Imagine if State Farm decides to move out of Bloomington. Our Country Companies. Those towns would die within a year. And true, Chicago can probably absorb the hit better than a town of 100k or less. But it's still going to take its toll. Businesses will leave. Some future businesses won't consider Chicago as a possible home (think Boeing would have moved here a few years ago now that Chicago one of the highest combined business tax in the world?) Also, The Great Savior is so lost on what to do anymore, even HE is proposing cutting corporate tax rates. Why would he consider such a thing if it wouldn't help? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02...-base-tax-works

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) That's my point. Those difficult cuts have to happen because he chose to cut the corporate tax rate. In trying to stimulate growth, something Illinois and Chicago specifically will see a huge loss from in the coming years.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) You, my friend, are wrong right. Deep dish is disgusting amazing. I agree.

Also, a good "review" of the podcast: http://deadspin.com/#!5763635/in-which...still-a-jackass

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 17, 2011 -> 05:33 PM) Did he do that damn thang? I used to love Whitlock, but his twitter feed has killed any good feelings I had towards him as a sports guy.

Yep, I was wrong. Apparently federal labor laws don't apply to state workers. Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._and_organizing