Wisconsin Teachers' Union Lays Off 40% of Staff

[Bfgrn]

You can say it as many times as you want.... but the FACT of the matter is.... The point you continue to IGNORE.... IF they cannot raise their prices THE EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES PAYING THE CORPORATE TAX.... NOT THE EXECUTIVES. THE PROFIT MARGIN TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IS NOT LIKELY TO TAKE THE HIT EITHER.

That said.... you pretend that corporations do not have ANY pricing power. That is completely absurd. Take a look at food, clothing, energy etc.... prices have ALL escalated in a time of economic DOWNTURN. People cannot afford the higher costs, yet the costs are STILL RISING....

The point being.... that if you raise the cost to corporations via tax increases those companies WILL pass as much of that on to consumers as they can. PERIOD. In the case of goods/services that we all HAVE TO HAVE... the consumer doesn't have the control on pricing. If food goes up, consumers may choose a cheaper brand, but they are not going to stop buying food. Same for clothing, energy, healthcare etc...

A corporation can also try to pass on the costs by penalizing the employees. But thank you for making the case for WHY THE NEED TO UNIONS WILL NEVER END.

And, if the employees have marketable skills, then the corporation could cut their own throat by losing valuable assets (employees). It will at LEAST create acrimony among the ranks. If it is a production operation it could suffer a loss in productivity.

People are not stupid. You right wing Monica's for the elite have your heads so far up the ass of your beloved opulent, that you think they can dictate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A corporation can also try to pass on the costs by penalizing the employees.

NO SHIT. That was option number THREE... the one I stated would be the result if a corporation couldn't pass the costs to consumers. Do try to fucking READ what I write. In the VERY post you quoted, I capitalized that very point.

Which AGAIN is WHY corporate taxes penalize the lower and middle income families more. It is a highly REGRESSIVE form of taxation. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

But thank you for making the case for WHY THE NEED TO UNIONS WILL NEVER END.

ROFLMAO.... right... instead of simply FIXING the fucking problem and making it IMPOSSIBLE for them to pass the tax to consumers or employees.... you want to force the employees to waste money on unions to fight the same fight over and over and over again???

WHY not simply make it IMPOSSIBLE for the taxes to be passed to the employees?

And, if the employees have marketable skills, then the corporation could cut their own throat by losing valuable assets (employees). It will at LEAST create acrimony among the ranks. If it is a production operation it could suffer a loss in productivity.

What part of the TAX APPLIES TO ALL CORPORATIONS are you not understanding? IF EVERY corporation is taxed, they WILL ALL DO THE SAME THING.

People are not stupid.

You are making the contrary case here today.

 

[Bfgrn]

NO SHIT. That was option number THREE... the one I stated would be the result if a corporation couldn't pass the costs to consumers. Do try to fucking READ what I write. In the VERY post you quoted, I capitalized that very point.

Which AGAIN is WHY corporate taxes penalize the lower and middle income families more. It is a highly REGRESSIVE form of taxation. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.



ROFLMAO.... right... instead of simply FIXING the fucking problem and making it IMPOSSIBLE for them to pass the tax to consumers or employees.... you want to force the employees to waste money on unions to fight the same fight over and over and over again???

WHY not simply make it IMPOSSIBLE for the taxes to be passed to the employees?



What part of the TAX APPLIES TO ALL CORPORATIONS are you not understanding? IF EVERY corporation is taxed, they WILL ALL DO THE SAME THING.



You are making the contrary case here today.

Hey pea brain, it would behoove you to recall how I responded before you make an ass out of yourself...

Originally Posted by Superfreak
There are essentially four groups that can pay the corporate tax....

1) The stockholders/owners
2) The executives of the company
3) The other employees of the company
4) The consumers of that company's products/services

Now tell us.... which of those groups do you think are going to get stuck with the bill?

Originally Posted by Bfgrn
If the market won't bear increased pricing...the answer is 1, 2 and 3 ONLY.

Hey dick taster...HOW are you going to go about 'simply FIXING the fucking problem and making it IMPOSSIBLE for them to pass the tax to consumers or employees.'???

ALL CORPORATIONS don't HAVE TO do the same thing turd brain. If one or two competitors absorb the cost, they can use it to GAIN an edge in the market. Increase in market share can offset addition costs.

Are you THAT fucking stupid???

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hey pea brain, it would behoove you to recall how I responded before you make an ass out of yourself...

Originally Posted by Superfreak
There are essentially four groups that can pay the corporate tax....

1) The stockholders/owners
2) The executives of the company
3) The other employees of the company
4) The consumers of that company's products/services

Now tell us.... which of those groups do you think are going to get stuck with the bill?

Originally Posted by Bfgrn
If the market won't bear increased pricing...the answer is 1, 2 and 3 ONLY.

Hey dick taster...HOW are you going to go about 'simply FIXING the fucking problem and making it IMPOSSIBLE for them to pass the tax to consumers or employees.'???

ALL CORPORATIONS don't HAVE TO do the same thing turd brain. If one or two competitors absorb the cost, they can use it to GAIN an edge in the market. Increase in market share can offset addition costs.

Are you THAT fucking stupid???

LMAO... so you think the corporations are going to get into a price war? Ok, that is a possibility.... but again... who is the next on the hit list? It will be the EMPLOYEES before the Executives and stockholders. As I have stated all along.

'dick taster'???? Wow, do stop projecting your fantasies onto me. Thanks.

As for the problem... do try READING what I write sometimes.... you might actually LEARN something.

Flat tax with a standard deduction solves the problem. Eliminate the highly regressive corporate income tax.

You then tax ALL sources of income at the same rate(s). If you do this... THEN the money the corporation makes is taxed on those groups relative to the benefit they receive. The larger the dividends/capital gains... the more the STOCKHOLDERS pay. The larger the salaries and stock options the executives grant themselves... the MORE THEY PAY. The more the corporation gives to the employees... the MORE THEY PAY.

See how that works? If the stockholders and execs want more of the pie... they pay more in taxes. Yet as simple as this concept is.... My guess is that you are still not intelligent enough to comprehend it.... are you?

You would rather we continue raising taxes on the poor and middle class with the highly regressive corporate income tax.

 

[Damocles]

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. But the market controls prices Damo. Anyone who is in business has to know the cost to bring their product to market, then add profit and determine a price. Taxes are no different than any other cost.

But taxes have a public benefit. They help pay the costs of what government (we, the people) provides in public services, utilities and infrastructure those corporations require to conduct business. If corporations don't pay, then citizens are stuck with the bill.

President Obama has called for lowering corporate taxes and closing loopholes that currently allow corporations like Exxon Mobil and GE to pay ZERO taxes.

You should be for his proposal, are you Damo?

Again, costs contribute to market prices, ignoring that is stupid. Repeat it again and it still doesn't make it any smarter.

Again, I don't give a rip. My sole point is, if you want progressive taxation taxing corporations is not the way to do it, I've explained why, being deliberately ignorant of any ramifications shows the emotive nature of the taxes you want to "punish" those "rich people" with.

I would prefer that the shareholders of Exxon and GE pay taxes rather than the corporations, and without loopholes. I've described what would be both progressive and ensure that everybody pays a "fair share" without regressive taxation systems that cause the poor to pay infinitely more of the share of taxation like a hidden consumption tax called "corporate taxes"...

And lastly, as I said before... I think it would be awesome if we just taxed corporations and stopped taxing individuals taking the IRS out of my life forever, I just refuse to pretend that it doesn't mean a regressive taxation system. In fact it would be an awesome way of getting the "fair tax" system put in place all without me having to worry about collecting extra money at the register...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Is ignoring the fact that tax cuts add to the deficit stupid?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Is ignoring the fact that tax cuts add to the deficit stupid?

Not according to teabaggers or neocons or even some (gasp!) libertarians....and you can throw in oathers, birthers and threepers too boot! They all have an amazing capacity to support those who are NOT acting in their best interest....and then blame everyone else. (this is where one of our local right wingnut lunkheads excerpts part of my response and changes a few words as a retort....clever they are not.)

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
See folks, Alias is ignorant and proud of his ignorance. He has NO CLUE as to the content of the article I sourced, yet he just spews cliches and mantras like a child. His claim that Walker is doing the job he was elected to do is totally wrong, as Alias cannot provide the campaign promise by Walker to eliminate unions and collective bargaining in his state (save for the cops and firemen, who he promised not to touch if they endorsed him). The ONLY job Walker is doing is that of the Koch brothers bidding, as so amply displayed in that candid phone conversation.

Now let's watch Alias continue his childish rant of frustration.

LOL. The frustration would have to be on your end, bub. You're among the bunch that spent 31 million and gained nothing. Nothing. That is frustration, big time. Unions do not belong in Govt.

See folks, this moronic Alias Dares Not discuss/debate the information I provided, least it interfere with his babblings. No one ever stated that unions "belong in Gov't" except Alias....a common ploy among intellectuall bankrupt neocon/teabagger toadies to mis-represent what transpires in a discussion. Add on throwing out a number with no reference point (what $31 million?), and you can easily see Alias' bluff and bluster.

The chronology of the post will always be the undoing of foolish blowhards like Alias. I leave him to his predictable lies and BS.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, you Super Freaking neocon/teabag lapdog, the clarity comes from the CONTENT of the article presented, of which obviously you didn't read. Bottom line: Thanks to Walker's dictate, the unions would have to change their voter frequency policy, which means spending MORE money to organize a proper vote from their membership. It's a neat ploy, because in these cash strapped times the unions can't meet this criteria without either asking members to pony up more cash or start letting people go. So the Koch brothers sock puppet Walker promotes the agenda to get rid of union voting power in Wisconsin.

Next time, READ the material before your fingers hit the keys, you Super Freaking Fool....it will save you the humiliation.

Actually dear Tai.... I read the article back in February when Klein first posted it. It is pure liberal nonsense as I stated.

Typical lame ass bluff from our Super Freaking intellectually dishonest neocon donkey....talks shit about something without actually discussing the content. Grow up, SF.....acknowledging FACTS that prove you wrong on one point on a anonymous discussion board won't kill you. Jeez!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Is ignoring the fact that tax cuts add to the deficit stupid?

Is ignoring the fact that spending increases add to the deficit stupid?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Typical lame ass bluff from our Super Freaking intellectually dishonest neocon donkey....talks shit about something without actually discussing the content. Grow up, SF.....acknowledging FACTS that prove you wrong on one point on a anonymous discussion board won't kill you. Jeez!

Lol.... so your saying 'read this opinion article' is somehow equal to 'facts' in your fantasy world? Tell us... which 'facts' are you referring to in the article? Feel free to share THAT and perhaps we can have a discussion. Thus far all you have done is throw little tantrums like the above.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Typical lame ass bluff from our Super Freaking intellectually dishonest neocon donkey....talks shit about something without actually discussing the content. Grow up, SF.....acknowledging FACTS that prove you wrong on one point on a anonymous discussion board won't kill you. Jeez!

Lol.... so your saying 'read this opinion article' is somehow equal to 'facts' in your fantasy world? Tell us... which 'facts' are you referring to in the article? Feel free to share THAT and perhaps we can have a discussion. Thus far all you have done is throw little tantrums like the above.

More bluff and bluster from the Super Freak....see folks, this Super Freak(ing) neocon asshole DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE, yet he spouted off some generalized bullshit denouncing it. When challenged, Super Freak could NOT name one point of the article that he could disprove! So in true dishonest fashion, the Super Freak(ing) asshole wants me to do his homework for him.

Sorry, my Super Freak(ing) Chump, the chronology of the posts exposes your lame ploy. YOU made the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU. Put up or continue to blow smoke....because only you and the usual neocon/teabagger suspects will buy into that smoke you blow. Carry on, chuckles.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_is_actually_being_propose.html

 

[NOVA]

Lol.... so your saying 'read this opinion article' is somehow equal to 'facts' in your fantasy world? Tell us... which 'facts' are you referring to in the article? Feel free to share THAT and perhaps we can have a discussion. Thus far all you have done is throw little tantrums like the above.

You'll get no discussion from Clarabell the Pinhead Clown.....
Everytime someone corrects his stupid crap he comes back and addresses the entire board with his old, repetitious put downs that he obviously thinks is clever.....its as sure as night follows day....

 

[Alias]

Typical lame ass bluff from our Super Freaking intellectually dishonest neocon donkey....talks shit about something without actually discussing the content. Grow up, SF.....acknowledging FACTS that prove you wrong on one point on a anonymous discussion board won't kill you. Jeez!

Hey, dumb ass. Yeah, YOU. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

More bluff and bluster from the Super Freak....see folks, this Super Freak(ing) neocon asshole DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE, yet he spouted off some generalized bullshit denouncing it. When challenged, Super Freak could NOT name one point of the article that he could disprove! So in true dishonest fashion, the Super Freak(ing) asshole wants me to do his homework for him.

Sorry, my Super Freak(ing) Chump, the chronology of the posts exposes your lame ploy. YOU made the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU. Put up or continue to blow smoke....because only you and the usual neocon/teabagger suspects will buy into that smoke you blow. Carry on, chuckles.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_is_actually_being_propose.html

Odd... I just asked you to point to the article and bring up a specific point you wished to discuss... yet you were afraid to do so. I wonder why???

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

More bluff and bluster from the Super Freak....see folks, this Super Freak(ing) neocon asshole DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE, yet he spouted off some generalized bullshit denouncing it. When challenged, Super Freak could NOT name one point of the article that he could disprove! So in true dishonest fashion, the Super Freak(ing) asshole wants me to do his homework for him.

Sorry, my Super Freak(ing) Chump, the chronology of the posts exposes your lame ploy. YOU made the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU. Put up or continue to blow smoke....because only you and the usual neocon/teabagger suspects will buy into that smoke you blow. Carry on, chuckles.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_is_actually_being_propose.html

Walker tries to sell the change in collective bargaining as modest. "State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures." But that's not really true. Read down a bit further and you'll find that "total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum." In other words, they couldn't bargain for wages to rise faster than inflation. So, in reality, they can't bargain for wages and they can't bargain over other forms of compensation. They just can't bargain.

Wrong. They still have the ability to bargain. It just isn't with the politicians they bribe. They have the ability to bargain with the rest of the tax payers. They can still get an increase in benefits and wages if they successfully bargain with the tax payer to provide the increases.

The proposal doesn't stop there, though. "Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues." These rules have nothing to do with pension costs or even bargaining. They're just about weakening unions: They make it harder for unions to collect dues from members, to negotiate stable contracts or to survive a bad year.

True. But with one major factor your liberal idiot refuses to address. The above protects the WORKERS from having to pay union dues to a union that goes AGAINST their wishes/political beliefs. The worker still has the ability to pay union dues. IF the unions are so valuable to the worker... they will pay them right? If not... they won't. That means the union has to EARN the dues. Not simply take them. Protection of the worker.... is that not what you proclaim to support?

He then links in that article to a previous article in which he clearly misstates facts, because he is liberal and that is what he does....

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html

In fact, it particularly doesn't work for what Walker is attempting in Wisconsin. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank.

The above was the blatant lie the left perpetrated over and over and over again. It completely ignores all the money the previous administration took from other funds and transferred into the general fund to 'create' that surplus. It completely ignores the FACT that the WI Supreme court ruled that the money taken from other funds had to be paid back and thus... THERE WAS NO SURPLUS. There was a massive deficit.... AS WALKER STATED.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Superfreak
Lol.... so your saying 'read this opinion article' is somehow equal to 'facts' in your fantasy world? Tell us... which 'facts' are you referring to in the article? Feel free to share THAT and perhaps we can have a discussion. Thus far all you have done is throw little tantrums like the above.

You'll get no discussion from Clarabell the Pinhead Clown.....
Everytime someone corrects his stupid crap he comes back and addresses the entire board with his old, repetitious put downs that he obviously thinks is clever.....its as sure as night follows day....

Bravo the barstool bumpkin strikes again!

Just read posts #59, 61 & 64, folks.....then you can continue to watch the foot stamping and sour grapes fest by our barstool occupying Bravo bumpkin with more enthusiasm. Carry on!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Typical lame ass bluff from our Super Freaking intellectually dishonest neocon donkey....talks shit about something without actually discussing the content. Grow up, SF.....acknowledging FACTS that prove you wrong on one point on a anonymous discussion board won't kill you. Jeez!

Hey, dumb ass. Yeah, YOU. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

And once again another neocon/teabagger toadie display his ignorance. Let me dumb it down for Alias with a quote from the article I referenced:

The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the state's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.

THAT was the focus of the discussion.....the article I sourced was from this year. But instead of actually READING the article and it's sub-links, our clueless Alias posts a moot point article that the neocons/teabaggers ballyhooed as a "victory"....but does not actually address the immediate issue that he, the Super Freak(ing) dunce and the barstool bumpkin Bravo are so incredibly desperate to avoid.

Fucking idiot Alias...after posts #58, 88 and 108 this is the best he could come up with...pathetic, but not unexpected.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
More bluff and bluster from the Super Freak....see folks, this Super Freak(ing) neocon asshole DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE, yet he spouted off some generalized bullshit denouncing it. When challenged, Super Freak could NOT name one point of the article that he could disprove! So in true dishonest fashion, the Super Freak(ing) asshole wants me to do his homework for him.

Sorry, my Super Freak(ing) Chump, the chronology of the posts exposes your lame ploy. YOU made the statement, the burden of proof is on YOU. Put up or continue to blow smoke....because only you and the usual neocon/teabagger suspects will buy into that smoke you blow. Carry on, chuckles.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...g_propose.html

Walker tries to sell the change in collective bargaining as modest. "State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures." But that's not really true. Read down a bit further and you'll find that "total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum." In other words, they couldn't bargain for wages to rise faster than inflation. So, in reality, they can't bargain for wages and they can't bargain over other forms of compensation. They just can't bargain.

Wrong. They still have the ability to bargain. It just isn't with the politicians they bribe. They have the ability to bargain with the rest of the tax payers. They can still get an increase in benefits and wages if they successfully bargain with the tax payer to provide the increases.

What a bunch of BS the Super Freak just spewed! "Bargain with the rest of the taxpayers?" WTF is that? Since when do YOU, AN INDIVIDUAL "bargain" with the state for an increase in your salary or bargain WITH THE REST OF THE STATE CITIZENRY for an increase in your salary, my Super Freak(ing) Walker kiss ass ? You bargain with the state if you are a IF YOU ARE A UNION! The ONLY other recourse is a specific vote to your gov't rep (House and Senate) to change the law. Once again, a neocon/teabagger toadie throws logic out the window in favor of a fantasy to support the chicanery of Walker.

The proposal doesn't stop there, though. "Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues." These rules have nothing to do with pension costs or even bargaining. They're just about weakening unions: They make it harder for unions to collect dues from members, to negotiate stable contracts or to survive a bad year.

True. But with one major factor your liberal idiot refuses to address. The above protects the WORKERS from having to pay union dues to a union that goes AGAINST their wishes/political beliefs. The worker still has the ability to pay union dues. IF the unions are so valuable to the worker... they will pay them right? If not... they won't. That means the union has to EARN the dues. Not simply take them. Protection of the worker.... is that not what you proclaim to support?

Again, since BY LAW NO ONE IS FORCED TO JOIN A UNION, the Super Freak(ing) neocon/teabagger liar has been caught BS'ing again! Once again, this little ditty by the Super Freak CREATES a premise and then builds on it.....the reality of the facts and the logic that derives from them be damned by the Super Freak(ing) Walker kiss ass. Since the Walker changes screw with the VOTING process of the union, union members are screwed to vote for the very changes that affect what the SuperFreak's supposition and conjecture is all about. Once again, the FACTS make a complete ass of the Super Freak.

He then links in that article to a previous article in which he clearly misstates facts, because he is liberal and that is what he does....

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html


Another accusation by the Super Freak by which he offers no proof beyond his dubious opinion. I guess we'll have to wait several more days and posts before this Super Freak(ing) BS artist actually READS what he's commenting on....or develop the guts to discuss it in an open forum.

In fact, it particularly doesn't work for what Walker is attempting in Wisconsin. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank.

The above was the blatant lie the left perpetrated over and over and over again. It completely ignores all the money the previous administration took from other funds and transferred into the general fund to 'create' that surplus. It completely ignores the FACT that the WI Supreme court ruled that the money taken from other funds had to be paid back and thus... THERE WAS NO SURPLUS. There was a massive deficit.... AS WALKER STATED.

Not a blatant lie, but hype of misreadinginformation at the time..and when properly analyzed, neither side of the political fence gets it entirely right, as FactCheck.org points out:
And the state’s financial business hasn’t been completely settled for the current fiscal cycle, either. Walker is trying to find a way to fill a projected $137 million gap for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. His controversial budget repair bill seeks to do so, in part, by increasing state worker contributions for pension and health benefits, among other things.

A false claim that the state would end this fiscal year with a surplus stems from a misreading by some — including MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow — of a memo issued in January by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau showing a $121 million gross balance in the state’s general accounting fund. That figure, however, doesn’t factor in more than $170 million for Medicaid services, or $21 million for corrections programs, that haven’t been funded. It also doesn’t include more than $58 million Wisconsin owes the state of Minnesota for a tax reciprocity deal involving income tax collected from Wisconsin residents who worked in Minnesota. Lang told us in an e-mail that those amounts were not reflected in the January memo, because they would require further action from the Legislature and the governor. Dealing with those costs before the end of June would push the general fund into the negative, he said.

The fiscal bureau says the bill being pushed by Walker would address funding for the Medicaid and corrections shortfalls, but wouldn’t address the outstanding payments to Minnesota, or an additional $3.5 million shortfall in appropriations for the state public defender’s office.


http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/wisconsins-baffling-budget-battle/


Once again, the Super Freak(ing) neocon/teabagger toadie is revealed for being far less than the economic expert he thinks himself to be.

 

[NOVA]

TClarabell says....
What a bunch of BS the Super Freak just spewed! "Bargain with the rest of the taxpayers?" WTF is that? Since when do YOU, AN INDIVIDUAL "bargain" with the state for an increase in your salary or bargain WITH THE REST OF THE STATE CITIZENRY for an increase in your salary, my Super Freak(ing) Walker kiss ass ? You bargain with the state if you are a IF YOU ARE A UNION! The ONLY other recourse is a specific vote to your gov't rep (House and Senate) to change the law. Once again, a neocon/teabagger toadie throws logic out the window in favor of a fantasy to support the chicanery of Walker.

I give up....read that shit four times and it still makes no sense.....

wtf ?.....I wonder if it makes any sense if you're on pcp ?

SF's opinion needs no opinion...its an opinion....and your opinion is the same thing...just because your opinion agrees with some other far left nitwit blogger doesn't constitproof of anything....it just two assholes whose opinions agree, Clarabell.....understand ?

You're the same asshole now as you were on AOL....but then, you know that....