No class in WI as teachers protest union-busting governor

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

1st paragraph: You've already stated why there need not be an arrest, they are also entitled to injunctive relief.

2nd paragraph: Nothing but a strawman/putting words in my mouth. I have made no such claim.

I don't know what else to say. A govt. actor can infringe on the rights were discussing when it fits w/in the analysis in my previous post. Do you want Supreme Court cases that tell you your wrong?

I know you want so much to be right, but your not.

[aurik]

Now that I have totally lost this argument I will backpedal and throw up a smokescreen by citing the onerous tests the government must pass in order to muzzle free expression with prior restraint. I may or may not realize that this is actually completely irrelevant to the argument at hand which is about the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government, but at least it's tangentially related to the TLDR judicial opinion I copypasta'd in mass earlier, though that opinion found that the principle of "no prior restraint" would actually apply to this kind of political expression. Of course, I either didn't read the opinion or misunderstood it because I am actually claiming the opposite is true.

Also I now categorically deny that I said the protesters were being disorderly just a few posts ago. Don't go back and read it, I definitely did not say something like the blindingly obvious response ... is that they are already acting disorderly, definitely not.

My response is as follows:

one fish two fish red fish blue fish
black fish blue fish old fish new fish
some are red and some are blue. some are old and some are new.
some are sad and some are glad. And some are very, very bad.
Why are they sad and glad and bad? I dont know. Go ask your dad.
Some are thin and some are fat. The fat one has a yellow hat.
From there to here, from here to there, funny things everywhere.
Here are some who like to run. They run for fun in the hot, hot sun
Oh me! Oh my!
Oh me! Oh my!
what alot of funny things go by.
Some have two feet and some have four.
Some have six feet and some have more.
Where do they come from?
I cant say.
But i bet they have come a long, long way.
We see them come.
We see them go.
Some are fast.
And some are slow.
Some are high.
And some are low
Not one of them is like another.
Don't as us why.
Go ask your mother.

[archibaldcrane]

I hope everyone in the above argument realizes that there are still a bunch of protesters inside the capitol, it's just that they aren't letting any new ones in.

[Olo401]

I love your passion Olo, but there's a keyword in there somewhere.

ya god olo, because he isn't the legislature what he doing is perfectly fine. this is about the law, who cares about justice!?

republicans really are all about loopholes, after all

No no Swampy is right on this one. It says legislature not executive or governor. And yes I did see it.

Unfortunately, this is the state house where it would've been up to the leaders of the legislature (The Fitzgerald brothers, who are Walker's BFFs) to order the reinforcement of the windows, which would have triggered the clause.

And yeah you could use Swampy's lengthy argument as a legal justification, but it wouldn't hold up in court in this instance since the intent of the protesters is not to commit larceny, but to gain access to the building in accordance with the state constitution.

[Olo401]

http://www.strategictelemetry.com/do...vey_022811.pdf

Strategic Telemetry was able to compare the results of this most recent survey to a number of microtargeting models in order to predict by State Senate district the number of voters who would support recalling Walker, and the number who would be willing to take action. Walker will not be subject to a recall until he has served one year in office. After he has served one year, a recall would require the signatures of approximately 532,970 voters (25% of the total 2010 gubernatorial vote). Based on the results of this most recent survey and microtargeting models, it is estimated that more than 1.1 million voters statewide would be willing to sign a recall petition if asked.
....
Although the survey did not ask about specific State Senators, if one assumes that voters who want to recall Walker would also want to recall State Senators who support Walker's plan, the results are truly troubling for the eight Republican State Senators who were elected in 2008 and are subject to immediate recall.
In six of the eight districts, it is estimated that a majority of voters are opposed to Walker's budget. Even in the two districts where a majority of voters support the budget, opponents are sufficiently energized that the estimated number willing to sign a recall petition is well in excess of the number needed.

I guess the real question is who's the Secretary of State, because that will determine how much footdragging there will be on when the recall elections for these 8 GOP state senators will get called.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're a dumbass aurik. It's not even a judicial opinion.

I would have thought someone like you could tell the difference b/w what the legislature did back in 1970 and what is going on now.

Edit: And I don't know why you're obsessed with this whole prior restraint thing. Even if there was somehow a prior restraint here, it's not automatically unconstitutional. Prior restraints are strongly disfavored, but there can be legit reasons. I used disorderly conduct as one legit reason b/c that was the example given in Olo's cite. Another could be there's not enough room in the building. Either of those would justify his actions. That is all I have said, that there is no automatic violation of the constitution here. The only thing that is automatically unconstitutional in the context we are discussing is viewpoint discrimination. If Walker comes out and says, "I'm barring you b/c I don't like your pro-union views," then he has violated the constitution with no justifiable reason.

And I don't think a court has stated that, if there's 1000 protesters somewhere, when #1001 shows up and is prevented by the govt. from protesting with the other protesters, he has been subjected to a prior restraint. If that's not your line of thought then I don't know why you're even arguing with me.

[aurik]

Ladies and gentlemen I give you SwampdonkeyPLD, future lawyer extraordinaire.

About the only legitimate reason they have to bar people from entering the capitol is safety/capacity reasons. Of course, bolting the fucking windows sort of stops that excuse...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why didn't I think of this sooner, you're trolling me.

[Acturus]

What an interesting time for one of the Koch brothers to write an op-ed piece in the WSJ about something completely unrelated to the recent vilification of their enterprising actions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

###

OPINION - MARCH 1, 2011.
Why Koch Industries Is Speaking Out
Crony capitalism and bloated government prevent entrepreneurs from producing the products and services that make people's lives better.

By CHARLES G. KOCH

Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year's projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.

Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.

For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They've raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.

Senior Economics Writer Stephen Moore critiques Washington's pending budget deal.
In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.

Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels—and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.

Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).

The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the interest on our federal debt is "poised to skyrocket." Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is sounding alarms. Yet the White House insists that substantial spending cuts would hurt the economy and increase unemployment.

Plenty of compelling examples indicate just the opposite. When Canada recently reduced its federal spending to 11.3% of GDP from 17.5% eight years earlier, the economy rebounded and unemployment dropped. By comparison, our federal spending is 25% of GDP.

Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay.

Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.

The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people's lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.

But what about jobs that are lost when businesses go under? It's important to remember that not all jobs are the same. In business, real jobs profitably produce goods and services that people value more highly than their alternatives. Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.


Because every other company in a given industry is accepting market-distorting programs, Koch companies have had little option but to do so as well, simply to remain competitive and help sustain our 50,000 U.S.-based jobs. However, even when such policies benefit us, we only support the policies that enhance true economic freedom.

For example, because of government mandates, our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business. We believe that ethanol—and every other product in the marketplace—should be required to compete on its own merits, without mandates, subsidies or protective tariffs. Such policies only increase the prices of those products, taxes and the cost of many other goods and services.

Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.

Recent studies show that the poorest 10% of the population living in countries with the greatest economic freedom have 10 times the per capita income of the poorest citizens in countries with the least economic freedom. In other words, society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom.

Even though it affects our business, as a matter of principle our company has been outspoken in defense of economic freedom. This country would be much better off if every company would do the same. Instead, we see far too many businesses that paint their tails white and run with the antelope.

I am confident that businesses like ours will hire more people and invest in more equipment when our country's financial future looks more promising. Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.

###

[aurik]

Irony: Koch criticizes "Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment", but has no problem funding politicians who desire to break unions.

[Olo401]

Irony: Koch criticizes "Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment", but has no problem funding politicians who desire to break unions.

.. and who also put into place no-bid contract rules then award govt contracts to their donors.

[archibaldcrane]

Still, his desire to eliminate market-distorting tariffs and subsidies and his willingness to state as such is to be commended, even as some of his other actions are despicable. In many ways he's right, we need to cut way back on corporate welfare and military spending to balance the budget.

Social security is an interesting thing though. In the 1970's, Alan Greenspan and others were called upon to "fix" social security, make it long-term stable again. Their solution involved raising the cut-off after which SS taxes are no longer levied (currently $108k a year - any income beyond that isn't taxed for SS) and raise the retirement age.

His plan was anticipating moderate increases in income across the board as the economy continued to rise over the years. This was his mistake.

Since the bottom 90% of Americans saw no inflation-adjusted income increases over the past 40 years, those sub-108k earners didn't contribute any more to SS in the form of taxes, contrary to what Greenspan and others anticipated (and what should seem to be logically true - rising economies lift all boats). Instead, because the entirety of 40 years of economic expansion solely benefitted the top 10% of Americans, who are making more than 108k, there was no increase in SS income, and therefore we're in the situation we are in today - the rich benefited from the work of everyone, but don't pay any more than they did before in SS taxes, and now everyone suffers.

[aurik]

Since the bottom 90% of Americans saw no inflation-adjusted income increases over the past 40 years

This is the real problem that needs addressing.

[Rhinox]

Btw a court has ordered the capital building to be reopened

[Acturus]

Still, his desire to eliminate market-distorting tariffs and subsidies and his willingness to state as such is to be commended, even as some of his other actions are despicable. In many ways he's right, we need to cut way back on corporate welfare and military spending to balance the budget.

Social security is an interesting thing though. In the 1970's, Alan Greenspan and others were called upon to "fix" social security, make it long-term stable again. Their solution involved raising the cut-off after which SS taxes are no longer levied (currently $108k a year - any income beyond that isn't taxed for SS) and raise the retirement age.

His plan was anticipating moderate increases in income across the board as the economy continued to rise over the years. This was his mistake.

Since the bottom 90% of Americans saw no inflation-adjusted income increases over the past 40 years, those sub-108k earners didn't contribute any more to SS in the form of taxes, contrary to what Greenspan and others anticipated (and what should seem to be logically true - rising economies lift all boats). Instead, because the entirety of 40 years of economic expansion solely benefitted the top 10% of Americans, who are making more than 108k, there was no increase in SS income, and therefore we're in the situation we are in today - the rich benefited from the work of everyone, but don't pay any more than they did before in SS taxes, and now everyone suffers.

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/democra...ritys-red-ink/

This I found to be an interesting read regarding Social Security.

[archibaldcrane]

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/democra...ritys-red-ink/

This I found to be an interesting read regarding Social Security.

Here's a very important part:

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.

We spent the surplus from Social Security earnings on other things for decades - the baby boomers were contributing way more than the elderly were taking out, but instead of socking that money away for when the baby boomers retired, it was spent on other areas of the budget by short-sighted legislators on both sides of the aisle. Now when those baby boomers retire (i.e. the parents of most of the people on this forum) we have a deficit - not because those people didn't pay enough in, but because we (or more specifically, the lawmakers they elected) spent their money on other shit.

Social Security is a weird tax, because it's basically regressive (since income over 108k isn't taxed for it). It's that way for a reason, because you can only take so much out of it per person, so billionaires don't have to pay hundreds of times more than the average person but only get the average person's benefit, but when it comes down to it those same billionaires are the ones exclusively profiting from 40 years of economic expansion.

This is the real problem that needs addressing.

It is, in my opinion, by far the biggest political problem in America - and the first part of the problem is that noone knows it.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//10-21-10inc-f3.jpg
This is the face of "trickle down economics". The next time you hear anyone attempt to use that phrase in any meaningful way, punch them in the fucking face. It is a lie, sold to us by politicians in the pockets of big business to justify feeding their masters, and it's the worst thing that Reagan did to America.

[aurik]

Well there's also the problem that you get more in tax revenues by bumping 20 people from 50->100k yearly income than you do from bumping 1 person from 10m->11m yearly income, even though both scenarios have the same net gain. And you get even more tax revenues by bumping 50 people from 40->60k yearly income.

If there had been a more even distribution of income gains in the last 30 years, the US would have higher tax revenues today, even without adjusting the tax rates.

[archibaldcrane]

Yep. And that's crazy, because the entirety of the income from the guy going from 10m->11m would be taxed in the highest bracket.

Of course, considering that the average 1m earner pays less taxes as a percentage of their income than the average 150k earner, it makes sense.

[aurik]

Well also the vast, vast majority of that extra income for the 10m->11m earner, or even a 1m->2m earner, will be hoarded ("invested") rather than spent. This means any consumption taxes on that money won't be realized until the estate tax, and that is only if they can't find a clever way to shelter it for their descendants.

[archibaldcrane]

And the income on those investments will only be taxed at the capital gains tax rate of 15%.