talkpolitics | Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

Wisconsin State Assemblyman Robin Vos lets us all know what he thinks of those taxpaying Wisconsin citizens who work in the public sector:

The reality is they haven’t had to pay for these things, they’re upset about doing it now, and the taxpayers are the ones who definitely understand this because they get it, they’ve been doing this in the private sector for years, it’s time we had the same thing happen in the public sector…The fact that my Democratic colleagues want to go back to the taxpayer and have them pay higher taxes because someone shouldn’t pay 12% towards their healthcare….We are standing with the taxpayers all across Wisconsin. It’s amazing the outpouring of support that we’ve been getting from the people outside the Capitol Square, the people who are in the reality of the world, not the place that we’re sitting.

Howard Dean does a very good job of refuting Kudlow and Vos’ fiction that the demonstrations are all about the cuts in benefits and not about the elimination of collective bargaining. The capper to this exchange, however, comes near the end of the segment, when a sign appears just over Vos’ shoulder on the right. Not the kind of thing Kudlow could choreograph.

It beautifully highlights the idiocy of Vos' fiction that the demonstrators are, in some fundamental way, less American than other Americans. Does he really think cops and teachers don't pay taxes, or “live in the reality of the world?”

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

g: I was looking at it from the stand-point (of actually observing and complying) that all saftey regs are not good, and many times seem arbitrary to the point of stupidity.

And where in my post do I say that there are no stupid, badly thought out safety regulations?

p: "So all safety regulations should be done away with?"

You implied by the question that I thought this. I have explained what I meant in my statement. I never implied you said: "And where in my post do I say that there are no stupid, badly thought out safety regulations?"

Excuse me for believing you to be sincere when you asked where I disagreed with a statement you made. I thought I was clear I was not referring to that statement at all. You don't like my explanation, fine, just don't change it.
This time you do get the last word.

Then what, exactly, were you disagreeing with?

Look, I'm sorry, but if you post comments, I'm going to take them as given. In this case, you announced you disagreed with a very brief message in which I said that worker safety can't be left to the market or the good will of employers. You said you disagreed with this. I asked you a question based on the premise that you disagreed that worker safety can't be left tot he market etc... You responded that no, what you MEANT was that all worker safety laws weren't good, that some were stupid. Since I'd never said that all worker safety laws were perfect and good, I wondered where you'd seen me saying such a thing.

Maybe you should try responding to what I actually post. It would prevent a lot of confusion.

I agree with what you've tried to say here. There are stupid regulations for safety. I wish that we could turn the eye of the public onto how we regulate rather than should we.

Thank you, and I appreciate it. Tho we rarely agree, you always make me think and consider :D

Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

Re: Fair enoiugh

Re: Fair enoiugh

Re: Fair enoiugh

Re: Fair enoiugh

Re: Fair enoiugh