![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWisconsin 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
*
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 17:49 (UTC)I don't buy Paft's "worker's rights" angle as the only rights I acknowledge are the ones shared by virtue of common humanity, not conditions of employment, but one of the rights that does fall into our common humanity is freedom of association.
I understand the aversion to the affect of public sector unions have on politics and policy, but at the same time, how do you do this without simultaneously stomping on freedom of association, because I don't think you can.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 18:12 (UTC)Are you opposed to worker safety, minimum wage, and child labor laws?
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 18:45 (UTC)My answer to those are going to be necessarily complex, time consuming, and probably off-topic, because short, curt, yes-or-no answers will be easily demagogued.
It would require I lay out my whole reasoning and philosophy on government and society to explain it, and experience has taught me that there will be no time spent today on productive things if I continue to entertain your questions in this thread.
Perhaps on a day when I have less planned, I'll make an OP on some of these things, or perhaps I'll start with the reasoning and lead into those sub-issues, that way we can avoid a lot of the back-and-forth, and I can just refer to my own post for questions and answers.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 19:14 (UTC)That's why I said that if I take on these issues at all, it would be better done in an OP, where I can lay out every aspect of what I'm thinking, instead of having to reference sub-thread-three, sentence two of a long buried and hard to track down response.
Kindly take this as an invitation for a rain-check and proceed to other threads for now.
Kthxbye.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 18:58 (UTC)Which, as you just made plain, does not mean you defend the existence of worker safety, minimum wage, and child labor laws.
jc: My answer to those are going to be necessarily complex, time consuming, and probably off-topic, because short, curt, yes-or-no answers will be easily demagogued.
In other words, the answer is probably "no," to at least one of these, but you don't look forward to having to defend such a stance, which would involve an awful lot of verbal and logical gymnastics.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 19:15 (UTC)That's why I said that if I take on these issues at all, it would be better done in an OP, where I can lay out every aspect of what I'm thinking, instead of having to reference sub-thread-three, sentence two of a long buried and hard to track down response.
Kindly take this as an invitation for a rain-check and proceed to other threads for now.
Kthxbye.
(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 20:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 20:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/2/11 23:46 (UTC)Deal with it.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 00:08 (UTC)I'll take my time, and come up with a proper OP on the matter, form a complete argument, and then you are welcome to address all of it at once. I have a life, or at least, I try to, in real life.
It's better than trying to fit a complete argument into a never-ending string of responses, each trying to address one small part of an issue, and never getting a look at the whole picture.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 00:47 (UTC)I don't really know why it's that complex and time-consuming to you. There are only three options to choose:
1) Employees have Ultimate Power over the Employer.
2) Employees and Employer each have certain powers, regulated by law.
3) Employers have Ultimate Power over the Employee.
I favor #2 because I've had experiences with God-Bosses that I do not care to repeat.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 01:03 (UTC)But like I told paft, be patient and you can read for yourself where it is that I'm coming from and how it applies to her inquiries. I want it to be thoughtful and as complete as possible and I have a document file open to work on intermittently as I go about my other business, and as thoughts come to me.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 05:23 (UTC)