Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

[paft.livejournal.com]

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
*

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

Do you actually want me to respond as if you are seriously entering a conversation, or are you going to complain about it again if I do?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you could show me where I have complained over the mere actuallity of entering a conversation, but I really don't remember it, sorry. (having someone being condesending and dismissive isn't exactly how I think a conversation should go, but I digress)

OTOH this was merely a rhetorical statement based on how it SEEMS that your experiences are valid arguments for "this is the way it is" yet other's experiences are merely anecdotes.

[paft.livejournal.com]

So do those relatives of yours who work in the public sector warrant the ridicule Bogey was displaying at the notion that many public sector employers work from a sense of avocation rather than merely marking time just for the money?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest, when I first read your comment I was tempted to laugh (not maniacaly however), but I caught the "often".

My mom and my 'single mom' sister worked at the post office, because it is good pay and benefits for their training/experience. It was a necessity.
My sister who was asked to retire from full time teaching (with what she was getting paid they could hire 2 new teachers) while in a sense it was more of an avocation with her, the benefits became very important, especially since noe of the companies my b-i-l worked for had good retirement health benefits.
At any rate she could have gone to a private school to teach, but chose to remain with the public schools as a substitute.

I think it's wonderful for people who's avocation corresponds with their vocation. I for example was too intellectually lazy to be a teacher, so I went into construction (I really wish now in my old age I had been more physically lazy, but I digress)but I taught Sunday school, youth groups and Bible studies for 35 years.
At any ratre, I'm rambling, my point is there are most likely many more public sector employees who actually are marking time then gointo public service as an avocation. This does not mean they don't do the job to the best of their ability, many times it just means that was what they could get.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that most public sector employees consider their job an "avocation."

I said they often do.

Do you disagree with that?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Please read my first sentence.