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]

g As a roofing contractor let me say, that this is actually a true statement...

Which is why laws about workers and safety cannot merely be left to market forces--or the goodwill and conscience of employers.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I would be tempted to agree with you if I didn't know that some of the "saftey" regulations put in by OSHA actually increase risk.

[paft.livejournal.com]

So all safety regulations should be done away with?

*sigh*

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

This is why it's difficult to maintain a real conversation for too long. Instead of being confrontational you could have asked for examples, and if what I said was true, and what would I purpose, or even how do I get around it :D.
But no, you have to come across as accusing, oh well. I'll say in all sincerity, it has been fun for a change. My kids are throwing me a party tonight and I really do have things to do.....later gator;)

Re: *sigh*

[paft.livejournal.com]

I said:

"laws about workers and safety cannot merely be left to market forces--or the goodwill and conscience of employers."

You indicated you disagreed, which presumably means that you think workers and safety CAN merely be left to market forces or the goodwill and conscience of employers.

If that interpretation is incorrect, please explain what exactly was it you disagreed with about the statement ""laws about workers and safety cannot merely be left to market forces--or the goodwill and conscience of employers."

Fair enoiugh

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I was not arguing that regs and saftey requirements be left to market forces.
And definately not that they should be done away with. 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.
My favorite: OSHA requires a clip on the hook for a rope and wheel. This clip makes it difficult to remove items, some, a bucket of hot asphalt for example, become dangerous.

(Note: there are actually rules that they won't enforce if they come out and observe you breaking them, because even the inspectors realize how foolish they are :D)

Re: Fair enoiugh

[paft.livejournal.com]

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?

Re: Fair enoiugh

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Fair enoiugh

[paft.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Fair enoiugh

[weswilson]

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.

Re: Fair enoiugh

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

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

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I would be tempted to agree with you

So, you are more in agreement with "workers and safety [CAN] merely be left to market forces--or the goodwill and conscience of employers"?

Or are you really saying that you DO agree we need more than market forces however we also need a way of fixing counter productive regulations that reduce safety. If that is what you meant, its not what you wrote.

some of the "saftey" regulations put in by OSHA actually increase risk

Yes, and sometimes cops do criminal things, but we still need cops.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Probably it should be left up to the workers, but that probably wouldn't work either.