Thank you, Dan BV.

I'm with you, Lori.

Jamie -- "whining libs" "thugs" "bullies", etc. That's the language that started the demonizing of public workers. Congratulations, it worked. Here's my story:

I do wish people would stop insinuating that public workers aren't included in the "taxpayers" chatter. I'm not a teacher, but I do work for the county as clerical support staff. The "small contributions" to the pension fund equals hundreds of dollars each MONTH out of each and every public worker's paycheck -- state, county, city, village and townships alike. And that's not including all the increased health insurance costs we've already been hit with -- with promises of more to come later this year. My husband (who works in manufacturing) had his work hours reduced last year, which meant a reduction in his monthly take-home pay of $400.

With all the increased costs of gas, heating, food, etc., we're losing ground FAST. We're struggling right now, just like many, many others. That's what I don't get about this whole thing. Public employees were demonized at the outset, but nobody wants to hear that. Nobody seems to want to really look at what the effects will be to local businesses when these families have taken such a great hit to their incomes.

When I'd hear Walker or Harsdorf talk about how they saved "taxpayers" $736 in property taxes over two years, it made me sick to my stomach. I look at my kids and think, what's next?

If it were possible to "assign bills," then I believe it would be the Republican party which would need be billed for what it cost to make this election last an extra three weeks by putting a "fake democrat" on the primary election. The recall elections could have been over on July 19.

I am actually in the middle, but was pushed to become leaning left because of the events in Wisconsin!

I have yet to see any hate speech/writing of the left side as I was/am able to hear and read from the right

Spot on, Dan.

Thank you again, Dan.

I can already see that's next in the ALEC playbook, given the many, many similar posts I've seen. It's important to demonize the working poor first as tax scofflaws. Then whip the base up with hate messaging about them, repeating the same phrases over and over again. Then after they're good and fired up, introduce legislation and tax changes that only effect that particular target. After all, the job creators need to keep all their profits. The elected Republicans then look like heroes to their base for smashing down those nasty, thuggish working poor tax scofflaws. Coming soon to statehouses everywhere. It's already in the works.

Two-thirds of corporations in Wisconsin didn't pay taxes, either. Shouldn't they, too?

Jamie, I work in private industry and I don't contribute a red cent to my pension fund. My employer contributes 100 percent and the do an additional match to what I contribute to my 401k and they pay profit sharing and occasionally give us Dilly bars and pizza.

How did you sacrifice for 6 1/2 years to get a college education? I paid my way through college and basically didn't get a penny from my parents for college. I don't call that a sacrifice. I call it getting a college education. I paid for my own beer, cigarettes, etc. too.

Why are you ripping on people who work in public education, because they "decided to go into a field that doesn't pay large sums of money"? I guess you are confusing me by complaining that teachers don't get paid much and telling us "the free meal ticket is over." What exactly is this "free meal?"

Wow, Jamie. Nice. I'm giving you an example of my own personal situation so you might possibly understand the effects to real people. The fact is workers everywhere are losing ground -- public and private -- as corporations are making record profits.

And let me clarify for you that, according to a wage study completed but not implemented by our county's elected officials, the workers in our county were already way behind in their overall salary + benefits package. So on top of already being seriously lagging, we were just given a 6% wage cut.

I work for a living and like my job. My wages shouldn't be described as a "free meal ticket." When are you going to stop buying into this garbage that workers are the problem? Do some critical thinking, Jamie.

@ Polly
You say it! My employment life was (I am retired now, but worked for 33 years for the same company) very similar to yours!. We might even speak about the same employer?.

However, I had to suffer somewhat during college, because I did not have enough funds and time to party as much as I wanted. Can one call this a sacrifice?

And I have yet to meet a teacher who had a free ride during college, or has a free ride now. They have to work many hours for a rather low pay in relation to their education, and have to be rather idealistic to be willing to put up daily (I believe most of them see 150 to 160 kids a day) with other peoples kids in puberty! I am still trying to see the free meal they get. The fairy tale that they did get free health insurance and free pension is nothing but a fairy tale! I can recall the time when Tomy Tompson set up the qualified bargain law. Since that time teachers could not get more than, I believe, 3% raise, and if insurance went up, it was part of those 3%. With other words, the teachers paid all the time for their benefits! Where is the "free meal" Jamie is talking about?

I work in private industry as well! In fact I work for a private company, My employer contributes a portion to the pension fund, employees contribute some. The also match up to a certain percentage into my 401k, as well as profit sharing.

However, 4 years ago, they decided to move us from a fully covered health plan to a high deductible health plan. I pay the first $5000 out of my own pocket, AFTER TAXES, for medical expenses. I have a child with diabetes, that $5000 is eaten up in the first 3 months of the year on supplies and doctors visits. I don't get a cushy health insurance plan, until AFTER I pay my $5000.

As for sacrificing, I paid for my college BY MYSELF!!! Then on top of it, i selected a major that required not book time, but LOTS AND LOTS, of lab time, a lot of personal expense, and far to many sleepless nights. I wasn't able to afford beer and cigarettes, because I was covering my education expense. I agree that many others have done the same thing. The point being, we've worked our asses off to gain that education and get a good job that pays well, so my question is, why should I pay for more for someone elses health care and other benefits then they pay? Where is the "shared scrifice" that libs talk about. Ohh, that only applies to "the rich and super rich" right?

Teachers and public employees are being asked to pay the same amounts as the rest of the working class

Jamie -- Maybe you're too young to remember the days when the middle class was actually the middle class. There was a time when working people could actually make it on one salary to pay their mortgage, have health insurance, have a pension and put their children through college. Continuing the trend of knocking workers' wages and benefits doesn't help anyone, from business owner on up! Can't you see we're all on the same side? It's the middle class that truly generates demand. You can't get around that. (And please, as an aside, try to take your hate for the "libs" out of your mind, think about this and then respond.) Please.

Eagle, do you have supporting documentation that 1/2 of the new jobs created in the U.S. in the last month were in WI, as Sheila Harsdorf stated in the debate and has repeated and repeated. Don't bother with MacIver Institute reports, I asked for documentation not Koch Brother Propaganda. You have to believe in the tooth fairy if you think this is true.

Also don't forget that any corporations with employees are paying into SS and medicare whether they make money or not.

And ALL employees are also paying into ss and medicare, mainstreet. Thank you for following up on your own research, Eagle, as I was at work.

Ealge -- if 2/3 of corporations (who can afford to pay tax pros to find loopholes) aren't paying any taxes, what's your problem with the 50% of the working poor (which is the figure I've heard from the Republican Party) not having tax liabilities? You want to squeeze some more from the working poor?

KT, I don't get your point about all of us paying into SS and medicare? My point was that any corporation with employees is paying taxes because they are paying into SS and medicare, no matter what your 2/3 thing says. Are you saying all employees shouldn't pay into SS and medicare?

No. Actually, my point is the same as yours. All employees are paying into SS and Medicare, too. So that would make all employees taxpayers, too.

Sorry you're not a fan of mine. And ALEC is a seriously corrupt problem.

How much "profIt" do the working poor make, Eagle? Yes, by all means, let's attack the working poor.

My benefits aren't diminishing, my wages aren't diminishing. I have responsibilities, thats the way I look at it. The extra $5000 I have to pay because of the HDHP, just means I can't go buy a BMW or Mercedes for another couple years! As for unionizing, there is a moronic statement...... why would I want someone elses performance to have any bearing on how much I get in pay and benefits????? I want to be paid based on the merits of my work and performance. If I am a valuable employee, I expect to be compenstated as much. If the company is unwilling to do that, i'll go work for another company. I'm confident in that because I have a skill that companies want, one I was trained to utilize in college!

Good for you, Jamie, again. Enjoy your rides in your BMW or Mercedes. But it won't last for much longer. The "demand" side of the supply & demand equation means people need to earn a decent wage and have enough money to buy whatever it is you're selling.

KT you are right, it won't last much longer if the Liberal left continues to spend like drunken sailors! Your explanation of the demand side, is exactly the democratic (socialized) viewpoint that is what is runing this country.

Demand is wanting a product or service that isn't currently meeting your expectations. Supply is deciphering what that consumer wants and providing it. Money has no point being in the discussion. If you as a supplier create demand, people will pay for the product or service.

I believe you need to look up the basics of economics and business before you tell people to look up critical thinking.

The reason there will be no money, is because the liberal left will have spent it all on gov't waste! (Obamacare, stimulus, expansion of gov't as a whole) Of course they will reduce our military spending!

You said it yourself, Jamie. People will "pay for the product or service." Keep driving down wages while the cost of living skyrockets and there's no money left for your customers to spend. Wages do matter and money is a factor.

Whoever you are, you are a slave to a liberal ideology that is driving this country straight into the ground!! Thank God, I'm in a state that may end up there last as long as Walker is in control!

JZ: Are you sure it's the liberal ideology that is driving the country into the ground? I believe it's the free-market capitalists who have spent the last four decades sending the good, family-raising jobs overseas and working to create a work-world of low-wage temps with no pension, no healthcare, no vacation. These would be the same capitalists hiring the illegals to work at the packing plant to work for low wages at formerly, high paying union jobs that supported families and sent lower middle class kids to college.

Let's not forget those bankers and lenders who spent the last decade borrowing money to people to built the nightmare homes. People with bad credit rating, nothing to pay down, etc. Of course, now that millions of those people have lost their houses and jobs they can turn to payday lenders when there's too much week for their unemployment check to cover. Fortunately, the payday lenders will gladly borrow you food and gas money for a 573 percent interest charge.

Let's not forget that a significant portion of our national debt comes from:
1. Iraq war
2. Afghanistan war
3 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts

Perhaps you could explain how the liberal ideology is driving this country into the ground.

Mike - I think for once there's a bi-partisan agreement about that feature. When there were clips of Walker that did that, my cats fled the room every time.
Of course, I didn't actually mind the effect it had on the cats per se, but still...

I'm not a fan of the autoplay videos either. I've raised your complaints to the tech folks. They are pretty busy, though, and that feature is low on the priority list.

Funny, I don't ever actually recall saying I was a republican?? Here are my points, The current democratic mindset is everyone should share everything (socialism). Why on Earth should one person have more than another (the demonization of hard work and being successful)! That is exactly what Obama, Shelly Moore, and all gov't workers that I've argued with believe.

Do I believe all public sector jobs are bad, no of course not, I have the utmost respect for our military (Which those on the left stab in the back when possible). Despite their horribly bad judgement during the state budget debate, I am actually very happy with the quality of education my child has received, especially in Hudson. I would much rather see property taxes go away, and turn our schools into open enrollment and pay for that myself. Then I would get to decide what kind of education my child gets. Unfortunately thats no the way the system works. However, I do have to admit that my childs first teacher was very good, and I appreciate what it is she has done to help my child learn. That doesn't mean I want to pay more in taxes to cover her benefits which are better than my own.

As to your 2nd set of points, If everyone believed in the conservative model, hell yes things would be much better!!! We certainly could eliminate MANY public jobs and have that work done by private contractors that would cost us (taxpayers) much less. There's a novel thought reduce gov't, and create more private sector jobs?

Which public sector jobs do you want to privatize, Jamie?

Before I answer this let me ask you, what do you believe the role of gov't is? Based on your reactions to my comments, I believe you think it is to provide jobs and services to anyone and everyone. Am I wrong?

Actually, that's a really good question, Jamie, and I've never truly thought about it. But I will today during my 5-hour road trip and get back to you. I do wish you wouldn't feel the need to end each post with some type of insult, though. Of course I don't think the role of gov't is to provide jobs and services to anyone and everyone. I don't know of another person who holds that belief, either.

I am honestly curious about what jobs you'd privatize, though.

Jamie: "Republican" is different than "republican." "Democratic" is different than "democratic." It's a connotative technically that is important to consider in discussion concerning politics.

I don't hear the hard work demonization you preach of. I hear more of a call for fair taxation.

Have you actually argued with Obama, Moore and gov't workers. You must have some good connections to argue with Obama.

When you talk about open enrollment and paying for that yourself, should I assume that everybody would individually pay for the education of their children?

Should public sector workers make the same, more or less than private sector workers? Apparently, the military pays private contracts significantly more to do the same job as enlistees.

What conservative model are you talking about? Are you talking about the Ayn Rand-libertarian model of personal and business freedom or the Chirstian-conservative model that ta\ramples on individual freedom? Maybe you mean the Robert LaFollette progressive republican model? Maybe you mean the Abe Lincoln model of compromise and funding big government infrastructure projects like the transcontinental railroad?

W. Bush was a conservative and he oversaw one of the largest expansion of government ever. Under the so-called "socialism" of Obama, we have seen a large contraction of government.

Of course the federal, state, county, local, school district, etc. components of government. Please supply more detail.

JPN, Whats your source for government contracting under Obama? That's a pretty astounding claim and I would be interested in reading the source.

Mianstreet:

Private sector jobs v. public sector jobs:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/159845-private-firms-are-hiring-governments-are-firing-and-that-means

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/06/03/household-survey-private-sector-gains-373000-jobs-in-may-public-sector-loses-417000-jobs/

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/nov/24/reince-priebus/wisconsin-republican-party-chairman-reince-priebus/

Does this work for you?

Here's a good summary...

During the Bush presidency, net total employment went up by 1.08 million jobs. So far, during the Obama presidency, total employment has been reduced by 3.3 million jobs.

Under Bush, private employment shrank by 673,000 jobs, federal employment grew by 50,000 jobs, and government employment grew by 1,753,000 jobs.

Under Obama, the private sector has shed some 2.9 million jobs while the federal government has grown by 40,000 (after growing massively, the federal workforce shrank throughout the summer). Total government jobs, however, shrank by 357,000 jobs, mainly because of cuts at the state and local levels.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249516/job-creation-bush-vs-obama-veronique-de-rugy

JPN, not trying to argue with you. I was only looking for some back up to your statement "Under the so-called "socialism" of Obama, we have seen a large contraction of government." The Politifact link does show that federal employment has increased under Obama, which is what I thought. As for a general contraction of all government, you're probably right, but that is not to Obama's credit as you implied. Hopefully state/local governments will continue to shrink and we get the Federal Government on board next.

mianstreet, since Jamie was not breaking down government into separate buckets, I went with the big number. Lumping federal, state and local together shows that the size of government has decreased under Obama. I don't believe I gave Obama credit for the contraction of government. I'm just saying what's happened since he took office.

I try to stay away from giving any politicians credit for anything that happens. If I point out that Clinton was the last president to provide us with surpluses, a conversative with jump in and give the credit to Newt and the conservatives. Likewise, the TEA Party started blaming Obama for the debt and deficit that day after he was sworn into office.

If you what to argue with me, I'm fine with that. I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about the problems and issues facing our nation and the world and not pretend that the right or left have all the answers. There are a lot of variables in the big, long-term problems we are facing and, unfortunately, politicians are responsbile for some of those problems but they don't look at the longview. Theyt live in the election cycle.

Like I said I wasn't trying to argue, just get the facts behind you're statement. As for Clinton and Newt - Lets not forget $10 a barrel oil at the time. That will make any politician look like a genius :)

Mainstreet, lets not forget the Clinton signed NAFTA and it created that giant sucking sound predicted by Ross Perot.

No problem paying good teachers what they are worth. Unfortunately for those good teachers, they have a union that says otherwise. You will be paid on years of service and educational level accomplished. Once you get past being last one in, first one out, all you have to look forward to is your steps and lanes for pay increases. Let us pay good teachers awesome wages and let the rest go. But they think that collectivism is better than individualism, otherwise they would end there union and negotiate on thier own. M & I bank must be your whooping boy, because that is all you ever write about. It is a shame that we bailed out any bank, so I agree whole heartedly with you in regards to that Democrat passed bank bailout of 2008 that Bush did not Veto. Then again, that was a bi partisan affair, just like NCLB, Iraq, afghanistan, Libya...wait, they didn't give authorization on Libya. I need to focus, sorry about that. Great teachers are under paid, most teachers are over paid. Class starts at 830, ends at 330, with half hour lunch and two 45 minute activities per day out of the there classroom for a total of 178 school days. That is 5.5 hours of in the class room time in elementary. Granted, I would not want to take care of other peoples entitled, snot nosed brats. Regardless, Government would not exist with business (in a free market experience) and business would not be here without government. Both need each other, we just have to figure the balance.

When you are part of a public sector union there are no raises based on merits, thats the first crack in your liberal arguement. The very nature of a union is socialism. The same for everyone!

And once again your over the top liberal banter suggests that I wanted the banks to be bailed out! I am a conservative, my solution would have been to let the weak banks fail, and to provide the option to support the stronger financial institutions(Free market system). Keep in mind is was the Reid/Pelosi congress that bailed out those banks. Yes Bush signed, his biggest mistake as president, but he did what the democrats asked for.

Again keep in mind about the "Golden Parachutes" as much as you don't like them, it's the companies BoD that determines those, don't blame the people receiving them. They took a job and accepted those terms. You can not like the job they did, but thats why they were let go, golden parachute or not.

You are right, I would rather pay no taxes to teachers, I would rather we privatize the school system, and each family pays for their childs education. I want to choose who my child gets for a teacher. That way if my child doesn't learn anything or is failing, I have only me to blame for choosing a bad teacher. Who gets the blame when our nations education system is far behind the industrialized nations of the world? Certainly not the teachers. Merit based pay, not union negotiated contracts!

TH3:

Let me try and simplify the debate here:

The Democrats/liberals believe it is important to count and include all the colors of the rainbow in the debate. They defend their position like a herd of cats.

The Republican/conservatives believe we should get rid of the color black and just use the color white. They defend their position like a wolf pack.

Keep in mind, just because Jamie's worldview doesn't agree with your worldview, doesn't mean he's wrong or have a legitimate argument.