[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by loveisdead

And Scott Walker was also heavily funded by Koch.

The Kochs really need to keep it in the pants.

[loveisdead]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

The Kochs really need to keep it in the pants.

They are extremely anti-union and gave this dude a huge am

[loveisdead]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

The Kochs really need to keep it in the pants.

They are extremely anti-union and gave this dude a huge amount of money to Walker's campaign.

[apoemtothedead]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

We've been giving massive tax breaks to corporations since the 1980s, and our unemployment rate has skyrocketed, hasn't it? So the answer to this question is very obviously 'no'.

We've also had massive improvements in technology since the 1980s rendering tons of jobs unnecessary.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by apoemtothedead

We've also had massive improvements in technology since the 1980s rendering tons of jobs unnecessary.

And somehow, magically, none of those people getting millions in tax breaks don't have to worry about that, do they?

They still aren't hiring, even though they're getting bigger tax breaks. They've had bigger tax breaks since 2001, and our unemployment rate has still gone up. That's ten years; technology hasn't increased so much that it accounts for all of or even a majority of those lost jobs. Hell, corporations got tax breaks from last month to this month, but the unemployment rate didn't drop, did it? Even in the short term, tax breaks have never been shown to increase the rate in corporations hiring.

In fact, the unemployment rate saw a steady decline during the Clinton administration, and he raised taxes. He was also in power during the surge of internet availability, arguably the biggest technological development of all time, but that didn't make people lose jobs, did it?

In any case, the things happening in Wisconsin have nothing to do with taxes for corporations. The governor spent money on that long before these protests began. This isn't an either-or situation. He didn't trade one for the other; he simply wants to give money to his rich friends and get rid of the unions that are likely to oppose him in the future.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by loveisdead

They are extremely anti-union and gave this dude a huge amount of money to Walker's campaign.

So basically the Kochs gave the Walker campaign a metaphorical boner?

[loveisdead]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

So basically the Kochs gave the Walker campaign a metaphorical boner?

I...uh...I don't think that's how I'd describe it.

[Love As Arson]

The best way to gauge whether or not the tax breaks were effective is to examine the quality of life and employment in the country. And we've seen a steady decline since the 1970's and the emergence of neoliberalism; wages have pretty much stagnated and the jobs which are created do not provide a living wage. More recently, we've seen tax breaks implemented and money given to banks presumably to ease the communities mind about taking risks and they've not stimulated job growth or credit lending, and this has generally been trend; tax breaks are given, or some variant which is supposed to help businesses in general, and the money is essentially sat on. Furthermore, in regards to the comments about technology, one can acknowledge that modernization made some jobs obsolete and also notice that the context in which it was employed, namely the capitalist framework, made it a tool against the working class as opposed to, say, reducing the amount of time people had to work so they could engage in creative endeavors, without fear of being thrown into poverty.

[sdbrown]

Originally Posted by loveisdead

No. That isn't "the real question" here. If that's the first thing that comes to your mind about what's going on in Wisconsin we've got some problems.

Fine. It wasa question arising from the article I quoted that you posted.

Quote:

More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

In English: The governor called a special session of the legislature and signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it helped turn a surplus into a deficit [see update at end of post]. As Brian Beutler writes, "public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda."

Article seems to be saying that the reason for the new bill is that the governor ran a deficit by signing legislation re: tax breaks for corporations. So I was questioning whether it's correct to take a stance, as I find this article is, that the union workers are being forced to pay to make up for the potential tax revenue lost by the governor giving corps tax breaks, when those tax breaks could actually help a lot of people who are COMPLETELY out of work. Whether or not the tax breaks will be used for this purpose, I tried to argue, is not known, but I hoped that the bill passed (assembly bill 3, per the article) has stipulations that the tax breaks ARE USED to create jobs.

[loveisdead]

Good post, Dom.

[Love As Arson]

That is a false dichotomy. It isn't the case that there isn't work out there for people to do, it is the case that they're not being employed to do it. At the very least, one complimentary thing I could say about FDR was that his public works projects helped people to provide for themselves and their families. If a program like this were implemented these days, then we wouldn't have to pit workers against each other.

[loveisdead]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

That is a false dichotomy. It isn't the case that there isn't work out there for people to do, it is the case that they're not being employed to do it. At the very least, one complimentary thing I could say about FDR was that his public works projects helped people to provide for themselves and their families. If a program like this were implemented these days, then we wouldn't have to pit workers against each other.

I make this argument all the time. All the money spent on tax breaks can be spent on the government directly hiring people similar to what went on in the new deal.

[JuneJuly]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

So basically the Kochs gave the Walker campaign a metaphorical boner?

Imagine Walker needed two Viagra's to get going. Well they gave him one, and then gave the second one to some other people, who gave it to Walker on behalf of them.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by sdbrown

Fine. It wasa question arising from the article I quoted that you posted.

Article seems to be saying that the reason for the new bill is that the governor ran a deficit by signing legislation re: tax breaks for corporations. So I was questioning whether it's correct to take a stance, as I find this article is, that the union workers are being forced to pay to make up for the potential tax revenue lost by the governor giving corps tax breaks, when those tax breaks could actually help a lot of people who are COMPLETELY out of work. Whether or not the tax breaks will be used for this purpose, I tried to argue, is not known, but I hoped that the bill passed (assembly bill 3, per the article) has stipulations that the tax breaks ARE USED to create jobs.

Essentially, the bill is "let's take jobs from several thousand in order to give money to corporations who might create several hundred, even though thirty years of testing has shown that they won't." And you're asking whether or not this is a good tradeoff.

[apoemtothedead]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

And somehow, magically, none of those people getting millions in tax breaks don't have to worry about that, do they?

Of course not. Robots and computers don't run businesses and make decisions, they simply replace low-skilled workers or computation-heavy parts of a company.

Quote:

They still aren't hiring, even though they're getting bigger tax breaks.

Why should they? If the company has no need for the position, why should they hire somebody to fill it?

Quote:

That's ten years; technology hasn't increased so much that it accounts for all of or even a majority of those lost jobs.

I'd hypothesize that technological improvements coupled with outsourcing, both forms of job obsolescence, have been the reasoning for a majority of the jobs lost in the past decade. Admittedly, I have no stats to back that up, but that's my guess.

Quote:

Hell, corporations got tax breaks from last month to this month, but the unemployment rate didn't drop, did it?

Regardless of whether or not there is a correlation between tax breaks and employment numbers, if you believe that something that happened last month would immediately show up in a company's business strategy, you have a lot to learn about business.

Quote:

In fact, the unemployment rate saw a steady decline during the Clinton administration, and he raised taxes. He was also in power during the surge of internet availability, arguably the biggest technological development of all time, but that didn't make people lose jobs, did it?

The internet can be a perfect example of the cause of people losing jobs. Look at Blockbuster. Why have 1000s of stores open nationwide when you can simply ship movies, ordered online, from centralized locations? An example of low-skilled jobs being lost.

Quote:

In any case, the things happening in Wisconsin have nothing to do with taxes for corporations.

I have no comment on the Wisconsin situation. I was merely responding because I thought your statement about the rising levels of unemployment was misguided.