What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (3 Viewers)

105 jobs for catalyst and the company doesnt have to pay any taxes for 2 years and a 500,000 grant. Hmm...sounds like a real good deal for Wisc.2. he is supposed to create 250,000 new jobs in his first term. You really believe that all of these jobs are going to be "good" jobs?You guys saying im stupid just makes me feel that much smarter, because if I thought the way you guys do.....well, i wont say it.
So, how much of a tax credit is that for the 105 jobs.105 jobs at 500,000 is less than 5k per job created. That is a great freaking deal for the state actually.
You forgot the little part of no taxes for 2 years. But the state is so broke, I know... :lmao:
Sorry, I didn't put the question mark in the first line.My question is how much of a credit is that for the 2 years for those 105 jobs.And the line of thinking is that in the end, the state will make up that 2 years of taxes by the amounts it will bring in over the long haul with this business. Far better than a state will do in losing such businesses by not offering a tax break.
I don't think he can process that.
 
105 jobs for catalyst and the company doesnt have to pay any taxes for 2 years and a 500,000 grant. Hmm...sounds like a real good deal for Wisc.2. he is supposed to create 250,000 new jobs in his first term. You really believe that all of these jobs are going to be "good" jobs?You guys saying im stupid just makes me feel that much smarter, because if I thought the way you guys do.....well, i wont say it.
So, how much of a tax credit is that for the 105 jobs.105 jobs at 500,000 is less than 5k per job created. That is a great freaking deal for the state actually.
You forgot the little part of no taxes for 2 years. But the state is so broke, I know... :lmao:
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
 
105 jobs for catalyst and the company doesnt have to pay any taxes for 2 years and a 500,000 grant. Hmm...sounds like a real good deal for Wisc.2. he is supposed to create 250,000 new jobs in his first term. You really believe that all of these jobs are going to be "good" jobs?You guys saying im stupid just makes me feel that much smarter, because if I thought the way you guys do.....well, i wont say it.
So, how much of a tax credit is that for the 105 jobs.105 jobs at 500,000 is less than 5k per job created. That is a great freaking deal for the state actually.
You forgot the little part of no taxes for 2 years. But the state is so broke, I know... :lmao:
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
:confused: It's a loan. I didn't know people on welfare had to pay it back.
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
:goodposting: I figure at some point his head will explode.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with it. Just a different set of priorities. The money has to come from someplace though, even if it is temporary. Roll your eyes all you want, but it is still public money. TARP was designed to be a loan program for corporations to retain jobs and help corporations, yet it was viewed negatively as spending federal tax dollars on corporate welfare. I don't see this as any different except the scale. And, where is the money coming from. The governor kept telling the press they had hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, a "deficit crisis", that required he break the public unions and be granted numerous concessions from the benefits of public employees. I'm not understanding the financing on these deals for the corporations, if they don't have the money to loan them.Plus, it comes at the expense of a state education system. People in this discussion thread were complaining about the education system now. Wait until the blow back from this fight works its way through the education system there. How many teachers will leave? Who would want to work as a teacher in Wisconsin? How is Wisconsin going to create 250,000 good jobs of the future when they are rolling back resources to educate that workforce? Just questions that I don't see being answered.Like I said, different priorities. I'm having a hard time seeing the cost/benefit analysis of this working to Wisconsin's advantage at this point. I am glad you have faith the plan will work out well. I am also glad I don't have to worry that it won't.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
I guess you won't have a problem when some other state offers up a nice deal for some Wisconsin Company and they leave your state???
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
Ok, so we have 1197 new and or existing jobs. Only another 248803 to go. I wonder how much Scott is going to have to give away to get those jobs???
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with it. Just a different set of priorities. The money has to come from someplace though, even if it is temporary. Roll your eyes all you want, but it is still public money. TARP was designed to be a loan program for corporations to retain jobs and help corporations, yet it was viewed negatively as spending federal tax dollars on corporate welfare. I don't see this as any different except the scale. And, where is the money coming from. The governor kept telling the press they had hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, a "deficit crisis", that required he break the public unions and be granted numerous concessions from the benefits of public employees. I'm not understanding the financing on these deals for the corporations, if they don't have the money to loan them.Plus, it comes at the expense of a state education system. People in this discussion thread were complaining about the education system now. Wait until the blow back from this fight works its way through the education system there. How many teachers will leave? Who would want to work as a teacher in Wisconsin? How is Wisconsin going to create 250,000 good jobs of the future when they are rolling back resources to educate that workforce? Just questions that I don't see being answered.Like I said, different priorities. I'm having a hard time seeing the cost/benefit analysis of this working to Wisconsin's advantage at this point. I am glad you have faith the plan will work out well. I am also glad I don't have to worry that it won't.
Don't waste your time. I have already asked those questions. Don't recall any answers other than emoticons...
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with it. Just a different set of priorities. The money has to come from someplace though, even if it is temporary. Roll your eyes all you want, but it is still public money. TARP was designed to be a loan program for corporations to retain jobs and help corporations, yet it was viewed negatively as spending federal tax dollars on corporate welfare. I don't see this as any different except the scale. And, where is the money coming from. The governor kept telling the press they had hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, a "deficit crisis", that required he break the public unions and be granted numerous concessions from the benefits of public employees. I'm not understanding the financing on these deals for the corporations, if they don't have the money to loan them.Plus, it comes at the expense of a state education system. People in this discussion thread were complaining about the education system now. Wait until the blow back from this fight works its way through the education system there. How many teachers will leave? Who would want to work as a teacher in Wisconsin? How is Wisconsin going to create 250,000 good jobs of the future when they are rolling back resources to educate that workforce? Just questions that I don't see being answered.Like I said, different priorities. I'm having a hard time seeing the cost/benefit analysis of this working to Wisconsin's advantage at this point. I am glad you have faith the plan will work out well. I am also glad I don't have to worry that it won't.
I see you don't get it at all. TARP money wasn't about creating jobs. It was to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.The small amount of money that will be loaned to help create jobs in Wisconsin is small compared to the overall budget of the state including eduction.It is amazing what you lefties will whine about. Wisconsin is taking steps to get people back to work with good jobs and you just understand why that helps the state. Gaining jobs > losing jobs.More people paying taxes is better than fewer paying taxes while collecting unemployment.I'm done on this because this is something you will never understand.
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
It's alot like when you complain that the unions are buying political favors. Except in this case, the corporation is getting those favors, and you (the taxpayer) are paying for it.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
Ok, so we have 1197 new and or existing jobs. Only another 248803 to go. I wonder how much Scott is going to have to give away to get those jobs???
Well...since you seem to think you have all the answers. Tell us your plan on how to create 250,000 jobs while you are Govenor and fixing the budget. Tell us how you will keep jobs from leaving Wisconsin and how you want to attract companies to move to Wisconsin. Oh, and remember, those must be "GOOD JOBS!" :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with it. Just a different set of priorities. The money has to come from someplace though, even if it is temporary. Roll your eyes all you want, but it is still public money. TARP was designed to be a loan program for corporations to retain jobs and help corporations, yet it was viewed negatively as spending federal tax dollars on corporate welfare. I don't see this as any different except the scale. And, where is the money coming from. The governor kept telling the press they had hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, a "deficit crisis", that required he break the public unions and be granted numerous concessions from the benefits of public employees. I'm not understanding the financing on these deals for the corporations, if they don't have the money to loan them.Plus, it comes at the expense of a state education system. People in this discussion thread were complaining about the education system now. Wait until the blow back from this fight works its way through the education system there. How many teachers will leave? Who would want to work as a teacher in Wisconsin? How is Wisconsin going to create 250,000 good jobs of the future when they are rolling back resources to educate that workforce? Just questions that I don't see being answered.Like I said, different priorities. I'm having a hard time seeing the cost/benefit analysis of this working to Wisconsin's advantage at this point. I am glad you have faith the plan will work out well. I am also glad I don't have to worry that it won't.
I see you don't get it at all. TARP money wasn't about creating jobs. It was to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.The small amount of money that will be loaned to help create jobs in Wisconsin is small compared to the overall budget of the state including eduction.It is amazing what you lefties will whine about. Wisconsin is taking steps to get people back to work with good jobs and you just understand why that helps the state. Gaining jobs > losing jobs.More people paying taxes is better than fewer paying taxes while collecting unemployment.I'm done on this because this is something you will never understand.
How many times do I have to tell you that I am not a "lefty"? I dont blindly follow any political party or ideaology.
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
It's alot like when you complain that the unions are buying political favors. Except in this case, the corporation is getting those favors, and you (the taxpayer) are paying for it.
How dumb are you? What part of "loan" don't you understand? Ultimately, more taxpayers with jobs in Wisconsin helps everyone. Less people with jobs that aren't paying taxes doesn't help. Oh, and tell me what those unions are doing to bring jobs and companies to Wisconsin?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
I'll answer it.If it was woz with women, then you are poor, and she is just not that into you so don't trust what she says.In this case, Wisconsin is poor, and the corporation is just not that into you so don't trust what they say.
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with it. Just a different set of priorities. The money has to come from someplace though, even if it is temporary. Roll your eyes all you want, but it is still public money. TARP was designed to be a loan program for corporations to retain jobs and help corporations, yet it was viewed negatively as spending federal tax dollars on corporate welfare. I don't see this as any different except the scale. And, where is the money coming from. The governor kept telling the press they had hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, a "deficit crisis", that required he break the public unions and be granted numerous concessions from the benefits of public employees. I'm not understanding the financing on these deals for the corporations, if they don't have the money to loan them.Plus, it comes at the expense of a state education system. People in this discussion thread were complaining about the education system now. Wait until the blow back from this fight works its way through the education system there. How many teachers will leave? Who would want to work as a teacher in Wisconsin? How is Wisconsin going to create 250,000 good jobs of the future when they are rolling back resources to educate that workforce? Just questions that I don't see being answered.Like I said, different priorities. I'm having a hard time seeing the cost/benefit analysis of this working to Wisconsin's advantage at this point. I am glad you have faith the plan will work out well. I am also glad I don't have to worry that it won't.
I see you don't get it at all. TARP money wasn't about creating jobs. It was to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.The small amount of money that will be loaned to help create jobs in Wisconsin is small compared to the overall budget of the state including eduction.It is amazing what you lefties will whine about. Wisconsin is taking steps to get people back to work with good jobs and you just understand why that helps the state. Gaining jobs > losing jobs.More people paying taxes is better than fewer paying taxes while collecting unemployment.I'm done on this because this is something you will never understand.
How many times do I have to tell you that I am not a "lefty"? I dont blindly follow any political party or ideaology.
What's your excuse then for not understanding? :lmao:
 
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
No, I don't think I will brush up on it, but the deal does sound a bit better if it creates over 500 new jobs for a $500k loan. That's about $857/job. Are all 583 new jobs going to be an average of $34/hour? Are all 583 jobs brand new, or is it at the expense of another plant closing somewhere else other than Wisconsin?Plus, my calculations were a bit off on the $5B admittedly. Don't know what I did there. That's what you get for doing back of the envelop. Another $213M would do it? What was the Wisconsin deficit again? Still not sure where they get the money to loan out to corporations. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me too.
How can it be welfare when it is paid back? In addition when it is paid back there will be those jobs in place that were not there before with those companies also investing money that they didn't do before. More people will be employed, more will be paying taxes, jobs will be kept here and not leave the state and all of this will benefit the entire state. WTF is wrong with that? :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with it. Just a different set of priorities. The money has to come from someplace though, even if it is temporary. Roll your eyes all you want, but it is still public money. TARP was designed to be a loan program for corporations to retain jobs and help corporations, yet it was viewed negatively as spending federal tax dollars on corporate welfare. I don't see this as any different except the scale. And, where is the money coming from. The governor kept telling the press they had hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, a "deficit crisis", that required he break the public unions and be granted numerous concessions from the benefits of public employees. I'm not understanding the financing on these deals for the corporations, if they don't have the money to loan them.Plus, it comes at the expense of a state education system. People in this discussion thread were complaining about the education system now. Wait until the blow back from this fight works its way through the education system there. How many teachers will leave? Who would want to work as a teacher in Wisconsin? How is Wisconsin going to create 250,000 good jobs of the future when they are rolling back resources to educate that workforce? Just questions that I don't see being answered.Like I said, different priorities. I'm having a hard time seeing the cost/benefit analysis of this working to Wisconsin's advantage at this point. I am glad you have faith the plan will work out well. I am also glad I don't have to worry that it won't.
I see you don't get it at all. TARP money wasn't about creating jobs. It was to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.The small amount of money that will be loaned to help create jobs in Wisconsin is small compared to the overall budget of the state including eduction.It is amazing what you lefties will whine about. Wisconsin is taking steps to get people back to work with good jobs and you just understand why that helps the state. Gaining jobs > losing jobs.More people paying taxes is better than fewer paying taxes while collecting unemployment.I'm done on this because this is something you will never understand.
TARP money is recoverable once the assets are sold. The bailout loans for GM, GE, the banks and all the rest have been largely paid back. Many of the bailout loans were to retain jobs. All considered corporate welfare by a popular majority.All I am saying is that I don't think you are considering the all the variables beyond the jobs.
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
It's alot like when you complain that the unions are buying political favors. Except in this case, the corporation is getting those favors, and you (the taxpayer) are paying for it.
It's nothing at all like that.ETA - and are you arguing when the public union gets a favor the taxpayer does not pay for it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm glad my kids wont be going to school in Wisconsin 5 years from now.
I'm suprised you actually showed up again in this thread after getting completely :own3d: with your "good job" crap.
Owned?? When was I owned. My point was that he can say he will create jobs. If the jobs dont pay ####, they arent really worth it, are they?
Regardless if a job pays minimum wage or not, that person is no longer collecting unemployment from the state but they are now paying state income tax. Not all the jobs are going to pay $30/hr. You need a mix of all types of jobs.I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
So you are fine with a governor who says he will create so many jobs, even if said jobs only pay minimum wage?? Look, creating jobs is one thing but if you create 250,000 telemarketing jobs at minimum wage, I would say that's a big fail. Im not saying that is what your gov. is doing but it has been done before.If a job pays minimum wage it is "not" better then sitting home collecting unemployment. And you are calling me dense???
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
It's alot like when you complain that the unions are buying political favors. Except in this case, the corporation is getting those favors, and you (the taxpayer) are paying for it.
How dumb are you? What part of "loan" don't you understand? Ultimately, more taxpayers with jobs in Wisconsin helps everyone. Less people with jobs that aren't paying taxes doesn't help. Oh, and tell me what those unions are doing to bring jobs and companies to Wisconsin?
Educating people so they are smart enough to work those jobs. Every dollar spent in education has a considerable multiplier effect in the larger economy. A good education has also been shown to reduce crime and health care costs down the road.(Side note: cool it on the personal attacks on peoples' intelligence. I am trying to ignore it, but it is really getting old fast. There is no call for it.)
 
TARP money is recoverable once the assets are sold. The bailout loans for GM, GE, the banks and all the rest have been largely paid back. Many of the bailout loans were to retain jobs. All considered corporate welfare by a popular majority.All I am saying is that I don't think you are considering the all the variables beyond the jobs.
No, TARP wasn't designed to retain jobs.
The purpose of the TARP funds were to insure these assets, or purchase them, with the underlying goal being to save the institutions and give them a chance to repay the debt in due time. This would give the banks time to stabilize their balance sheets and recover without further losses.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/tarp-fund-38828.html
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
It's alot like when you complain that the unions are buying political favors. Except in this case, the corporation is getting those favors, and you (the taxpayer) are paying for it.
How dumb are you? What part of "loan" don't you understand? Ultimately, more taxpayers with jobs in Wisconsin helps everyone. Less people with jobs that aren't paying taxes doesn't help. Oh, and tell me what those unions are doing to bring jobs and companies to Wisconsin?
Educating people so they are smart enough to work those jobs. Every dollar spent in education has a considerable multiplier effect in the larger economy. A good education has also been shown to reduce crime and health care costs down the road.(Side note: cool it on the personal attacks on peoples' intelligence. I am trying to ignore it, but it is really getting old fast. There is no call for it.)
Really? That would be a good link for everyone to see showing dollars per capita spent on eduation and the unemployment rate and overall ranking of the states economy.
 
You forgot the part that there will be taxes after 2 years. You seem somewhat challenged so here is some help. 2 years of no taxes is much much less than the taxes that will be paid when the 2 year period expires. Now, can you say this word slowly...."investment". Look it up in the dictionary.
It's corporate welfare no matter what you say. Enjoy.... :lmao:
Let's say it is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare a bad idea in this case? Explain this to me like I'm woz with women.
Hi Johnny, I see you've returned to this thread. I'll bump my question for you.
It's alot like when you complain that the unions are buying political favors. Except in this case, the corporation is getting those favors, and you (the taxpayer) are paying for it.
It's nothing at all like that.ETA - and are you arguing when the public union gets a favor the taxpayer does not pay for it?
It's obvious Johnny doesn't understand that adding good jobs and keeping jobs is a good thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's obvious Johnny and El gatogrecko don't understand that adding good jobs and keeping jobs is a good thing.
I've missed chunks of this thread but from what I've seen ElGatoLoco seems to be keeping a relatively open mind and is simply asking questions. :shrug:johnnymac is in a special world with cr8f. I figure it will be another two pages of his 'facts' getting thoroughly destroyed then he'll vanish for awhile...and in another 10 or so pages he'll rehash the same arguments.
 
It's obvious Johnny and El gatogrecko don't understand that adding good jobs and keeping jobs is a good thing.
I've missed chunks of this thread but from what I've seen ElGatoLoco seems to be keeping a relatively open mind and is simply asking questions. :shrug:johnnymac is in a special world with cr8f. I figure it will be another two pages of his 'facts' getting thoroughly destroyed then he'll vanish for awhile...and in another 10 or so pages he'll rehash the same arguments.
From what I have seen I agree about johhny. Gato seems to think somewhat the same way about creating jobs and he's wrong about TARP but he definately is not at a level of johnny and cr8f.
 
WESU circulating boycott letters

By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel

Updated: March 30, 2011 12:04 p.m. |(794) Comments

Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.

If businesses fail to comply, the letter says, “Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members."

Jim Parrett, a field representative of Council 24 for Southeast Wisconsin, confirmed the contents of the letter, which carries his signature. But he added that the union was also circulating letters to businesses thanking them for supporting workers’ rights.

Parrett said that since the letters were sent out, he has received threatening phone calls as well as calls from people supporting the state workers.

"I've gotten a lot of threatening phone calls," Parrett said.

Parrett said he believed the letter campaign was going on in other parts of the state. His region includes Racine and Kenosha counties, as well as parts of Waukesha and Walworth counties.

“It’s going on in other parts of the state,” he said Wednesday.

Parrett referred questions to Marty Beil, the head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union. Beil was not immediately available for comment.

In the letter from Parrett to some businesses, he says that, “It is unfortunate that you have chosen ‘not’ to support public workers rights in Wisconsin. In recent past weeks you have been offered a sign by a public employee who works in one of the state facilities in the Union Grove area. These signs simply said, ‘This Business Supports Workers Rights,’ a simple, subtle and we feel non-controversial statement gives the facts at this time.”

Parrett said a number of WSEU locals in his region represent more than 1,300 union workers who have a combined yearly income of more than $56 million.

“The recent actions taken on the governor’s budget repair bill have taken more from workers than dollars. It took away our right to bargain things such as: sick leave and how it is used, vacation and how it is used, overtime and how it is ‘fairly’ distributed. Our grievance procedure has been virtually destroyed. These are things that make life working in a 24/7 facility tolerable,” Parrett wrote in the letter.

Parrett adds in the letter: "State employees fully expect to take some lumps financially in these tough economic times, we have offered and we will. But don't take away rights to what has kept workplace peace for half a century and has worked well."

Terri Gray, executive director of the Union Grove Chamber of Commerce, said she had received many calls from member businesses about the union-led effort. She said most of the calls came from businessmen and women who preferred to remain neutral in the dispute between Gov. Scott Walker and organized labor.

"They don't want to pick a side," she said. "I told them, 'I believe you can choose to not choose.'"

Gray said the campaign appeared to have started a day or two ago. She said she didn't know whether the sign campaign was having an impact.

Asked Wednesday about the boycott effort, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said "that any nonviolent tactic used to get attention to the steamroller tactics it seems to me are reasonable. I encourage people to remain nonviolent and disciplined in their protests."

Asked if he supported boycott efforts in Wisconsin, Jackson did not directly endorse them.

He said: The best way to resolve conflict is when everybody is at the table and they can negotiate through some rational institutional process."
Union strong arm tactics and bullying at it's best.
 
Union strong arm tactics and bullying at it's best.r
That's not "bullying" or "strong-arm". You should do some research.
:confused: what would you call it?They are telling them .. Do what we say or you will lose money.
They are telling them that they may decide to not conduct business with them. Perfectly reasonable, legal and acceptable. Influential? Yes. Strong-arm bullying? not even close.

They aren't physically accosting them.

They aren't vandalizing their business.

They aren't intimidating their customers.

You can ask anyone you want to not use Wal-mart for its business practices or political affiliations, that's not bullying or strong arm. Neither is asking Wal-mart to change its practices or affiliations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see this needs explained to you again. First you asked if any jobs were created and you were :own3d: then you proceed to ask if they were "good jobs".1. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize the companies that have said they are adding jobs that those jobs would be "good" jobs. I suggest you do some reading on those companies if you think you can handle that.2. Even if a job pays minimum wage it is better than a person sitting at home collecting unemployment. 3. The more people working is better for the economy.You really should stop this because you look like a fool everytime you whine..."is it a good job?" :rolleyes:
I didn't read any of the original discussion in which you claimed to have owned him, but why is it a poor question? Particularly if you consider your argument about a minimum wage job.If you work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks you make about $15k gross -- that is no holidays or vacations. Fifteen thousand dollars is just above the poverty line for a family of two, and it is about $3k below the poverty line for a family of three. I can think of a lot of circumstances where a minimum wage job, which is below a living wage, might not be considered a good job for a family or even an individual. Does your common sense do math?
If you had followed the discussion when examples were given of companies expanding in Wisconsin it was obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the jobs were more than minimum wage jobs and "GOOD JOBS"!
If minimum wage jobs don't help your argument, why would you bring it up?Ok. With that 105 jobs this one company will be assuring then 4 in 10,000 jobs (of the 250,000 the Governor promised) would be good paying jobs. With the low interest loan of $500k and opportunity cost of two years of tax revenue. Are there any more examples other than this? Are there any jobs the government is creating that doesn't cost taxpayer money? I only ask because if all 250,000 jobs created are going to cost that much, Wisconsin might have another deficit problem. I guess I am wondering if the State of Wisconsin has five billion dollars to loan out to these companies. I think the Governor over reached on his promise to create all those good jobs. Does every person in Wisconsin pay the $1,000 per person to the state government or can they loan it directly to the corporations bypassing the middle man? It sounds like another corporate bailout, especially with so many corporations not spending their profits these days.
I suggest you brush up on this. Yes, there are more examples of companies adding jobs including Stoughton Trailers. The project will create up to 302 new full-time positions in Evansville and another 176 new positions in the Stoughton and Brodhead plants, as well. The project will also retain 614 jobs throughout the state. Stoughton Trailers will invest nearly $11 million in new equipment, training and working capital.Catalyst Exhibits Inc. will be investing $2.5 million in Wisconsin with the move there.
Ok, so we have 1197 new and or existing jobs. Only another 248803 to go. I wonder how much Scott is going to have to give away to get those jobs???
You are not counting the 137500 jobs he saved...
 
who cares if the state gives companies that relocate here a two year tax break?

They already weren't paying taxes here. So they go two more years without paying any taxes here.

so...500k for 100 jobs and some future tax revenue?

Sounds like jonnymac didn't really think this through...

 
Union strong arm tactics and bullying at it's best.
That's not "bullying" or "strong-arm". You should do some research.
My apologies. Would you prefer thuggery? Black-mail? Bribery? Extortion?
Your level of Hyperbole is unmatched. And wrong again on all accounts.Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

Bribery a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient.

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

They may choose to not use those business' for whatever reason they want. That's a freedom of choice we allow here in America.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Union strong arm tactics and bullying at it's best.
That's not "bullying" or "strong-arm". You should do some research.
My apologies. Would you prefer thuggery? Black-mail? Bribery? Extortion?
Your level of Hyperbole is unmatched. And wrong again on all accounts.Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

Bribery a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient.

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

They may choose to not use those business' for whatever reason they want. That's a freedom of choice we allow here in America.
And this is the reason that union busting is so popular in the us right now...Call it what you will, I will call it the beginning of the end of support for unions...

 
Union strong arm tactics and bullying at it's best.
That's not "bullying" or "strong-arm". You should do some research.
My apologies. Would you prefer thuggery? Black-mail? Bribery? Extortion?
Your level of Hyperbole is unmatched. And wrong again on all accounts.Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

Bribery a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient.

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

They may choose to not use those business' for whatever reason they want. That's a freedom of choice we allow here in America.
at least you guys agree on thuggery
 
Union strong arm tactics and bullying at it's best.
That's not "bullying" or "strong-arm". You should do some research.
My apologies. Would you prefer thuggery? Black-mail? Bribery? Extortion?
Your level of Hyperbole is unmatched. And wrong again on all accounts.Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

Bribery a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient.

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

They may choose to not use those business' for whatever reason they want. That's a freedom of choice we allow here in America.
at least you guys agree on thuggery
:lol: :hifive:
 
19. "Rhiannon" by Fleetwood Mac

Quite possibly the best song ever written about a Welsh god (at least until Justin Beiber comes up with something about Blodeuwedd or the Black Eyed Peas sing about Pryderi). Epic and haunting, to this day I still wonder, "Did she ever win?".

 
And this is the reason that union busting is so popular in the us right now...
Because a group of like-minded people decide to not make use of business based upon their practices. :rolleyes: Lots of like-minded people decided not to buy Citgo gas because of its Hugo Chavez connection, which is pretty damn reasonable and perfectly acceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And this is the reason that union busting is so popular in the us right now...
Because a group of like-minded people decide to not make use of bushiness based upon their practices. :rolleyes: Lots of like-minded people decided not to buy Citgo gas because of its Hugo Chavez connection, which is pretty damn reasonable and perfectly acceptable.
It's not based upon their practices. It's based upon forcing the businesses to support the union.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top