Business move about because of tax breaks all the time, it is a very common practice. We
had two large corporations set up in my community, tax breaks being given, building built,
people employed, taxes raised from people working and their income being taxed. Everyone
happy, company getting stuff built and sold, people getting jobs and making money,
government stealing money from employees to spend on worthless projects.
Tax break time ends, ( one in 7 years other in 10 years) company leaves as those that do
not understand tax breaks, feel it is giving money to the evil company. Company has a very
simple business model, all papered out to make a profit with the tax breaks in place,
without them, business is less profitable and leaves ( went to the state next door).
Now, people unemployed, less wages coming in, less taxable income, less money for
government to spend on useless projects. Not sure why willg has problem understanding
this, it is Economics 101.
Business will go where they can do business the cheapest.
As for government, ours has no fiscal sense, as vandeg pointed out. Same thing happened
here, "stimulus money" waved in front of the local government, " Oohhh ! Money ! Well, we
can not afford the project, but if we do not take the federal money, we will not get it"
Its like the blonde that tells her husband, " But dear I saved money, these shoes were
on sale!"

I don't really think walker was bluffing. Could have been but unlikely.

Was he politically motivated to attack the unions? Perhaps but regardless he said he was
going to do it during the election and he at least followed through with one thing he said
he would do.

Yes most of the problems in my opinion that we have come from our open election donations.
Which is why our government unions are in trouble now. Most of the unions under attack are
government unions and had successfully convinced politicians through financial
contributions and votes to give them ridiculously cushy contracts.

Non union workers look at it and go wtf. He makes more then me, pays almost nothing for
his benefits and because he is a gov worker I have to foot his bill? Thus they have voted
in guys like walker who have promised to even the field and ease the burden on non-union
workers.

But mostly we are talking about public employees whose pensions, benefits and pensions
come from the tax payers.

"Look at wisconsin. They where either going to pass this bill or fire thousands of
employees. "

No, Walker threated to fire people if it didn't pass. It had nothing to do with the
budget. It had everything to do with the politics.

I just don't understand how you can have your politicians openly funded though. Surely
common sense dictates they will do what their contributors want them to do rather than
what is best for the people?

I don't think equal coverage is "commie" thinking but having some sort of advantage is
a great thing. I personally think it should be a set limit on funds each candidate can use
and that if people wish to support they can use their own money as they see fit without
the candidate touching it. Like if a private citizen wishes to pull ads in media or put up a
sign in their yard.

I don't like that presidential candidates pulling in billions of dollars from people who
then get put into political positions such as ambassadors, czars, assistants, etc...

If at all, let a president candidate get funds that are anonymous which would prevent
some sort of semi-legal corruption.

As for people pulling party lines, its sad fact that in the US its mostly a "us" vs "them"
mentality. If its not that its choosing the lesser evil in a election, which is a pain.

Call me a commie but also give each hopeful a set limit of media coverage in addition
to funding solely provided by the public. The office seekers can use their time and
money to serve whatever strategy they wish to pursue. Fame and name recognition
come with the perils of fame and name recognition. Good honest people would have
a much better chance of serving public office.

Either that or take public office selection away from the public completely. A lottery
selection amongst qualified individuals (criteria: sanity, criminal background,
education, etc), when selected they can accept or refuse the office. With no 6+
month election cycle to waste everybody's time you could have people in office for as
little as 2 years in some positions.

All these proposals are pipe dreams though. It'll take a revolution or a benevolent
military coup to instate them in the US.

Yup outlaw parties and to go even farther outlaw the use of private funds to be used in
federal elections. Term limits would be good too.

Moderates get culled first when the American pendulum swings from liberal to
conservative or vice versa. We need to completely outlaw political parties in the US
to enable more free thinking and allow compromises. Term limits for everyone would
also help enormously. If you only have two four year terms to make your mark
you're more focused. Less career building and election paranoia.

Ban lobbying and replace it with a formal public proposal support system. Corruption
should be punished by sentences served in federal pound my a&$ prison.

I do support unions, on the whole they're a force for good in my opinion. I distrust
corporations, how many make millions or billions in profits and don't even bother to
give their bottom line cost of living raises?

@kings
I wouldn't bet on who is voting for who. I for instance am a independent. I hate the
political parties in our country for exactly the reason you just said. Most people will
vote party line regardless of who the candidate is.

But please don't insult people because they disagree with you on seriously complex issues
with no right or wrong answer.

Could always cut NAFTA and sink the ships off the coast producing furniture amongst other
things entering port every 3 months, re stocking and going back to sea. Working in
International waters in terrible conditions once again.

Majority of the American products are still American. 60% of the Chinese imported products
were American Corporations. No matter what "tax" break you give them you can't beat 1$ an
hour wage, with little to no workers rights, little to no safety net. A free market is
awesome, providing your sitting on top looking down at everyone.

The more I read into American views via this and other forums/articles it's easy to see,
your either ultra left or ultra right. No one seems to be split on topics and care about
who they vote for. Either you vote Republican or Democratic despite whats being said by
the those up for election. When one party screws up and angers the country the other one
gets voted in. You guys desperately need a moderate party, then again I don't think some
of you are intelligent enough to realize you need to give them a voice.

@will
If you affect their bottom line they will attempt to recoup. That's just basic business
sense or greed however you wish to look at it.

If you consider them greedy and corrupt then why wouldn't you think they would make cuts
or streamline as they call it to get back what the gov attempted to take.

Look at wisconsin. They where either going to pass this bill or fire thousands of employees.



The whole system is connected like the tides of the ocean. If you tax one end to give to
the other or lower taxes the system will attempt to equalize. Currently we need jobs more
then taxes. So figuring out a way to get businesses to grow is key.