Wisconsin governor explains difference between us and them

While addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference this week,Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker explained the differences between Democrats and Republicans, between liberals and conservatives: 

“We have a president who measures success in government by how many people are dependent on the government. We should measure success by just the opposite. By how many people are no longer dependent on the government. …
“You see, here in America, there’s a reason we celebrate the 4th of July, and not April 15. Because in America we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on it.”

That is why ObamaCare, ObamaNet, executive orders and other controlling efforts from Washington are opposed by principled Americans.


64 comments on “Wisconsin governor explains difference between us and them

  1. Rincon says:

    Leaving 40 or 50 million Americans uninsured was the Conservatives’ alternative. Unacceptable.

  2. nyp says:

    Here is an idea: instead of measuring success by “how many people are dependent on government,” why not measure success by how many people are healthy, prosperous, economically mobile, well-educated, etc.?

  3. Uninsured is not the same as untreated.

  4. Robert Berggren says:

    I am told that Boss Moss is gone.”My work here is done,” he no doubt said to himself.

  5. nyp says:

    Uninsured usually means untreated.

  6. nyp says:

    Remember Sheriff Richard Mack? He was the founder of the “Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association.” Big supporter of Clive Bundy. Voracious opponent of health reform which, like you, he considers to be an abomination. In fact, he apparently refused to sign up for an insurance plan on healthcare.gov, even after he left his job and became self-employed.

    Turns out that Sheriff Mack (and his wife) now have serious health issues that landed them both in the hospital. And no insurance to pay for their very expensive medical care. He and his wife are reduced to begging for handouts over the internet.
    If you would like to donate a few dollars to this opponent of decent affordable health insurance for all Americans, feel free to visit his handout site:

    But please don’t give me that bullshit about how uninsured does not mean untreated.

  7. Winston Smith says:

    Dependency and control go hand in hand. Always have, always will…

    “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too.” – Somerset Maugham

  8. Barbara says:

    Thanks to the “death panels” those over age 75 will not longer receive treatment they use to receive under Medicare. According to my mother’s cardiologist, pace makers will not longer be covered under Medicare if you are older than 75, and according to the surgeon who performed my sisters cancer surgery, certain cancer procedures were also not covered for those over age 75.

    However, an illegal alien found to have cancer will receive full treatment at UCLA. Now, I don’t begrudge the illegal alien his treatment, but I congratulate him that he wasn’t over 75;.

    As you know, I have joined the ranks of the uninsured thanks to the ACA. My recent treatment would have cost at least 60 percent more (according to the medical personnel) had I taken the crappy insurance policy with it’s high deductible.

    The ACA was not passed to help people, but to control them.

  9. Rincon says:

    Old system cost the nation 40% more per person than any other nation, to enable us to land around 26th in longevity and child mortality. It also managed to cause some 70% of all bankruptcies, but by God, it didn’t engage in the blasphemy of socialism. Praise the old system! Give me a hallelujah brothers!

  10. Barbara says:

    There was needed reform, but the Democrats didn’t allow for ANY input from Republicans. Even the Democrats, according to Pelosi, didn’t know what was in the bill. Hopefully, the Supremes will strike down the subsidy for those states which did not set up exchanges forcing the law to be revised with much needed reforms.

  11. nyp says:

    Barbara: your paranoid allegations about Medicare denying you coverage for for pacemakeres and cancer surgery after age 75 are completely and utterly insane.
    See, e.g., http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp

    For the sake of your daughter, if nothing else, I implore you to reconsider your refusal to take advantage of the tax credits available at healthcare.gove. Those credits are no different from the generous tax subsidies every American enrolled under an employer plan already receives, and are little different from the generous government subsidies people like Thomas Mitchell enjoy under Medicare.

  12. Barbara says:

    NYP: Your reference is from 2012. Talk to a doctor today and you will find indeed that Medicare no longer pays for pacemakers or certain cancer procedures for someone 75 and over. These doctors have no reason to lie. My mother is over age 75 and already has a pacemaker, and my sister is only 63 and her surgery was paid for less her deductible of $4000 due to her crappy ACA compliant policy. Prior to ACA, her deductible was $400.

    As far as the tax credits, I hear over 800,000 people were given wrong information by the government and may not be eligible for the credits they were originally told.

  13. nyp says:

    Barbara – that is insane. completely insane. You are spreading harmful urban legends. If any doctors are repeating such misinformation they should be ashamed of themselves.

    And I urge you again to look into the generous tax credits available to you and your daughter at healthcare.gov.

    You really do not want to end up like that Sheriff who has to beg for handouts to cover his hospital bills.

  14. Steve says:


    CNN is not wrong. You are spreading dangerous misinformation.


  15. Steve says:

    Weren’t THESE PEOPLE, the ones you guys ACA was supposed to “help” (instead of the big bad insurance conglomerates it really helped)


  16. Rincon says:

    “There was needed reform, but the Democrats didn’t allow for ANY input from Republicans.” Unless we’re living in different universes, the Republicans made it clear in the beginning that they would try to shoot down any attempt by Obama at changing health care. The Republicans did manage to shoot Hillary down in 1993. During the last 50 years of our failing medical system, the Republicans made exactly zero reform attempts of their own. They and their business contributors were quite happy with the old system. I do fault Obama though, for not incorporating some very valid Republican ideas, such as malpractice reform.

  17. Barbara says:

    I don’t agree with the government being involved in health care in any way. Besides the constitutional and economic issues, It fosters a feeling of dependence instead of moral clarity. NYP’s attitude toward Sheriff Mack is that he “has to beg for handouts to cover his hospital bills.” This may be true, but before government stepped in to control people from cradle to grave, there was more individual responsibility not just to ones own family, but to your neighbors and friends as well. Now people no longer feel compelled to take care of each other. Their attitude is “let the government do it”, “it’s not my responsibility” etc. Americans are still the most charitable people because we are blessed and have so much, but I see our culture changing and peoples attitudes changing in a not so good way.

  18. nyp says:

    Barbara – so:
    1. you think Medicare should be abolished.
    2. you think that people who get seriously sick, run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and do not have insurance should depend on charity.

    I happen to disagree. And I remind you that the government is inextricably involved in every aspect of healthcare, including those of which you are now aware. The employer-sponsored health plan that I subscribe to is government-subsidized, because the benefits I receive from my employer are not treated as income. The Medicare that Thomas Mitchell avails himself of is heavily government subsidized. VA hospitals and other VA healthcare systems are, of course, government subsidized. Every single hospital is subject to government licensing and certification.

    that is not because “the government” (i.e., us) wants to control things; it is because market principles do not really work in the
    world of healthcare. The market for healthcare is not like the market for potato chips or smartphones. By refusing to look into the generous benefits available to you and your daughter on healthcare.gov, you are doing yourselves both a tremendous disservice, all because of a misapprehension.

  19. Steve says:

    Nyp, employer sponsored heath benefits were, are and remain, a result of government overreach and control. Benefits like these and others were a direct response to the federal government enacting wage controls.
    Now, YOU and your peeps want to climb into these bits of remaining things not controlled and taxed by your money hungry politicians.

  20. nyp says:

    so you want to eliminate the deductability of employer-sponsored health insurance benefits.


  21. Vernon Clayson says:

    Everytime I read something from nyp I feel nauseous, if that becomes universal it might be something to seek government grants. Case study: Elderly individual feels nauseous reading socialist BS, seeks input, especially those that believe Obamcare is something for nothing, that the benefits are generous, and that faraway government bureaucrats knows what is best for individuals from actuarial tables.

  22. Steve says:

    “so you want to eliminate the deductability of employer-sponsored health insurance benefits.”

    Shows what you really don’t know (or understand) about the subject.

    Employer sponsored health coverage is pre tax. Hence it is already not deductible!!!!

    Man, Nyp,,,, you provide free entertainment every day! And it’s worth every penny!

  23. Barbara says:

    NYP – I don’t know why you think I haven’t “looked into the generous benefits available to you and your daughter”. I told you I shopped for health insurance and decided it was stupid to pay $500 per month for a $6600 deductible (per person) plan. I do not consider this “generous” benefits. I don’t want a subsidy based on my income and probably wouldn’t qualify anyway. I could afford $500 per month; it’s just that I choose to spend this $6000 on dental work instead of health insurance. I believe Obamacare is unworkable and will be changed this year. Hope springs eternal! Next year, God willing, my daughter and I will have quality insurance and I will have my teeth fixed as well. I have increased my medical coverage on my auto insurance in case we are involved in an auto accident, so unless we have a catastrophic event, we should be okay. I am able to pay for day to day medical expenses just fine, and should my savings be exhausted, I have three credit cards (0 balances) with $9K to $15K limits for emergencies. This is called money management, and people generally afford what they want to afford. If I could have kept the policy I had last year I would have, but to pay $6000 in monthly payments and then have to pay a $6600 deductible before accessing insurance is not a good risk/reward benefit for us this year. I pray daily for continued good health.

    Now as for Medicare – my preference would have been that it would not have been started in the first place. Now that it is and people have planned their life around it, we’ll have to continue it for those on it or close to age 65. I am fully aware that government is ” inextricably involved in every aspect of healthcare”. I am also aware that without this government involvement, costs would be lower. A truly free market in healthcare and insurance (selling across state lines, malpractice reform) would help lower costs even more. And the tax code should not be involved at all either. Giving tax breaks distorts the market and fosters mispricing.

  24. nyp says:

    From the Tax Policy Center: “Employers’ payments covering premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. Any portion of premiums paid by the employee is typically excluded from taxable income and is therefore also tax-free, although some employers require employees to pay their share of premiums out of after-tax income. The exclusion of premiums lowers most workers’ tax bills and thus reduces their after-tax cost of health insurance coverage. This effective tax subsidy is a major reason why most Americans have health insurance coverage through either their own employer or that of a family member.”

  25. nyp says:

    Barbara: you believe Medicare should be phased out because 75 year-olds should have no trouble finding insurance companies willing to sell them affordable healthcare policies. You also believe that insurers should be allowed to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
    I think that those are both really, really bad ideas — as bad as your refusal to look into the tax subsidies available to you at healthcare.gov. Let’s hope you and your daughter don’t end up like Sheriff Mack.

  26. Steve says:

    “From the Tax Policy Center:”

    Exactly….not deductible!

    Thanks for proving my statement!

  27. nyp says:

    I am happy to acknowledge that instead of saying that insurance premiums paid in connection with employer-sponsored are deductable, I should have instead said that they are 100% tax-free.

  28. Rincon says:

    Making health coverage tax free for some people and not others is ludicrous. Employer sponsored health insurance is a form of income and deserves to be taxed like all other income. Better still, get rid of employer sponsored health coverage altogether. Health coverage should not be linked to the employer at all. For that matter, if we ever manage to get universal health care, then we should get rid of workman’s comp. too. Health coverage should be determined by the individual, not his employer. It also has to be able to move intact if the employer changes.

  29. Steve says:

    Again incorrect, Nyp. Employer sponsored health benefits are not 100% tax EXEMPT because one must first be employed. Thereby paying taxes…. all that happens is my tax liability is lessened. Of course in your convoluted math, I am earning more than I am now… but my bank account tells me otherwise,,,freakish! I can’t figure out how you get more money from a lessening of the tax liability as opposed to getting rid of the exemption.
    These benefits are only one of several employer provided benefits for some…my company vehicle is a tax exempt benefit because it is dedicated to work related use…CPA has told me that alone is worth $8,000 a year.
    Company provided housing is another tax exempt benefit for some. Like the oil workers had in North Dakota…Are you guys trying say these should all be taxed or taken away?
    If so,,,lots’a luck! And break a leg.

  30. Nyp says:

    I have never advocated taking that away, although Barbara does

  31. Steve says:

    Barbara? Nope. She calls for getting Government out of the benefit business.
    Rincon is the one adding his voice to you guys calling for a government takeover of employer sponsored benefits.

  32. Rincon says:

    Unless something changed in the last year or two, nobody pays income tax on the dollars spent on employer sponsored health insurance. That, by definition, is tax exempt. The tax exemption for a company vehicle is completely different. If a person must pay auto expenses in order to make other money, then those expenses are a cost of doing business. Health care clearly is not. If oil company employee housing is tax deductible, then add on yet another subsidy to our oil industry.

  33. Steve says:

    “nobody pays income tax on the dollars spent on employer sponsored health insurance. ”
    But to be employed in the first place one MUSTY be paying income tax, Rincon. This is what makes it not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TAX EXEMPT. The benefit is not taxed but I cannot get the benefit unless I pay some tax.
    The benefit simply reduces my tax liability.

    Eastman Kodak used to have a huge company housing village in Rochester, Rincon. I used North Dakota only a one example of another untaxed benefit.

  34. Rincon says:

    The person receiving the company insurance is not tax exempt. Who ever said they were? The BENEFIT is tax exempt. As for company housing: “Some employers offer free or discounted housing to their employees. The Internal Revenue Service considers employer-provided lodging as a fringe benefit, and its value is usually taxable.” http://smallbusiness.chron.com/taxability-employerprovided-lodging-21478.html

    I suggest you have a professional do your taxes.

  35. Barbara says:

    I suggest we go to a flat tax and abolish the IRS.

  36. nyp says:

    Great idea. Why should Steve Wynn have to pay a higher tax rate than the woman who cleans his toilets? What’s the fairness in that?
    Plus, if we abolish the IRS, tax payments would be voluntary. Likely to lead to higher rates of tax compliance.

  37. Barbara says:

    What rate should Wynn pay?

  38. nyp says:

    I don’t know enough to have an opinion on the specific bracketing of tax rates. And it depends on economic conditions at particular times. But as a general matter I believe that Steve Wynn should pay a higher tax rate than the woman who cleans his toilets.

  39. Steve says:

    Rincon, note the qualifier in your statement about employer provided housing. The word “usually” should be a clue.

    And I never said I have that particular benefit.

  40. Rincon says:

    Steve Wynn should pay a rate midway between what he would have paid in 1970 and what he pays today. Come to think of it, what he would have paid in 1970 seemed to work. We didn’t have the ultrarich roaming the streets in search of a meal back then.

  41. Steve says:


    After being shown the meaning of the phrase “the rich” …..Rincon coins a new qualifier!

  42. Rincon says:

    I don’t recall having been shown the meaning of “the rich” Enlighten me.

  43. Steve says:

    You made a comment (in reply to Winston):
    Rincon says:
    February 27, 2015 at 7:49 pm
    The rich…

    I replied with:
    Steve says:
    February 28, 2015 at 11:16 am
    You know who “the rich” are, or, don’t you?

  44. Rincon says:

    My definition of “the rich” differs from yours. The top 5 or 10% might be called the rich. The ultrarich sounds like a synonym for the top 1% to me. My comment stands. The top 1%, 5%, or 10% were all doing just fine in 1970. The tax rates at the time didn’t even seem to hurt Jed Clampett all that much.

  45. Steve says:

    Well…my definition appears to be the definition used by a large, vocal, majority of the left on a regular basis.
    Perhaps you could influence a few of them to consider your definition.

  46. Athos says:

    rin, you’re letting the green eyed monster consume you. “Back then, in 1970” the “rich” had tax loopholes and expensive trust lawyers that shielded them from the major hit that you envious people dream on..

    The bulk of the taxes were paid by poor slobs like me working 72 hours a week in the mill. I know it goes against your religion, but Reagan had it right to lower ALL the tax brackets.

    What we should do now is abolish the 16th amendment, shut down the IRS and go with the FAIR tax.

  47. Well said Athos…couldn’t agree more!

  48. Rincon says:

    Hey Athos! Where have you been? Nice to have you back. But on to business:

    In 1985,the earliest Forbes list I could find said Sam Walton was the richest man in the world, valued at about $6.08 billion in today’s money. In 2014, in today’s dollars, he would rank #228 on the list. Please explain how the 227th richest person in the world could be worth more than #1 in 1985 while the average wage has barely budged? Especially if #227 is paying more in taxes than #1 in 1985? Somehow, I suspect a lot of those rich people in 1985 paid higher taxes, not lower as you say. The number of loopholes has increased dramatically since 1980, starting with the capital gains loophole, which didn’t exist in at that time.

    The FAIR tax has its share of problems. First, to replace the income tax et al, the percentage would need to be very high, which would encourage black market sales and bartering. In addition, what would be taxable? Would both a gold necklace and a gold coin be taxable? What if you buy something for use in a business? How about if you buy a collectable such as a painting? Or if you buy part of a company, i.e., stock? It would also distort capitalism. Hiring a service to cut your lawn may suddenly be more economical than buying your own lawn mower for example. Doing household jobs yourself would continue to decline because tools would become much more expensive. On the plus side though, maybe it would keep all of us from buying so much junk that we don’t need.

  49. Athos says:

    Hello, Rinny. Been busy doing stuff, and couldn’t get here as much as I like. The FAIR tax DOES has it’s share of problems, but it accomplishes many things that are a vast improvement over our current system (IRS):

    1. Everybody would be affected! The “spread the money around” crowd would be spreading their own money around! (and may have more people looking into why our DC tyrants spend so much).

    2. It cuts at least ONE government entity from having all our personal information.

    3. It ends the unconstitutional Tax Courts and restores some of our sovereign rights. (Ever been to tax court?)

  50. Rincon says:

    I like the idea of getting the government’s eyes out of our finances, but I’m not sure it can be done without eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Eliminating the unstoppable power of the tax courts would be a great accomplishment as well. Part of the FAIR tax problem could be eliminated by reducing government expenses, thereby reducing the FAIR tax percentage. Easier said than done, but a worthwhile goal. It could also be made smaller by adding a few other small taxes as well. A small fossil fuel tax would help get us off foreign oil. A 1/4 cent per share stock trading tax would reduce destructive microsecond trading. My favorite, just for you, is a tax on sugar and refined carbohydrates to reduce the wimpification of America. And a fair estate tax would help as well. Legalizing and taxing drugs would help too. With all of these, it just might be feasible to eliminate the income tax after all.

  51. Steve says:

    As it stands now the estate tax is a lib favorite….for real.

    The estate tax, or inheritance tax, hits only those “ultrarich” (A Rincon coined word!) The rest of us pay zero on the cost basis. If we grow the money we pay tax on it at a 15% capital gains rate if we pay a tax rate greater than 15% on our regular income. Most middle income people won’t pay tax on this inheritance.
    People in the 39% bracket pay a 20% capital gain rate.
    This is when selling stock from or reporting dividends on inherited investments.
    (I will be seeing a CPA later this year…when done with the disbursement portion of the estate, but I think I, reasonably, understand what I have been reading.)

    BUT the best thing you libs should be happy about is those “ultrarich” being taxed on the actual inherited money at 40% when the estate is worth 5.43 MILLION dollars and above. Then they get taxed on growth from the remainder at 20% when they access it! I would call THAT double jeopardy, for sure.

    You really want to take money out of the average person’s inheritance, Rincon? Because that is what you would be saying by making that tax more “fair”, as it stands now your “ultrarich” are the only ones who pay an estate tax.

    AS an aside:
    IRA’s are a totally different beast…the feds grab the deferred taxes from them at the beneficiaries current tax rate based on the minimum required distributions.
    Hint, to prevent this, assign no beneficiaries so the estate becomes the automatic owner of whatever is left in your IRA.
    Mom had both kinds,,,the estate pays no taxes on the one with no beneficiaries but the other had a beneficiary and had to be transferred to an “inherited” IRA account which must distribute at least the minimum required amount each year. That amount them becomes part of the beneficiary’s regular taxable income. It is figured on the beneficiary’s life expectancy and the size of the inherited IRA. Do not assign any beneficiaries to any IRA’s and this problem goes away.
    IRA’s are tricky. If I were to lose my job and we had no income, I would use that account for living and paying bills because the tax rate would be very low…maybe even low enough to get a return!

    Gotta love the complexities of our tax laws.

    But the fact remains, Rincon, only your “ultrarich” actually pay estate, or inheritance, tax. AND that is taxed at 40% then taxed again at 20% capital gains.

  52. Rincon says:

    Do we agree that any estate valued at less than 5,340,000 is subject to no estate tax? That’s how it sounds in Wikipedia. If so, then that’s part of the problem. An inheritance is income and should be taxed a such. This would remove a lot of the complexity from our tax laws. I’m sure you also realize that estates over 5,430,000 have estate plans designed by professionals to avoid the inheritance tax. I don’t claim to understand it, but it involves the use of trusts. The question is, how much inheritance tax do the rich really pay? As with income tax, I’ll bet it’s not much.

  53. Steve says:

    I am actually fine with estate taxes being the way they are now.
    The only ones subject to any tax are your “ultra rich” and the rest of us aren’t taxed on the original inherited money at all. You want to tax all of us and I would keep taxing the “ultra rich”….
    All the left claims is its conservatives who keep taxing the middle class, in this example it appears to be reversed.
    Does that make you the conservative and me the liberal?

  54. Rincon says:

    Not quite. I believe in a graduated income tax, but I don’t believe junior should get his parents’ money without paying tax. Hell, anyone who worked to help them by repairing their home for example, would be taxed. Why shouldn’t Junior be taxed if all he does is sit on his butt and collect a check?

  55. Steve says:

    In this example, you try to equate money staying within the house to money leaving the house.

    This is the difference. You would tax the money left under the pillow from the tooth fairy?

  56. Rincon says:

    Sounds like the Mafia. If you’re “family”, you’re treated differently than the outsiders. Tell me, why should we heavily tax the people that make our society function with their labor, and then fail completely to tax those whose money drops into their laps? Perhaps a more reasonable tax on each group is in order.

  57. Athos says:

    The power to tax is the power to destroy. Tax EVERYONE!(Fair tax!)

    But if our elite rulers are out to “social engineer” their “beloved subjects”, then by all means, have a tax code of 73,000 pages.

  58. Rincon says:

    One of the best ways to reduce the complexity of the tax code is to eliminate all deductions, including IRA’s, 401K’s, etc.

  59. Steve says:

    “IRA’s, 401K’s”
    These are not deductible because they are DEFERRED. This means tax will be paind on the money…in the future when the owner retires.

  60. Rincon says:

    OK with me. Keep the IRA”s, 401K’s, etc. Just get rid of all the other deductions.

  61. Steve says:

    “the other deductions.”

    Estate law EXEMPTS tax liability from the proceeds…there are no “deductions” since the money (at the cost basis) is NOT taxable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s