Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday May 18 2015, @12:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the right-to-shirk dept.

AlterNet reports:

Illinois governor Bruce Rauner watched his anti-union bill called, "Right-To-Work", die a swift, cruel death in the House [May 14]. [...] The the tally [PDF] was 0 yes votes, 72 no votes, and 37 voting present.

Fun with math: The Illinois House has 118 members.

A handful of Republicans went for a walk during the vote, not publicly falling on one side or another.

Source: Chicago Sun Times

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by spamdog on Monday May 18 2015, @12:51AM

    by spamdog (4335) on Monday May 18 2015, @12:51AM (#184238)

    tl;dr - Thanks Obama!

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @01:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @01:33AM (#184247)

    Are you blaming the most recent guy for something in particular?
    ...or are you being partisan and giving the other big party a free pass?

    To find a president that isn't/wasn't Neoliberal (cozy with the elite class at the expense of workers), you have to go back to Ike.
    Under Eisenhower, the marginal tax on the uber-rich was 91 percent.
    Under JFK, that was dropped to 70 percent.

    ...or were you trying to say something entirely different?
    ...or don't you know for sure?
    (Your words and the GP's don't seem to correlate.)

    -- gewg_

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:06AM (#184257)

      We get it, jewg_. You didn't vote for the most recent guy. You only vote for losers who you know will lose, so you can take the moral high ground. Lofty enough for you up there? Sure you don't want deification for your holiness?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:30AM (#184267)

        I'm not sure why you seem to be mocking him because he supposedly doesn't vote for evil scumbags. I would think that is a positive course of action, surely?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:35AM (#184270)

          The only candidate I could see gewg_ voting for is Lev Bronshtein.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:36AM (#184271)

          "...so you can take the moral high ground."
          "...that is a positive course of action, surely?"

          You're proving the point of the post you're replying to.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:04AM (#184290)

      Under Eisenhower, the marginal tax on the uber-rich was 91 percent.

      And how many people paid this rate? I looked it up awhile back (too lazy now) and remember it was ~10 in the whole country. Everyone else somehow didn't make the cut. The point is that the actual funds collected under that scheme, you know what actually matters in practice, was very low.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 18 2015, @03:11AM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Monday May 18 2015, @03:11AM (#184296) Journal

      Under Eisenhower, the marginal tax on the uber-rich was 91 percent.
      Under JFK, that was dropped to 70 percent.

      It is not ethical to take the majority of anyone's income, even the very wealthy.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:40AM (#184318)

        ...because what you advocate worked so well in the 1920s ("Black Tuesday") and is working so well right now ("Austerity").
        Large concentrations of wealth are a recipe for disaster;
        when someone has way more money than he can realistically spend, the excess gets used to manipulate the system ("Citizens United").

        Under Feudalism, at least there was Noblesse Oblige.
        There is a model for a stable, prosperous society.
        It's what the USA had for decades, starting with FDR.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:47AM (#184323)

          You never come out and just say exactly what you desire so badly: communism.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:21AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @09:21AM (#184415)

            You never come out and just say exactly what you desire so badly: communism.

            A fair progressive income tax is hardly communism. But, yes, I badly desire communism. I crave economic democracy. I want to live in a society that considers everyone to be a important member of a team, (everything is awesome . . .) instead of a disposable unit of input. So I ask you, Nazi/Francoist/Reaganite anti-social injustice warrior (and Fascist), what do you desire so badly? Does it wear black leather? Is it profoundly reliant upon you? Is it "Leadership"? You will be lucky to only be taxed 90%. Worm.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by RedBear on Monday May 18 2015, @10:36AM

        by RedBear (1734) on Monday May 18 2015, @10:36AM (#184452)

        Under Eisenhower, the marginal tax on the uber-rich was 91 percent.
        Under JFK, that was dropped to 70 percent.

        It is not ethical to take the majority of anyone's income, even the very wealthy.

        We are talking about people who make many thousands of times what is necessary for a human to live very comfortably on every year. I am curious exactly what branch of ethics make it unethical to attempt to keep the owners of half the planet from being easily countable on one hand. How is it ethical to strive to own, quite literally, EVERYTHING?

        You will of course note that we have already come very close to completely failing at controlling this. A small handful of ultra-wealthy individuals now own nearly fifty percent of the wealth in existence in our country. How it is beneficial to either the individuals or the overall society to have an ultra-ultra-ultra-elite financial ruling class has been something I've never understood. If you tax them out the wazoo on a sliding scale they'll still be the wealthiest people in the economy by far. But the economy would have twice as much cash flowing through it, keeping the "engine" of the economy going.

        --
        ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
        ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:06PM (#184727)

        It is not ethical to take the majority of anyone's income, even the very wealthy.

        It would only be unethical only if the remaining amount wasn't still several times more than one could realistically spend in a lifetime. They are not being stripped of so much that they're barely able to survive, they're still being left with billions per year, so there's no ethical quandry, and there's the benefit that it drags up the economy by leading to increased job creation (so that the wealthy can increase the amount they can pocket by increasing the total amount they make).