context

You're not a very careful reader. That's twice in this thread you've reached conclusions that are not supported by the text that you've quoted. Feel free to address these oversights, if you wish.

Oh, and please stop intentionally quoting my posts out of chronological sequence in order manufacture a fictitous exchange.

What we have here is a clash of ideologies that is symptomatic of the larger problem facing the nation.

If policymakers at the state/federal level remain rigid in their ideologies (at both ends of the spectrum) and unwilling to compromise, the problems will only fester and grow.

And, IMO, balancing budgets on the backs of the middle class and working poor with no shared sacrifice among the wealthy is not a compromise....or even good public policy as I pointed our earlier, it only transfers costs to other government programs.

That is a good point, that cutting jobs might increase the burden on support programs, simply shifting the expense. But I have to say that Undertoad's point, that government jobs should scale back just like everybody else, also has a ring of undeniable logic to it.

Sure, with reasonable forethought based on economic impacts and not on political or ideological motivations. And many state/local governments have already made significant job cuts.

At the same time, a marginal tax increase on the wealthiest should also be part of the solution.

afterthought:
In Wisconsin, the unions agreed to the governor's proposal to pay a significantly larger share of their health and pension costs, acknowledging and addressing the economic issue.

But it wasnt enough, the governor wanted to break the union and the Senate Republican leader admitted as much, saying that it would hurt Democrats in the next election.

Political and ideological, not economic.

I think the problem with that is, how many times can you apply that as a band-aid fix to the problem?

As an individual, if I'm having trouble paying my bills, I can't just make more money magically appear. Being a responsible adult tells me that making CUTS TO SPENDING is what I have to do in order to make ends meet. I don't know why it would be any different, on any scale.

I dont look at a 3-4% increase on the marginal rate of the wealthiest as a band aid fix, but as shared sacrifice. I'm not talking about returning to the pre-Reagan era of 70+ % rates, just returning to the Clinton rate where the wealthy did not suffer from over-taxation.

Progressive taxation, where the wealthiest pay a marginally larger percentage, is the only proven system that works.

A band-aid means that it doesn't actually fix the problem.

So we take a little more in order to spend more than we have. And next time things get tight, what can we do? Take more? So spending always stays up, and taxes go up in a never-ending cycle. What is the logical end? If you never adjust what you are SPENDING to a realistic level.

No, we need to combine taking in more AND spending less. The only way to realistically address the debt.

Both sides need to accept that. Economics over ideology.

So if we want to spend less, how about those government workers can quit whining over not getting their guaranteed raise this year. A lot of people don't even have a job. Times are tight, it only makes sense you have to make cuts. Only in a fantasy world do you keep right on spending.

If it is truly a budgetary issue, I would support those workers compromising on the guaranteed raise, along with a 1% increase in state income taxes for the wealthiest.

Shared sacrifice.

Except that every time the economy gets good again, taxes get cut again. Things are only tight right now because taxes were lowered after the Clinton surplus years. What needs to happen is to keep taxes up after the economy recovers and save the surplus, just like a responsible individual would do. But that's not what happens. Taxes will never go perpetually upward like you fear, because "tax cuts" is an easy platform to run on.

Ok, Flint, you want to go back to the original post? There it is. Nothing about people whining. Nothing about taking your table scraps. Nothing about government running as if it is in a vacuum. I simply stated: If repubicans are going to make it painful for the middle class, they should make it painful for the wealthy class. Capiche?

That's ethical, fair, and logical.

I also pointed out that the actions they propose is inconsistent with their espoused goal of reducing unemployment (an increase of .01% is still an increase).

Yes, there are those things. Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted me to read it with your spin?

Here are some other ways that the plan isn't logical.

- I want American student to get the best education. In order to attract the best teachers, compensation has to be adequate. If a teacher candidate has to decide whether they're better of working at Wal*mart or being a teacher, we're not going to get the best teachers. We've lost the war.

- If my school system wants to maintain the level of compensation for our teachers, the cost can be shifted to the local level, but what have the repubicans accomplished, then? Nothing.

- Those whose jobs will be eliminated will still cost the government, through unemployment, severance, job training, etc., so there'll be very little pain reduction for taxpayers there.

- In fact, taxpayers' pain will be increased, because if we need the services that would have been provided by those who were eliminated, we'll have longer waits or what have you.

Hyperbole. Try describing things this way in a meeting at work and see if your boss ever takes you seriously again.

Obviously you didn't get it the first time.

I know you don't like me, and it's interfering with your thought process.

I don't know anything about you.

Well, to the limited extent that any of us are able to express ourselves via textual exchange, I could speculate.

But I don't.

This from the guy who said

Hyperbole, hypocrisy, and a straw man argument.

Guess this thread is about done. Thanks for "being you," sport.

Curious. From what I can tell, this is the standard m.o.


I got my handbook at sign up.

Chapter 1
"Please be snarky, use circular logic and for gots sake, use haggis as much as possible and never, ever stay on topic."

I hate haggis, so I fail at that, but I'm pretty well versed, as we all are, at the other requirements.

Then look where taxes were cut. The average worker saw almost no tax reductions. I know from personal experience that as income increased, tax cuts approached 50% reduction. Many of America's richest people and largest corporations paid almost nothing.

This thread will continue here and elsewhere due to so many myths. For example, an America that wants to get productive again would eliminate all ethanol from corn. Would eliminate corporate welfare that now increases America prescription drug prices by 40%. A 20% across the board reduction in military spending. Remove $1+ billion per year of military aid to Israel. Eliminate the $1billion per year we spend to manufacturer $1 paper bills. But those are sacred cows for the 'powers that be'. Cannot happen in a Congress so dominated only by extremists due to gerrymandering.

With the recent rise in the price of cotton, it now costs $0.10 to print a dollar bill (regardless of denomination).

Here's a protected class for ya, champ.

Here's another

But let's continue to screw the hard working middle class, like the folks who teach your children (the country's next generation) and the people who serve the needs of the community every day.

From your own link.


I believe we need to severely reduce the corporate tax rate from the current 35% and eliminate a lot of the loopholes. Add to that - reductions for keeping and investing here in the US and penalizing for moving jobs elsewhere.

Extremists always hype that 35% tax rate. Forget to mention what most of the Fortune 500 actually pays. Somewhere about 7%. Many (ie GE) have been paying no taxes. GE will pay no taxes this year. Previously posted were so many large companies who pay no taxes over many years.

Yes, loopholes are a problem. But those promoting a corporate tax reduction always forget that part so that the rich will keep getting richer.

The average American from 2000 to 2008 saw his income drop 2%. And then the resulting recession hit. A recession created by mismanagement such as tax cuts and other money games. And made even worse by tax laws intended only to enrich the elite at the expense of people who actually create jobs.

Routine is for major companies to pay little or zero taxes. We have the laws that will happen when we elect political extremists - not the pragmatists and moderates.

Appreciate how dumb the Democratic Party was. Because those extremists would not even cooperate with Obama, then most moderate Democrats lost their elections. Left were only extremist Democrats to deal with a Republican party already dominated by extremists. Lies about taxes - the 35% corporate tax rate - is simply another example of what extremists do to enrich themselves at the expense of America.

My bold. I present links that don't just show my point of view, unlike some people around here.

Fair enough. CEO pay is still below 2007 level. What was that level? Have CEOs had to radically modify their lifestyles? Could they continue to pay their children's college tuition? Were they able to afford health insurance? Did they lose their homes? Think of the comparison you're making and what you're defending. State workers, teachers, in PA will lose their jobs. Middle class income (I think this means you and me) has been stagnant for 20 years. Do you really want me to feel sorry for CEOs, and think that it justifies middle class people losing their jobs?

Backhanded shot at anyone in particular?
Where was I defending anyone? I was just showing some additional info for those who don't look at links.
I couldn't care less who you feel sorry for - that has nothing to do with this.