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.