PA budget

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

F&B. Your sources are always cherry-picking.....

I was simply pointing out that both Bush I and Clinton raised taxes on the top wage earners. Only to lowered by Bush II with, btw, no positive impact on economic growth and a significant contribution to the debt that will only increase more if those top rates are made permanent.

IMO, arguments that raising taxes on the wealthy stimulate economic growth and are a deterrence to working harder are baseless.

Debt reduction will require both spending cuts and increased revenue (taxes) and the burden should be spread across the board, with the wealthiest bearing the brunt of tax increases of a few percentage points on their last dollars earned (not on the entire income).

Originally Posted by Flint

Going back to the original topic... if the belief is that regular middle-class folks should not have to take a hit in this bad economy, and the reality is that they already HAVE, why should there be a "protected" class of regular middle-class folks who get special treatment? Seeing as they work directly for our government overlords, they get to experience an "imaginary" economy where everybody still has a job?

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RAISE IN THREE FUCKING YEARS, YET THESE FOLKS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN??? Give me a break.

If you look at data, public employee pensions put more back into the local economy than they take out...something like $1.75 for every $1.00.

At the same time, income inequality in the US has soared to the highest levels in history.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to...21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

If you look at data, public employee pensions put more back into the local economy than they take out...something like $1.75 for every $1.00.

I'm not even sure what that means, but I am positive it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I assume it was supposed to, since you quoted me. Is this "a thing" with the political forum, where we just make a series of unrelated statements?

I've been trying hard to address the topics raised in the original post, and it's fine of course if you don't want to talk about that, but don't quote me and then launch into a complete non sequitur. That's a waste of everybody's time.