PA budget

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Flint

... 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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

[Flint]

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Flint

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? Spending goes up, taxes go up. What is the logical end to that?

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.

[Flint]

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

snip--
Eliminate the $1billion per year we spend to manufacturer $1 paper bills. --snip.

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

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...get_would.html
Teachers, students and their families need to "share in the economic sacrifice" but wealthy people, who should be taxed more, don't have to. Bullshit.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,162176.story

PA unemployment is still over 8%, but let's fuck over 1500 more middle class families by eliminating their jobs.

Republicans suck, and not in the good way.

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).

[Flint]

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

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

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

Obviously you didn't get it the first time.

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

[Spexxvet]

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.

[Flint]

Hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

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