What a mess !!!

[Gordon Gray]

Be careful Dave and good luck.

 

[mcmd]

The public union flap in WI can be best described as the media "threat du jour": just the latest attempt to give the (huddled) masses something and/or someone to hate. In these desperate economic times, where close to 15% of Americans are enrolled in the SNAP Program (what used to be called food stamps), http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/von havenstein/SNAP January.png the "threat du jour" serves a valuable purpose: to keep us focused on ghosts and assorted boogie men (the "Rich", Libs, Unions, Tea Partiers, etc.), while simultaneously deflecting from the very real probability that we have crossed the Event Horizon, where our economic system can no longer sustain itself in its present form.

We can lay the blame on (and gore) the ox of our choosing, be they Dems, Repubs, progressive libs, conservatives, ad nauseum, but that will not change the outcome of the game. This blame-game will persist and will make us feel vastly better up until that moment that we finally realize that we've all been equally played, irrespective of the number of FRN's in our pocket at the end.

Not sure we have the willingness to change until we are forced by circumstances to do so, which of course means we are likely to hit the wall head-on at 500mph. Whatever the outcome, it won't be a pretty sight.

 

[97ChameleonTA]

Don't know if this makes much sense within the context of trimming the fat but if the Republicans have their way, EPA, social services, education, planned parenthood and other, what I consider to be vital programs, will incur significant cuts. As an example, my understanding is that the current proposal calls for a 30% cut in EPA funding. Some argue that the proposed aggregate cuts will also have a negative impact on the current recovery and unemployment rate.

So if you are one of the people who don't need or depend on these services, consider yourself very lucky.

One example I find interesting is what is occurring in Pinedale, WY. For those unfamiliar, this area has seen explosive growth in gas and oil exploration over the last 10 years. As a result, this pristine mountain town (population 2,000 +/-), which sits at the base of the Wind River Mountains, is experiencing air pollution above and beyond EPA levels. Residents have reported adverse health impacts when the levels rise to a certain point. The only way to address the issue, other than cutting back on production, is to have a strong monitoring system in place to check for air borne pollution.

If the EPA funding is cut, I would fully expect that production will stay or rise above current levels and, assuming the cuts take place, the EPA pollutant monitoring will be scaled back due to lack of funding. So here we have a town that "is doing its part" to produce USA energy, which the government receives money from energy taxes, but less effort will be made to address the direct negative impacts of the activity on the community. Something doesn't seem quite right with this picture.

Frankly, I hope (in a very twisted way), that the Republicans get their way. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed cuts will have a miniscule / meaningless impact of the current debt load, I think it will have a huge negative impact on many people's lives and bring to the fore front the fallacy and ill advised logic of these "purported" savings.

Trim responsibly? You bet. Do it with chainsaw, probably not the best idea. In the end, I hope common sense reigns but I hold out little hope for that silly concept.

GG

PS: I'm a government employee, haven't had a raise in 5 years, and don't expect to see one before I retire. Any yes, I do (horror) help pay for my pension and other benefits.

I have to say, your response is well thought out and on target for the most part. However, I don't see this as a Republican (or Democrat) problem. It all boils down to fiscal responsiblity.....Emphasis on responsibility.

I'm not sure the EPA would be a prime target for budget gouging. Cuts? Most likely. But the environment is too high on just about every tax payers radar to be hit hard. I do see concessions that need to be made, such as offshore drilling in the gulf. It makes no sense for us not to do it when just about every other country has rigs out there. I'm a Florida resident and native, and as long as they stick to the proposal of 15+ miles away from the coast line, I doubt seriously it will impact the tourist industry which is the real reason it is being opposed so heavily.

Might I ask what type of government employee you are? I'm guessing it is at the state level or perhaps more local.

 

[timm]

My stance is not hypocritical. You, as Chameleon before you, are conflating two separate issues: pay and benefits vs. taxation rates. Whether pay and benefits for federal employees should fluctuate with economic cycles is a completely different topic than how they should be taxed. I explained that clearly above, but you still don't seem to get it. There is nothing hypocritical about my arguments. I don't think federal employee wages and benefits should have to fluctuate with our economic cycles, and I think to do so would be a bad thing. There are several logical reasons for that belief, explained above.


humph Rich... You brought benefits into the discussion .. I was pointing out that I felt your arguement was a little off because you stated that in order to clean things up - you figured to get rid of the war and entitlements... and in the same breath discussed how I thought we should be cutting social security and medicare... an ENTITLEMENT....

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Chameleon,

First, thanks for the kind words.

I agree fiscal responsibility should not be partisan but, in this case, the Republicans seem to be pushing the EPA budget cutting efforts.

Snipit in the AP today.

"Rep. Nick Rahall, of West Virginia, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma will sponsor a bill supported by 43 Senate Republicans and seven House Republicans that would bar the EPA from using federal law to control greenhouse gases from power plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities.

The measure is the latest to be introduced in the Republican controlled House, where at least a half dozen bills target the EPA and its efforts to control air and water pollution."

Draw your own conclusions.

Best,

Gordon

PS: I work for Teton County, WY.

 

[tsv_1]

Not sure we have the willingness to change until we are forced by circumstances to do so.

100% agree with this statement.

 

[mact3333]

MCMD I commend you.

MCMD,

I commend you. I know you understand who is pulling the strings and why. Things happen for a reason. When people start debating either the repub or demo side of things, in my heart, I know that the "powers that be", are succeeding.

One of the "keys" to understanding how the system works is understanding the origins of money via inflation/deflation and money velocity...MCMD is correct, we can never pay back our debt by definition due to how fractional banking works...if you dont understand "who" the federal Reserve is and what fractional banking is, you will never understand our economy for what it is...when you get a loan at the bank, do you really think the bank is actually giving you real money?...ask for your money in gold or cash and see what they do and say...seriously...they insert zero's into your account from money created out of thin air....thats how fractional banking works.

This has nothing to do with with Repub or Demo's...it has always been about the haves and have nots...who do you think controls the media?...anyone find it odd that companies that make airplane engines and run an amusement park own the major networks...people need to realize that our two party system exists to put up a facade as if we have choice...we dont...why do republicans and Democrats agree on 90% of the issues and behave pretty much the same??

People will always laugh off things they havent truly looked into or understand...conspiracy this and conspiracy that...what about facts?...watch what they do and not what they say.

Why does the govt borrow money from private bankers(Fed Reserve) when our constitution gives only our govt the right to print currency....Our govt sells treasuries to the Fed's who print money out of thin air and get something of real value...we the people pay interest, on borrowed money, to the bankers(Fed Reserve) when they could print the money themselves without paying interest...this by itself tells you alot.

Do people realize that the US dollar has been devalued by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913?...this occurs as the dollar is being printed out of thin air and it devalues it, which is a hidden tax, as our buying power goes down...why do you think the riots are happening in the middle east, it has to do with a lack of jobs and 25% unemployment...we too will see a dumbed down version of hyperinflation soon enough...all this stuff is already in the works.

Just watch, there will be rioting soon in Saudi Arabia and oil will cross 150.00 a barrel and then watch gas go to 5.00 a gallon and watch gold and silver...our govt reports core inflation which removes everything we must buy such as food or gas but included everything we dont need to survive...hence they report no or very little inflation, odd dont ya think?...they will tell the real story...when the states invalidate what they owe to state workers for PERS and etc, things will get real ugly...city muni bonds are on the verge of collapse...the stock mkt will cont to rise this yr as the Fed released dollars from quantitative easing 1, 2 and eventually 3 force everyone to chase goods and cause further inflation....but when oil crosses 150.00 later this yr, just watch what this does to our economy...the stock mkt will reflect this starting next yr.

The people who say recessions come and go really need to re-evaluate things...we are adding over a trillion of debt per yr and at some point, the bond vigilantes will demand higher yields on govt bonds.

In 2-3 yrs we will see protests and rioting in our country too, I am fairly certain of this....by then I will be locking down my ML's under lock and key...

BTW, we could indeed be off of foreign oil if we wanted to, but we choose not to...who do you think buys are govt bonds?...do you think Chevron, Exxon and BP are owned by the middle east royalty?...the technology is there...but it wont take off until the oil is gone...then miraculously all the new green energies will flourish.

I will end by saying to all, hey dont be ****ed off at me for saying any of this...its just my humble opinion and to be taken with a grain of salt ok....

 

[mact3333]

100% agree with this statement.

So true,

We are all just a product of our environment...we the people, cannot all be this stupid could we?...could most of the politicians be this stupid?..it doesnt make sense...but if we are a product of our environment and can only learn and react from things we are exposed to, then it makes alot more sense to me....

 

[Len44]

No, I wasn't. Please note, in the link below there are references to the bills signed by Obama. Feel free to research them yourself, I have. Not one of them mentions COLA. Regardless of the semantics, they aren't being cutoff completely from having more money put in their pockets.

http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/569.cfm

Also, read this and tell me it isn't a COLA proposal.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/budget_15_pay_raise_for_civili.html

Do you actually read the stuff you reference? Do you check out the dates and time-lines?

I don't really know too many other ways to say this, but I will, with respect, as politely as I can, say one more time, that the President canceled the COLA raises for federal employees for 2011 and 2012.

If I were not stating this with respect, I would have used the language of my old Air Force boss, who would, when frustrated, resort to something like:

"Read My Lips; I'm Only Gonna Tell You This One More Time!!!"

 

[timm]

For the record - I am not in favor of ANYONE getting hit with a cut/freeze etc. I am not in favor of any one particular group paying a penalty so that all can benefit. My comments were more of a reaction from those that do. I always look at things this way: ' if I were an employee of the gov how would I feel about a pay freeze. If I were wealthy how would I feel if my taxes were raised. If I had a farm where the land was worth millions but my liquidity was zip - how would I feel about estate taxes?'. I can say I would not be in favor of any of that. I'm not a 'big tax guy'. You can put me on the side of accountability and prudent spending. Want more money? Create more jobs. I just don't get why people think that taking (taxes) is a way to solve problems. Accountability and spending what u can afford is.

Read one of my first posts. This thread is a good example on how we've been trained to think. I refuse to drink the kool aid.

Tim - out.

 

[Len44]

For the record - I am not in favor of ANYONE getting hit with a cut/freeze etc. I am not in favor of any one particular group paying a penalty so that all can benefit. My comments were more of a reaction from those that do. I always look at things this way: ' if I were an employee of the gov how would I feel about a pay freeze. If I were wealthy how would I feel if my taxes were raised. If I had a farm where the land was worth millions but my liquidity was zip - how would I feel about estate taxes?'. I can say I would not be in favor of any of that. I'm not a 'big tax guy'. You can put me on the side of accountability and prudent spending. Want more money? Create more jobs. I just don't get why people think that taking (taxes) is a way to solve problems. Accountability and spending what u can afford is.

Read one of my first posts. This thread is a good example on how we've been trained to think. I refuse to drink the kool aid.

Tim - out.

Create more jobs??? Sure thing, but quite a bit easier said than done. But wait, if we really want jobs here the USA why does the Chamber of Commerce think it is such a swell idea to outsource all these jobs to other countries? Why do they think it is such a grand idea that when they do, they should get tax breaks for doing so? How come companies get credit off their US taxes for taxes they pay to foreign countries? Why is it OK for them to operate in the US, but put their HQS in another country and are then able to receive a huge tax break for doing so? Why can't more companies just do the right thing, for their employees and their country?

 

[Rich]

Why? What makes an administrative assistant working for the DOE any different than one working for Dell?

If you can't understand how a government providing services to its constituents is different from a business who has to sell a good or service to make a profit, then I don't think I can help you. I am not going to try to explain it any further. I will only say that the output of the former must remain constant over time for the stability of the nation, while the output of the latter can and must fluctuate with economic cycles.

On one hand, you want to slash the budget of the one part of our government that is unique, the military. On the other, you say the civilian government workforce should be treated differently than the private sector civilians. It makes no sense.

How does it make no sense? What makes no sense is saying government worker salaries and benefits should be slashed "just because they aren't feeling the pain" of the private sector, with no other logic or consideration behind the thought.

Maybe if the government acted a little more like a responsible business model we wouldn't be in this mess.

Maybe if Bush hadn't started two wars and cut taxes during a time of prosperity, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I think it has everything to do with a bloated government. I'm all for trimming the fat. I just don't consider it a knee-jerk reaction to look at all areas of spending, and that includes personnel.

You're right. Looking at areas that make sense to cut spending is not a knee-jerk reaction. But that isn't what you said. You said: "Make 'em feel some pain just like the private sector." That is a knee-jerk reaction, to suggest we cut government salaries and benefits, not because it will help reduce the deficit, but simply because the recent recession has taken a toll on the private sector and it isn't fair somehow that it hasn't taken a toll on government workers.

How is the wealthy one not doing their part?

Bush slashed the taxes on the wealthy and that has deeply hurt the revenue stream our government depends on. It has literally added trillions and trillions of dollars onto our deficits. The wealthy are giving much less of their fair share now than they were a decade ago. So no, I don't believe they are doing their part. I paid taxes then and I pay them now, and I wasn't hurting then and I am sure not hurting now.

How am I demonizing you? Wait, aren't you wealthy? Which is it? The poor government worker or the wealthy poster with a different viewpoint? I can't possibly be demonizing both as they are polar opposites in the financial spectrum, right?

Ummm, well when you say something like: "Isn't that in Chapter 1 of the Marxist manifesto?", that is using inflammatory rhetoric to try to demonize someone. Like some redneck saying, "Hey, yer one of them commie fellers from Red Russia, ain't ya!" Instead of trying to label me a "Marxist", you could just try to refute the logic of my arguments. Preferably with a logical and reasonable counter-argument.

And to answer your question: When the government turns a huge profit, I have no problem with big bonus payouts.

And once again you completely fail to understand the concept: the whole point is the government is not in the business of making a profit. Businesses are. Which is why they operate differently.

But when it comes to military presence, it is what you don't see that is the benefit. In the grand scheme of things, we have no idea what not protecting freedom abroad would lead to. I, for one, am not willing to find out.

So, there it is. Freedom isn't free. We have to pay not only for our freedom, but also for the freedom of every ally we have in the world, because you never know what not protecting the freedoms in South Korea or Viet Nam or Iraq will lead to. Well, we know pretty darn well what protecting those freedoms has led to. Lots of dead americans and lots of money down the drain. And very little to show for it.

As a first gulf war veteran, I can speak with certainty that Saddam did have biological weapons. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask any Kurd in Iraq prior to our "invasion".

The weapons Saddam used against the Kurds were chemical weapons, not biological weapons. There is a difference, so please don't "speak with certainty" unless you are going to use accurate terminology. And those weapons posed no real threat to us. We attacked that country without provocation and without valid reason and it cost us trillions of dollars and distracted us from dealing with the real threat in Afghanistan (It was Bin Laden, after all, who had attacked us, was it not?). But if you think that was alright to attack another country without provocation and waste trillions of dollars on an unnecessary war, and if you think now we should just cut government salaries to fix our deficit, well, I guess you can just go on with those illusions. No amount of logic is going to change your mind.

 

[slowGEEZR]

No amount of logic is going to change your mind.

Rich, I applaud you on your well thought out responses. You have been correct on every and I mean every issue in this discussion. Your last sentence, I'm afraid, is too true and that is really sad.

 

[Len44]

Rich, I applaud you on your well thought out responses. You have been correct on every and I mean every issue in this discussion. Your last sentence, I'm afraid, is too true and that is really sad.

I echo those sentiments completely!

 

[mact3333]

This thread is a microcosm of america...you guys dont really think we go to wars to promote freedom do you?...there has been genocide in africa and eastern europe over the past 20 yrs and the US sits back and does nothing...but in the middle east we fight for fictitious WMD's that dont exist..wonder why?...if you dont think we go to war over physical assets such as oil you're kidding yourselves.

Wonder why Paul Oneil our Treasury Sec under Bush II got fired?...because Bush was planning the war with Iraq way before 9/11 even happened and Oneil kept asking why...even Alan Greenspan said recently that we went to war with Iraq for the oil, everyone knows this.

And why do people keep thinking raising taxes on wealthy actually increases tax revenues...it has been proven over and over that its the opposite...lower taxes allows small/medium size business owners to take risk and hire people and tax revenues actually go up after lowering the tax rate and not vice versa.

Like I said before its about the haves and have nots...wonder why all our decent paying jobs are going overseas?...its simple, their labor is cheaper!...wallstreet/large co's selling out our middle class to increase earnings and bonus checks/options for themselves at the cost of the middle class...manufactoring needs to come back to our country but it prob wont.

It is clear China will be "the" force over the next 50 yrs...the US is like ancient Rome right now...too many hands to feed, to much corruption/greed, the system is going down and the rats are grabbing what they can.

 

[timm]

Create more jobs??? Sure thing, but quite a bit easier said than done. But wait, if we really want jobs here the USA why does the Chamber of Commerce think it is such a swell idea to outsource all these jobs to other countries? Why do they think it is such a grand idea that when they do, they should get tax breaks for doing so? How come companies get credit off their US taxes for taxes they pay to foreign countries? Why is it OK for them to operate in the US, but put their HQS in another country and are then able to receive a huge tax break for doing so? Why can't more companies just do the right thing, for their employees and their country?

Completely agree Len!!

 

[timm]

Mact333. Amen brother!!

 

[Rich]

Just a thought: how on earth do we expect to close our budget gap, when those companies making the most money in our society are paying nothing in taxes? Those same companies who are shipping most of our jobs overseas to gain even more profits?

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

A few excerpts:

"The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion."

"Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore."

"Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009."

(and with corporate taxes down to a miniscule 6.6%, we still don't have the economic boom times promised to us by republicans if we just stopped taxing our businesses. Just more malarkey fed to us from republicans who are being paid off by corporate lobbyists to feed us that line of crap. Not that democrats have any cleaner hands -- Charlie Rangel took some bribes for his local district in exchange for helping them with some tax loopholes.)

"Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment. In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion."

There's the bottom line: GE pays less and less taxes, while shipping jobs overseas. Their rich investors get richer, while the middle class and average Americans suffer, our economy wilts, and our budget deficit grows fatter. We cannot continue on this path. It is unsustainable. Corporate/government corruption and greed are going to destroy this country!

 

[repman]

Maybe this would help with the budget shortfalls.

Also pretty funny and oh so true.



PEE OR NOT TO PEE.



I have a job.
I work, they pay me.


I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).


What I do have a problem with is the distribution
of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.


So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? Because, I have to pass one to earn it for them!

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with handing money to someone sitting on their butt - doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program:


"URINE OR YOU'RE OUT!"


Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.
Hope you all will pass it along, though.


Something has to change in this country, in the right direction, AND SOON!


P.S. Just a thought, but all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!

 

[Satch]

Legalize it, tax it, Iiirrreeee mon!



Warning. Side effects mat include excessive giggling, severe munchies and there have been cases of waiting for the Stop Sign to turn green.