PDA

View Full Version : GOP considers longer pay freeze



James48843
11-30-2011, 06:58 PM
from Govexec.com today:

Congress GOP leaders considering extending the Obama payroll tax cut,
by freezing federal pay for two more years.



GOP considers longer pay freeze

By Kellie Lunney klunney@govexec.com (klunney@govexec.com)
November 30, 2011



Senate Republicans are considering an extension of the pay freeze for federal civilian workers to pay for a payroll tax cut, according to Wednesday news reports.


The plan reportedly would continue the current two-year pay freeze which runs through 2012 for one or two more years, according to a story (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=60B8F7CA-32FE-4495-9C48-9CB6D00D0EF0) in Politico. The publication attributed the information to a GOP senator but said an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would not confirm a further pay freeze was the preferred option under consideration to pay for the payroll tax cut extension.

More:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49450&dcn=todaysnews

nasa1974
11-30-2011, 07:18 PM
from Govexec.com today:

Congress GOP leaders considering extending the Obama payroll tax cut,
by freezing federal pay for two more years.


More:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49450&dcn=todaysnews

Well, it will make it easier for OPM to calculate my retirement next June. Maybe I will get my check sooner.


Yeah right!! What was I thinking.



http://youtu.be/16Z5KLG6ys8

Mapper
11-30-2011, 07:43 PM
I bet the GOP proposal to extent the pay freeze (100% expected) has a few significant exclusions.

James48843
12-01-2011, 07:09 AM
More details of the new GOP proposal to fund extension of payroll tax by freezing federal employee pay for five years, and cutting 10% of the federal workforce:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/196353-gop-would-pay-for-payroll-tax-cut-with-federal-workforce-entitlement-cuts

jkenjohnson
12-01-2011, 07:14 AM
More details of the new GOP proposal to fund extension of payroll tax by freezing federal employee pay for five years, and cutting 10% of the federal workforce:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/196353-gop-would-pay-for-payroll-tax-cut-with-federal-workforce-entitlement-cuts

Those bastards. They make me sick to my stomach.

nasa1974
12-01-2011, 08:00 AM
More details of the new GOP proposal to fund extension of payroll tax by freezing federal employee pay for five years, and cutting 10% of the federal workforce:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/196353-gop-would-pay-for-payroll-tax-cut-with-federal-workforce-entitlement-cuts

Cut the workforce by 10%. Maybe I will be offered a buyout. hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

SteelSaving
12-01-2011, 08:23 AM
Here's an idea, why don't we hire the people we have been paying as contractors for the last 5+ years? To me, a position we pay a contractor for should be short term. If it doesn't make sense to make them a FTE, make them a temp. hire. If you are paying someone as a contractor, you are including a markup that adds to the overall cost.

Warrenlm
12-01-2011, 08:28 AM
There has been a trend in many organizations over the past few years to increase the federal positions and reduce the contractor positions. Even when all the costs were included, civil service positions could cost less, and lessen the stretching of "inherently governmental" determinations. Often the contractor benefits of company paid parties, lunches and other benefits.....jk. But hey, contractors are people too.

Warrenlm
12-01-2011, 08:32 AM
I bet the GOP proposal to extent the pay freeze (100% expected) has a few significant exclusions. The country would benefit if the Legislative Branch was included....it's over 25,000 now isn't it? But that might cause a glut of staffers seeking K Street jobs.....I wonder if the prime rib at The Prime Rib would still be over $50 with sides extra?

Mapper
12-01-2011, 08:51 AM
Here's an idea, why don't we hire the people we have been paying as contractors for the last 5+ years? To me, a position we pay a contractor for should be short term. If it doesn't make sense to make them a FTE, make them a temp. hire. If you are paying someone as a contractor, you are including a markup that adds to the overall cost.

But if the gov't was paying employees rather than companies how would those highly efficient contracting companies make any money? :o

Happy_Trails
12-01-2011, 08:53 AM
Maybe we should just cut Congress? That would save some bread and nobody seems to like them anyway. :)

nasa1974
12-01-2011, 09:23 AM
Let's see if Congress continues their pay freeze as well as their staff. Yeah sure!!

alevin
12-01-2011, 09:59 AM
Us lucky FERS folks. so help me figure something out. If they don't take out "payroll" (ie "SS" tax), does that mean they take more in "income" tax (assuming no other net adjustments?).

Mapper
12-01-2011, 12:24 PM
Just to be clear. This proposal to extend the federal pay freeze to pay for payroll tax cuts is the GOPs rebuttal to a plan to pay for the payroll tax cut by increasing the tax on those earning more than $1 million by 3.25%. Which means, according to the GOP, federal employees are in a better position to foot that bill than those earning over $1 million. AND, apparently, taking the money from Federal Employees wont have more of a negative effect on the economy. ;) with love, from the GOP

Viva_La_Migra
12-01-2011, 01:00 PM
Just to be clear. This proposal to extend the federal pay freeze to pay for payroll tax cuts is the GOPs rebuttal to a plan to pay for the payroll tax cut by increasing the tax on those earning more than $1 million by 3.25%. Which means, according to the GOP, federal employees are in a better position to foot that bill than those earning over $1 million. AND, apparently, taking the money from Federal Employees wont have more of a negative effect on the economy. ;) with love, from the GOP
I don't know, do you have an extra $32,500 lying around to create a job with? I don't, so if they want to freeze my salary for a while so that millionares can create more jobs, I guess I can go along with it.

Mapper
12-01-2011, 01:13 PM
Take $32,500 away from a millionaire and they still have enough to create plenty of American jobs...if they want to.

If only they would do that. Where has the market for "their" product gone??? In debt up to their ears, in most cases, and getting by buying the cheapest stuff they can find made by people employed in other countries.

You don't need a million bucks to start a company, you need some level of personal financial stability. Which, unfortunately, increasingly means health insurance.

Edit:
BTW, the tax is on those making over $1mil. That's an annual number...so we are not talking about people who happen to have saved up to $1mil in an account somewhere. We are talking about people with a net worth is likely multi-millions/billions

AND

Most people running business and creating jobs are pumping much of their money INTO the company...and, in many cases, are NOT at all likely to have an actual taxable annual income of over $1mil. I know lots of people who own companies and employee a lot of people. Not one of them actually has over $1mil in taxable annual income.

nnuut
12-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Cutting the Social Security Tax last year was really STUPID, now Obama wants to do it again. The system is racing into insolvency and we cut it's resources, I thought Congress was trying to save SSA? It seems that somebody wants it to fail?:nuts:
Your retirement looks less attractive every day.:o

Viva_La_Migra
12-01-2011, 03:13 PM
Take $32,500 away from a millionaire and they still have enough to create plenty of American jobs...if they want to.

If only they would do that. Where has the market for "their" product gone??? In debt up to their ears, in most cases, and getting by buying the cheapest stuff they can find made by people employed in other countries.

You don't need a million bucks to start a company, you need some level of personal financial stability. Which, unfortunately, increasingly means health insurance.

Edit:
BTW, the tax is on those making over $1mil. That's an annual number...so we are not talking about people who happen to have saved up to $1mil in an account somewhere. We are talking about people with a net worth is likely multi-millions/billions

AND

Most people running business and creating jobs are pumping much of their money INTO the company...and, in many cases, are NOT at all likely to have an actual taxable annual income of over $1mil. I know lots of people who own companies and employee a lot of people. Not one of them actually has over $1mil in taxable annual income.
But the Democrats don't care that the a business owner doesn't have $1mil on hand to take from. If a company earns $1mil per year on paper, the Dems want 50% or more of it in order to "redistribute" it to their constituents who didn't work for it.

Republicans play the class warfare game too. They play the private sector against the government sector on a regular basis. They decry our retirement benefits, but don't refuse those benefits for themselves.

I'd rather see a flat tax wherein everyone pays the same tax rate regardless of income. The rich will still pay the lion's share of the tax burden, and with a generous standard deduction, the poor will still not pay any income taxes.

James48843
12-01-2011, 10:02 PM
Senate defeats competing payroll tax cut bills


(Reuters) - The Senate on Thursday defeated competing payroll tax cut extension plans by Democrats and Republicans, clearing the way for negotiations on compromise legislation that could boost the economy next year.

In late-night votes, the Senate, as expected, defeated a Democratic plan that would have extended and expanded the payroll tax cut that is scheduled to expire on December 31. Republicans particularly objected to a new tax on the wealthy to cover the $110 billion in projected lost revenues from continuing the temporary tax cut.

After the Democratic legislation was defeated, the Senate promptly killed an alternative Republican plan, paid for by freezing federal employee pay and personnel cuts. It too would have extended the tax cut for a year. But it did not embrace the Democrats' proposal to reduce the worker tax even further and to also cut an employer-paid payroll tax.

More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/us-usa-taxes-obama-idUSTRE7B02BJ20111202

Warrenlm
12-01-2011, 10:43 PM
clearing the way for negotiations on compromise legislation that could boost the economy next year. As if anything they do will really boost the economy. The US economy is being left to itself to boost itself, while climbing barriers. We're lucky we live in a nation that has an economy that can overcome these barriers despite the "help".

SteelSaving
12-01-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't know, do you have an extra $32,500 lying around to create a job with? I don't, so if they want to freeze my salary for a while so that millionares can create more jobs, I guess I can go along with it.

Just to be clear: The Republicans don't want to create more tax cuts for millionaires with their plan to pay for this tax break, they just don't want to raise their taxes and instead want to freeze the pay of government employees. So, the millionaires have the same breaks they had last year. And how many jobs have the been scrambling to create the last couple years? At this point, I feel millionaire welfare is BS. They aren't using the opportunities the government hands them to hire, why? Because it doesn't take more money, it takes more customers. If the government keeps handing them more breaks, why would you want to risk your money on a business or to expand what you currently have? Some complain about the poor wanting to stay poor to keep getting government money, why would rich business owners want to do anything more then they are doing if the government keeps handing them money and tax breaks too?
Why are we, the middle class, racing to the bottom?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/opinion/coburn-welfare-to-wealthy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

SteelSaving
12-01-2011, 11:33 PM
Cutting the Social Security Tax last year was really STUPID, now Obama wants to do it again. The system is racing into insolvency and we cut it's resources, I thought Congress was trying to save SSA? It seems that somebody wants it to fail?:nuts:
Your retirement looks less attractive every day.:o

Yeah, I never understood it. Makes no sense.

nnuut
12-02-2011, 07:33 AM
Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?
SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:eek::nuts::nuts:

Mapper
12-02-2011, 09:11 AM
Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?
SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:eek::nuts::nuts:



If a 3.25% tax increase is ok for gov't employees then it certainly will not run millionaires out of business. That's simple logic.

Mapper
12-02-2011, 09:24 AM
Cutting the Social Security Tax last year was really STUPID, now Obama wants to do it again. The system is racing into insolvency and we cut it's resources, I thought Congress was trying to save SSA? It seems that somebody wants it to fail?:nuts:
Your retirement looks less attractive every day.:o

A Democrat agrees with the GOP to cut a tax and suddenly cutting taxes is STUPID?

SS may be "racing toward insolvency" but it currently has a trust fund and is sitting pretty compared to other mission critical aspects of gov't. I certainly don't support pulling the legs out from under the SS program but how is it better to cut spending on R&D, infrastructure, education, defense, energy and other investments in the future of the country?

SS is not a retirement plan. It's a social safety net (a "welfare" program) that comes into play to support eldery Americans who, for whatever reason, may not have enough money to pay for essential living expenses.

It's time for all of us to actually pay for the services we ask of our government. Any private enterprise relies on govt investments. Asking people who have nothing, or very little, to pay more will get us nowhere. I can pay more and I don't mind if I have to, PROVIDED I'm not paying more simply so those above me can pay less.

nnuut
12-02-2011, 09:30 AM
If a 3.25% tax increase is ok for gov't employees then it certainly will not run millionaires out of business. That's simple logic.
Let's compare 3.25% of your salary and 3.25% ($32,500) of a millionaire's with $1,000,000 Taxable income and put that on top of , what is it an additional 39% ($390,000) 42.25% = $422,500 Not counting State, County, SSA and City and more and more. Getting rid of loopholes is a better idea.

Mapper
12-02-2011, 09:48 AM
Let's compare 3.25% of your salary and 3.25% ($32,500) of a millionaire's with $1,000,000 Taxable income and put that on top of , what is it an additional 39% ($390,000) 42.25% = $422,500 Not counting State, County, SSA and City and more and more.
A % is a % is a %. The major difference, in my eyes, is that a millionaire has bigger personal safety net, essentially a pool of "unproductive" money.

edit: Another way to look at it. The % of money someone with over $1 mil taxable income per year needs to cover basic living expenses is much lower (probably by an order of magnitude) minuscule, in fact, compared to the percentage required by the average govt employee.


Getting rid of loopholes is a better idea.
Couldn't agree more.
Too many small business owners I know actually claim no, or very little income, because the "investments" in their business. Once I was watching/playing with a small business owner friend's kids while he ran to the store. The local group providing subsidies for insulation to low income homeowners came by to inspect his home remodeling project as part of his application process. I asked what that was all about and he confided in me that he hadn't made more than $5k in two years. Yet somehow the guy travels the world, for pleasure, owns 4 vehicles, owns a sailboat and is a partial owner of small airplane...that his brother uses to give flying lessons :suspicious:. Off the top of my head I know three small business owners who count their 30'+ sailboats among their "investments". One started the business solely for that purpose because he got a cheaper boat loan that way. Frankly I think that is just plain wrong.

FAAM
12-02-2011, 10:10 AM
AMEN, Mapper! "To those whom more is 'given', more is expected" & "With greater wealth (or power, authority, etc.) comes greater responsibility", & not "linearly" or at a flat-rate either. At least that's the way it should be, and better be, or I see much more trouble.

Mapper
12-02-2011, 10:23 AM
A % is a % is a %. The major difference, in my eyes, is that a millionaire has bigger personal safety net, essentially a pool of "unproductive" money.

Another thing I wish more work-a-day Republicans would consider is how protecting the large personal savings pools of the super rich fit into their mantras of efficiency and maximizing utility.

alevin
12-02-2011, 10:41 AM
SS may be "racing toward insolvency" but it currently has a trust fund and is sitting pretty compared to other mission critical aspects of gov't.

SS is not a retirement plan. It's a social safety net (a "welfare" program) that comes into play to support eldery Americans who, for whatever reason, may not have enough money to pay for essential living expenses.

It's time for all of us to actually pay for the services we ask of our government. Any private enterprise relies on govt investments. Asking people who have nothing, or very little, to pay more will get us nowhere. I can pay more and I don't mind if I have to, PROVIDED I'm not paying more simply so those above me can pay less.

Mapper, I too once thought there was an SS "trust fund". I was mistaken. The "trust fund" is declining because the relative rate of SS collection is declining faster relative to the rate SS is being paid out, even tho we're still net positive on the collections at this point. There is no "SS lockbox". Govt is in hock up to eyeballs without even counting future SS obligations.

WorkFE
12-02-2011, 10:44 AM
I find it laughable that you all think any of these parties is worth crap.

nnuut
12-02-2011, 10:50 AM
Another thing I wish more work-a-day Republicans would consider is how protecting the large personal savings pools of the super rich fit into their mantras of efficiency and maximizing utility.
:laugh:
16403

Viva_La_Migra
12-02-2011, 11:10 AM
Another thing I wish more work-a-day Republicans would consider is how protecting the large personal savings pools of the super rich fit into their mantras of efficiency and maximizing utility.
I thought you only wanted more of their annual income. Now you want to go after their savings too?

I've never been employed by a poor person, but I have been employed by a wealthy entrepreneur.

James48843
12-02-2011, 11:15 AM
:laugh:
16403


Ha! Good one Nnuut. I took me a minute, but then I figured out what this is.

I may be a bit slow at times, but I get it eventually.

nnuut
12-02-2011, 11:20 AM
Ha! Good one Nnuut. I took me a minute, but then I figured out what this is.

I may be a bit slow at times, but I get it eventually.

Tanks!
1640516406

Mapper
12-02-2011, 11:46 AM
I thought you only wanted more of their annual income. Now you want to go after their savings too?

I've never been employed by a poor person, but I have been employed by a wealthy entrepreneur.


Not at all what I said. I'm just stating that I don't understand the logical fallacy. Along the same lines as not understanding why suddenly tax cuts are stupid when a Democratic president goes in on it as part of a compromise with Republicans.

What's this sudden poor/rich division? Are you saying anyone making less than $1mil per year is poor? Obviously I don't know for sure but I'd be willing to place a damn large bet that you have been employed by people making under $1mil annually.

I've also been employed by wealthy entrepreneurs, who would not see any additional tax burden from an increase in taxes for those making over $1mil annually. They didn't make anywhere near that much money and still employed as much as 75 individuals. They would, however, feel a pinch from providing increasingly expensive health insurance to their employees. In fact, that company switched to a "Cafeteria" plan specifically to reduce healthcare costs. Another of those employers went out of business during the recent recession because demand for their product dried up. Guess what, their customers were not millionaires, they were regular everyday people that no longer had the extra money to buy his product. He made about $100k/year and managed to employ up to 20 people.

I have also been employed by a business owner who made over $1mil per year, probably well over. There is no way his family business or family would suffer from a 3.25% increase in tax. At best, he would have to spend less than $1.5 million on his frequently replaced motor home. He probably wouldn't mind the additional tax either, he was Democrat. Interestingly a couple of his kids, who grew up in the business were Republicans.

Mapper
12-02-2011, 11:48 AM
I find it laughable that you all think any of these parties is worth crap.

I don't think either of them are worth crap. US politics is corrupt as hell...but at the moment it's the hand we have.

nasa1974
12-02-2011, 12:51 PM
I don't think either of them are worth crap. US politics is corrupt as hell...but at the moment it's the hand we have.


+ 1

SteelSaving
12-02-2011, 01:23 PM
Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?
SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:eek::nuts::nuts:


And how much sense does it make to tax the middle class (ie the CONSUMERS) even more? The rich have been handed tax cuts and breaks and have so far done jack with it in regard to job creation. Perhaps the reason jobs aren't being created is because there is no demand for more of the crap businesses provide. If I owned a business, I wouldn't hire somebody just because the government hands me $32,500 (which, by the way, is enough to pay an employee making about $16,000/year). I will hire more people when my supply doesn't meet the demand.
At this point, it seems the aim is to hand money to owners trusting them to create jobs in an environment that is not business friendly. Maybe we should increase the purchasing power of the consumer while pulling back on some unneccessary regulations.

RealMoneyIssues
12-02-2011, 01:25 PM
while pulling back on some unneccessary regulations.
There are no unneccessary regulations...

SteelSaving
12-02-2011, 01:27 PM
Of course not.

nnuut
12-02-2011, 04:02 PM
There are no unneccessary regulations...
That's a Good One!!!!!!! 164101640916410

Buster
12-02-2011, 07:57 PM
Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?
SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:eek::nuts::nuts:
Right on Norm...People are so stupid, cut off the tit that feeds them..yeah, that's makes sense.:rolleyes:

Buster
12-02-2011, 09:55 PM
I love it when people talk like they know everything..It's easy to sit back in your lazy-boy and judge what an honest to goodness employer will or can do...If you are not one that hires and fires, then you have no dog in this game..you are a spectator ONLY!..Otherwise you would not be working for the man...You are a peasant, peon, a nobody employee working for someone that had the generosity and pity to hire you....BE QUIET!

SteelSaving
12-04-2011, 10:03 PM
So basically, you have nothing to add to the conversation. Thanks for the announcement. ;)

Buster
12-04-2011, 11:33 PM
So basically, you identified with what I said...so reveling of you..

Assuming by what you've said, you work for somebody that is paying you to do your job, as you are incapable of running a business on your own, but yet in still, you have all the answers:rolleyes:..Count your blessings that they have the capital to hire someone like you..otherwise, you will never know for sure what it takes to run a business and employ people, etc.....I can assure you, you don't know what you're talking about..of course, other than what the liberal media wants you to know.


Your welcome for the enlightenment..try doing something worthwhile with your life for ALL of society other than begrudge the very people that keep this country going and create and offer jobs.

So yes, I have nothing to say to what is fair for employers..At least I'm not gonna parade around babbling rhetoric about something I know nothing about....

May they all close their doors, declare bankruptcy and send the layed off people to the feces covered streets to occupy Wall Street...
Guess what? those were taxpayers too and they out number Federal employees right now..lose their income taxes, you lose your Job, cause good old Uncle Sam won't be able to afford to pay you anymore...They call that; 'Trickle Down' ...see ya in the park.

KevinD
12-05-2011, 06:29 AM
...You are a peasant, peon, a nobody employee working for someone that had the generosity and pity to hire you....BE QUIET!

Buster - Do you not see anything wrong with this statement? That kind of thinking is how the wealthy entrepreneur cuts off the tit that feeds him. Where are his customers going to come from?

Afishegg
12-05-2011, 07:04 AM
Ah its the classic debate, rich vs poor, workers vs employers, etc etc. What is always funny to me in this debate is the fact that it never changes. People just have to accept that those at the top get rich (in many cases, but not all) by exploiting someone somewhere, but many in between reap many benefits themselves. I consider myself in the middle, I accept this and am grateful. I feel for those at the very bottom for be exploited and I feel for those at the top who genuinely want to do the right thing but can't due to factors beyond their control (politics, errant managers,natural disasters,recessions, rising costs,etc etc)

Learn to live simple, be happy with the small things in life and don't expect anything to be given to you. Pay for things with cash not credit and be smart with your money by making it work for you and everything will eventually smooth itself out for you. I am only 33 yrs old and see how older and younger ones simply don't understand these things, and ......I feel pity for them.

Buster
12-05-2011, 09:23 AM
Buster - Do you not see anything wrong with this statement? That kind of thinking is how the wealthy entrepreneur cuts off the tit that feeds him. Where are his customers going to come from?

It's a paradox Kev, If the employer has no employees, then there is no consumer to afford and/or buy his product he is trying to make without employees... :blink:Without employees to make his product to sell to the unemployed consumer..then he doesn't become wealthy..lose-lose..Catch-22

Buster
12-05-2011, 09:26 AM
Ah its the classic debate, rich vs poor, workers vs employers, etc etc. What is always funny to me in this debate is the fact that it never changes. People just have to accept that those at the top get rich (in many cases, but not all) by exploiting someone somewhere, but many in between reap many benefits themselves. I consider myself in the middle, I accept this and am grateful. I feel for those at the very bottom for be exploited and I feel for those at the top who genuinely want to do the right thing but can't due to factors beyond their control (politics, errant managers,natural disasters,recessions, rising costs,etc etc)

Learn to live simple, be happy with the small things in life and don't expect anything to be given to you. Pay for things with cash not credit and be smart with your money by making it work for you and everything will eventually smooth itself out for you. I am only 33 yrs old and see how older and younger ones simply don't understand these things, and ......I feel pity for them.

Well said!

Mapper
12-05-2011, 09:39 AM
It's a paradox Kev, If the employer has no employees, then there is no consumer to afford and/or buy his product he is trying to make without employees... :blink:Without employees to make his product to sell to the unemployed consumer..then he doesn't become wealthy..lose-lose..Catch-22

This is the logic that Henry Ford employed when he declared to pay his employees enough to buy their very own car; The exact opposite of trickle down. What good is a supply without demand?

Warrenlm
12-05-2011, 10:11 AM
I'm just hoping none of the 25,000 congressional staffers read the Italian austerity measures and note the elimination of COLAs for pensioners...... and get ideas. Oh, that's right, they already have.

SteelSaving
12-05-2011, 10:52 AM
I'm just hoping none of the 25,000 congressional staffers read the Italian austerity measures and note the elimination of COLAs for pensioners...... and get ideas. Oh, that's right, they already have.

Pensions are just welfare for the dregs at the bottom. If you're not at the top, then obviously you deserve the crap falling from above.
Be a real American, start a business, not like the fake Americans, who just steal from their ingenuity. :rolleyes:


Buster:

If the rich have been getting their tax cuts over the past decade: WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Don't tell me I can't comment on a topic because I don't own a business. If you want to stick your head in the sand fine, just don't tell me to join you. I can barely understand you due to the muffling anyway.

nnuut
12-05-2011, 10:59 AM
Completion from emerging countries and NAFTA, GATT etc. forced our manufacturing base out of the country, it's as simple as that.
Send your thanks to Mr. Clinton.:nuts:

SteelSaving
12-05-2011, 11:46 AM
Which leads me to wonder why we think lowering taxes will help.
It's like we're trying to reach the moon by building a submarine.

KevinD
12-05-2011, 12:35 PM
It's a paradox Kev, If the employer has no employees, then there is no consumer to afford and/or buy his product he is trying to make without employees... :blink:Without employees to make his product to sell to the unemployed consumer..then he doesn't become wealthy..lose-lose..Catch-22

Thanks for understanding and not telling me to get back to work. :D

Mapper
12-05-2011, 03:14 PM
Completion from emerging countries and NAFTA, GATT etc. forced our manufacturing base out of the country, it's as simple as that.
Send your thanks to Mr. Clinton.:nuts:

Seriously? You do realize NAFTA was a Bush 1 initiative? Albeit ultimately ratified by Clinton (originally and ceremoniously signed by GB 1) and CAFTA a Bush 2 initiative. GATT was a post WWII initiative that ultimately morphed into the WTO and has been supported by multiple administrations.

Obviously the world has changed a lot since WWII but for some reason too many American consumers prefer to buy a cheap product over an American made product manufactured by someone earning a living wage at a factory that doesn't decimate the local landscape.

Edit:
Free trade agreements didn't "force" manufacturing out of the country. Corporate greed voluntarily moved manufacturing out of the country...nothing like a good race to the bottom.

nnuut
12-05-2011, 03:51 PM
My friend NAFTA was started by Reagan backed by Bush and signed and implemented by Clinton. Don't you remember what Ross Perot said in his debate with Clinton and Bush? You will hear a Giant Sucking Sound Going South?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls&feature=related

Warrenlm
12-05-2011, 06:38 PM
....Free trade agreements didn't "force" manufacturing out of the country. Corporate greed voluntarily moved manufacturing out of the country...nothing like a good race to the bottom. (Emphasis added). Ummmm, the problem with this is that corporations are not only people in the eyes of a State, but they are really people. One man's greed is another's profit. Or a shareholder's dividend. Or a pension fund's future payout.....The problem is when government creates the incentive that fails to protect the society that founded it. How does a corporation avoid seeking lowest cost when everyone is looking for shortterm reward.

Mapper
12-05-2011, 07:00 PM
I can't disagree Warrenlm...I was typing quick and just wanted to point out that free trade agreements don't demand that jobs be sent off shore.

Buster
12-05-2011, 09:26 PM
Which leads me to wonder why we think lowering taxes will help.
It's like we're trying to reach the moon by building a submarine.

You see..there you go again..in case you missed it, we already made it to the moon...I think I see your problem with reality and I don't believe it's sand in your ears either..

http://strategicbulletin.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a676ca4e970b0148c68a8f9d970c-800wi

SteelSaving
12-05-2011, 11:12 PM
Bravo, Buster. Why don't you head back to the sandbox now? The adults are talking.

clester
12-06-2011, 05:33 AM
Ah its the classic debate, rich vs poor, workers vs employers, etc etc. What is always funny to me in this debate is the fact that it never changes. People just have to accept that those at the top get rich (in many cases, but not all) by exploiting someone somewhere, but many in between reap many benefits themselves. I consider myself in the middle, I accept this and am grateful. I feel for those at the very bottom for be exploited and I feel for those at the top who genuinely want to do the right thing but can't due to factors beyond their control (politics, errant managers,natural disasters,recessions, rising costs,etc etc)

Learn to live simple, be happy with the small things in life and don't expect anything to be given to you. Pay for things with cash not credit and be smart with your money by making it work for you and everything will eventually smooth itself out for you. I am only 33 yrs old and see how older and younger ones simply don't understand these things, and ......I feel pity for them.
Wise statement for one so young. If it were't for political rhetoric like this in thread we would all be happier. Folks just have to defend their party line for some reason and don't be fooled this is about party politics. Just listen to how folks arguments mimic what their party leaders say.

We should all be independents!

Mapper
12-06-2011, 09:22 AM
Wise statement for one so young. If it were't for political rhetoric like this in thread we would all be happier. Folks just have to defend their party line for some reason and don't be fooled this is about party politics. Just listen to how folks arguments mimic what their party leaders say.

We should all be independents!

Free-thinking is good, but disengagement is what got us in this mess. People don't take the time to educate themselves and get all caught up in the propaganda.

I would love to be more independent but the vast majority of GOP proposals just plain don't make sense to me. Honestly I think that's why the GOP primary is such a mess, it's hard to find good candidate that can reconcile the policy positions needed to get votes from the masses AND please the major campaign contributors. The smartest guy on the ticket, Huntsman, has absolutely no traction because he refuses to engage in the absurdity. Honestly I'd heavily consider voting for Huntsman, even though his past policy initiatives are generally more conservative than Mitt, because I'm really impressed with Huntsman and his ability to stay outside the fray. Unfortunately, I imagine Huntsman would have a much harder time once he needed to be more accountable to the GOP party establishment, ala John McCain. Mitt is desperately trying to walk the tightrope, but it's got him all tangled up on his position statements. Frankly it's a bit amusing to watch, but ultimately sad.

Which brings me back to the heart of this thread. Which is, the GOP was given the choice of funding a tax bill from those making more than $1mil/year (taxable income, no less...after all of the myriad "loopholes" have been utilized!!) and gov't employees. The establishment felt the, overwhelmingly middle class, gov't employees should pay the bill. That is exactly the type of policy that makes no sense to me, especially in light of the fact that high income tax rates have been falling for the past 3 decades and there is next to no quantifiable proof that those high income individuals use the savings to create jobs. During that period the high income individuals (regardless of party affiliation) have dramatically increased their personal income while continuing to outsource American jobs. There is however, ample evidence that money gets funneled back into politics (and yes, it happens on both sides)...the old saying, follow the money.

clester
12-06-2011, 09:33 AM
Free-thinking is good, but disengagement is what got us in this mess. People don't take the time to educate themselves and get all caught up in the propaganda.

I would love to be more independent but the vast majority of GOP proposals just plain don't make sense to me. Honestly I think that's why the GOP primary is such a mess, it's hard to find good candidate that can reconcile the policy positions needed to get votes from the masses AND please the major campaign contributors. The smartest guy on the ticket, Huntsman, has absolutely no traction because he refuses to engage in the absurdity. Honestly I'd heavily consider voting for Huntsman, even though his past policy initiatives are generally more conservative than Mitt, because I'm really impressed with Huntsman and his ability to stay outside the fray. Unfortunately, I imagine Huntsman would have a much harder time once he needed to be more accountable to the GOP party establishment, ala John McCain. Mitt is desperately trying to walk the tightrope, but it's got him all tangled up on his position statements. Frankly it's a bit amusing to watch, but ultimately sad.

Which brings me back to the heart of this thread. Which is, the GOP was given the choice of funding a tax bill from those making more than $1mil/year and gov't employees. The establishment felt the, overwhelmingly middle class, gov't employees should pay the bill. That is exactly the type of policy that makes no sense to me, especially in light of the fact that high income tax rates have been falling for the past 3 decades and there is next to no quantifiable proof that those high income individuals use the savings to create jobs. During that period the high income individuals (regardless of party affiliation) have dramatically increased their personal income while continuing to outsource American jobs. There is however, ample evidence that money gets funneled back into politics (and yes, it happens on both sides)...the old saying, follow the money.
Follow the money is exactly right. That's why our political system is broke. It's basically bribery by lobbyists that determine things.

clester
12-06-2011, 09:42 AM
Follow the money is exactly right. That's why our political system is broke. It's basically bribery by lobbyists that determine things.
Check this out.
http://www.americanselect.org/

Mapper
12-06-2011, 10:00 AM
Free-thinking is good, but disengagement is what got us in this mess. People don't take the time to educate themselves and get all caught up in the propaganda.

I would love to be more independent but the vast majority of GOP proposals just plain don't make sense to me. Honestly I think that's why the GOP primary is such a mess, it's hard to find good candidate that can reconcile the policy positions needed to get votes from the masses AND please the major campaign contributors. The smartest guy on the ticket, Huntsman, has absolutely no traction because he refuses to engage in the absurdity. Honestly I'd heavily consider voting for Huntsman, even though his past policy initiatives are generally more conservative than Mitt, because I'm really impressed with Huntsman and his ability to stay outside the fray. Unfortunately, I imagine Huntsman would have a much harder time once he needed to be more accountable to the GOP party establishment, ala John McCain. Mitt is desperately trying to walk the tightrope, but it's got him all tangled up on his position statements. Frankly it's a bit amusing to watch, but ultimately sad.

Which brings me back to the heart of this thread. Which is, the GOP was given the choice of funding a tax bill from those making more than $1mil/year (taxable income, no less...after all of the myriad "loopholes" have been utilized!!) and gov't employees. The establishment felt the, overwhelmingly middle class, gov't employees should pay the bill. That is exactly the type of policy that makes no sense to me, especially in light of the fact that high income tax rates have been falling for the past 3 decades and there is next to no quantifiable proof that those high income individuals use the savings to create jobs. During that period the high income individuals (regardless of party affiliation) have dramatically increased their personal income while continuing to outsource American jobs. There is however, ample evidence that money gets funneled back into politics (and yes, it happens on both sides)...the old saying, follow the money.

Additional note. This has nothing to do with me being pissed that people have more than me. I could have easily gone into a career that made more money (I could switch right now if I wanted to) but I wanted to be a public servant and preferred to take less pay in exchange to doing something that I felt was a greater benefit to society at large. So it's not about jealousy, it's about big $$ players working to stifle the voice of the average American, which to me is an attempt to undermine our Democracy. This True American doesn't like that idea.

I like the link Clester