Obama '08?

The public doesn't give a **** about that, George. Or perhaps you can provide some polling data showing that it does? It certainly isn't listed as a top issue of concern in any of the polls I've seen.
...
You make assertions without providing proof, and when I demand for you to do so, you assert that it isn't a debate and you don't have to do so. This is weak. There is no judge but both you and I know that you are arguing in bad faith; that is to say, you don't have evidence to back up your positions.

I think that when you chide me for 'speaking for the public,' you are engaging in a bit of projection. You honestly seem to believe that your ideas reflect what the public believes, and that when polling data shows that to be incorrect, you attack the polls and say that it's unknowable. Very weak.

The next Dem issue likely will be a Jobs bill and financial sector regulation. Neither can be politically opposed by the Republicans in any meaningful way without opening themselves up to being crucified in the next election.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year…….$Receipts……$Outlays…$ReceiptsMinusOutlays
2000..2,025,457,000..1,789,216,000…+ 236,241,000
2001..1,991,426,000..1,863,190,000…+128,236,000
2002..1,853,395,000..2,011,153,000…- 157,758,000
2003..1,782,532,000..2,160,117,000…- 377,585,000
2004..1,880,279,000..2,293,006,000…- 412,727,000
2005..2,153,859,000..2,472,205,000…- 318,346,000
2006..2,407,254,000..2,655,435,000…- 248,181,000
2007..2,568,239,000..2,730,241,000…- 162,002,000
2008..2,521,175,000..2,931,222,000…- 410,047,000(source’s estimate)
2009..2,699,547,000..3,107,355,000…- 407,408,000(source’s estimate)

These are already on the table, as part of the President's quickly assembled plan to regain the initiative and distract the public from his failures. Republicans are as supportive of job creation as are Democrats, though they believe that subsidies to bloated government brueaucracies, and added deficit financing are not effective ways to achieve that. This issue has been debated among them for some time now and so far the President hasn't done very well in meeting his promised goals.

Notice that fed tax receipts decreased in 2001 through 2003. But increased each year thereafter, and exceeded their 2000 high in 2005. Part of our current problem is that fed outlays increased faster in 2008 and 2009 than they had in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year…….$Receipts……$Outlays…$ReceiptsMinusOutlays
2000..2,025,457,000..1,789,216,000…+ 236,241,000
2001..1,991,426,000..1,863,190,000…+128,236,000
2002..1,853,395,000..2,011,153,000…- 157,758,000
2003..1,782,532,000..2,160,117,000…- 377,585,000
2004..1,880,279,000..2,293,006,000…- 412,727,000
2005..2,153,859,000..2,472,205,000…- 318,346,000
2006..2,407,254,000..2,655,435,000…- 248,181,000
2007..2,568,239,000..2,730,241,000…- 162,002,000
2008..2,521,175,000..2,931,222,000…- 410,047,000(source’s estimate)
2009..2,699,547,000..3,107,355,000…- 407,408,000(source’s estimate)

In my view the most ominous issue ahead for Democrats is going to be public resentment for the growing cadre of better paid public employees (nearly all members of various gov't employee unions) and the increasing taxation from states and counties required to support them during economic hard times. This has the potential to become an issue that underlies all others, and reduces the public appetite for government programs of all kinds.

georgeob1 wrote:

In my view the most ominous issue ahead for Democrats is going to be public resentment for the growing cadre of better paid public employees (nearly all members of various gov't employee unions) and the increasing taxation from states and counties required to support them during economic hard times. This has the potential to become an issue that underlies all others, and reduces the public appetite for government programs of all kinds.

Here, here, George!!!!

I, for one am upset about this, and of all the private sector people I know who are fighting for their jobs and their benefits every day, there is growing discontent.

CORRECTION
Bush's early 2001 tax cut was not signed by Clinton.

Here, here, George!!!!

I, for one am upset about this, and of all the private sector people I know who are fighting for their jobs and their benefits every day, there is growing discontent.

I don't see how your response applys to my post.

Unemployement went up to 10.2%....how many of those were private sector jobs vs public sector jobs? I'd be willing to bet that at least 10:1 jobs were lost in the private vs. public sector.

This has nothing to do with Obama; it has to do with bloated government jobs, of which performance is not managed effectively, because you cannot fire anybody. And people retire with 90% of their last year's salary for LIFE, after 30 years of employement, not to mention the health benefits that don't even come close to being as expensive as the private sector has to pay.

If you don't think that private sector emploees are pissed about this, especially in light of the current employment envrionment, you're really out of touch.

I don't see how your response applys to my post.

Okay, so present us with the polling data that shows this is a top concern - and the plan that you have for fixing it.
Cycloptichorn

Quote:

I don't see how your response applys to my post.

Government workers provide services and money, citizens like to get services and money, so what makes you so sure that they want to cut the number of people who serve them? They want someone else to pay for the servants, a different matter all together

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okay, so present us with the polling data that shows this is a top concern - and the plan that you have for fixing it.
Cycloptichorn

Polls aren't the only source for such observations, and they aren't necessarily the most reliable.

Most publicly released polls are done by various advocacy groups, left and right. Many of the most objective ones are done for as part of the policy research of both parties and these aren't usually released. No one has any public responsibility for researching these issues, and you can't simply assume that such data is available.

On what basis do you demand that he or anyone present a soultion as a precondition for pointing out a problem? I suggested that this was a growing perception among many people

and that it will not work to the benefit of a Democrat party that appears to favor government action as a solution to most problems; appears to be unconcerned about its increased deficit spending; and increasingly dependent on the financial support of geovernment employee labor unions.

If you can't figure that out for yourself, it's OK with me. If you don't believe it, that's OK with me as well.

Yeah, maybe not lay them off. But we can pay them less OR make their retirement packages a little more in line with what their bosses (us) get.

public resentment for the growing cadre of better paid public employees