Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 17 Nov, 2010 07:06 pm
@okie,
Quote:

I believe an idealogical point is important. For example, do you think treating one company different than another one is constitutional, yes or no? To try to make it as simple for you to understand as possible, is it logical to bail out one company that is threatened with bankruptcy, but not another one?


Yes! Okie, we don't live in a black-and-white, ideologically pure world. If all our decisions were easy ones, we wouldn't need a government or anyone to decide what should happen. But we all know that's not the case.

The government sometimes uses its' power to ensure that the situation we face as a nation isn't unduly harmed by ideological points, Okie. My ideology says that we should NEVER go to war unless we are attacked or there is no other choice. However, I'm not an idiot, and know that there are times when a nation has to act, even if it comes at a cost. You ought to try thinking the same way when it comes to fiscal matters: it's best to treat everyone the same, but folly to insist on it when doing so would be extremely harmful to everyone.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 01:33 pm
Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20030&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
More Federal Workers' Pay Tops $150,000
The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA Today analysis finds.
The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week's elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president's plan to give a 1.4 percent across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10 percent pay cut.
Federal salaries have grown robustly in recent years, according to a USA Today analysis of Office of Personnel Management data. Key findings:
• Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.
• The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 years to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25 percent compared with a 9 percent inflation rate.
• Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.
Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9 percent of the workforce, up from 0.4 percent in 2005.
• Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3 percent annually above inflation compared with 0.8 percent for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
• Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.
Source: Dennis Cauchon, "More Federal Workers' Pay Tops $150,000," USA Today, November 10, 2010.

cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 02:09 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Thanks for posting that article on government worker pay and benefits that have increased to new highs - even as our economy continues to struggle, and tax revenues continues to slide.

I've made that statement someplace not long ago claiming what your article confirms. Thx.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 02:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
As is often the case though, ci, cutting and pasting an article from a biased source can lead to some potentially erroneous conclusions. It would be interesting to dig a little deeper into OMB data to find out what caused the number of federal employees earning over $150k to increase by so much.
I spent only about 10 minutes searching in the corners of the data available and found a bunch of stuff.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 02:33 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, Good advise, but what did you find that refutes that article?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 02:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am not saying that the data I find refudiates the data. But it does go a ways to explaining things. I am working on other stuff right now, but I will try to get back to this in due course.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 02:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

rjb, Good advise, but what did you find that refutes that article?


Outsourcing your janitors.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 03:00 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
It would be interesting to dig a little deeper into OMB data to find out what caused the number of federal employees earning over $150k to increase by so much.


That's simple enough John. They got out of control. They always do and then the public get fed up and throw them out. All bureaucracies are the same in that fundamental respect. It was an ongoing, cyclical problem for the Romans.

The problem is more the habits the easy money has caused. Hence the kicking and squealing when the re-adjustment takes place which is, of course, only temporary as long as 4% growth resumes and is not very severe anyway if debt can be passed on to the kids who we all love so dearly. (The poor little saps--fancy robbing babies eh?)
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 03:04 pm
@spendius,
The next time you are walking down the street and you see an infant gurgling in his straps look him in the eye and say "Boy--are we mixing you some pretty medicine."
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 04:17 pm
A final note, perhaps, on the GM IPO. Shares were priced at $33 each and rose by 7% before settling down at $34.19 (up 3.6%). Volume, measured in number of shares traded, was about half of the number of shares issued.
By all accounts, the government did a commendable job of dealing with Wall Street on this. I was somewhat involved with IPO's years and years ago. It was not at all unusual to have them under priced and to have shares go to privileged clients who could flip them for a 50% or 100% profit in a day.
The underwriters (like Goldman Sachs etc) took a fee of .75% vs normal rates of many times that.
All in all, in my opinion, this was a successful day for the government in bringing GM to market.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 06:19 pm
CHESS MATCH
It appears tonight that the Democrat House leadership has signed on to bringing a bill to the floor that would offer tax breaks to the mid and lower level tax payers but not to those in the highest income tax brackets. This is, as I understand it, a new bill rather than an extension of the law due to expire at the end of the year that would temporarily extend tax cuts to everyone.
Many liberal Dems pushed for this even though, if it is defeated, tax cuts for everyone would go away.
The Senate and the White House are wary about this approach, seeming to prefer to punt the issue down the field for awhile.
The Repubs, fresh off of the killing today of extending some unemployment benefits, could be put in a box if they oppose the Dem plan unless tax cuts for the wealthiest are extended.

Have I summarized this reasonably accurately based on yall's reading?
Thanks.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 06:49 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

A final note, perhaps, on the GM IPO. Shares were priced at $33 each and rose by 7% before settling down at $34.19 (up 3.6%). Volume, measured in number of shares traded, was about half of the number of shares issued.
By all accounts, the government did a commendable job of dealing with Wall Street on this. I was somewhat involved with IPO's years and years ago. It was not at all unusual to have them under priced and to have shares go to privileged clients who could flip them for a 50% or 100% profit in a day.
The underwriters (like Goldman Sachs etc) took a fee of .75% vs normal rates of many times that.
All in all, in my opinion, this was a successful day for the government in bringing GM to market.


Thanks for that info.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 06:53 pm
@realjohnboy,
Yes, your explanation is good, but what I'm interested in is the chance of it passing before the next congress.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 06:56 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

CHESS MATCH
It appears tonight that the Democrat House leadership has signed on to bringing a bill to the floor that would offer tax breaks to the mid and lower level tax payers but not to those in the highest income tax brackets.


Actually, it does offer tax breaks to those in the highest income brackets; just not on their income at the highest level. They enjoy the same tax cuts that everyone else will on their income below that level, so it's fair to say that ALL Americans get a tax cut under this plan.

Quote:
This is, as I understand it, a new bill rather than an extension of the law due to expire at the end of the year that would temporarily extend tax cuts to everyone.
Many liberal Dems pushed for this even though, if it is defeated, tax cuts for everyone would go away.


Yeah, I wish that would happen. But I doubt the Republicans have the cojones to hold the country hostage so the richest 2% get a tax cut. I sincerely hope they try.

Quote:
The Senate and the White House are wary about this approach, seeming to prefer to punt the issue down the field for awhile.
The Repubs, fresh off of the killing today of extending some unemployment benefits, could be put in a box if they oppose the Dem plan unless tax cuts for the wealthiest are extended.
Have I summarized this reasonably accurately based on yall's reading?
Thanks.


Totally!

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 07:11 pm
Thanks, Cyclo. I am working on some other stuff and cobbled together a post quickly based mostly on memory re the tax cut extension.
The lame duck session, scheduled to adjourn just after the 1st of Dec (I believe), could be very interesting.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 07:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Actually, it does offer tax breaks to those in the highest income brackets; just not on their income at the highest level. They enjoy the same tax cuts that everyone else will on their income below that level, so it's fair to say that ALL Americans get a tax cut under this plan.
Cycloptichorn
Talk about splitting hairs, cyclops. What do you want to do, ask people how much money they have in the bank when they check out at Walmart, then adjust their tax rate to fit?

In other words, don't you understand the ethics of charging the same marginal rate on everybody?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 07:56 pm
@okie,
Not while we have two wars, and our deficit continues to grow.

Do you want to tax the poor more that they don't have?
okie
 
  0  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 08:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Perhaps I did not explain my point very well, ci? I interpreted cyclops as bemoaning the idea that the rich would receive a lower tax rate on the first margin of income, just like all the other people including the poor do. For example, if the government taxes the first few thousand at 10%, then lowers that tax to - say 9%, he is angry that the rich would also get that tax rate for the first few thousand they make. My point is that the whole concept of margins, whatever the rates and brackets are, they need to be equally applied to everyone.

Maybe I did not interpret correctly what cyclops said, but that is what I got out of his post. And I was simply pointing out that tax laws need to be equally applied to everyone.
talk72000
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 08:46 pm
@okie,
You are misrepresenting the rich as if they rightfully earned their money. The interlocking directorate, leverage loans and golden parachutes show a racket. The working people are stung.
okie
 
  1  
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 08:50 pm
@talk72000,
Corruption and whether somebody earns their money cuts across income lines, talk. There are poor people that are crooked as well.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1861
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 01:11:16