Paul Ryan will be unvieling the FY2012 budget tomorrow: $4T in cuts

[Throckmorton]

I'm actually an independent. I vote for whoever will enact the least amount of change. My preference is to have the entire govt in a deadlock with a nice mix of Republicans and Democrats. With more repubs in congress and possibly in the senate now, I'd rather have Obama relected again even if I'm not a huge fan. Too much power in any single party is bad. They are both slaves to their parties.

As to my comment - I wonder how much of the $13,000 in income is wellfare type progams. $13,000 a year is just plain sad. I brought in that much working during junioir/senior year of high school.

Anyway I warned you my post lacked compassion. I don't have any. Life is tough deal with it.

If the person is so worthless, why is someone hiring them to work for $13k?

Would the employer be worse or better off if the person were dead?

 

[werepossum]

I was being sarcastic... Republicans seem to think wages are charity and we should be praying at the feet of the rich because they 'create jobs' out of divine benevolence.

My point is that the person is employed because he's providing a valuable service for someone. That's not leeching on society.

Ah, mea culpa. My meter's out again.

I don't think anyone working for what he gets is leeching off of society, but we've gotten seriously screwed up when with the giveaways one is often better of working for minimum wage or even not working. When a minimum wage single mother of two has more disposable income that a single mother of two earning more than median income, we're seriously screwed.

 

[her209]

Since the rich (or at least high wage earners) pay a huge fraction of income taxes, it's going to be hard to argue that rich people are benefiting from having their money taken and a portion of it later returned in exchange for goods or services, since before the taxes the rich had all their money.

But at the same time, if the rich got to keep their money instead of paying it to the government in the form of higher taxes, the demand for their products would go down because people have less money to spend and/or the prices of their products would go down to make it affordable. And that would cause the stores owners to lay off employees and/or closing stores. But you'd think that the remaining low-wage-formerly-on-welfare employees would demand and get higher wages, right? Not necessarily. Why? Because now you have all the laid off workers competing for the jobs, and possibly driving down wages more.

 

[dmcowen674]

Now the Democrat motto is "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask how they can tax someone else so you don't have to pay for your own shit."

You betcha and starting with you since you clearly don't pay your share.

 

[Carmen813]

I hope to god he isn't serious about making a voucher program comparable to Medicare Advantage. That program is the definition of corporate welfare.

 

[Carmen813]

Dude, you seriously need to understand basic economic theory. Your salary is not something your employer randomly bestows on you out of the generosity (or lack thereof) of his heart. It's the intersection of what you can demand (and will accept) on the labor market and what your employer has to (and can afford to) pay to get you. If there are lots of people who can do your job, your pay will generally be low no matter where you are employed. Dry wallers are a case in point; within the last two decades dry wallers' wages in my area have been cut almost in half by the influx of illegal aliens who can do drywall with roughly equal results. A ticket booth operator might take in $500/hour, but a huge number of people can do that job with roughly equal results. So outside of government, that's going to be a low paying job. You can increase that pay in various ways - you can work unusually hard (therefore producing more than would be expected); you can develop new, more marketable job skills (thereby reducing your competition while increasing your value); or you can unionize and force your employer to pay more. The last is obviously the worst for society as it creates no additional wealth although it may be a good thing if some other force is acting to slew the market. Coal mines, for instance, used to be literally the only employer in coal towns and had horrible safety records. Weavers in Flanders circa late eighteenth/early nineteenth century were artificially handicapped by the merchant class' virtual monopoly on cloth production.)

If you produce more for your employer than would another person (i.e. you work harder or are smarter or faster) then your employer may pay you more than he'd pay another to do your job. Similarly, an employer may pay more for an employee with a particular non-marketable skill. For instance, a secretary in a law office might be paid more if she has good people skills than her typing and filing ability would otherwise warrant, because she makes the office a better environment. But generally speaking, your pay in a non-government job depends on how many people can do your job. If your skills are quite rare, then you'll make good money even if you produce no profit. A leadburner for instance produces no profit, but makes a ton of money because it's a very rare skill set, so when an employer has to have the services of a leadburner he knows he'll have to pay out the nose.

There's a reason it's called theory werepossum. The real world hardly ever works this way. In fact, the people who are wealthiest are those who often produce almost nothing. There are innumerable variables that factor into how wages are set, and how "hard" a person works isn't the dominant one. That's simply the myth of meritocracy.


I think it's misguided to attack government jobs when they often pay less than their private sector counterparts.

 

[Carmen813]

Yes. If you only make $13,000 a year, you are a drain on society. At least this way they'll have to pay some money in order to be a drain on a society.

Most entitlement programs are used by the poor but they pay nothing. I'd rather kick them out of the country. Of course that would make me a heartless robot who lacks compassion but that's more or less true too.

People who use wages and economic output as a means of deciding an individual's value to society deeply disturb me. Sadly, it seems to be the dominant ideology.

 

[Naeeldar]

People who use wages and economic output as a means of deciding an individual's value to society deeply disturb me. Sadly, it seems to be the dominant ideology.

I made $13,000 in high school. If you honestly can't find a way to make more then that as an adult - you are LAZY. Period. There is no if and or but to this. Unless you have some type of a disability it is not hard to get a basic job making 30k a year. I went through 3 of them very easily when I was only 19-20-21. And I obviously didn't have a college degree. Still don't and I found a way to make a good living.

 

[Fern]

$400 billion a year in cuts?

He's dreaming. Congress can't agree now on cuts that are a mere fraction of that.

Not a whole lot to discuss about his proposal IMO. Don't see much in the way of details.

I've never seen a plan of his liked. He wants to extend the retirment age for SS again? F' him. I've been paying 15% for almost 40 years (started getting a W-2 when I was 13 yrs old and worked through college).

How about raising taxes on (hedge) fund managers making multiple millions per years? How about means testing for SS? How about actually fixing the problem with health care costs?

Fern

 

[her209]

I made $13,000 in high school. If you honestly can't find a way to make more then that as an adult - you are LAZY. Period. There is no if and or but to this. Unless you have some type of a disability it is not hard to get a basic job making 30k a year. I went through 3 of them very easily when I was only 19-20-21. And I obviously didn't have a college degree. Still don't and I found a way to make a good living.

How much do you make because some asshole out there thinks that someone making your salary is LAZY. Period. No ifs ands or buts to it.

:awe:

 

[Carmen813]

I made $13,000 in high school. If you honestly can't find a way to make more then that as an adult - you are LAZY. Period. There is no if and or but to this. Unless you have some type of a disability it is not hard to get a basic job making 30k a year. I went through 3 of them very easily when I was only 19-20-21. And I obviously didn't have a college degree. Still don't and I found a way to make a good living.

My point is that I don't believe income has anything to do with an individual's value as a human being. Think critically about what you've just stated and I believe you will agree.

You are speaking from a position of privilege if you think 30k a year jobs are easily obtainable, especially without formal education or training of some sort.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see, we have a bunch of impressive charts and graphs, and say this is all according to, ta da, Matt Yglesias, but when I read the fine print fast shuffle, no this is not according to Matt, its according to the Center for Tax Justice analysis.


And rather than questions if the center for tax justice has any expertise in crunching the numbers this fast, or is accurate in its analysis, and has an iota of valid financial methodologies, see original assumption that such a pretty chart and graph just has to be right.

Next up for such suckers is to corner the market for all the Ocean front land in Arizona. But to get in on the ground floor of that emerging market, first you have to buy the Brooklyn bridge.

Or as they say in Computer land, garbage in, garbage out.

 

[WackyDan]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/03/news/economy/federal_budget_house_republicans/?section=money_latest


Mandating me to buy a private product... Where have we seen this?

Wrong. Medicare is a voluntary program. Obamacare is not. That is the difference. Interesting that while medicare is voluntary, it is Obamacare that mandates them to be on either medicare or some other plan.

Ironically it is again this current administration that wants to make shit mandatory... and another clever move by them... or I should say attempted..
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...uit-affirm-voluntary-medicare-social-security

 

[JSt0rm]

Wrong. Medicare is a voluntary program. Obamacare is not. That is the difference. Interesting that while medicare is voluntary, it is Obamacare that mandates them to be on either medicare or some other plan.

Ironically it is again this current administration that wants to make shit mandatory... and another clever move by them... or I should say attempted..
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...uit-affirm-voluntary-medicare-social-security

Clearly the only solution is single payer care with all medical research being done by the nih. Dont you agree?

 

[Throckmorton]

Ah, mea culpa. My meter's out again.

I don't think anyone working for what he gets is leeching off of society, but we've gotten seriously screwed up when with the giveaways one is often better of working for minimum wage or even not working. When a minimum wage single mother of two has more disposable income that a single mother of two earning more than median income, we're seriously screwed.

I'm guessing you're referring to the purposely flawed study that considered medical bills paid by insurance to be "income" that contributed to disposable income. There was a thread on it and it was debunked.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm guessing you're referring to the purposely flawed study that considered medical bills paid by insurance to be "income" that contributed to disposable income. There was a thread on it and it was debunked.

I'm sure he is. That was a spidey thread if I recall correctly.

 

[jonks]

Because we could not possibly educate ourselves without the government right? please...

They've done a bang up job with education haven't they?

Prior to mandatory public education essentially only the wealthy received formal education. Maybe that sounds peachy to you, but the US didn't become the superpower of the world by ignoring the education of millions of its citizens. Education today needs an overhaul, yes. But claiming the govt should never have gotten involved in education just b/c we need to tweak it now is akin to arguing the govt should never have gotten involved in SS. Maybe you think 35% of seniors living in poverty is just peachy too, and that's how it was when we "let the market decide" what to do with them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ryan has been preaching the same sermon for years, so I doubt that his "new" plan will be much different from his "old" plan, but we'll see.

Basically, it's all trickledown all the time, and it should be obvious what that's done for us over the last 30 years.

If it weren't for all the misery it'd impose, I'd say give it to 'em- let 'em have what they want. It'll put the economy so far down the shitter that the lesson will be imprinted on the consciousness of America for generations, just like 1929.

 

[yllus]

Well if you want to use the term fair. It is completely fair. The rich don't use social services, the poor do. Therefore the poor need to pay more for those services.

That is what fair is. Make the people that use a product pay for it. Those that don't use it, shouldn't pay for it.


But most people like you would rather tax the rich so you don't have to pay your own way. Using justifications like: They're rich, they can afford it.
It's nothing more than jealousy.

Okay, I think that's a fair thing to say - the poor make the most use of the state's social services. Conversely, would it be safe to say that the rich make the most use of the state's infrastructure and commerce products? Without energy, water, roads, air traffic control and oversight of the financial system the rich wouldn't get very far in accumulating wealth. Fostering a society that allows that to happen isn't cheap either.

How do you what people like me would like? It's a hell of a thing to call an anonymous stranger jealous because he deigned to post a couple of graphs - I didn't express an opinion on the matter. If you are an adult you should be ashamed of yourself for immediately resorting to comments like that.

Lets see, we have a bunch of impressive charts and graphs, and say this is all according to, ta da, Matt Yglesias, but when I read the fine print fast shuffle, no this is not according to Matt, its according to the Center for Tax Justice analysis.

And rather than questions if the center for tax justice has any expertise in crunching the numbers this fast, or is accurate in its analysis, and has an iota of valid financial methodologies, see original assumption that such a pretty chart and graph just has to be right.

Next up for such suckers is to corner the market for all the Ocean front land in Arizona. But to get in on the ground floor of that emerging market, first you have to buy the Brooklyn bridge.

Or as they say in Computer land, garbage in, garbage out.

The paragraph right above the graph reads, in a regular size font, "But according to a Center for Tax Justice analysis (PDF), even though Ryan features large aggregate tax cuts, ninety percent of Americans would actually pay higher taxes under his plan." That's a fast shuffle? Jesus.

 

[theeedude]

Is GOP on crack? 15K voucher they want to hand a senior instead of Medicare is not even going to begin to pay for anything near Medicare equivalent coverage for a senior.

 

[Red Dawn]

Good.

The bottom 47% are not paying anything right now.
They need to broaden the tax base.

Yeah lets make their lives even tougher than it already is so the rich cocksuckers can enjoy their wealth even more.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah lets make their lives even tougher than it already is so the rich cocksuckers can enjoy their wealth even more.

If middle class Americans are dumb enough to support Republicans, they have it coming.

 

[matt0611]

Prior to mandatory public education essentially only the wealthy received formal education. Maybe that sounds peachy to you, but the US didn't become the superpower of the world by ignoring the education of millions of its citizens. Education today needs an overhaul, yes. But claiming the govt should never have gotten involved in education just b/c we need to tweak it now is akin to arguing the govt should never have gotten involved in SS. Maybe you think 35% of seniors living in poverty is just peachy too, and that's how it was when we "let the market decide" what to do with them.

Why would the people need education? They did jobs that didn't require formal education. Stop trying to compare how things were and then extrapolate out to today how things would be today without big government, how we would all be working in a mine somewhere for $1 / day while all the elderly people were dying on the streets blah blah blah without our government to save us. Its getting so old.
Interesting how the things that the government has a hand in the most all have huge problems, education, SS, healthcare, etc


You know what was hard to afford a long time ago? Almost anything, only the wealthy could afford cars, air conditioners, computers, flat screen tvs, radios, to fly on an airplane etc
Now even the poorest among us can afford them, We didn't have government mandated any of that though? Hmmm... funny how that works?

 

[Zebo]

This is why you shouldn't beat your children... seems that will be your lifeline in the fiscal future.

 

[Siddhartha]

Just because I saw this on my morning commute, from Matt Yglesias:

How have the GOP been able to convince people to vote against their own best interests for the past 30 years? It is amazing.