%@#%@ the unions!

[Bob Maxey]

Uh, yeah, I'm using the first thing I find on Google. Unlike conservatives, I do not have look around very long to find the "right" data, that supports me. Here's a tip: when reality supports your hypothesis, it's not that hard to find evidence that backs you.

I think anybody who looks at that chart who is not playing dumb can see that almost all the benefits of economic growth in the last 30 years have gone to the top earners. This is neither fair nor desirable from the standpoint of a healthy economy.



Of course you can dismiss me. Let's not pretend this would have ended any other way. You've clearly been shown to be wrong about your asinine misrepresentation of the effects of unions, and rather than drop your childish failed ideas about how the economy ought to work, you simply stomp off.



Not really sure what you mean here: you seem to have something against charts, and imply that they "don't count" or something. You should know, it's the information, not the source.



*buzz* Wrong again. I don't care what you WANT to believe, tax cuts have not really ever stimulated the economy. Any economist you want to ask will tell you that tax cuts are by far the least effective way to stimulate economic growth. The epic Reagan and Bush deficits that brought us little to no benefit are proof enough.

Your comment is wrong: businesses will not produce more if no one has any money to buy their products. To assert otherwise is phenomenally stupid. If you needed more proof of this, we're a couple months into the extension of the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts. Republicans PROMISED they would stimulate business because companies were "unsure" of the future tax environment, and remedying this would let them start hiring. Well, nothing even close to that has happened, just like every sober economist predicted.

Also, regarding tax cuts and revenue growth, here's a source (oh no! More data!) debunking that myth:

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

The most telling quote:

"According to the second table, the real growth in individual income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981 to 1991 and 10.41% from 1982 to 1992. These were the lowest growth rates of any of the 58 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007."

Seriously, if it really were that easy to increase revenue growth, you wouldn't see anybody recommending raising taxes. Politicians LOVE "have your cake and eat it too" solutions, and the "cut taxes to increase revenue" argument is pretty much the ultimate too-good-to-be-true proposition.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[ElasticNinja]

What color is the sky in your world?

yellow

 

[Tom Ace]

OK then

The California Public Employee Retirement System pays the annual retirement benefits of more than $100,000 to more than 5,000 public employees, including almost $500,000 to the most highly-compensated former employee. (CaliforniaPensionReform.com)

Bob

OK, now: What were the jobs of these employees? Why are they getting that much money? Most importantly, were they members of a union? Would getting rid of a union help fix that problem?

 

[Bob Maxey]

OK, now: What were the jobs of these employees? Why are they getting that much money? Most importantly, were they members of a union? Would getting rid of a union help fix that problem?

Well, you asked for a source and I provided it. If you want me to read it to you, sorry. Yes, getting rid of Unions would help because it would send a strong message.

Bob

 

[Tom Ace]

difference in mindset between conservatives and liberals

Actually, the main difference is in how accurately you see things. There is no one (well, let's say very few at least) who wants the rich to take care of everyone. The liberal mindset is not to have the rich take care of everyone; it's for everyone to do their part for the society. Everyone is supposed to contribute.

Every society needs the average workers, and not everyone in a society is going to be a successful businessman. If you want to be a successful businessman or entrepreneur and make a lot of money, more power to you, but with the benefits of that pile of money comes responsibilities. The person making $25,000 can't afford to contribute much, but you still need the people doing their job. So, you have them pay the little they can, let's say 5% of their gross earnings. Then you have the person making $500,000 pay what they reasonably can, let's say 35% of their gross earnings. The first person is still contributing as they should.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Actually, the main difference is in how accurately you see things. There is no one (well, let's say very few at least) who wants the rich to take care of everyone. The liberal mindset is not to have the rich take care of everyone; it's for everyone to do their part for the society. Everyone is supposed to contribute.

Every society needs the average workers, and not everyone in a society is going to be a successful businessman. If you want to be a successful businessman or entrepreneur and make a lot of money, more power to you, but with the benefits of that pile of money comes responsibilities. The person making $25,000 can't afford to contribute much, but you still need the people doing their job. So, you have them pay the little they can, let's say 5% of their gross earnings. Then you have the person making $500,000 pay what they reasonably can, let's say 35% of their gross earnings. The first person is still contributing as they should.

also known as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

 

[Tom Ace]

Well, you asked for a source and I provided it. If you want me to read it to you, sorry. Yes, getting rid of Unions would help because it would send a strong message.

Bob

Yes, I asked a question as part of a discussion. Now, I'm trying to continue the discussion. I understand if you don't want to, though. Your link was a list of many different articles all about California pensions. I'm not going to wade through all of that to get that info. You read the bit that gave you enough to make the claims you did. Now, you need to qualify the claims you made.

If those employees getting paid that much money aren't part of unions, then how does it help to get rid of unions? And no, "sending a strong message" is not a valid answer.

 

[cjr72]

There was a study in the US done a while back showing that conservatives (of the religious sort) are the most charitable.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

... If you want to be a successful businessman or entrepreneur and make a lot of money, more power to you, but with the benefits of that pile of money comes responsibilities. ...

I, for one, would like to thank you for telling me what MY RESPONSIBILITIES are.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Actually, the main difference is in how accurately you see things. There is no one (well, let's say very few at least) who wants the rich to take care of everyone. The liberal mindset is not to have the rich take care of everyone; it's for everyone to do their part for the society. Everyone is supposed to contribute.

Every society needs the average workers, and not everyone in a society is going to be a successful businessman. If you want to be a successful businessman or entrepreneur and make a lot of money, more power to you, but with the benefits of that pile of money comes responsibilities. The person making $25,000 can't afford to contribute much, but you still need the people doing their job. So, you have them pay the little they can, let's say 5% of their gross earnings. Then you have the person making $500,000 pay what they reasonably can, let's say 35% of their gross earnings. The first person is still contributing as they should.

Apparently, you do not read much. Taking from the rich to support the poor and the lazy is exactly what Obama wants and it is the focus of his administration. It is a socialist view and a socialist view is very much a part of the left side agenda. It was/is Socialism all the way; a self-proclaimed communist was an important member of his staff.

This 'take from the rich' mentality is unamerican and ever so sad.

I happen to make some pretty good green and my responsibilities include paying my taxes, living a decent life, doing no harm, obey the laws. There is no obligation on my part to care about anyone or to give a damn about the poor. I make it, I pay the required taxes, and I spend it. I can ignore the dirty poor and the sad stories, or I can give it all away. My choice, not your choice or any of your business.

Just how dim are you? You want an adjustable tax rate to favor the poor who do little and punish the rich that build lasting value? Just adding more complication to the tax laws and solving nothing. You and those that think like you simply do not read much and their knowledge of the real world is staggeringly zilch.

It is simple: we need a fair tax that requires everyone to pay a percentage of their income. Either that or a national consumption tax. Do not worry, you will still be able to feed at the public trough.

The communist lifestyle is really hard to defend publicly, is it not?

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

There was a study in the US done a while back showing that conservatives (of the religious sort) are the most charitable.

Consider going here:

Who Gives More: Democrats or Republicans? - Live Discussions - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas

Bob

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Consider going here:

Who Gives More: Democrats or Republicans? - Live Discussions - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas

Bob

That's because liberals like to give away OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Yes, I asked a question as part of a discussion. Now, I'm trying to continue the discussion. I understand if you don't want to, though. Your link was a list of many different articles all about California pensions. I'm not going to wade through all of that to get that info. You read the bit that gave you enough to make the claims you did. Now, you need to qualify the claims you made.

If those employees getting paid that much money aren't part of unions, then how does it help to get rid of unions? And no, "sending a strong message" is not a valid answer.

You want to contribute the discussion, yet facts are not to be part of the discussion. OK, I get it. So, have you been welcomed by the other liberal journalists yet? MSNBC has a job for you.

OK, So you do not want to wade through a bunch of data. I know just how scary data can be. Mr. Truth Monster might be hiding and we simply can't have that, now can we.

Bob

 

[Tom Ace]

I, for one, would like to thank you for telling me what MY RESPONSIBILITIES are.

You're welcome, but I'm surprised this is the first time you're hearing it. I would have assumed you'd understand the responsibilities of living in a society a long time ago, depending on how old you are. And more accurately, I'm only the one pointing out the responsibilities; it's society as a whole that determines the responsibility.

 

[Tom Ace]

also known as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Of course, going all the way to communism is a bad idea, but that basic idea is the most basic idea of a good, working society.

 

[ElasticNinja]

There was a study in the US done a while back showing that conservatives (of the religious sort) are the most charitable.

yes, my country is very religious and very charitable
religious give to charity more

 

[Tom Ace]

Apparently, you do not read much. Taking from the rich to support the poor and the lazy is exactly what Obama wants and it is the focus of his administration. It is a socialist view and a socialist view is very much a part of the left side agenda. It was/is Socialism all the way; a self-proclaimed communist was an important member of his staff.

This 'take from the rich' mentality is unamerican and ever so sad.

I happen to make some pretty good green and my responsibilities include paying my taxes, living a decent life, doing no harm, obey the laws. There is no obligation on my part to care about anyone or to give a damn about the poor. I make it, I pay the required taxes, and I spend it. I can ignore the dirty poor and the sad stories, or I can give it all away. My choice, not your choice or any of your business.

Wow, so, you're that far gone, huh? Up until now, I would have guessed from your posts that you were at least partially reasonable.

Let's start with the the "taking from the rich" thing. That's a mischaracterization. The accurate portrayal is paying a higher percentage in taxes the more income you have. It's not "taking from the rich to support the poor and lazy".

Next, let's address the socialism part. Obama is not a socialist, and the distribution of wealth is not really a socialist idea. There's nothing really wrong with socialism anyway, so it's ineffective to throw the word around in an attempt to vilify certain ideas just by association with it.

No, you don't have to care about anyone. I never claimed you did, and no one else claims that either. Your responsibilities, as you said, are to pay your taxes and obey the laws. The goal of those taxes is to support a good, working society. To do that progressive taxes are the effective method.

Just how dim are you?

Yeah, that makes sense coming from the guy posting this diatribe...

You want an adjustable tax rate to favor the poor who do little and punish the rich that build lasting value?

I want a progressive tax rate that doesn't favor anyone. As I already explained to someone else, it's a little immature to view it as a punishment. Also, this notion that rich people are so awesome because they provide all of this opportunity is silly. The rich people would be nowhere without the poor and middle-class people. Each person should pay what they reasonably can. That's not a punishment for the people making more. If they don't want to pay the higher percentage, they can just take a pay cut.

The main problem here is your faulty "rich people create everything and provide society with all that is awesome, while poor people just leech off the system" assumption.

Just adding more complication to the tax laws and solving nothing. You and those that think like you simply do not read much and their knowledge of the real world is staggeringly zilch.

I'm sure that view makes you feel better about yourself, but we both know deep down, it's entirely false. No one's "just adding more complication to the tax laws", so I'm not even sure where that comes from. It's very simple. You pay this percentage on any income between $X and $Y, and this much on the amount between $A and $B, etc.

It is simple: we need a fair tax that requires everyone to pay a percentage of their income. Either that or a national consumption tax. Do not worry, you will still be able to feed at the public trough.

Yes, we have a fair tax. It's called a progressive tax. Everyone pays a percentage of their income, and everyone pays the same percentage for each increment. As I said, a sales tax isn't a bad idea, but it has to be done carefully and not replace an income tax.

The communist lifestyle is really hard to defend publicly, is it not?

Bob

The communist lifestyle? Yes. The societal system I'm advocating? Not at all. It would be nice if you'd at least learn enough to know the difference between a progressive income tax and communism.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You're welcome, but I'm surprised this is the first time you're hearing it. I would have assumed you'd understand the responsibilities of living in a society a long time ago, depending on how old you are. And more accurately, I'm only the one pointing out the responsibilities; it's society as a whole that determines the responsibility.

Hey there Guy . . . What is wrong with your education? Do you NOT know that we, the American People, are extraordinarily generous? Americans are very good of, and very proud of our service to the country and the world.

You are simply telling us that Americans do not know how to be generous. When it is not enough for you, quite likely, you would prefer that we give until we are as broke as you are.

Look around you, Sport... Americans do give and give and give. We are here because of the shared sacrifices we have made since the beginning. It is not enough that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill Gates give millions of dollars every year, or average Americans also give, even when they might have a better use for their cash.

Read a book please. You really need to read non-revisionist American History and keep off the net where others like you gather and share hate and venom.

We do not need to be told what our social obligations are, especially by you because you are clueless.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

Next, let's address the socialism part. Obama is not a socialist, and the distribution of wealth is not really a socialist idea. There's nothing really wrong with socialism anyway, so it's ineffective to throw the word around in an attempt to vilify certain ideas just by association with it.

Thanks for the post. You just confirmed what many of us gathered here already suspected. We can now be done with you and go back to arguing how crappy Apple is.

Bob

 

[byteware]

You're making it way too complicated. You look at progressive taxes as punitive. The better way to look at it is that they're not punitive, but instead a responsibility. We're not punishing people for making more money, just requiring them to pay more of that money in taxes as their responsibility for the society they live in.

Of course that's how YOU want to look at it, when it's not YOUR money.

It's ok... we'll call it their "responsibility". That makes taking their property so much more palatable.

I illustrated the difference between looking at it as a punishment and looking at it as a responsibility with an analogy. My analogy explained my point rather well. I'm sorry if you choose to try to twist it to fit your view.

It explained your point perfectly fine, but my analogy is far more accurate to what we are talking about.

I'd rather you let me clarify what I'm saying, since you are obviously not qualified to do so. Let's not even talk about "rich". Someone making $90,000 is paying a higher percentage in tax than I am, but they're not rich. What I'm saying is that higher increments of income are less valuable to a person.

You aren't allowed to decide for someone else how much THEY value their property.

This is a rationalization so that you feel better taking their property.

If I make $250,000 a year, and suddenly drop to $200,000, it'll mean giving up some things. If I suddenly drop to $100,000, it'll mean giving up even more things. But I think we can all agree that putting less into a retirement account, taking smaller vacations or none, having a $25,000 car instead of a $60,000 one are all a lot easier to handle than having barely enough food to eat, not having a car at all and not having any savings. So that increment of income from $100,000 to $250,000 is much less valuable than the one from $0 to $100,000.

Yep, and you are able to determine that rich people giving up a few things is ok, because well, they have lots of money.

Yes, there is. What you should do is, before responding to posts, read them twice carefully, so that you actually grasp what's being said. It makes the exchanges go a lot better. As I said, the responsibility is the same. Anyone who makes $250,000 pays the same percentage in taxes. Anyone who makes $34,000 pays the same amount in taxes. I pay the same amount on my first $34,000 that the person making $1 million pays.

You are really trying to justify that people paying no taxes bear the same tax responsibility as people paying millions in taxes?

There is NO measurement by which you can argue that they have the same responsibility.

That doesn't mean I value their property less. It means the higher increments of their income go to less valuable things.

Listen to this... you don't value their property less, just what they do with it.

You value their property less, otherwise you couldn't make the argument that it was less valuable...

 

[Tom Ace]

You want to contribute the discussion, yet facts are not to be part of the discussion. OK, I get it.

Huh? I accept your facts. I'm trying to get more of them. It's not a good idea to come to a conclusion without all of the relevant facts.

OK, So you do not want to wade through a bunch of data. I know just how scary data can be. Mr. Truth Monster might be hiding and we simply can't have that, now can we.

Bob

It's amazing the tactics people will resort to to avoid answering actual questions. The funniest part is you trying to pretend that I'm the one avoiding "Mr. Truth Monster". I'm trying to get to Mr. Truth Monster. What you've done is the equivalent of me saying "The average pension of a UAW worker is $10,000. I read it in this 600-page book.". That's not very helpful. I do understand that it's probably easier to cherry-pick factoids and stats that support your position on the surface when you don't really think about them, but that's not what I'm looking for.

The big question is whether or not unions help or hurt on the whole. The question I posed was which public employees you thought made too much money and how much you think they should make. You responded with a stat about pensions. I appreciate the response, but the reply wasn't supposed to be the end of the discussion. You gave some numbers, but now we have to qualify the numbers. You're the one who found the numbers on a page that could take hours and hours to read through. I'd be happy to find the answers for myself, but I need a little more direction than a page with 10+ articles on it. I don't mind reading a couple pages of a relevant article, but not several articles that may or may not even be relevant.

 

[byteware]

So, if you don't think some public employees get paid too much, then why are you worried about what they're getting paid?

In reference to why we have a say in Public Employees, and not CEO's.

Are there public employees that are paid too much, absolutely.

That's already been pointed out, but we as taxpayers have a vested interest in how much public employees make, and how much they cost US, whereas we don't have such an interest in CEO's.

 

[byteware]

I, for one, would like to thank you for telling me what MY RESPONSIBILITIES are.

Especially when it involves taking your property.

 

[byteware]

Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Of course, going all the way to communism is a bad idea, but that basic idea is the most basic idea of a good, working society.

Really? We've had plenty of working societies throughout the centuries... how many of them had this "most basic idea"?

 

[Tom Ace]

Hey there Guy . . . What is wrong with your education? Do you NOT know that we, the American People, are extraordinarily generous? Americans are very good of, and very proud of our service to the country and the world.

You are simply telling us that Americans do not know how to be generous. When it is not enough for you, quite likely, you would prefer that we give until we are as broke as you are.

Look around you, Sport... Americans do give and give and give. We are here because of the shared sacrifices we have made since the beginning. It is not enough that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill Gates give millions of dollars every year, or average Americans also give, even when they might have a better use for their cash.

Read a book please. You really need to read non-revisionist American History and keep off the net where others like you gather and share hate and venom.

We do not need to be told what our social obligations are, especially by you because you are clueless.

Bob

You could save yourself some time by actually trying to understand what I'm saying. Yes, Americans give to charity. So? Where did you get the idea that I claim they don't. What we're talking about is taxes. Charity is not going to keep this country working well. Getting rid of taxes, and just relying on people to give what they feel like to charities won't even take care of the amount of poor people we're taking care of now, much less pay for education, roads, running water, etc.

You might want to take a minute to understand what's being said before throwing around silly accusations.