Yes. It sounds nice to the progressives ears to say and hear this. "Everyone" will be paying down the deficite. It's not true, and it's not common sense. It's a falsehood that you are falling for.



You are advocating bleeding the rich to pay for an ever increasing amount of social justice programs, that require more and more people to be dependant on government for their needs. There are many legitimate expendetures, and we need to pay enough in taxes to cover them. We cannot continue to legitimise every spending proposal that flows through congress.

You are obviously not paying attention to what people like the common sense govenor in NJ are saying. The problem isn't that there isn't enough tax revenue. The problem is legislators are spending our money faster than they can collect it. If this happens in your house, or in my house, we are going to have to look at what we are spending and make some common sense decisions about how we are going to reduce our spending. We, unlike governments, cannot demand that our employer pays us more money.

You seemed to miss the part of our history that tells us that innovation is bred from hard work. Drawing from a huge pool of money, taken from the tax payers, breeds lethargy and corruption. There isn't efficiency in corruption like there is in striving for betterment. In the private sector, it is actually a goal to become more efficient with less. It's a goal to do that. It should be the same in the public sector. That's just common sense.

 

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The fact that you over simplify state governments to household budgets pretty much gives it away.

You're right about me not paying attention to these people, but that's because they implement stupid policies that are meant to help the economic problem, but end up being toxic in the long run. "My nose hurts, I'm going to cut my face off to cure it." That's what this NJ governor is doing. Sure it might help for a couple of months, but it's going to be counter-productive for those state workers.

The public services cannot be compared to private business's because the private section is "for profit", while the government is for the public good. Look at UPS/FedEx vs the USPS and think if one of those companies took on the full duties of the USPS, would it still be profitable?

Maybe you should just stay there in your armchair. I thank god every day that people like you don't hold office and use your "common sense" to try and run a state.

 

Look at UPS/FedEx vs the USPS and think if one of those companies took on the full duties of the USPS, would it still be profitable?



Absolutely! An ex g/f of mine is a mail carrier and admits that the USPS is about 20-30% overstaffed!

She says the only thing keeping them busy is junk mail since most people pay their bills online.

 

Ok, so your ex g/f mail carrier is an expert in USPS finances. I'm guessing she just carries the mail to get out of the office.

The truth is no. FedEx/UPS only deliver parcel and they are still struggling.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_143651.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33972254...s-us_business/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26058009/

I guess I really don't. Maybe you can explain how it's not ok for us to spend more than we have in our personal finances, other than on things like the common home and car loans, but state government can bank on tax revenues, and federal monies that they "might" get?

What do you project will happen in NJ in a couple months? They will have a more balanced budget? God forbid.

So, if something is not for profit, as you say, for the "public good", it isn't necessary to find ways to make it more efficient? You know, in the private sector, often finding cost effective efficiencies makes for better quality goods and services. That would be something bad for the public sector?

If the government would let other companies compete in mail delivery, like the USPS does, we could see if they could still turn a profit. Just because the USPS can't turn a profit doesn't mean that others couldn't. The private delivery companies would actually have incentives to do a better, more efficient, more profitable job than the USPS. I'd guess though that the government isn't going to be allowing any private companied compete in the mail delivery buisness any time soon.

 

She's more of an expert than you.

 

They will be right back where they started, except state workers will be poorer, have less benefits, and some might leave their profession all together. Vastly improving things in your mind.

Yep, that's why she can bring me my mail. I might have to look her up and "discuss USPS finances".

 

When have you ever heard me say that I think public sector employees should suffer the same consequences as private sector employees and become poorer, with less benefits? I don't want anyone to have to suffer. The fact is though, government views the 90 million of us who pay taxes as the cash cow to feed the other 220 million potential voters.

You can only bleed the rich, and the vast middle class, before there is no blood left. You are concerned that NJ public sector employees will be back where they started? With pay increases far better than the private sector? With 100% family medical insurance? With pensions that will pay something like 80% of their best years pay, for how many years???

Things look pretty different from the public sector, don't they? In my world, there is no such thing as increasing taxes to make things better for me and the people in my profession. We have always had to work harder and work smarter.

People who espouse the belief that increasing taxes on the 53% of us who pay taxes to make things better for all of us is a good idea are proof that common sense isn't common any more.

 

Well if you don't want taxes to increase, where should we start cutting? How about just scrap the whole education system. It's awfully socialist to be providing free education anyway. I've got it, how about we just outsource all road construction to the private sector. So there may be toll booths at every intersection, but you won't have to pay those pesky taxes.

 

Again....

Start cutting? Pensions. 80% of your best year is a bit much don't you think? How about the public sector saves for their retirement like the rest of us do? 100% of family health insurance paid? Only in the public sector. For the rest of us, we have to be happy with 50/50.





Reason.com-Spending can be cut

 

That sounds like a pretty ****ty idea if you ask me. New teachers already get **** pay and you want to slash that and slash benefits?

 

Uh yes. That is why I suggested implementing a sales tax. The government would only have to implement a roughly 8% sales tax to see no drop in collected revenue. It will not happen though because Congress can not fiddle with the minor laws in the tax code to get more money and not get seen. It's all about transparency. The government doesn't want it and will not vote for it because it exposes who is screwing the people.

I am saying the primary responsibility for the No Child Left Behind lies with Kennedy. He wrote the law. Yes it took the majority of the Congress to pass it, but it was written by him. I would be willing to bet that Bush called the more liberal Republicans into his office and requested they support the bill. I''l bet he also called the more Conservative Republicans in his office and explained he is trying to mend fences so please don't be too hard on the bill. So yes the Republicans had a hand in it, but again the primary responsibility lies with Kennedy.

 

Teacher's pay isn't as bad as it might sound, but I'll give you that it does depend on location. One little city I used to live posted the incomes of teachers on their website. They made just short of $40k per year starting. That doesn't sound to good until you figure that is for the 10 month school year. In that 10 months a two week Christmas break a one week Thanksgiving break and a one week spring break were included. So a teacher made just under 40k for nine months work. If you figure it out on an annual basis they made roughly 50k, if they worked all year, and that was seven years ago. That was not bad starting pay for someone with a four year degree. At the time average starting pay for college graduates was roughly 30-35k. On top of that teachers receive two weeks vacation per year. Name a job where you can be not at work 3.5 months per year and still make almost $40k per year.

You asked what should be cut. It is simple. Cut what is not specifically authorized in the Constitution but was available at the time of the writing. Then cut what was not available at the time of the writing. Then what is authorized in the Constitution until expenditures do not exceed receipts. Just like you do at home. The federal education department was not specifically authorized in the Constitution. Was there education when the Constitution was written? If the answer is yes, then it was a known factor to the founding fathers and if they wanted the federal government to pay for those expenses then they would have provided for it. If it was not available then the ability of the government to operate in modern society without the development would have to be determined. When someone loses a job you do not keep spending at the same level as before one was fired. You cut expenses as much as possible. Until your savings is gone and your credit is maxed. Then you simple don't pay some of your bills.

The federal government is only collecting enough taxes to cover roughly 60% of its expenditures. How long do you think that can continue until the government collapses under its own weight? Every year the debt burden grows and it will not decrease until the government quits passing laws that increase its expenditures. Its not like if they just keep making payments they will pay things off and get on better ground. The government is getting farther and farther behind every year. No business, person, State, County or City can operate like this for any length of time. Why should the federal government be allowed to operate in this manner?

 

Slash what???

Right, new teachers aren't paid well. Guess what, no one is paid well when they are beginning a career. In my first full year in my career, I made under 15K. Second year, under 18K. Third year, under 20K. I have never had 100% family medical and there isn't any pension plan for me. I have always had to pay a large portion of my medical and have to save for my retirement on my own, as my job doesn't offer any retirement programs. What you say is ****ty is a hell of a lot more than most people in the private sector have, while in most part being funded by the private sector.

Slash nothing. You just must not get it. Public sector employees are on a gravy train. You've got to wait to cash in but when that happens the pay off can be big, and it's funded by all of the tax payers. After almost twenty years in my profession I make far less than a teacher with as many years in, or many other public sector employees, with no pay off in my future. I've got to work all twelve months to boot.

Common sense tells us that any gravy train is going to have limited capacity. We exceeded that capacity a long time ago. You want everyone who is already on this train stay on, and also board a whole new generation of passengers on it. There isn't room! This train is going to crash and burn. In NJ, the common sense govenor is just trying to avoid the inevitable train wreck. Stop the train now. Return it to a safe capacity, and we'll all be the better.

 

Sorry, I couldn't help it.