patrick.net

Vicente says

You guys are just psycho about taxes.

Go to ZERO taxes of any kind, see how that works out.

Right - because some of us want our bloated union government bureaucracy to be more efficient and productive with the massive taxes we already send them, we must want ZERO taxes. We want anarchy and Thunderdome!

Just amazes me how the national narrative is always about tax levels and never about the QUALITY and EFFICIENCY of the services we get with our tax dollars.

I forgot, our government employees are all unionized and they are the Democrat's biggest special interest group.

Strategist says

That's what I am doing. The unions deserve all the outrage.

Of course. Let's get pissed at someone making $100K/year, while ignoring the folks making 50 - 200 times that.

Hell--we should all be making $100K/year. If the productivity gains over the last 30 years were simply returned to the workers instead of stolen by the owners, the average salary would probably be $100K.

tatupu70 says

Consumers--which includes 70 year old widows.

Consumers who VOLUNTARILY give corporations their money to buy products and services.

Whereas, the tax payers are FORCED to pay into a corruption feedback loop between Democrat politicians and Unions to get shitty services.

socal2 says

we must want ZERO taxes. We want anarchy and Thunderdome!

That is the narrative, driven from the GOP core.

"I want a government so small, I can strangle it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist

Nothing about EFFICIENCY in there, goal is DOWNSIZING to make it small enough to murder. No respect, just regarding it as a demonic child they ache to watch the life ebb from it's eyes. What with all the pedophilia, rape, and incest in the GOP y'all still find plenty of time to hate your own government.

If the goal were always EFFICIENCY, well then the same ideas would be applied to say the military. How about we cut 10% off their budget to make them more EFFICIENT. Strangely that never seems to be proposed.

socal2 says

Consumers who VOLUNTARILY give corporations their money to buy products and services.

Whereas, the tax payers are FORCED to pay into a corruption feedback loop between Democrat politicians and Unions to get shitty services.

Not really. Nobody is forced to live in Cook County, or Illinois for that matter. When they choose to live there, they are buying the services that the county and state provide.

tatupu70 says

Interesting-where do you think it comes from??

Consumers--which includes 70 year old widows

A consumer can choose to buy. Once someone stays in a place and the gubmnt decides to double their tax next year-well can't even believe you are comparing the same and think they are the same.

Vicente says

If the goal were always EFFICIENCY, well then the same ideas would be applied to say the military. How about we cut 10% off their budget to make them more EFFICIENT. Strangely that never seems to be proposed.

Uh dude - what do you think the sequester was all about?

The Military took the biggest hit and it was passed by Republicans while the Media and Democrats squealed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/

State governments sometimes forget that their borders are porous, and tax payers are free to leave at any time.
Illinois is especially bad about this, since outside of Chicago and farmland, there's not a lot to recommend the state.
Two of my taxpayer friends from college have moved their families away from Illinois to escape the crippling tax burdens.
Sometimes people vote with their feet.

Vicente says

If the goal were always EFFICIENCY, well then the same ideas would be applied to say the military. How about we cut 10% off their budget to make them more EFFICIENT. Strangely that never seems to be proposed

Lop it off by 20%-we would still be the biggest military and then take a hatchet and cut 100% of the DEA and that would take down the prison industrial complex with it.

Vicente says

Nothing about EFFICIENCY in there, goal is DOWNSIZING to make it small enough to murder. No respect, just regarding it as a demonic child they ache to watch the life ebb from it's eyes. What with all the pedophilia, rape, and incest in the GOP y'all still find plenty of time to hate your own government.

Nice screechy straw man.

I want my tax dollars used to build new schools, promote good teachers, repair roads, bridges and water systems and provide for a national defense.

I don't want my tax dollars wasted on the fat fuck Lobbyist in Chicago who is suing for his pension after working one day as a substitute teacher.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-pension-lawsuit-lobbyist-met-20150318-story.html#page=1

Again, you believe in the dopey narrative that if Republicans complain about NUMEROUS abuses like the one listed above, we want NO GOVERNMENT. We want THUNDERDOME!

lostand confused says

Once someone stays in a place and the gubmnt decides to double their tax next year-well can't even believe you are comparing the same and think they are the same.

It's not the same thing-I agree. But don't be mad at the teachers. That's just idiotic. Everyone's goal is to maximize income--why demonize someone doing exactly what you'd do.

socal2 says

The Military took the biggest hit and it was passed by Republicans while the Media and Democrats squealed.

You're kidding, right? Read up on the sequester. The Dems included the military cuts to try to get the Reps to agree to not cut social services. But since no deal was made, both got cut and the Reps were furious that the military budget was cut. Make no mistake--the Reps did NOT want to cut military spending.

tatupu70 says

You're kidding, right? Read up on the sequester. The Dems included the military cuts to try to get the Reps to agree to not cut social services. But since no deal was made, both got cut and the Reps were furious that the military budget was cut. Make no mistake--the Reps did NOT want to cut military spending.

Yep, Congress wanted to bypass the sequester for ONLY for the military, while keeping all other spending locked up.

tatupu70 says

You're kidding, right? Read up on the sequester. The Dems included the military cuts to try to get the Reps to agree to not cut social services. But since no deal was made, both got cut and the Reps were furious that the military budget was cut. Make no mistake--the Reps did NOT want to cut military spending.

Of course.

But at the end of the day, the Republicans still went along and cut spending to their top priority to compromise and get spending under control.

In this case, they finally walked the walk.

Now it is time for Democrats to do the same and show they can cut spending on entitlements, which dwarfs military spending by far.

socal2 says

Again, you believe in the dopey narrative that if Republicans complain about NUMEROUS abuses like the one listed above, we want NO GOVERNMENT. We want THUNDERDOME!

It's not a dopey narrative, it's the truth. As a former Republican I see that excruciatingly clearly now. The hatred of government is deep-seated. Unless it's the authoritarian arms like courts, military, or police. The Republicans squealed like stuck pigs when the sequester cut their beloved military, and took every shot they could afterwards to restore funding. A $3,000 coffee maker or a $600 toilet seat NEVER seems to be a reason to cut the military budget, NOOOOO! They chuckle about it, and wait for the checks to roll in from defense contractors while the story cools off.

socal2 says

Of course.

But at the end of the day, the Republicans still went along and cut spending to their top priority to compromise and get spending under control.

In this case, they finally walked the walk.

Now it is time for Democrats to do the same and show they can cut spending on entitlements, which dwarfs military spending by far.

Wow-that's some good spin there.

Couldn't you just as easily say that Democrats cut spending to compromise and get spending under control? And they walked the walk?

And it's time for Republicans to do the same and show they can cut spending on military, which dwarfs entitlement spending by far. Look at the discretionary budget. Military spending is 50%+. It's hard to know exactly because military spending is purposely hidden throughout many departments so the average Joe doesn't realize how huge it is.

tatupu70 says

Reps were furious that the military budget was cut.

They found a new accounting trick to bypass sequester limits. House Republican budget will boost the "overseas contingency operations" account which isn't subject to sequester limits. Real "out of the box" thinking of true fiscal conservatives!

tatupu70 says

Couldn't you just as easily say that Democrats cut spending to compromise and get spending under control? And they walked the walk?

And it's time for Republicans to do the same and show they can cut spending on military, which dwarfs entitlement spending by far. Look at the discretionary budget. Military spending is 50%+. It's hard to know exactly because military spending is purposely hidden throughout many departments so the average Joe doesn't realize how huge it is.

You are terribly misinformed. Entitlement spending is way higher than military spending.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Vicente says

It's not a dopey narrative, it's the truth. As a former Republican I see that excruciatingly clearly now. The hatred of government is deep-seated.

You can keep saying that if it makes you sleep better and justify pulling the lever for Democrat morons.

But most Conservatives want BETTER government. We think public sector unions are a massive impediment to improving the quality and cost of our bureaucracy. Everything from teachers unions, prison guard unions, police unions.........resist reforms tooth and nail like we just saw in Illinois.

socal2 says

We think public sector unions are a massive impediment

Yes god forbid, that a UNION no matter how toothless and small, be allowed to remain alive anywhere in the USA. There is no threat to mankind greater, quick let's all grab clubs and smash the brains out of the last surviving sabertooth kitten.

GOP are not "conservatives" except as it boils down to "I got mine, fuck you!"

socal2 says

You are terribly misinformed. Entitlement spending is way higher than military spending.

Your own link tells the story:

And I suspect that the military spending portion of the pie is significantly understated. Why is veteran's benefits not included under military?? How much of energy's budget is really military? How much military spending is not even in the budget?

Vicente says

If the goal were always EFFICIENCY, well then the same ideas would be applied to say the military. How about we cut 10% off their budget to make them more EFFICIENT. Strangely that never seems to be proposed.

Other branches of the government are just as inefficient, of not more inefficient than the department of Defense.

socal2 says

But most Conservatives want BETTER government. We think public sector unions are a massive impediment to improving the quality and cost of our bureaucracy. Everything from teachers unions, prison guard unions, police unions.........resist reforms tooth and nail like we just saw in Illinois.

Because "reform" = cut in pay.

What other reforms were proposed and fought?

tatupu70 says

socal2 says

You are terribly misinformed. Entitlement spending is way higher than military spending.

Your own link tells the story:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/why-is-american-social-welfare-so-incredibly-expensive.html
How Much Do Welfare Programs Cost the U.S.? More Than You Ever Thought

There’s a lot of push and pull between legislators and government officials as to just how much the government should get involved in public assistance. There are numerous welfare and social safety net programs, helping millions of families with housing and food assistance, child care, and education. But one of the biggest knocks against these programs is that they are costly, and at a time when government spending is under the microscope, these programs are in the cross hairs of deficit hawks everywhere.

Thanks to the results of a study from the University of California at Berkeley, we now have a more accurate idea of exactly how much funding these programs require. Many have hostile attitudes toward SNAP, unemployment insurance, and other programs, and if you’re going strictly off the price tag, it does look like there’s room to be concerned.

The total? $152.8 billion annually.

Vicente says

Yes god forbid, that a UNION no matter how toothless and small, be allowed to remain alive anywhere in the USA. There is no threat to mankind greater, quick let's all grab clubs and smash the brains out of the last surviving sabertooth kitten.

My gripe is specifically about PUBLIC SECTOR unions. Even FDR knew about the corruption we would see if we let unions into government. And it is playing out before our very eyes in State after State.

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/

tatupu70 says

Of course. Let's get pissed at someone making $100K/year, while ignoring the folks making 50 - 200 times that.

I'm pissed at the average struggling person having to to pay extortion money to an undeserving pension plan. As for anyone else making even a thousand times as much, I don't care because it's not my money. Who are we to tell someone what they should pay, and someone else what they should receive? If a private school pays a million dollars to a teacher I would not care. But as a taxpayer, I deserve a say.

tatupu70 says

Your own link tells the story:

You are only showing Discretionary Spending which is only 29% of the total government expenditures.

Why don't you post the pie chart of Mandatory Spending which is 65% of total government spending which includes Medicare and Social Security?

So again, entitlement spending dwarfs military spending and is getting bigger by the year.

Discretionary spending is the Entertainment Budget of a Household. When faced with a budget crisis, households cut the trips across the state to play paintball first, not taking Johnny out of college or stopping contributions to their IRA.

Pre-paid benefit spending is funded by extra, regressive taxes - look at your paycheck. Military spending comes out of general revenue.

It's not an entitlement to expect to get the dinner you paid for. It is an entitlement to insist on spending money extra SocSec/MC money on the Paintball Adventures while cutting those programs.

socal2 says

You can keep saying that if it makes you sleep better and justify pulling the lever for Democrat morons.

I sleep better not voting for SELFISH ASSHOLES any more, who put political score-settling above humanity.

Like the many jerks who voted AGAINST funding for disaster relief in New Jersey.

You think those same folks will be turning away Federal assistance in Texas flooding? Right!

Case closed. Efficiency only matters if it's SOMEONE ELSE getting the undeserved handout.

thunderlips11 says

Discretionary spending is the Entertainment Budget of a Household. When faced with a budget crisis, households cut the trips across the state to play paintball first, not taking Johnny out of college or stopping contributions to their IRA.

Entitlement spending is funded by extra, regressive taxes - look at your paycheck. Military spending comes out of general revenue.

Who cares? It is all funded by our taxes.

The point is that we spend way way more on our entitlements that our national defense.

Alot of people seem genuinely unaware of this fact.

It would be efficient to euthanize half the population. To install cameras in everybody's room to prevent crime. To shoot all the cats and dogs to prevent billions on wasted resources on family pets.

Efficiency is not always a good thing. "Efficiencies" also create lots of suicides, broken homes, and a host of other problems.

Vicente says

I sleep better not voting for SELFISH ASSHOLES any more, who put political score-settling above humanity.

You mean when Democrats let cities go bankrupt and burn to the ground to protect their union members?

Those SELFISH ASSHOLES?

Fuck the rest, we got ours!

socal2 says

Who cares? It is all funded by our taxes.

The Pre-paid benefits are funded by working people; general revenues are paid in by all. It's not a surprise that people who don't work want to steal the revenue from pre-paid benefits and direct it to subsidies and private contracting they benefit from. A few millions extra in subsidies for their military contractor business is worth a lot more to them than a thousand bucks in SS per month.

Vicente says

In what way is military pension different than any other pension, or OASDI for that matter? It's still an entitlement, and a loomingly large one!

I consider pensions to be the same as wages and salaries; many people choose high benefit jobs than pay crap (like being enlisted in the military). Attacking pensions is no different to me than shorting somebody's pay.

One great way to cut military pensions is not allow it to be drawn upon until age 55-60, regardless of when the person leaves the military (ie at age 45 for someone who joined at 20).

socal2 says

You mean when Democrats let cities go bankrupt and burn to the ground to protect their union members?

Remind me what cities those are?

thunderlips11 says

I consider pensions to be the same as wages and salaries; many people choose high benefit jobs than pay crap (like being enlisted in the military). Attacking pensions is no different to me than shorting somebody's pay.

It used to be the case that people sacrificed shitty pay for higher benefits down the line.

But that is no longer the case where the average Public Sector worker earns more than the equivalent Private Sector worker.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/public_sector_workers_make_mor.html

I've personally lost half a dozen employees to work for our municipal clients for much higher pay over the past 10 years. I work with Local and State government every single day in the water infrastructure sector and see the inefficiency and high costs first hand.

Regardless, it is mathematically impossible to let people retire in their mid 50's at 90%+ of their final pay FOR LIFE with our demographics. The automakers in Detroit found that out the hard way.

socal2 says

It used to be the case that people sacrificed shitty pay for higher benefits down the line.

They're not draftees. They weren't pulled from other things. They're volunteers, they get paid, they have a very generous benefit system, and free Room and Board. Their income is largely disposable, even though many of them get rolled by skanks.

socal2 says

But that is no longer the case where the average Public Sector worker earns more than the equivalent Private Sector worker.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/public_sector_workers_make_mor.html

Because the private sector, despite record profits, has not increased wages. It's not much relative to inflation, and horrible considering the massive gains in productivity driven by worker largely self-driven education.

I posted Disney World's firing of long time IT workers for newly minted college graduate H1-Bs - this was done to cut wages. Disney made record profits. And Disney World has little direct competition, it certainly isn't seeing a drop off in attendance.

socal2 says

I've personally lost half a dozen employees to work for our municipal clients for much higher pay over the past 10 years. I work with Local and State government every single day in the water infrastructure sector and see the inefficiency and high costs first hand.

Raise wages.

Vicente says

Remind me what cities those are?

Chicago
Detroit
Stockton
Vallejo
San Bernardino

There are many more who are simply raising taxes and reducing services to stave off the inevitable.

If our government had to abide by the same accounting rules as the Private Sector, we would be dealing with hundreds more bankruptcies and people in jail.

thunderlips11 says

They're not draftees. They weren't pulled from other things. They're volunteers, they get paid, they have a very generous benefit system, and free Room and Board. Their income is largely disposable, even though many of them get rolled by skanks.

I am not talking about the military. Their pension system is paltry compared to the fat union fucks like this guy in Chicago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-pension-lawsuit-lobbyist-met-20150318-story.html#page=1

This is the system that is bankrupting Chicago and folks like you seem perfectly OK with it.

thunderlips11 says

Raise wages.

Then they can't afford our services and reduce the scope of work, which means they are spending less on fixing their water infrastructure and keeping more of our tax dollars to fund the government bureaucracy like that fat fuck in Chicago.

socal2 says

Why don't you post the pie chart of Mandatory Spending which is 65% of total government spending which includes Medicare and Social Security?

So again, entitlement spending dwarfs military spending and is getting bigger by the year.

If you want to complain about mandatory spending for social secuirty and medicare, there better never be a complaint about the 47% or who pays "income" taxes again, because social security and medicare are pre-paid benefits and have their own taxes separate from income taxes.

Infact, I'm all for it, lets lump it all in together and show the % of income for all federal taxes to show the truly regressive nature of our tax system. That way, no one is screaming that "they deserve it because they paid for it" when a moderate proposes means testing for these "entitlements" or a progrssive proposes lifting the income cap on the taxes.