|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 13, 2009 18:01:20 GMT -4
Its my understanding that the higher the salary of a particular position (and this goes for just about every field of endeavor), the higher the qualifications of the people competing for the job.
Do you want quality people, or don't you? I'm not saying a high salary guarantees quality, that is up to us as voters, but it at least attracts more people to the position.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Apr 17, 2009 13:59:11 GMT -4
by Chad Rubel
You may have thought everything that was said at the teabagging parties on Wednesday was right-wing drivel designed to mislead and inflame the masses.
Well, there was at least one brave soul in Pensacola, Florida.
"Pensacola Jeff" is what we'll call him because, well, his name is Jeff and he spoke in Pensacola.
He weaves in and out throughout his speech, using talking points designed to get cheers from the crowd, and sneaking in the truth like vegetables to a picky eater.
PJ starts out with a big shout-out to the troops and veterans. That line gets huge applause, as it should. Then he gives us a history lesson.
"Back in 2000, there was a budget surplus in the country."
After PJ mentions the budget surplus, some guy in the crowd yells out, "What happened?"
Well, let's find out.
"And during the next seven years, it was destroyed by the profligate spending of the Bush Administration. And here we are today, here we are today in a situation."
At this point, he sees the crowd isn't really following along, so he goes for the easy line.
"Let me ask you this: Cheer if you make less than $250,000 a year. Just cheer." The crowd cheers: they are back on his side. "Your taxes are going to be cut under the current budget. Congratulations."
PJ then talks about being laid-off by his employer back in September due to budget cuts, pointing out that this was before the election. Then he goes in for the close.
"So let's remember that if you're going to argue about more taxes and less spending, to place the blame where the blame belongs, and that's squarely in the hands of the Republican Congress until 2006 and the Bush Administration."
PJ walks off the stage, arms raised up to a cascade of boos from the crowd.
When confronted with the truth, the real truth, not the made up baloney being peddled by the right-wing radio and TV, the crowd turns to boo the one person brave enough to stand up for the truth.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Apr 17, 2009 15:32:17 GMT -4
It would seem "truth" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Whether you received the rich-man's tax cut or not, I don't remember many (any?) taxes being increased in the last few years. Now we have a president who campaigned on raising taxes and that may be the one promise he keeps. Not only will taxes for the $250K plus increase (or $200K+ or $100K+ or ...), but look at all the other taxes/fees/charges that are now being tossed around.
I certainly will not claim that the Republicans are blameless in all of this, but I will definitely argue that the Democrats have done their part to put us where we are today.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Apr 18, 2009 2:17:44 GMT -4
Let's look at the "truth" on that surplus thing.
In Sept 2000 the White House issued a press release claiming Clinton had a $69B surplus in FY1998, $123B surplus in FY1999, and $230B surplus in 2000. The same release also claimed a $360B in national debt.
Looking at the Treasury numbers for those years, I see the following:
FY1998 National Debt was $5.526 trillion, budget deficit was $113.05 billion FY1999 National Debt was $5.656 trillion, budget deficit was $130.08 billion FY2000 National Debt was $5.674 trillion, budget deficit was $17.91billion
National debt increased every year. I do give him credit for major deficit reduction. Clinton's budget for FY 1994 had a deficit of $281.26 billion, so the reduction to just und $18 billion is pretty impressive. I would like to point out (since his fans never do) that Clinton's last budget for FY2001 ballooned the deficit back out to $133.29 billion, $20 billion higher than where he was at in FY1998, when the "surplus" started.
Where Clinton's "surplus" claim appears to comes from was the fact that public debt was paid down in those years. Public debt is things like treasury bonds, savings bond, etc, debt financed by the public buying government instruments. So if public debt went down, how did national debt go up? The answer is easy, and it's a budget trick every adminsitration has used since LBJ. National debt includes both public debt and Inter-government holdings. While Bill was paying down Publc debt with one hand, he was increasing inter-government holding even more with the other. Inter-government holdings is the money the government borrows from itself (mostly from the Social Security fund).
Now I realize I'm not a math major, since arithmetic, algebra, etc was the only math I had in school. But if national debt grows every year, and even the best budget still had about an $18 million deficit, where's the surplus??? How do you get surplus by paying down debt with one hand while actually borrowing more from the other hand than is being paid down?
The "surplus" was nothing more than "Washington math" done with smoke & mirrors. I guess some of us just have to inahle deeper to appreciate the genius of "Washington math"?
|
|