This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, November 29, 2010

The Big Chill

President Obama has proposed a two year pay freeze for federal employees. He is framing the move as shared sacrifice. Let's look at it.

The federal workforce has grown dramatically since Obama took office. The pay for those employees has also risen dramatically with the number of $150,000 plus jobs doubling. The Federal workforce has become an albatross.

Now Obama wants to lock it in and call it a sacrifice. It's devious as hell. How about actually cutting federal salaries from a 2008 baseline? Everyone else has had to cut back. Government cost too much, it's not rocket science.

As you might imagine, federal employees are not happy although they should be. It's funny they are calling the pay freeze a pay cut. Sound familiar?

This shows the fallacy of compromise. Freezing salaries for two years is not a sacrifice. It is not a compromise. We are way past the need for half measures and platitudes. The compromise of spending a little less as opposed to a lot less leads to disaster. Raising taxes on only the rich as opposed to everyone leads to disaster. Compromise is a disaster.

117 comments:

Wolf's Head said...

Too little, too late.

They need to close entire departments such as Energy, Education, Health and Human Services and Commerce.

Jack said...

“It's funny they are calling the pay freeze a pay cut.”
I’ll try to explain it using as many small words as possible. I know logic upsets many here, so this is your disclaimer to move on. Every year, there is inflation and cost of living increases. These two factors (generally) stay on the constant rise. Small salary raises each year account for these factors and keep one’s salary at the same level in comparison to the area’s cost of living and overall value of the dollar. Freezing a salary and not allowing it to keep up with the cost increases equates to small salary cut. Imagine making $10,000/yr in 1955, doing pretty well, yes? Now imagine no increases to account for inflation or your area’s cost of living. How does making $10,000/yr feel in 2010? Obama is taking a step in your direction, stop trying to find something to complain about.

“Raising taxes on only the rich as opposed to everyone leads to disaster.”
Are you changing your stance on tax policy? I’m sure you’ll backtrack and pretend like you never said this. But it’ll at least be entertaining watching the spectacle.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, you only cut pay if the amount of pay is lowered. Inflation has to do with buying power, not pay. Pay is what you earn. Inflation or deflation may enable you to buy more or less with your pay.

While the two are related, they are not the same thing. Maybe someday, if you ever enter the real world, you will realize that words mean something.

Local employees of the state have not had a raise in two years. Pay cuts are now being discussed in which their pay may be LOWERED. Talk to one of them. Maybe they can explain it to you in words simple enough for you to understand.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

You're such a smartass. I'm not "mud-flinging", the evidence is clear. I'm just callin'um the way I see'um. That's fine if that's the way you want to roll.

Since 2000 federal pay has increased 3% over the rate of inflation. That is not the way the real world works. In the real world people are making less. That's since 2000, the rate of inflation since 2008 has been only 1.6%. That's negligible. I'm not sure what the built in raises are but I'd bet it's more than 1.6%. Also, 58 million Social Security recipients have been informed there will be no COLA for 2011.

Did you read the link about the number of $150,000+ federal jobs doubling? I'd say that took care of any cost of living adjustments for quite a while.

Raising taxes on anyone in this climate would be a disaster. If Republicans compromise and raise taxes on only the rich and keep them the same for everyone else then it's still a disaster. Tax hikes should be off the table right now to avoid disaster. What's so hard to understand?

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

A few days ago I posted that following current Republican policy we're headed back in time to the non union world of capitalism. Working American families will be required to work 10 hour shifts six days a week with all children over the age of 10 in the work force just to provide a shelter and a bowl of beans at meal time.

Now that Republican pressure is on to decrease the standard of living government employees one of the few left in the middle class I see we're headed down that road. State governments and local county governments will be next to drive down the wages of school teachers, fireman, EMS, janitors and school bus drivers. Way to go Republicans.

The new Republican society of 2025 will be an elite corporate royalty class of less than 1% very small middle class of less than 4% looking after the corporate royalty assets and 75% of American not making a living wage with over 50% in sever poverty with little or no social safety net. Those swelled bellies you see in Africa will become as common as the homeless which didn't exist in most of America until Reagan's Presidency.

The non corporate royalty will be little more than slaves begging for small opportunities, forget free press, or democracy.

How many of you conservative posters are just fools making less than $60,000 per year but supporting your own families demise.

Honest Debate said...

"Working American families will be required to work 10 hour shifts six days a week..." -LiberalPOV

Sounds like a vacation in my world.

guy faulkes said...

Well Liberalproverbs18:2 you may finally be right about something. It may take working ten hours a day - six days a week by all of us to get out of the mess the big government socialist Obama has gotten us into. After all, we have to pay for his huge deficits. I did not know you had the capacity to realize this.

Honest Debate said...

Federal pay is not the only aspect of government that has built is increases. Virtually every government program gets more funding year by year. If State and local governments or a federal agency does not spend what they get then they may loose it so they make sure to spend it whether they need it or not. The unsustainable system is broken.

Liberal POV said...

HD

" The unsustainable system is broken."

The only way to fix it is living wage jobs for all Americans.

That means they have money to support their own families, buy or rent a basic home and need no government assistance and they also make enough to send their children to state supported schools without further assistance and they pay taxes at the federal, state and local level.

Why are you conservatives opposed to capitalist sharing wealth with those who actually do the work? Why do you want taxpayer money to assist the American work force with food stamps and tax credits so the Corporate profits can be larger and the CEO income be increased to 300 or 400 times that of the work force?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

" It may take working ten hours a day - six days a week by all of us to get out of the mess the big government socialist Obama has gotten us into. After all, we have to pay for his huge deficits."

Do you really believe all of our problems started in the last two years?

You made more sense with your La, La,La

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

"The only way to fix it is living wage jobs for all Americans."

Your consumption angle does not work. I was going to post this on the QE2 thread or the incompetent thread but I'll put it here. It's a little heady, maybe Jack can help you with it.

Check it out.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Sounds like a vacation in my world."

You choose to be a fool because you have no children that will have to live in the crappie world the Republican billionaires will force on all of our children.

If you make less than $60,000 per year ( Likely $150,000 ) and vote Republican you vote against your own families economic future and interest.

Honest Debate said...

"Do you really believe all of our problems started in the last two years?" -LiberalPOV

I can't believe you asked Guy Faulkes of all people that question. Has anyone been more critical of Bush?

Honest Debate said...

"If you make less than $60,000 per year ( Likely $150,000 ) and vote Republican you vote against your own families economic future and interest." -LiberalPOV

I can take care of my own economic future and interests, thank you very much. I don't depend on Republicans or Democrats. I depend on the work ethic referred to.

Liberal POV said...

HD

" Has anyone been more critical of Bush?"

Yes

Honest Debate said...

"Obama is taking a step in your direction, stop trying to find something to complain about." -Jack

Remember my doctor? Well, I broke my leg (the one that still has a foot) and the first thing he did was to break it in 3 more places. He then put a band-aid on it and sent me home. I said, "Is that all you can do for me?" He replied, "I took a step in your direction, stop complaining".

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I meant criticism backed up with reasoned substance. That doesn't include you.

Liberal POV said...

HD

Your video came from the billionaire Kosh brothers think tanks putting their spin and propaganda on American economics.

One point not played up in the video was compensation to employees or paying a living wage. Go back and watch as they quickly move pass this.

The other point is we had thirty-five years of very good prosperity before any changes were made to the FDR model and another 25 years as the Reagan era union busting, tax decreases on the wealthiest Americans, exporting of jobs, Walmartization, took its toll on the American economy and wages.

The projects I mentioned on the other post is completely ignored by this video but all worked to create good paying jobs, infrastructure, knowledge and world competitiveness.

Projects like:
The Blue Ridge Parkway
The TVA
The Interstate Why System
The Hoover Dam
The Grand Coulee Dam
The Space Program
The Marshall Plan

All would be Keynesian projects that worked short term and long term.

Why do you consistently go to the Kosk Brothers propaganda sites for information? Do you think they're spending that sum of money for the interest of the average American?

guy faulkes said...

One more time, Liberalproverbs18:2, FDR lengthened the depression by ten years.

Yes Bush was a proponent of big government that harmed the country. He was a piker compared to the socialist Obama. In the future, after the impeachment and removal from office, Obama's picture will be placed in the dictionary next to the word traitor. Yours may be used for a lesser definition.

Liberal POV said...

Guy
That Star Wars corporate welfare project Reagan spent billions on and finally was stopped by Clinton was not big government?

You really studied history at App State?

Who was your history professor?

Have you been in accident causing memory loss?

Anonymous said...

IMHO, a good analogy would be the American nation and its people as an animal that has sustained very grevious wounds, which will kill the animal in a few moments.

However, the animal is given a band-aid to a very minor cut as a remedy for the deadly wounds.

Meanwile, the banking establishment and the IMF vultures, who are reponsible for the severe wounds, are circling overhead.

This same scenario is occurring in Europe.

guy faulkes said...

Star wars was a military expenditure sanctioned by the Constitution. As such, I do not expect you to be able to determine the difference from your unconstitutional big government programs.

Have you ever read the Constitution? I think not.

What do you think won the Cold War? Wait a minute! Maybe you think it was not won. After all you are a supporter of foriegn terrorists.

guy faulkes said...

liberalproverbs18:2

"You really studied history at App State?

Who was your history professor?"

For your information I challenged freshman history and tested out of all three courses. In order for you to understand what that means, I received credit for them without having to take the courses due to my scores on the tests used for accreditation.

Did you complete any history courses before you flunked out of community college?

My preceding post was also for Liberalproverbs18:2, in case of confusion.

Sarkazein said...

Conyers is next.

Forget about all the obvious theft, a Cadillac Escalade... global warming... poor people...

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"For your information I challenged freshman history and tested out of all three courses. "

I didn't think you could have studied history as you know so little.

guy faulkes said...

You really need reading comprehension classes liberalproverbs18:2. Try to get Jack to explain to you how difficult it is to obtain credit for a college course by challenging the subject. Maybe he can tell you as he speaks liberal drivel also.

About fifty of us challenged the courses. Two of us got credit for all three quarters. I knew more history by the time I was in the eight grade than you will ever be able to learn.

By the way what was the name of the community college you flunked out of?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I have no idea who the Kosh brothers are or what they have to do with the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. I can see how a billionaire like say George Soros can essentially pay NPR to fire Juan Williams but I don't understand how one can buy logic.

At least you watched the video and I give you credit for that.

Jack said...

“Inflation has to do with buying power, not pay.” --Guy
“the rate of inflation since 2008 has been only 1.6%. That's negligible. I'm not sure what the built in raises are but I'd bet it's more than 1.6%.” --HD

Very good! Ok, we’ve covered 5th grade concepts. Let’s move to 6th grade....

Inflation has to do with buying power of the dollar. We buy things with our pay. Therefore, inflation directly affects our pay. If inflation has been 1.6% over the past year, a pay raise of 1.6% is needed in order to account. A 1.6% raise would allow your pay to retain a constant buying power. So, if you are making $50,000/yr in 2009, you would need to pull in $50,800 in 2010 just to stay even with inflation (this is not accounting for cost of living increases). If you do not receive a pay raise, like all federal employees over the next two years, your pay has not decreased (the actual number), but the same pay cannot buy as much as the years before......hence, technically a pay cut.

Homework: Convert salaries into constant dollars in order to visualize the effect.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

I did pretty good in 6th grade, really I did. I understand inflation, current dollars and cost of living increases. I really don't need your smart ass to explain it.

What's that got to do with anything?

The pay freeze is a sham and I gave my evidence which you ignored.

Jack said...

“It's funny they are calling the pay freeze a pay cut.” --HD

That’s what it has to do with. Funny.

You call the pay freeze a sham. Instead, look at it as a move in the right direction. It is a step to reduce the budget deficit. You call for sweeping labor force reductions. The administration is not going to drastically increase unemployment just to make you happy. Anyway, even if that were to happen, I’m sure you’d complain about the rising unemployment rate and call Obama a fascist.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

Obama spent two years dramatically increasing the size and pay of the public sector workforce and now is putting a freeze on it that simply locks it in. He's calling it sacrifice. That's what I call a sham.

I can make a logical argument to say that Obama is closer to a Fascist than a Socialist even though I have called him neither. Do you really want to go there? I doubt you can make a persuasive argument that Obama is more of a Capitalist than either.

I will treat Obama fairly. If he were to dramatically cut spending, the size and scope of Government as well as make the Bush tax cuts permanent then I will happily tattoo his name on my chest.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

Go out into the private sector and try and get a job that gives you automatic pay raises every year. If you find one make sure the raise is at least 3% over the rate of inflation. Then make sure the raises are not tied your to your performance. Also demand they are not affected by a faltering economy so if the companies profits take a nose dive you still get your raise.

I'm sure you'll have no trouble until you mom wakes you up for school.

Mike D. said...

Jack,

"The Federal Open Market Committee will strongly resist deviations from price stability in the downward direction" - Ben Bernanke (Aug. 27)

"Inflation is running at rates that are too low... the risk of deflation is higher than desirable" - Ben Bernanke (Oct. 15)

"We have had a very low inflation... a huge danger in the U.S. is deflation" - Barack Obama (Nov. 12)

"I’ll try to explain it using as many small words as possible" - Jack (Nov. 29)


Thanks, Jack, but I think Ben and Barack's words are plenty small. Perhaps they believe each other?

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Obama spent two years dramatically increasing the size and pay of the public sector workforce and now is putting a freeze on it that simply locks it in. He's calling it sacrifice."

We do have two wars started under Republican leadership seven years ago. Most of the hiring has been in the Department of Defence or VA Hospitals.

Do you Republicans want services to the military cut or services to the growing number of wounded Vets decreased?

HD do the math and tell us the percentage federal employees have increased under Obama and how fast was it increasing under Bush's last two years?

Liars can figure and figure can lie.

Get you're story with facts not Fox.

Nobody said...

Here's a USA today story on federal workers earning double what private sector workers earn.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Here's my favorite line: "The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000."

Factor in to this discussion that Social Security benefits have been frozen for the last two years (COLA, which HD mentioned earlier but seems to have been ignored) and the fact that state employees have had their salaries frozen for the last three years. Why shouldn't federal workers have their pay frozen for a couple of years? Are they the sacred cow in this economy? Should the elderly NOT be given cost of living increases, but federal workers (in public employee unions, of course) receive these increases?

HD - I agree with your assessment of Jack's smartass attitude. He gets away with a tone through the computer that would get him an invitation to step outside in a face-to-face venue. The sad part is, debating him would be engaging if he weren't so damn demeaning.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"I have no idea who the Kosh brothers are or what they have to do with the Center for Freedom and Prosperity."

"Update 1: Dan Mitchell of the Center for Freedom & Prosperity has sent us a friendly email saying that they are not Koch-funded. CF&P are based at the Cato Institute and use their facilities, their contact lists, and ride on the back of Cato's Washington profile. The Cato Institute is Koch-funded (see this excellent article in the New Yorker on the "Kochtopus", also looking at the Tea Party, here). We're not convinced that Dan is telling the full story."

http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2010/08/billionaires-backing-tea-party.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true

Honest Debate said...

You're all over it Nobody!

Mike D. said...

Oh,

When Liberal POV said "Kosh brothers", I assumed he was speaking of the two Vorlon Ambassadors, both named "Kosh", on the 1990's Sci-Fi series "Babylon 5".

If Liberal POV wants to learn from Babylon 5, he should be listening to Security Chief Michael Garibaldi (Jerry Doyle) and his nationally syndicated afternoon talk radio show on KDWN in Las Vegas. 3PM EST on KDWN.com if anybody wants to check it out. J.D.'s show is great, and Savage comes on when he is done.

Or, Liberal POV, you could go on complaining about the Vorlon Ambassadors. :)

Jack said...

It is extremely frustrating when otherwise intelligent people purposefully gloss-over details and feign ignorance in order to make a partisan point. Yes, federal workers (overall) are paid more than their private counterparts. Yes, federal workers have had inordinately sized raises over the past decades. Yes, the federal system rewards seniority and not personal performance. Yes, those are all problems. Remember that ours is a bureaucratic system and does not change quickly or easily, even when necessary. Placing a freeze on salaries is a step towards fiscal control of the bureaucratic structure. It is a foundation that can be built upon.

HD says it’s “funny” that workers are calling this a pay cut. Well, that’s because it is. Technically. Apparently I had to explain it in order for this concept to come to light.

“Why shouldn't federal workers have their pay frozen for a couple of years?”

They are.

Stop complaining. It’s just like the DOT budget complaints, after calling for cuts. Just like Paul Rand calling for spending cuts, except for CMS. Just like Andy Harris railing against gov’t run health care, then demanding his immediately. Ridiculous.

Honest Debate said...

"...purposefully gloss-over details and feign ignorance in order to make a partisan point." -Jack

Well then, why don't you address the incredible explosion of federal jobs at twice the pay in the last two years? BTW, that's not a minor detail it's a completely unprecedented historical shift. It's the entire premise of my problem. If Obama did the freeze in Jan. 2009 I'd be with you.

Not a word from you about it. "Gloss-over" it and then accuse us of glossing over what we have not.

We understand all about inflation and the like. It's not relevant. I gave you the numbers, Mike D. gave you quotes, Nobody gave you the link and Guy Faulkes gave you the logic. Get off your high horse and address the issue. Please.

Honest Debate said...

One thing that is not getting enough attention is the fact there is no freeze on federal hiring proposed. If the freeze is enacted (big if) then hiring could keep happening and the federal burden could actually rise.

Honest Debate said...

I'll take it one step further... in the name of "compromise". Here's what I propose. Return the number of federal employees to 2008 levels in exchange don't freeze their pay. Deal?

Honest Debate said...

Jack,

While you're glossing over the Social Security recipients getting no cost of living adjustment... and the number of federal jobs at twice the pay of private sector jobs exploding... and the raises at 33% over the rate of inflation... and the fact that deflation is the imminent danger, riddle me this. How long would the pay of Federal employees need to be frozen until the private sector pay, if increased yearly at the rate of inflation, caught up?

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Well then, why don't you address the incredible explosion of federal jobs and pay in the last two years? "

Most of those jobs were in the Dept. of Defense because we have two wars going badly.

We have those two borders the conservatives want more border patrol on 24-7.

We have baby boomers filing Social Security and Medicare.

We have conservatives cowering if fear of possible terrorist acts hyped by the media requiring more Home Land Security and TSA personnel.

We have far more Americans in poverty after eight years of Republican rule requiring medicaid and food stamps.

We have a failed society creating a boom in federal and state prisons both requiring staff at taxpayer expense. Reminder conservatives want no change in drug laws, crime prevention, better public schools or increase in jobs programs in low income communities.

We had a U.S.Census to complete requiring 6000 Federal employees in 2009 and 564,000 in May of 2010.

"Not counting the temporary census workers leaves 46,000 other federal workers added on Obama's watch. "
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/14908530-1.html

This from 2004

"Since President Bush took office, the federal government's domestic civilian workforce has increased by more than 79,000 jobs, nearly a 5 percent increase. And the number of government workers paid at least $130,000 annually has tripled."

"Federal workers paid $130,000 annually _ the highest wage category reported in personnel records _ rose from 6,249 people receiving at least $812 million in 2000 to at least 21,178 people earning more than $2.7 billion. Both the number of top-wage earners and their aggregate salaries more than tripled in three years."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1065860/posts

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Do you really think you have a clear prospective?

You will find you will be far better informed if you avoid any post using the Cato Institues data.

Honest Debate said...

Ah, what the heck, I'll answer my own question and Jack can check my math. If federal pay is twice private sector pay (it is) then there would need to be a 100% increase of the private sector pay to bring the two in line. That means if inflation were 5% (it's not) then it would take a 20 year pay freeze. If inflation stays where has been since 2008 at 1.6% then it would take 62 and a half years.

guy faulkes said...

Jack, you can play with words all you want, but it only makes you look foolish. A pay freeze is not a pay cut. Nothing has been decreased. Inflation and deflation are not the same thing. END OF STORY.

You are starting to go La la La as badly as Liberalproverbs18:2, who only uses out of date links and liberal opinion sites to try to promote his talking points.

Liberal POV said...

HD

" If federal pay is twice private sector pay (it is) then there would need to be a 100% increase of the private sector pay to bring the two in line."

Your at least headed in the right direction, private sector pay for low income workers has actually decreased.

"Before tax, weekly wages of non-supervisory private sector workers in America today are below levels achieved in the early 1960s, and stand nearly 17% below their peak in 1972. Workers are now earning only 83 cents of every dollar they earned more than 35 years ago, while their productivity has increased a dramatic 80%. This is the central explanation for the explosion in corporate profits and the growing income gap in America, and the reason workers in America still believe the economy is moving in the wrong direction. All polls show that it is a big part of the reason why Republicans lost control of Congress."

"The reason for this decline in wages and shift upward in the distribution of income are several -- but can be boiled down to unbridled pro-corporate globalization, and the right-wing attack on unions and workplace and job market protections. "

"In 1972, at the peak of real wages, union membership in the private sector stood at nearly 28%, whereas it is now below 8%. Today, 25% of American workers earn a wage that puts them at or below poverty, and the minimum wage is a third lower in value than it was in 1968."

http://www.changetowin.org/issues/jobs-and-wages.html

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Credit where credit is due. Other than the condescension and illogical conclusions that was an informative and thoughtful post. You addressed issues Jack glossed over. I learned a few things I did not know. Thank you.

I wish the links would have said where the Bush jobs increased the way they broke down Obama's. I would suspect the lions share was the addition of a whole new cabinet in Homeland Security as well as other ramifications from 9/11. I think that was reasonable although lately I've been thinking abolishing Homeland Security might be a good idea. I'm not sure. Of the jobs that Obama has added most were high paying jobs as has been pointed out. There is also the factor of quasi-federal jobs in the form of union contracts that has been dramatic under Obama. Do you suppose he'll ask SEIU for a pay freeze?

The problem with your logic is you are assuming two things: 1)Bad actions by Bush excuses bad actions by Obama, and 2) We gave Bush a pass. I think we were pretty hard on Bush for expanding government, certainly harder than you are on Obama. Bush is not president and the economy is in the dirt.

Honest Debate said...

Above refers to LibPO's post December 1, 2010 9:08 AM

Liberal POV said...

HD

The point I want to make is Conservatives demand extremely costly adventures, Wars, Seal 6000 miles of borders, Long prison sentences, aggressive war on drugs ( People of color ), Supper Security ( Home Land Security and TSA )constantly hyping fear, and Tax Cuts for the rich but want to blame the single mom struggling to feed her children with food stamps or the guy that delivers your mail.

Liberal POV said...

HD

I forgot to mention the Republican's favorite Corporate Welfare project Star Wars.

guy faulkes said...

If you want to talka bout costly adventures, start with Obamacare; and the destruction of health care in this country, rising cost of health care because of it, and ration health care (death panels), that are the result of it.

Then you can start talking about the renationalisation of the banking industry and the auto industry that Obam has achieved in his pursuit of socialism.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

", start with Obamacare; and the destruction of health care in this country, rising cost of health care because of it, and ration health care (death panels), that are the result of it."


Sometimes I just under estimate just how foolish and gullible you really are.

Death panels?

Health care is a basic human right and helps fellow American citizens.

Health care hadn't been rising before the Health Care Bill?

You would let low income citizens die for lack basic health care?

You think treating an infection at the emergency room is cheaper than treating the same minor injury or illness early with a few stitches antibiotic in a clinic?

I do think there should have been a government plan cutting out the insurance industry.

How is have the insurance industry as the middle man cheaper?

You really think the insurance industry has your best interest as their priority?

Johnny Rico said...

Federal workers make far too much given their job complexity (or lack thereof). Federal workers are on easy street compared to the rest of the country. DHS just upgraded several thousand of its employees from GS-11 to GS-12 and even GS-13. Funny how that undeserved job "reclassification" during a recession has never made the national media. A GS-12 or GS-13 makes 100,000 or more a year! Not a word said by anyone. This wasn't done under the Bush administration but under the Hussein Obama administration.

How about trimming the 30 million illegal aliens taking our jobs instead of overpaying a bunch of whining Federal workers who hide behind a powerful union?

guy faulkes said...

All your questions about health care have already been answered, Liberalproverbs18:2. I was merely showing your other post was ridiculous by exposing the waste you support. There is no need to go back and debunk every thing you said because every one has always had access to health care, even criminals such as illegal aliens.

Liberal POV said...

Conservative

"Federal workers make far too much given their job complexity (or lack thereof)"

Why are you envious of your fellow workers income? Instead of attacking fellow American workers still making a living wage why not attack the decision makes driving down wages for ALL Americans except to corporate royalty?

Why are Republicans consistently opposed to working families having a decent life?

Johnny "Rocket" Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"Living Wage"

This is a term I hear liberals sprinkle about on unsuspecting Americans. I am all for a living wage. If we are both for a living wage, then how about deporting the 30 million illegal aliens in the US who have degraded the living wage by taking American's jobs? Artisian House painters, stone masons, carpenters, and Christmas Tree workers in Watauga County can no longer compete with semi-skilled Mexican who will work for a fraction of the price. In the past you called these American workers lazy and deserving of having their jobs taken away, yet now you sprinkle the term "living wage" about which must mean you have thought better of saying American deserve having their jobs taken away by illegal aliens, right? LOL!!!!

I love pounding you with your own stupidity!! Stupid is as stupid does. LOL!!!

In Ashboro, NC American Carpenters earned 30 dollars per hour in 2002. By 2007, thei wages had fallen to 15 per hour - not enough to raise their families on. And you support this?

A pedophile terrorist supporter would indeed support something like this I guess.

Your ole pal

Johnny "Stinger" Rico

Angie

PS Stings don't it

Liberal POV said...

Johnny

The brown workers are not driving down wages, sending jobs to Asia or lobbying Congress to destroy unions or asking wages of teachers, fireman and mail carriers be cut.

That war on wage earning Americans is being waged by billionaires with the help of Fox media, fear radio, HD and blogger.

Getting you diverted on brown people, liberals like me, Government employees keep you from seeing the real power behind falling wages.

The income of America's wealthiest has risen 300% the last ten years while low income workers have lost real buying power.

Johnny Rico said...

Don't change the subject you idiot of a liberal. How is a billionaire responsible for illegal alien carpenters in Ashboro,NC cutting the living wages of US Citizen carpenters from 30 an hour to 15 an hour? Do you still justify your stance that American carpenters, stone masons, dry wallers, and young kids looking to make a buck mowing grass in the summer here in Watauga County are lazy and deserve to have illegal aliens cut their living wage?

Try answering the question instead of injecting liberal talking points off NPR into a locally based arguement. What billionaire has cut the living wage here in Watauga County?

Yet again you are caught flat footed with no moral or ethical considerations with which to base your pedantic arguements. LOL
!!

Easy, easy

Your old pal

Genivieve Cattral

Johnny Rico

PS Tough questions, tough questions

Johnny Rico said...

Don't change the subject you idiot of a liberal. How is a billionaire responsible for illegal alien carpenters in Ashboro,NC cutting the living wages of US Citizen carpenters from 30 an hour to 15 an hour? Do you still justify your stance that American carpenters, stone masons, dry wallers, and young kids looking to make a buck mowing grass in the summer here in Watauga County are lazy and deserve to have illegal aliens cut their living wage?

Try answering the question instead of injecting liberal talking points off NPR into a locally based arguement. What billionaire has cut the living wage here in Watauga County?

Yet again you are caught flat footed with no moral or ethical considerations with which to base your pedantic arguements. LOL
!!

Easy, easy

Your old pal

Genivieve Cattral

Johnny Rico

PS Tough questions, tough questions

Liberal POV said...

Johnny

You and Sark would make a good couple you have so much in common.

Anonymous said...

Rico, as you brought up NPR, it might be interesting to mention the billionaire Soros bought it's integrity just as he bought the Democrat party for the far left. He certainly did this for his own benefit.

Of course Liberalproverbs18:2 has nothing to say about this.

guy faulkes said...

Hit the wrong button.
the last post was mine.

Sarkazein said...

"Johnny

You and Sark would make a good couple you have so much in common."-POV

This is a compliment to me POV, but how about your marriage proposal to me from earlier? I appreciate you giving up on that one.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I see where a 5 minute non hyped factual in depth story or interview with actual informed people on NPR would not be as good as a politically hyped opinion of 15 sec coverage of the same story on Fox News would let you keep your myths and ignorance.

How much money did George Soros give NPR?

Would you post one or two of the stories NPR got wrong?

What are the actions of George Soros you find so objectionable?

"The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, we build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities."

http://www.soros.org/about


http://www.soros.org/about/timeline

"Brain Drain
Paying some 24,000 Russian scientists $100 million over two years to keep them from leaving and taking their expertise to rogue regimes.

Donating $12.3 million to treat tuberculosis, including multidrug-resistant TB, in overcrowded Russian prisons, then pushing for a global plan to stop TB.

Baltimore Experiment
Selecting Baltimore for a comprehensive effort on treating urban ills, including failing schools, drug abuse, and an overreliance on incarceration.

Contributing $4 million to four organizations doing life-saving work after the destructive earthquake and mobilizing more resources for reconstruction.

Announcing a challenge grant of $100 million over 10 years to Human Rights Watch to enhance the protection of human rights around the world."

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

Is this why the conservative billionaires hate George Soros so much?

""The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, we build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities."

http://www.soros.org/about


Which of these objective do you posters here find un American or disagree with?

Liberal POV said...

HD

Do a thread on how you think George Soro's world view is incorrect, un American and how allowing his humanitarian acts will under mine capitalism.

Lay out the case against this billionaire philanthropist and his Open Society Foundations.

Explain how working to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens is bad for Americans.
Tell us how seeking to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights is not in the interest of working Americans.
Explain how implementing a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media will weaken the American society that has 45 million without health care coverage, one percent of the population behind bars, world largest percent of its citizens addicted to drugs and a high suicide rate?
Make the case building alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information will harm and weaken America?
Show how bad it would be if we placed a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities."

Show us your conservative values of the importance of maintaining the status quo.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

No.

guy faulkes said...

Liberalproverbs18:2, you are certainly able to rebutt any comments about Soros by proving the things you wanted the thread about Soros on are not true.

Prove Soros is any better than any of your terrorist and pedophile heroes.

This should be good.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

See Post at December 2, 2010 10:28 AM your proof is there.

guy faulkes said...

Can't find any proof on that date.

Liberal POV said...

HD

You conservatives have been using Soros to justify all kinds of political mischief by greedy right wing billionaires and right wing think tanks like Cato institute, Heritage Foundation.

All you need to do is make your case against Soros as the evil socialist?

guy faulkes said...

We already have made the case several times. You missed it yet again and will continue to deliberately do so, if you are not just a ruse to keep the posts coming to correct you.

What is the matter, can you find no reputable links that support you?

Liberal POV said...

CEO and Banker Support Group or Conservatives

Any of this sound familiar?

"Dancing on the electric grid
By Per Fagereng
Picture this standard experiment in psychology: A group
of rats is placed on an electric grid and the voltage is slowly
increased. After a while the rats feel a burning tingle in
their feet. The experimenters up the voltage some more, and watch
the rats dance and bite each other.
The experimenters are seeking knowledge, and the rats'
pain is presumably worth it. The experimenters don't blame the
rats for fighting each other, or punish the more aggressive ones.
They know that individuals react to pain in different ways.
Now picture the economic terrain as a different kind of
pain grid. Instead of electric shocks, the inhabitants experience
job loss, higher prices, less pay, overwork, polluted
neighborhoods and so on. Controlling the grid are not
psychologists, but CEOs and bankers. Instead of knowledge,
they are seeking profit. And so they up the pain, but not
because they want to hurt people. They are really trying to up
their profits, and the pain is a side effect.
After a while people on the grid do nasty things to
each other, everything from domestic violence to immigrant-bashing
to crime. Unlike the rats, the people get blamed for their
misbehavior. We are told to point our fingers at the victims
on the grid, instead of at the economic rulers who keep
increasing the pain.
You'd think that the CEOs and bankers would ease up on
the pain, but think again. They continue to demand more
sacrifice from the poor, knowing full well how they'll react.
Would you call this a big conspiracy? Or the sum of
many small conspiracies? Maybe it doesn't matter that much. I'm
not a mind reader. The point is, the economic rulers pursue
their profits and they know the consequences. So to that extent,
they are choosing to inflict pain."

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/booming.htm

Honest Debate said...

Wow, the author of that piece is a sick puppy.

Think of a world with no bankers or COE's...or any rich people. I wouldn't want to live there.

guy faulkes said...

Well, we can now add the using of torture of animals to make a political point to LiberalProverbs18:2' resume. Blogger, does not our liberal friend exhibit many of the symptoms of a sociopath?

Liberal POV said...

HD

That went over your head, governments need to control the pain of it citizens or they start attacking each other like with school shooting, gangs, crime, prisons, scapegoating all failure of society.

No one is suggesting no bankers or CEOs just that government do its job to see that the people that actually do the work are fairly compensated.

If is the capitalism is economic system we use it must be responsible to the society it operates within.

CEO making 300 to 400 time that of wage earning employees?

As Warren Buffet said he pays a lower percent of his income in taxes than his secretary.

We currently on the wrong course with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer with a shrinking middle class.

Read the post here attacking federal employees pay, attacking undocumented workers, attacking the poor for not paying taxes or tax money assisting the poor survive but not attacking those who control the pain or the economy.

guy faulkes said...

By the way, still waiting for a reputable link to something positive about Soros. nice try in changing the subject.

Liberal POV said...

Guy


Would you post one or two of the stories NPR got wrong?

What are the actions of George Soros you find so objectionable?

"The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, we build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities."

http://www.soros.org/about


http://www.soros.org/about/timeline

"Brain Drain
Paying some 24,000 Russian scientists $100 million over two years to keep them from leaving and taking their expertise to rogue regimes.

Donating $12.3 million to treat tuberculosis, including multidrug-resistant TB, in overcrowded Russian prisons, then pushing for a global plan to stop TB.

Baltimore Experiment
Selecting Baltimore for a comprehensive effort on treating urban ills, including failing schools, drug abuse, and an overreliance on incarceration.

Contributing $4 million to four organizations doing life-saving work after the destructive earthquake and mobilizing more resources for reconstruction.

Announcing a challenge grant of $100 million over 10 years to Human Rights Watch to enhance the protection of human rights around the world."

December 2, 2010 10:28 AM

guy faulkes said...

Let me understand this, Liberalproverbs18:2. You are trying to use the Soros web site to post a substantive positive link about Soros. Amazing.

I have never heard an accurate NPR news broadcast. Take your pick. Fortunately NPR's public funding will soon be gone or there will be many unhappy members in the House when their constituents get through with them.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"I have never heard an accurate NPR news broadcast. "

Debateing 101 never use the word NEVER but it likely make sense because you're one of the most misinformed people I've debated with so you couldn't be listening, watching or reading anything but right wing propaganda.

You don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Of the Soros stated objectives and funding I listed do you most disagree with?

Wolf's Head said...

More bad news for Cracker lpov and other lefties.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=173941

Fact, we're borrowing 43% of the money the feds are spending this year.

Fact, the ENTIRE defense budget is 18.74 % of what they spend.

Completely eliminate the Defense dept and we're still running a deficit.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the income tax.

Where's your "fairness" Cracker? Why are people who produce not entitled to the same treatment as everyone else?

How are you going to balance the budget without cutting entitlements, which are growing at an alarming rate?

The politicians are incapable of even cutting 5% of the budget.

How are you going to fix it?

Jack said...

Wolf’s statistics are a bit skewed. He confuses a budget deficit with “borrowing”. The federal government is not, in fact, borrowing 43% of the budget. As for the top 10% paying 70% of the income tax. That’s just plain misleading. It’s based on a straight monetary amount. Let’s play a quick and simple game of taxes.

A worker’s salary with progressive taxes:
$30,000 taxed @ 20% = $6,000
$1,000,000 taxed @ 35 = $350,000

A worker’s salary with a flat tax:
$30,000 @ 20% = $6,000
$1,000,000 @ 20% = $200,000

A worker’s salary with a regressive tax:
$30,000 @ 35% = $10,500
$1,000,000 @ 20% = $200,000

The higher earner is alway going to contribute more to the income tax pool. Only an extremely regressive tax system would equalize the difference.

Mark this day in history. Wolf kinda makes sense. Although his post is just a reprint of the market-ticker post. But he is correct in saying that entitlement programs must be cut into in order to balance the federal budget. Earmark cuts would help, but won’t fix it. Defense cuts would help, but won’t fix it. The debt commission ignores party lines and tells the truth: we need spending cuts and tax increases in order to cut into this problem.

Also note that we’ve only had a balanced budget 7 times since 1930, only 3 since 1950. So is a balanced budget really such a big deal?

Oh, and here’s the pie chart Wolf left out.

Jack said...

Wolf’s statistics are a bit skewed. He confuses a budget deficit with “borrowing”. The federal government is not, in fact, borrowing 43% of the budget. As for the top 10% paying 70% of the income tax. That’s just plain misleading. It’s based on a straight monetary amount. Let’s play a quick and simple game of taxes.

A worker’s salary with progressive taxes:
$30,000 taxed @ 20% = $6,000
$1,000,000 taxed @ 35 = $350,000

A worker’s salary with a flat tax:
$30,000 @ 20% = $6,000
$1,000,000 @ 20% = $200,000

A worker’s salary with a regressive tax:
$30,000 @ 35% = $10,500
$1,000,000 @ 20% = $200,000

The higher earner is alway going to contribute more to the income tax pool. Only an extremely regressive tax system would equalize the difference.

Mark this day in history. Wolf kinda makes sense. Although his post is just a reprint of the market-ticker post. But he is correct in saying that entitlement programs must be cut into in order to balance the federal budget. Earmark cuts would help, but won’t fix it. Defense cuts would help, but won’t fix it. The debt commission ignores party lines and tells the truth: we need spending cuts and tax increases in order to cut into this problem.

Also note that we’ve only had a balanced budget 7 times since 1930, only 3 since 1950. So is a balanced budget really such a big deal?

Oh, and here’s the pie chart Wolf left out.

Jack said...

Sorry, here' the pie chart.

Liberal POV said...

Wolf

I don't know your families income but I' going to guess your close to the $66,000 annual income for two working adults.

This is barely a living wage needed to buy a home and support a family without government assistance and save a little money.

The answer to your question is we end the wars cut the bloated military budget in half.

We apply Social Security and Medicare on all earned income meaning the CEO making 10 million per year pays social Security and medicare on the entire amount.

We set public tax a law to encourage businesses to pay employees a living wages and create more jobs in America.

We don't need a richer top 1% we need all working Americans making a wage they can support their own families on without the government subsiding the corporate elite with food stamps for the under paid working Americans.
"The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/who-pays-most-income-tax.htm


Social Security provides data on taxes paid by each income group. This is a great way to view the cutoff points for many Americans. The top bracket is reserved for those making $50 million a year or more:

"Source: Social Security Administration
I find the above data fascinating. In 2008 we had 131 Americans earning $50 million or more and the average amount earned was $91 million. In 2009 however the group shrank to 74 and the average was up to $518 million. How someone could earn half a billion dollars in this economic calamity begs the question of how people are earning their money."

" Many of the top earners in the U.S. now have little to do with producing anything of value.Many are simply glorified gamblers and manipulators of government policy. "

" over the past decade wages for middle class families have remained stagnant and the latest Census data shows that the average median household income in the U.S. is $50,000 and that is a drop of $2,000 from the previous year."
"The last time we saw this kind of income inequality was in the year that brought on the Great Depression. Yet after the crash of 1929 the rampant embezzlement from Wall Street was reigned in to a certain degree. Today, that massive fraud not only continues but rewards those at the top at the expense of all others. American worker productivity has gone up over the last decade but wages have not. Companies say they operate in a free market but they don’t."

http://www.mybudget360.com/income-disequilibrium-the-top-74-americans-earned-an-average-of-518-million-in-the-economic-troubling-year-of-2009/

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

How many jobs were created by these 74 people recieving incomes of over a half a billion dollars in income in a recession?
Who were they? What did they produce? How did they invest the income?

These are the opressed billionaires you protect and defend.


" In 2009 however the group shrank to 74 and the average was up to $518 million. How someone could earn half a billion dollars in this economic calamity begs the question of how people are earning their money."

Source: http://www.mybudget360.com/income-disequilibrium-the-top-74-americans-earned-an-average-of-518-million-in-the-economic-troubling-year-of-2009/

Liberal POV said...

Billionaire Groupies

Remember theses are individual incomes not family income. In those last 12 columns you will find the people inflicting pain on the American society not undocumented workers, food stamp recipients or the unemployed.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2009

Nobody said...

HOW does someone having an income of millions inflict pain on the working class? All your article says is that there are people who made a lot more money than others, but there is no reference to this CAUSING pain for anyone else. It's a real leap of logic to try and make that connection -- you must be saying that because these people have this income then it's not being given to someone else and that's somehow wrong. Since in this article, the only wrongdoing that exists is simply having more, then isn't your hero George Soros equally guilty? Especially when you consider that he made his wealth by breaking the Bank of England and causing a lot of economic pain. Google "Soros Asian fiancial crisis" and see what you get. He is on record as saying he prefers economic downturns to strong economies because it is in the downturns that he flourishes. Is that helping the working class? Is profiting through illegal insider trading helping anyone? (Convicted -- google "Soros illegal trading") How does his stand on legalizing soft drugs help the working class?

Sarkazein said...

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

'It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,' he told national newspaper The Australian.

Soros is one of 25, top hedge fund managers from across Wall Street who have defied the credit crunch crisis to reap a total of $11.6billion (£7.9bn) last year.
'I'm having a very good crisis,' says Soros as hedge fund managers make billions off recession

Sarkazein said...

Rubin, Soros, Frank, Dodd, and a motley cast of other Lefties caused this financial crisis and Obama is its care-taker.

Sarkazein said...

Here is a little challenge for any known Lefties, find another billionaire besides Soros that has shown joy in the US financial crisis.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

"HOW does someone having an income of millions inflict pain on the working class? "

With that wealth comes power, power within their own corporations to reduce or suppress wages in exchange for greater profits and CEO compensation.There's the power to ship jobs south to non union states, then to Mexico and a year or two later to Asia.
There's also political power to pass legislation favoring wealthier Americans like the pay roll tax cap on Social Security and Medicare rather than have it on all earned income.

There's the power of people like the Koch brothers who fund powerful right wing lobby and propaganda groups like CATO institute and The American Heritage Foundation. Hundreds of such organizations feed main stream media.

Within the right wing think tanks they strategize on how to divide the majority of Americans to vote against their own economic interest. The successful issues are guns, God, gays and scapegoats.

Then there's the Fear Media of Fox, AM radio, Newsmax and thousands of other right wing blogs total mouth pieces for the billionaires conservative movements.
Why do you believe its appropriate for the United States government to subsidize captialist such as Walmart, Art Pope's Varity stores, Mc Donalds Corporation and Hardees corporation with food stamps and Tax credits for many of their low income employees? Why shouldn't the Corporation pay a living wage or make room within capitalism for more mom and pop stores and resturants where the owner family makes a living wage and let the large corporate gaints fall by being unsupsidized with government supported low wages.

I would love to debate you on Soros if HD would create a complete thread. For now see post December 2, 2010 10:28 AM.

guy faulkes said...

Liberalproverbs18:2, you are never going to understand that a job is preforming a service that is worth a certain amount of money. If you want more money, you educate yourself to provide a more valuable service. Your forced redistribution of wealth ideas have never worked and never will. You are indeed a dolt.

It is useless to talk to you as you will continue with your La La La La chant. We have debunked your lame opinions before. All you can do is keep asking the same old questions because you are incapable of original thought.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Liberalproverbs18:2, you are never going to understand that a job is preforming a service that is worth a certain amount of money."

Who has the power to set that amount of money Walmart, Art Pope, Kosh Brothers, McDonalds, Hardees or the unemployed worker desperately needing the same job 10 other well qualified people need?

Your ignorance of those unemployed and underemployed astounding.

guy faulkes said...

Who has the power to set that amount of money Walmart, Art Pope, Kosh Brothers, McDonalds, Hardees or the unemployed worker desperately needing the same job 10 other well qualified people need? - Liberalproverbs18:2

Two conditions you will also never understand set teh amount of money. These are the free market system and the law of supply and demand. You have adequately demonstrated both are beyond your comprehension.

Once again, you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge or training. What was the name of that community college that uselessly tried to help you?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Two conditions you will also never understand set teh amount of money. These are the free market system and the law of supply and demand."

You really want capitalism on this scale with American wages and working condition reduced to that of India and China returning child labor to America? No Government intervention just raw capitalism?

guy faulkes said...

The reason we don't the wages and working conditions of India and China is capitalism, you dolt. As they are becoming more capitalistic, their conditions and wages are improving. As we are moving in the direction of socialism as per Obama's policies, our conditions and wages are deteriorating. Capitalism lets one improve his lot as much as he desires and is will to work to achieve.

People must hate to ride in a car with you as you always go the wrong way. By taking such actions, you are dangerous.

Thanks for the examples.

guy faulkes said...

Should have said don"t have.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

How was the post World War II era of American history so prosperous? When we had those socialist programs of the GI Bill, strong unions and with union workers making a middle class incomes, buying homes, cars, boats appliances, sending kids to universities, paying taxes, low crime.

Then came Reagan and the conservative movement! Union busting streets filled in every small town with homeless people, wars public money leaving social safety net for military build up or Corporate welfare.

American wage earners have been on a down hill slide ever sense with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
We've seen the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.

guy faulkes said...

Once again, Liberalproverbs18:2 you are trying to rewrite history. It does not work. Link a reputable source to back up any of your drivel and I will shoot it down.

Start with telling us why industry is and has been fleeing union supporting states for the increased efficiency of right to work states that offer better living and working conditions.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Start with telling us why industry is and has been fleeing union supporting states"

To increase profits and increase top management compensation by driving down wages of the wage earning work force.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Link a reputable source"

"By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60 percent. Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit."

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html


So, with the Depression, America was kicked while it was already down?

With the Great Depression of 1929 we see massive numbers of homeless people like we've never seen before, and possibly have never seen since.

Now, one of the upsides of the Depression is that it was the first opportunity for the United States government to jump into action to address homelessness-and they did. From 1933 to '36 the U.S. government instituted the FTS, or the Federal Transient Service, and it was a fantastic federal program that funded shelters and arts programs and health centers and job training and work camps and housing for people who were homeless. And it was remarkably effective.

When you read the journal entries of the people it affected, you see shelters that treated people with dignity, that were well run. They didn't have a lot of the religious requirements that some of the evangelical programs had. They were really good.

If it was such a good program, what happened to it?

In 1936 the program was shut down. The Roosevelt administration wanted to fund Social Security, so it cut a bunch of emergency response programs, much like we're seeing stimulus funds do now. They folded a lot of those resources into Social Security. What the program showed is that the federal government can do something right if they put their minds to it and put enough resources toward a solution.

What effect did World War II have on homelessness?

What we saw through the '40s, '50s, and '60s was the country went to war and back to work, often building things like airplanes and tanks. The country essentially pulled itself out of the Great Depression with a huge economic rebound.

So from the '40s through the '60s poverty decreased?

But not everybody felt that-some people were still very poor, very much on the edge. What we saw then in the '60s and '70s was the groundwork for the current wave of homelessness: the Vietnam War. People were coming back devastated, both physically and mentally. Plus, we were closing down . . . mental hospitals without offering enough effective community response to catch all of the people who were leaving.

http://www.streetnewsservice.org/news/2010/july/feed-240/the-history-of-homelessness-in-america,-1640-present-.aspx

Nobody said...

"Then came Reagan and the conservative movement!"

You either carelessly or intentionally (or out of ignorance) omit the '70s. Now THAT was good economic times! American malaise is the term that comes to mind...Stagflation, misery index, impotent foreign policy (Iran hostage crisis, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Of course, remembering that the 1970s were the culmination of the previous two decades of liberal policies (Great Society and LBJ) hurts your ability to blame conservatives for EVERYTHING!

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

Carter was only president for four years we had the failed Republicans Nixon and Ford admin. the eight years before Carter but it was Reagan who demonized the poor, aloud junk bonds stealing pensions funds from low income workers and emptied mental hospitals with no support funded for those with mental issues.

guy faulkes said...

I guess you had trouble with teh part about the workers having better living and working conditions down here due to the lack of union dues and interference, Liberalproverbs18:2.

Carter was so successful he started a new vocabulary that included hte word malaise and that America had seen it best days. Reagan proved him (and you) wrong.

Carter, FDR and Obama are three of the worst presidents in history, as most people agree.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Had we followed Carter's leadership we may have avoided two wars or three counting the secret Contra wars in Central America and we would be on our way of energy independence and a balanced budget.

I know you conservatives want war not peace.

The Conservatives want war, with a tax cut and a balanced butget. This is reality?

Nobody said...

"Carter was only president for four years we had the failed Republicans Nixon and Ford admin. the eight years before Carter"

Every time you say something like this, you demonstrate that you do not really understand American government...and you say something like this all the time. As Obama will soon find out, a President cannot enact any agenda he wants if the opposite party controls Congress, even just one house, and Democrats controlled Congress (at least the House) for over 40 YEARS until 1994. The policies that wrought havoc on the economy by the 1970s were enacted by Democrats in Congress and LBJ. Democrats controlled government from 1961 to 1969 and Nixon/Ford had to deal with a Democratically controlled Congress. You'll understand this next year when your whining about Republicans not passing Obama's legislation in the House. Just remember when you're doing that whining about Republican obstructionism that Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 (the last 2 years) dealt with Democratic obstructionism.

guy faulkes said...

Liberaproverbs18:2, if we had followed Carter's principles, we would have lost the cold war and would now be a communist country. We would have a third world economy.

Maybe Carter was before his time. He was trying to do as Obama is now.

You would certainly approve of this as you do of terrorism and pedophilia.

Excellent points, Nobody, but Liberalproverbs18:2 would not listen the other times they were made to him and he will not now. Get ready for more La La La la La.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Liberaproverbs18:2, if we had followed Carter's principles, we would have lost the cold war and would now be a communist country. We would have a third world economy."

You can prove this by???

Once again you want your silly misinformed opinions to be accepted as facts.

guy faulkes said...

I can prove it by the conditions Carter put this country in in four years. These include the worst economy since the depression, the entire world laughing at him, an energy shortage, a poor foreign policy, and disgust at his domestic policy, (I said he was ahead of his time. the same things can be said about Obama. The difference is that Obama's policies were done on purpose. Carter's were the result of ineptitude.)

He would have killed the country to the point of no return in eight. Please explain the word malaise, Liberalproverbs18:2 and the connection to the Carter administration. You may learn something in doing the research.

The name of that community college you flunked out of? Just a few simple words and I will quit asking the question. After all, you brought the subject of education up.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Liberaproverbs18:2, if we had followed Carter's principles, we would have lost the cold war and would now be a communist country. We would have a third world economy."

You can prove this by???

Once again you want your silly misinformed opinions to be accepted as facts.

guy faulkes said...

Thee is no way to prove what would have happened if not for the very greatly needed defeat of Carter. One has to use logic, of which you have none. Therefore you will never be able to understand.

What was the name of that community college that culled you? You might as well answer. The question is not going away. If you start something you are going to learn you need to finish it.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Thee is no way to prove what would have happened if not for the very greatly needed defeat of Carter. "

This does prove you wanted your opinion to be taken as fact in earlier post.

guy faulkes said...

I never said my opinion was fact. It is logical. Yours is not. big surprise.

No one but the far left has anything good to say about the Carter administration. Some do claim he was a good man in way over his head.

Liberal POV said...

Sark and Johnny

As those who have the power and wealth to make decisions that make life more and more painful for those on the margins who start attacking each other just as you and Johnny do here. You and Johnny haven's resorted to extorsion or kidnaping but you have attacked weaker less powerful fellow human beings like the undocumented American residents who are our neighbors but have no legal status or voting rights and fear the local law because one of them may be just like you.

I posted this earlier:

"Dancing on the electric grid
By Per Fagereng
Picture this standard experiment in psychology: A group
of rats is placed on an electric grid and the voltage is slowly
increased. After a while the rats feel a burning tingle in
their feet. The experimenters up the voltage some more, and watch
the rats dance and bite each other.
The experimenters are seeking knowledge, and the rats'
pain is presumably worth it. The experimenters don't blame the
rats for fighting each other, or punish the more aggressive ones.
They know that individuals react to pain in different ways.
Now picture the economic terrain as a different kind of
pain grid. Instead of electric shocks, the inhabitants experience
job loss, higher prices, less pay, overwork, polluted
neighborhoods and so on. Controlling the grid are not
psychologists, but CEOs and bankers. Instead of knowledge,
they are seeking profit. And so they up the pain, but not
because they want to hurt people. They are really trying to up
their profits, and the pain is a side effect.
After a while people on the grid do nasty things to
each other, everything from domestic violence to immigrant-bashing
to crime. Unlike the rats, the people get blamed for their
misbehavior. We are told to point our fingers at the victims
on the grid, instead of at the economic rulers who keep
increasing the pain.
You'd think that the CEOs and bankers would ease up on
the pain, but think again. They continue to demand more
sacrifice from the poor, knowing full well how they'll react.
Would you call this a big conspiracy? Or the sum of
many small conspiracies? Maybe it doesn't matter that much. I'm
not a mind reader. The point is, the economic rulers pursue
their profits and they know the consequences. So to that extent,
they are choosing to inflict pain."

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/booming.htm

December 3, 2010 8:11 AM

Liberal POV said...

Sark and Johnny

As those who have the power and wealth to make decisions that make life more and more painful for those on the margins who start attacking each other just as you and Johnny do here. You and Johnny haven's resorted to extorsion or kidnaping but you have attacked weaker less powerful fellow human beings like the undocumented American residents who are our neighbors but have no legal status or voting rights and fear the local law because one of them may be just like you.

See my post December 3, 2010 8:11 AM

I posted this earlier:

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/booming.htm

"Dancing on the electric grid"
By Per Fagereng