Also, on topic, I recieved my first paycheck of the year today. I had recieved a 3% pay increase last August. This was in addition to a 2% increase 2 Augusts before. My take home pay is now roughly equal to what it was when I started this job almost 3 and a half years ago. However, my bills and the price of goods here have gone up. I am living the American dream.
I make less now than I did 5 years ago doing the same job. Thank You Mr Obama (dem) and thank you Governor A$$hole (Rick Scott--Repub).
Although I have not received any increases throughout that time...not even COLA. Thanks again Gov.
Gotta ask--why is this either Obama's or Scott's fault, as opposed to, say, the management of your company for not giving you COLA or any other salary increases during this time? My guess is that if their senior managers are like those at most companies, they've given themselves huge bonuses for keeping labor costs low while shipping jobs overseas. This is certainly what happened in every single company that I have ever worked for.
I haven't seen a COLA or step increase ever, just arbitrary percentage increases which I guess could be considered COLA. I work for a local gov't entity. We've managed to reduce our budget by upwards of 30 or 40 percent and still can't get a real raise. All the while my checks are getting smaller and my cost of living is increasing. I picked a bad month to quit drinking.
Although I have not received any increases throughout that time...not even COLA. Thanks again Gov.
Gotta ask--why is this either Obama's or Scott's fault, as opposed to, say, the management of your company for not giving you COLA or any other salary increases during this time? My guess is that if their senior managers are like those at most companies, they've given themselves huge bonuses for keeping labor costs low while shipping jobs overseas. This is certainly what happened in every single company that I have ever worked for.
Well considering I work for the state....Scott is the management of my "company", lol.
Although I have not received any increases throughout that time...not even COLA. Thanks again Gov.
Gotta ask--why is this either Obama's or Scott's fault, as opposed to, say, the management of your company for not giving you COLA or any other salary increases during this time? My guess is that if their senior managers are like those at most companies, they've given themselves huge bonuses for keeping labor costs low while shipping jobs overseas. This is certainly what happened in every single company that I have ever worked for.
Well considering I work for the state....Scott is the management of my "company", lol.
Well considering I work for the state....Scott is the management of my "company", lol.
Well, that does explain a lot. But, see, here's the cold hard reality: Most of the job losses over the past couple of years have come as the result of revenue declines and spending cuts in the public sector, both federal and state, rather than the private sector. So, if you're anti-government, this should be a good thing. Obviously, if you're in government, and your personal income isn't rising, that's a bad thing for you.
There's no easy, cut and dried way out of this mess. Dramatically cutting government spending lowers the deficit and improves credit ratings, but at the price of huge job losses in both the public sector and in companies (life defense contractors) that depend on government welfare. Those who remain are unlikely to get any kind of salary increases and probably will have to pay more in healthcare costs. Huge job losses mean more people on unemployment, more foreclosures, more poverty, more people on Medicaid, lower consumer spending, stymied construction, and ultimately less tax revenue coming in. In a sputtering economy, it's truly a no-win situation for anybody.
Well considering I work for the state....Scott is the management of my "company", lol.
Well, that does explain a lot. But, see, here's the cold hard reality: Most of the job losses over the past couple of years have come as the result of revenue declines and spending cuts in the public sector, both federal and state, rather than the private sector. So, if you're anti-government, this should be a good thing. Obviously, if you're in government, and your personal income isn't rising, that's a bad thing for you.
There's no easy, cut and dried way out of this mess. Dramatically cutting government spending lowers the deficit and improves credit ratings, but at the price of huge job losses in both the public sector and in companies (life defense contractors) that depend on government welfare. Those who remain are unlikely to get any kind of salary increases and probably will have to pay more in healthcare costs. Huge job losses mean more people on unemployment, more foreclosures, more poverty, more people on Medicaid, lower consumer spending, stymied construction, and ultimately less tax revenue coming in. In a sputtering economy, it's truly a no-win situation for anybody.
Actually, there is a fairly simple way out of this mess - raise revenues (taxes) and cut spending without overdoing either, which will eat away at the debt, and promote growth, which will also bring in revenues to pay down the debt. We should be studying the Clinton era economy, and implementing much of what happened then, INCLUDING all the taxes that were in place in those years. We should also be studying the austerity policies implemented in Europe and avoid those policies, because they have only stagnated the European economy, and added to their debts and raised their unemployment.
It should be remembered that the last time we were in a mess this bad was in the 1930's and it took a government stimulus program called WWII to get us out of it.
Actually, there is a fairly simple way out of this mess - raise revenues (taxes) and cut spending without overdoing either, which will eat away at the debt, and promote growth, which will also bring in revenues to pay down the debt. We should be studying the Clinton era economy, and implementing much of what happened then, INCLUDING all the taxes that were in place in those years. We should also be studying the austerity policies implemented in Europe and avoid those policies, because they have only stagnated the European economy, and added to their debts and raised their unemployment.
It should be remembered that the last time we were in a mess this bad was in the 1930's and it took a government stimulus program called WWII to get us out of it.
Well, yeah, but there's nothing simple about this. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration doesn't offer a good model--the economic recovery, spurred by defense spending during the Kuwait War, began near the tail end of the Bush administration. The boom of that era was fueled largely by the growth of technology companies in the U.S., the continued depression in Japan (which enabled the U.S. to get ahead of it), the simultaneous recovery in Europe (which became a strong market for U.S. products), and a smaller threat (at the time) from China and India in terms of outsourcing jobs. The U.S. is a nearly completely opposite economic situation today. There aren't any new sectors out there to create millions of new jobs--we had our chance with green energy, but China took that away from us. We're starting to get some manufacturing back, but we're still a long way from that. Construction is still anemic. The retail sector can only go on for so long.
Unfortunately, it's true that war (and increased military spending) are effective recession busters. Vietnam war spending got the economy rolling in the 1960s; Reagan's dramatic increased in military outlays in the 1980s got the economy out of Jimmy Carter's recession; Bush 1's Kuwait War got us out of the 1989-91 recession; Bush 2's post-911 Homeland Security and two-war military spending got us out of that recession. Unfortunately, in every situation this military spending added dramatically to the deficit.
Although I have not received any increases throughout that time...not even COLA. Thanks again Gov.
Gotta ask--why is this either Obama's or Scott's fault, as opposed to, say, the management of your company for not giving you COLA or any other salary increases during this time? My guess is that if their senior managers are like those at most companies, they've given themselves huge bonuses for keeping labor costs low while shipping jobs overseas. This is certainly what happened in every single company that I have ever worked for.
Well considering I work for the state....Scott is the management of my "company", lol.
Although I have not received any increases throughout that time...not even COLA. Thanks again Gov.
Gotta ask--why is this either Obama's or Scott's fault, as opposed to, say, the management of your company for not giving you COLA or any other salary increases during this time? My guess is that if their senior managers are like those at most companies, they've given themselves huge bonuses for keeping labor costs low while shipping jobs overseas. This is certainly what happened in every single company that I have ever worked for.
Well considering I work for the state....Scott is the management of my "company", lol.
That explains a lot. LOL
such as?
Our differing views on economics and governmental policy. I work in the private sector for myself through my s-corp. You work for the government. Isn't that the grand argument of our times, the relative sizes of each? Private vs. public
I dont want large govt. But I am an investigator for the abuse, neglect, explotation, and self neglect of the elderly and disabled-----these are many of the jobs or type of jobs that "everyone" says are wasteful and typical of govt. leaching off people. But be sure to say what a travesty it is too when grandma is found om the floor in her own ***, or someone is sexually abusing their grandfather in a nursing home.
I dont want large govt. But I am an investigator for the abuse, neglect, explotation, and self neglect of the elderly and disabled-----these are many of the jobs or type of jobs that "everyone" says are wasteful and typical of govt. leaching off people. But be sure to say what a travesty it is too when grandma is found om the floor in her own ***, or someone is sexually abusing their grandfather in a nursing home.
Yes, but you would like a government big enough to support you in doing the work. I'm not minimizing what you do. It is quite nobel. But, we see issues through a different paradigm. FWIW, I'd never let one of my parents enter a nursing home. In this case, I can do a much better job than any government ever could. And that is the basis for everything I do and teach.
Actually, there is a fairly simple way out of this mess - raise revenues (taxes) and cut spending without overdoing either, which will eat away at the debt, and promote growth, which will also bring in revenues to pay down the debt. We should be studying the Clinton era economy, and implementing much of what happened then, INCLUDING all the taxes that were in place in those years. We should also be studying the austerity policies implemented in Europe and avoid those policies, because they have only stagnated the European economy, and added to their debts and raised their unemployment.
It should be remembered that the last time we were in a mess this bad was in the 1930's and it took a government stimulus program called WWII to get us out of it.
Well, yeah, but there's nothing simple about this. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration doesn't offer a good model--the economic recovery, spurred by defense spending during the Kuwait War, began near the tail end of the Bush administration. The boom of that era was fueled largely by the growth of technology companies in the U.S., the continued depression in Japan (which enabled the U.S. to get ahead of it), the simultaneous recovery in Europe (which became a strong market for U.S. products), and a smaller threat (at the time) from China and India in terms of outsourcing jobs. The U.S. is a nearly completely opposite economic situation today. There aren't any new sectors out there to create millions of new jobs--we had our chance with green energy, but China took that away from us. We're starting to get some manufacturing back, but we're still a long way from that. Construction is still anemic. The retail sector can only go on for so long.
Unfortunately, it's true that war (and increased military spending) are effective recession busters. Vietnam war spending got the economy rolling in the 1960s; Reagan's dramatic increased in military outlays in the 1980s got the economy out of Jimmy Carter's recession; Bush 1's Kuwait War got us out of the 1989-91 recession; Bush 2's post-911 Homeland Security and two-war military spending got us out of that recession. Unfortunately, in every situation this military spending added dramatically to the deficit.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not advocating the increasing of military expenditures. I only pointed out that government spending got our economy going in the 1940's - and the Clinton Administration dramatically cut Defense while raising taxes, which helped to draw down the huge deficits that Regan-Bush left us with (which was created mostly by unpaid Defense expenditures.)
Right now there are billions of dollars on the sidelines, held back by private US corporations that, if released into the economy, would spurr the growth needed to raise the revenues that will pay down our debt. All that is required is for Congress to behave like adults instead of pentulant children, come to a reasonable compromise on taxes and spending, and the markets will take off.
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
I dont want large govt. But I am an investigator for the abuse, neglect, explotation, and self neglect of the elderly and disabled-----these are many of the jobs or type of jobs that "everyone" says are wasteful and typical of govt. leaching off people. But be sure to say what a travesty it is too when grandma is found om the floor in her own ***, or someone is sexually abusing their grandfather in a nursing home.
Yes, but you would like a government big enough to support you in doing the work. I'm not minimizing what you do. It is quite nobel. But, we see issues through a different paradigm. FWIW, I'd never let one of my parents enter a nursing home. In this case, I can do a much better job than any government ever could. And that is the basis for everything I do and teach.
If your mother or father has a stroke and is left incapacitated, or is suffering the effects of end stage alzheimers unless you are a well trained medical professional I dont think many people can do even close to as well as a nursing home. And if the govt. doesnt want to support my work thats fine, but then dont b!tch when the elderly and kids get the $hit kicked out of them or they get molested and there is no one assisgned to look into it. I mean afterall, corportate profits are much more important that that stuff anyway.
BTW Beat, that isnt meant to be meant as an attack on you directly and I am being reactionary---I understand that. But the topic is a difficult one and it just seems people in general are very quick to say decrease govt. but dont seem to think of some of govt. duties and the relatively small salaries people do these jobs for and are in charge of protecting some (at least people want us to believe) is a very important population.
So, let's get this straight. The government needs to tax corporations to have more money to hire trained medical professionals to take care of grandma and also to hire an investigator when one of the trained medical professionals beats up grandma? What we are really short on are healthy, loving extended families where the workers (middle aged) take care of the needy (young and the elderly). Kinda like mini communism built on love.
First, the medical professionals are privately paid and the nursing homes are covered as well with many elderly paying out of pocket for the care....sometimes at 7k per month or more. So no govt there. As far as when a medpical professional beats up Grandma, bad things happen because people can be bad. Also, the extended families, specifically daughters and sons, commit the majority of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of the elderly. Blame the stress, blame greed, blame training, I dont care but those are facts. While I do agree the scenario of middle aged kids caring for parents is great...how many middle aged people can provide 24/7 care and supervision for the elderly these days, when in fact so many elderly are even having to continue to work to feed themselves?
Well the one thing I can be certain of here is that you don't make enough money. But I don't think taxing corporations is gonna change that anytime soon. And it surely won't stop anyone from abusing the elderly.
I'm involved in local government. We have some folks who do really good work. We also have folks (just like in business) who are in it for whatever they can get. I've found both workers and politicians engaged in some pretty dubious practices and managed to get it stopped. $30,000 here, $70,000 there etc. There is just a sh*t load of what I call "wink wink, nod nod" that goes on in government. If every city, county, state etc would just have a come to Jesus meeting about the bs that goes on.....
Course, the real stealth tax hike was that while everyone was yakking about some fictional cliff a whalloping 250 billion new Obamacare taxes took effect at the new year. Some of these are downright diabolical, like taxes on medical devices, and a 2500 cap on medical deductions for special needs children. All that other yammering distracted anyone from taking notice.
All that other yammering distracted anyone from taking notice.
Again, straight to the heart of the matter. Rather like bread & circuses for the Romans. Of course, if we were like the Romans, government would get involved in sports the way the Romans did with the gladiators. They'd be having hearings about sports stars and their use of steroids, labor disputes between sports teams and managers,............wait a minute!........;)
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Another blow that strikes directly at the heart of the matter.
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Good luck with that.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Good luck with that.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
I do not share your pessimism, your comparrison, or your lack of faith in our form of government. However, I do not expect the Tea Party to solve problems; I expect them to make huge problems out of big ones, and if your analogy of insanity is applied to the number of times the Tea Party has attempted to repeal ObamaCare, then I will consider that a valid observation.
Besides, I heard a news report today that California, under Governor Brown, has a balanced budget because they RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING. Imagine that. A fair and balanced approach to fiscal responsibility.
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Good luck with that.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
I do not share your pessimism, your comparrison, or your lack of faith in our form of government. However, I do not expect the Tea Party to solve problems; I expect them to make huge problems out of big ones, and if your analogy of insanity is applied to the number of times the Tea Party has attempted to repeal ObamaCare, then I will consider that a valid observation.
Besides, I heard a news report today that California, under Governor Brown, has a balanced budget because they RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING. Imagine that. A fair and balanced approach to fiscal responsibility.
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need to keep all the government we have."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of some."
We alternate between the first two because there's no pork in the last two.
Comments
There's no easy, cut and dried way out of this mess. Dramatically cutting government spending lowers the deficit and improves credit ratings, but at the price of huge job losses in both the public sector and in companies (life defense contractors) that depend on government welfare. Those who remain are unlikely to get any kind of salary increases and probably will have to pay more in healthcare costs. Huge job losses mean more people on unemployment, more foreclosures, more poverty, more people on Medicaid, lower consumer spending, stymied construction, and ultimately less tax revenue coming in. In a sputtering economy, it's truly a no-win situation for anybody.
It should be remembered that the last time we were in a mess this bad was in the 1930's and it took a government stimulus program called WWII to get us out of it.
Unfortunately, it's true that war (and increased military spending) are effective recession busters. Vietnam war spending got the economy rolling in the 1960s; Reagan's dramatic increased in military outlays in the 1980s got the economy out of Jimmy Carter's recession; Bush 1's Kuwait War got us out of the 1989-91 recession; Bush 2's post-911 Homeland Security and two-war military spending got us out of that recession. Unfortunately, in every situation this military spending added dramatically to the deficit.
What we are really short on are healthy, loving extended families where the workers (middle aged) take care of the needy (young and the elderly). Kinda like mini communism built on love.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
Besides, I heard a news report today that California, under Governor Brown, has a balanced budget because they RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING. Imagine that. A fair and balanced approach to fiscal responsibility.
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need to keep all the government we have."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of some."
We alternate between the first two because there's no pork in the last two.