I don't think there is a good argument for why you should get more of my money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point you missed was 08 and 09 I paid for your raises while I got none. Some colleagues got even less - I was fortunate. Why should I suck it up and do more now when you skated for the last 3 years?
[Report Post]

Life isn't fair, honey. Put on your big girl pants and deal with it. You have to suck it up because congress is going to pass a tax increase on you. The middle class supports it, and the 600K feds in this area support it because they just had their pay froze to "do their part." Most private sector people will support it because they've been doing their part for several years now. So, welcome to the "it isn't fair" club. How do you like it so far?

It sounds to me like she's had her big girl pants on for years. You on the other hand, sound like you're bitter because even though you get to keep sucking on the government teat as you have for years, at least it won't be in unlimited and ever-increasing quantities.

OP, the PP doesn't know what she's talking about. The lame duck Congress doesn't have the power to hand you a tax increase - plastic-surgery addict Nancy Pelosi would love it but it will never make it through the Senate. Instead they'll vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple more years as a horse-trade to get the Republicans to sign off on extending the unemployment benefits which are about to run out (while unemployment is still WELL above 9%).

The incoming Congress certainly has no interest in increasing either your taxes or the size of government. So, you just got a 2 year reprieve. Vote Republican in 2012 and make it permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, I am not the PP but I too went to college, as my spouse did, using loans, jobs, etc. We are paying full freight for our own children, as we should, because we ARE successful. Why are we the "bad guys" because of this?

Who called you a bad guy? You are only asked to do your share. Feds got a pay freeze. You are getting a hike in taxes. Suck it up. I'm not saying you deserve it any more than I deserved the pay freeze. It is what it is.

Um, giving up 1/4th of what she earns is indeed more than her share. For every hour she works, the government (i.e., YOU) take away 15 minutes. Feds should get a pay freeze - it's about time. YOU work for US, remember? You seem to think that it should be the other way around. BTW, if you always whine this much then it's clear why the federal workforce is way too large. Her family's salary (specifically her law firm employed husband's) OTOH is set by the market, a much more trustworthy mechanism than some government flunky.

Suck that up.

[Anonymous]

Who is the "you" who is getting the money. The implication of the title is that this money is going directly into people's pockets. It's not. To have a country like we do, there are costs. We have public education, a massive military, public roads, parks, libraries, and other services, police and fire departments, welfare and unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. These all cost money. You utilize many of them. So, you must pay for some of them.

With income down in the country, and the primary source of funding these services income tax, than taxes must be increased. Who would you rather have pay for it? The people without any jobs? And before you insist that you didn't ask for any of those things, the fact is they exist and they have benefited you in one way or another, and likely benefited you more than most other folks. You can't, after the fact, say, "Well, I don't want that." You (not just you, we all are) are a product of our system. Many of us had inherent benefits given to us, unearned benefits. Many of these were predicated upon legal, political, financial, and social institutions that propped up some at the expense of others. It's the people who are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

It sounds like you worked hard. Good for you. But many others worked hard and didn't have the opportunities you did. As much as you think you did it on your own, you didn't. And for that, you must give back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is the "you" who is getting the money. The implication of the title is that this money is going directly into people's pockets. It's not. To have a country like we do, there are costs. We have public education, a massive military, public roads, parks, libraries, and other services, police and fire departments, welfare and unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. These all cost money. You utilize many of them. So, you must pay for some of them.

With income down in the country, and the primary source of funding these services income tax, than taxes must be increased. Who would you rather have pay for it? The people without any jobs? And before you insist that you didn't ask for any of those things, the fact is they exist and they have benefited you in one way or another, and likely benefited you more than most other folks. You can't, after the fact, say, "Well, I don't want that." You (not just you, we all are) are a product of our system. Many of us had inherent benefits given to us, unearned benefits. Many of these were predicated upon legal, political, financial, and social institutions that propped up some at the expense of others. It's the people who are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

It sounds like you worked hard. Good for you. But many others worked hard and didn't have the opportunities you did. As much as you think you did it on your own, you didn't. And for that, you must give back.

I'm not against the idea of paying taxes. But many of the services you listed in defense of taxation are not paid for with federal tax dollars. They are state/local services. What we pay for with our federal tax dollars is:

Social security
Medicare/Medicaid
Interest on the Debt
Defense
Miscellaneous

I understand that miscellaneous includes valuable things, but they are individually less than 3% of the budget and in aggregate less than 20% of the budget. Really, we are paying for social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense. Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me like she's had her big girl pants on for years. You on the other hand, sound like you're bitter because even though you get to keep sucking on the government teat as you have for years, at least it won't be in unlimited and ever-increasing quantities.

OP, the PP doesn't know what she's talking about. The lame duck Congress doesn't have the power to hand you a tax increase - plastic-surgery addict Nancy Pelosi would love it but it will never make it through the Senate. Instead they'll vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple more years as a horse-trade to get the Republicans to sign off on extending the unemployment benefits which are about to run out (while unemployment is still WELL above 9%).

The incoming Congress certainly has no interest in increasing either your taxes or the size of government. So, you just got a 2 year reprieve. Vote Republican in 2012 and make it permanent.

The only way to balance the budget is to:

Raise Taxes
Cut Spending


Both of these things have to be done. I don't care what you think is fair. It is a mathematical impossibility to balance the budget without doing BOTH of these things. You want us to vote for the republicans, who got us into this fucking mess? The same party who refuses to take the necessary steps to balance the budget? Yes, it is politically unpopular to raise taxes. The republicans care more about their image than about doing what is right for the country.

Let's go ahead and cut freeze federal wages for 2 years. Hell, let's freeze them for 10 years. Let's also cut the workforce by 25%. Do you know how far that will get you towards reducing the budget? It will get you about one tenth of one percent of the deficit paid off. Taxes must be raised. On everyone. It is going to happen. Either it happens, or our country will fall just as many others have before us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the "you" who is getting the money. The implication of the title is that this money is going directly into people's pockets. It's not. To have a country like we do, there are costs. We have public education, a massive military, public roads, parks, libraries, and other services, police and fire departments, welfare and unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. These all cost money. You utilize many of them. So, you must pay for some of them.

With income down in the country, and the primary source of funding these services income tax, than taxes must be increased. Who would you rather have pay for it? The people without any jobs? And before you insist that you didn't ask for any of those things, the fact is they exist and they have benefited you in one way or another, and likely benefited you more than most other folks. You can't, after the fact, say, "Well, I don't want that." You (not just you, we all are) are a product of our system. Many of us had inherent benefits given to us, unearned benefits. Many of these were predicated upon legal, political, financial, and social institutions that propped up some at the expense of others. It's the people who are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

It sounds like you worked hard. Good for you. But many others worked hard and didn't have the opportunities you did. As much as you think you did it on your own, you didn't. And for that, you must give back.

I'm not against the idea of paying taxes. But many of the services you listed in defense of taxation are not paid for with federal tax dollars. They are state/local services. What we pay for with our federal tax dollars is:

Social security
Medicare/Medicaid
Interest on the Debt
Defense
Miscellaneous

I understand that miscellaneous includes valuable things, but they are individually less than 3% of the budget and in aggregate less than 20% of the budget. Really, we are paying for social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense. Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

Don't forget federal education funds. And honestly almost any local government service you can think of has at least some partial federal funding. Police, fire, water and sewer, road construction, jails, airports, metro, transit bus services, state colleges and universities, many capital projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the "you" who is getting the money. The implication of the title is that this money is going directly into people's pockets. It's not. To have a country like we do, there are costs. We have public education, a massive military, public roads, parks, libraries, and other services, police and fire departments, welfare and unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. These all cost money. You utilize many of them. So, you must pay for some of them.

With income down in the country, and the primary source of funding these services income tax, than taxes must be increased. Who would you rather have pay for it? The people without any jobs? And before you insist that you didn't ask for any of those things, the fact is they exist and they have benefited you in one way or another, and likely benefited you more than most other folks. You can't, after the fact, say, "Well, I don't want that." You (not just you, we all are) are a product of our system. Many of us had inherent benefits given to us, unearned benefits. Many of these were predicated upon legal, political, financial, and social institutions that propped up some at the expense of others. It's the people who are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

It sounds like you worked hard. Good for you. But many others worked hard and didn't have the opportunities you did. As much as you think you did it on your own, you didn't. And for that, you must give back.

I'm not against the idea of paying taxes. But many of the services you listed in defense of taxation are not paid for with federal tax dollars. They are state/local services. What we pay for with our federal tax dollars is:

Social security
Medicare/Medicaid
Interest on the Debt
Defense
Miscellaneous

I understand that miscellaneous includes valuable things, but they are individually less than 3% of the budget and in aggregate less than 20% of the budget. Really, we are paying for social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense. Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

Don't forget federal education funds. And honestly almost any local government service you can think of has at least some partial federal funding. Police, fire, water and sewer, road construction, jails, airports, metro, transit bus services, state colleges and universities, many capital projects.

Yes, but that's a pittance compared to the big ticket items. And it is a small subsidy of the average school district budget. I think we should invest heavily in education at the national level, but the entire Dept of Education budget in 2010 was $46 billion.

I live in Arlington County. The FY2010 budget for education is $438 million The total revenues for Arlington for any purpose (education or not) is $18 million. If every dollar was for education, the federal contribution to Arlington's education budget would be 4%.

[Anonymous]

I meant to say "the total federal revenues for Arlington"

[Anonymous]

OP, don't pay your taxes, get caught, got to prision and the rest of us will be paying for you. This is an idiotic thread because you have to pay taxes and the more income you have the higher your taxes. Suck it up or you or DH quit your job and pay less in taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the "you" who is getting the money. The implication of the title is that this money is going directly into people's pockets. It's not. To have a country like we do, there are costs. We have public education, a massive military, public roads, parks, libraries, and other services, police and fire departments, welfare and unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. These all cost money. You utilize many of them. So, you must pay for some of them.

With income down in the country, and the primary source of funding these services income tax, than taxes must be increased. Who would you rather have pay for it? The people without any jobs? And before you insist that you didn't ask for any of those things, the fact is they exist and they have benefited you in one way or another, and likely benefited you more than most other folks. You can't, after the fact, say, "Well, I don't want that." You (not just you, we all are) are a product of our system. Many of us had inherent benefits given to us, unearned benefits. Many of these were predicated upon legal, political, financial, and social institutions that propped up some at the expense of others. It's the people who are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

It sounds like you worked hard. Good for you. But many others worked hard and didn't have the opportunities you did. As much as you think you did it on your own, you didn't. And for that, you must give back.

I'm not against the idea of paying taxes. But many of the services you listed in defense of taxation are not paid for with federal tax dollars. They are state/local services. What we pay for with our federal tax dollars is:

Social security
Medicare/Medicaid
Interest on the Debt
Defense
Miscellaneous

I understand that miscellaneous includes valuable things, but they are individually less than 3% of the budget and in aggregate less than 20% of the budget. Really, we are paying for social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense. Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

Federal parks, such as Rock Creek Park, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore
U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. park police
U.S. Congressional Fire Department
Library of Congress
Unemployment insurance is paid at both the state and federal level
Federal highways such as part of I95

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

We were attacked in 1941 and 2001

[Anonymous]

"We were attacked in 1941 and 2001 "

And other times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the "you" who is getting the money. The implication of the title is that this money is going directly into people's pockets. It's not. To have a country like we do, there are costs. We have public education, a massive military, public roads, parks, libraries, and other services, police and fire departments, welfare and unemployment programs, etc, etc, etc. These all cost money. You utilize many of them. So, you must pay for some of them.

With income down in the country, and the primary source of funding these services income tax, than taxes must be increased. Who would you rather have pay for it? The people without any jobs? And before you insist that you didn't ask for any of those things, the fact is they exist and they have benefited you in one way or another, and likely benefited you more than most other folks. You can't, after the fact, say, "Well, I don't want that." You (not just you, we all are) are a product of our system. Many of us had inherent benefits given to us, unearned benefits. Many of these were predicated upon legal, political, financial, and social institutions that propped up some at the expense of others. It's the people who are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

It sounds like you worked hard. Good for you. But many others worked hard and didn't have the opportunities you did. As much as you think you did it on your own, you didn't. And for that, you must give back.

I'm not against the idea of paying taxes. But many of the services you listed in defense of taxation are not paid for with federal tax dollars. They are state/local services. What we pay for with our federal tax dollars is:

Social security
Medicare/Medicaid
Interest on the Debt
Defense
Miscellaneous

I understand that miscellaneous includes valuable things, but they are individually less than 3% of the budget and in aggregate less than 20% of the budget. Really, we are paying for social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense. Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

Federal parks, such as Rock Creek Park, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore
U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. park police
U.S. Congressional Fire Department
Library of Congress
Unemployment insurance is paid at both the state and federal level
Federal highways such as part of I95

Those things are a tiny fraction of our budget and our personnel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Personally, I'd like to chip a chunk off the defense total. For a country that has been attacked only a few times in its entire history, it seems a tad excessive to spend nearly a fifth of our budget on it.

OK, I'm a dem, and a hippie, and a dove..... but maybe nobody attacks us because we have such a big defense budget?

OK, take a look at this graph. It show our historical spending, by year. It is adjusted for inflation, so you can compare dollars in different years. Now did you feel safer in 2010 or in 1998? Did you feel safer in 2010 or 1990, the height of the Reagan years but still way lower than our current spending? Was Reagan too soft on defense? Was Nixon?

The point is that you can't just say more is better. We have to draw a line somewhere, both in how much we need to defend our shores, and in how much of the world peacekeeping job we should bear on our own.