1) Here's an interesting statistic, folks. Total direct revenue to the Federal government in 2003 was 1.78 trillion. By 2007, that number had grown to 2.57 trillion, a nearly 800 billion dollar increase....Those on the Republican side will no doubt say that this increase (the largest 4 year increase in American history, according to the Treasury department) was largely brought about by President Bush's tax-cuts. The Democrats, on the other hand - they would no doubt dispute this by saying that these increases would have been even greater without the tax-cuts....So, who's right? I haven't the foggiest. My suspicion, though, is that the Democrats are probably more right. a) Tax revenues have a tendency to go up anyway (reasons pertaining to population growth and inflation, mainly) and b) revenues actually went down in 2002 and 2003, the years immediately following the first Bush tax cuts....But it is rather instructive, no, to see how basically any side can claim a victory for itself, dependent upon the numbers utilized?............2) Chris Matthews has a suggestion for President Obama. Find all the bridges, roads and sewers in the country that are presently under code and fix them. Present the idea (replete with specificity) to the Congress (making sure, of course, that a lot of the juicier items are smack-dab in the middle of Republican districts) and dare them to vote it down. Hm, I kind of like this idea, folks. Of course I would have liked it much better, you know, BACK IN 2009!!!............3) Seriously, though, the stimulus package, while it may have helped the economy somewhat (i.e., prevented it from becoming worse), was entirely too much of a buckshot approach. And, yes, folks, in my opinion, the Democrats should have known better/that this was going to be their only really substantive bite at the apple and structured it better. I mean, they basically blew it, for Christ - blew it and allowed the Republicans to march right back in in. Nice goin', fellas'.............4) And I hate to say it here, but Mr. Obama just might be too nice of a fellow for Washington. The guy just lays back too much. The way that I see it, the President should have frigging marched right up to Capitol Hill and said, "Here's my plan, fellas'. It's got cuts, some major entitlement reform, and a scaling back of our foreign policy agenda. And I'm going to lay it all out for you in excruciating detail. But I'm going to need to get something from you, too. We need to raise revenues - even if it comes from 'tax expenditures'....I mean, come on, guys. Any idiot knows that we cannot simply cut our way to a balanced budget and, dudes, even if in fact we could, it may not be the best thing for the economy....Oh, and, yes, I'll be taking this little plan of mine to the American people. It's best not to keep them out of the loop like this. I'll be waiting for your call."...Not that it would necessarily work, mind you. But that's what I would tell Mr. Obama to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Repeal Davis Bacon, prevailing wage. Then you can use the same amount of money, but it is like you have 10% more that's not wasted on legalized contract corruption.
Money that can be used on more projects, hiring more workers.
Anything that stretches my tax dollars is AOK by me.
dmarks has often advocated that employers should pay "real value" wages. The "prevailing" wage IS the "real value" wage. That being the case, why would dmarks say a law that mandates real value wages be paid by government contractors be repealed?
The reason is because he isn't really in favor of paying workers real value wages. What he really wants is for workers to be paid slave wages.
There's a difference between the prevailing wage and the lowest bid. As a tax-payer, I would much prefer that the contract go to the most competitive bidder.
No, the prevailing wage is not the real value wage. It is an imaginary nothing-to-do-with anything value set by ignorant bureaucrats. It has nothing to do with the work.
"...why would dmarks say a law that mandates real value wages..."
I don't.
"The reason is because he isn't really in favor of paying workers real value wages."
Actually, I favor them being paid real value wages.
"What he really wants is for workers to be paid slave wages."
Now you are just saying things with no regard to meaning. Slaves aren't paid wages. This is an oxymoron. No, I only advocate that pay be based on the fair value of the work. This is especially important with government work and contracts: money wasted in handing out unearned money to the well off could be better used to educate children, fix roads, feed the poor, etc.
Eliminate this welfare for the well-off. Keep welfare for the poor.
Will: You are right. Anything else is waste and corruption. There IS a difference between a fair value and the prevailing wage.
Will: I am thinking I saw the same segment. "Tweety" pointed out the Michelle Bachman lambasted the President over the stimulus yet she asked for stimulus funds to repair roads and bridges in her district. She also asked the EPA for funds to add buses in metro areas....funny, one of things she wants is to shut down the EPA. I guess all ya can do is shake your head and laugh...
Beware of the lowest bid.
dmarks: Now you are just saying things with no regard to meaning. Slaves aren't paid wages.
When slave wages are paid it keeps workers in wage slavery. According to the Wikipedia definition, "wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate".
"Wage slavery" is a REAL term with a defined meaning.
Also, the prevailing wage isn't "imaginary". "Prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, paid to the MAJORITY of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area".
If a majority of worker are being paid the wage that means that the free market has determined that it is the "real value" of the work. Or that is how I thought free marketeers (which I'm assuming dmarks is) would figure it.
It appears to me that dmarks is more than willing to set aside his belief in the free market if it means workers can be paid less. This is because dmarks' corporatist agenda trumps his belief in the free market (which almost always is the case with Republicans).
Efforts to repeal Davis-Bacon are part of the Republican war on working people and representative of their desire to dismantle the middle class and make everyone who isn't rich a wage slave.
Will: So, who's right? I haven't the foggiest.
The increase in revenue was NOT largely brought about by bush's tax-cuts.
According to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post the bush tax cuts reduced revenue.
Marcus points out "tax revenue has historically averaged 18 percent of GDP... [but, from 2000 to 2007 the average] was 17.6 percent. By contrast, the average during the 1990's was 18.5 percent".
Marcus then addresses the "theory of the tax cuts [spurring] economic growth". We know they didn't because "the economy [didn't grow] at a better-than-expected rate. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has shown, the 2001-2007 economic expansion was among the weakest since World War II with regard to overall economic growth".
Regarding the increase in tax receipts, CBO Director Peter R. Orszag said, "the increase disproportionately [came] from a rise in corporate income tax revenues. [Orszag attributed] the bump in corporate taxes to an increase in corporate profits".
In other words... the bush tax cuts had their desired effect of making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else (which is the GOAL of Republican economic policy).
FactCheck.org says the claim that cutting taxes increases revenue is Supply Side Spin.
"Also, the prevailing wage isn't "imaginary". "Prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, paid to the MAJORITY of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area"."
Wow, WD stumbled into a bit of truth here.
What we need to determine now is wether he's talking about private sector employees or public sector union employees.
I've got a feeling it's the latter with their 6 figure salaries, huge retirements, month long vacations and free viagra that WD means.
wd, just because people use a term, doesn't mean that it has metaphysical, absolute, or magical certainty. a) Slaves don't get paid and b) they aren't allowed to leave. The way that I see it, if people want their financial status to improve, they can a) get a better job, b) get a second job, c) go back to school, d) stop smoking (there's 5 grand a year extra right there), e) stop drinking in bars, f) stop eating out, g) stop buying lottery tickets, h) get a roommate, i) refrain from starting a family until you are better financially prepared for it, j) drive a more economical car, k) etc.. Why does the tax-payer always have to pick up the tab to artificially inflate a wage?............And, no, I'm not saying that ALL poor people drink and smoke. These are just examples that some people could do to enhance their situation..
Again, wd, these are numbers from the US Treasury Department. Revenues in 2003 were 1.78 trillion. By 2003, they were 2.57 trillion, a nearly 800 billion dollar increase (the largest 4 year increase in US history). You cannot say with definite certainty that the Bush tax cuts weren't the reason for this, any more than the Bushies can say with definite certainty that they were. And you know what else is curious - the fact that the revenues didn't start going down again until the Democrats took over the House in 2007. That, I think, is exceedingly curious.
Jerry, let me ask you something. If you were having some work done on your house, would you hire the contractor who charges X? Or would you hire the contractor who charges X-1?............I'm assuming that the Government only deals with reputable and licensed contractors.
When I have work done on my house, I do not decide who will do the work based solely on price. In fact, in some cases I have had the work done without a quote knowing that I will get a superior job done at a fair price.
That's why I said, I'm assuming that the US government only deals with licensed and reputable contractors. I personally look for the best deal (my experience is that the better guy isn't always the more expensive guy) myself.
I agree that the more expensive guy is not necessarily the better guy. Licensed you can check on. Reputable is more difficult to determine particularly if you have not dealt with them before.
Will: You cannot say with definite certainty that the Bush tax cuts weren't the reason for this...
I can say with definite certainty that the Bush tax cuts did not lead to an increase in revenue.
FactCheck.org says, "The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been..."
Will: the largest 4 year increase in US history.
"tax revenue has historically averaged 18 percent of GDP... [but, from 2000 to 2007 the average] was 17.6 percent. By contrast, the average during the 1990's was 18.5 percent".
Will: If you were having some work done on your house, would you hire the contractor who charges X? Or would you hire the contractor who charges X-1?
The government is NOT an individual consumer looking for the best deal. The government pays the prevailing wage because it is good for the economy (aside from the issue of it being fair).
The economy was slowing when Mr. Bush went into office. That would account for the lessened revenue for 2001 and 2002. And the housing bubble occurred in 2008 (not to mention the fact that Democrats took hold of the House in 2007) - something caused by a bipartisan 90-8 screw-up and lousy oversight by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. And you still haven't explained how revenues went up 800 billion dollars between 2003 and 2007, the largest 4 year increase in U.S. history. Your taking the whole 8 years and trying to make hay out of a POINT 4 decrease in average revenue.
The prevailing wage is not necessarily purely good for the economy. It causes the federal budget (and thereby either the deficit or taxes) to go up and possibly inflation, too. Pay what the market will bear. As a frustrated tax-payer, that's the only sensible thing to support here.
"Pay what the market will bear."
A corporate reason for keeping unemployment high.
And artificially high wages keeps unemployment low?
No, high unemployment keeps wages low.
WD said: "When slave wages are paid it keeps workers in wage slavery. According to the Wikipedia definition, "wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate".
So it is a situation in which people are required to do something productive in order to have a livlihood. A basically meaningless term, as most workers anywhere are "wage slaves". Something very different from actual slavery.
"Prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, paid to the MAJORITY of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area".
Which has nothing to do with the value of the work, and is terrible because it ignores the differences between workers and the work done.
"If a majority of worker are being paid the wage that means that the free market..."
No, it has nothing to do with the free market. Whatsoever.
"It appears to me that dmarks is more than willing to set aside his belief in the free market if it means workers can be paid less."
I am advocating the free market here. You are advocating ignorant and uninvolved people setting wages.
"This is because dmarks' corporatist agenda"
I have no corporatist agenda. I favor high taxes on corporations, and regulation also. I oppose corporate citizenship. You are calling me a "corporatist" because it sounds good to you, not because there is any reason to do so.
This is the same with you leveling this meaningless insult against Will.
"Efforts to repeal Davis-Bacon are part of the Republican war on working people"
Not in the least. Davis Bacon itself is part of the war in working people. It keeps unemployment higher as it discourages employers from hiring at a fair real-value wage.
You are being careless and sloppy.
Post a Comment