allentown wrote:Actually, one of the problems with social security is that we pay it out to 62-year olds. The full-retirement benefit age increaased, the partial did not.

I'd be very much in favor of raising the full and partial ages, but not for people who've already reached them.

allentown wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as silly a position as spending money you don't even have. Almost.

Wasn't that the Republican mantra for the 8 years they were in power. They spoke of the Clinton surplus as if it was a dirty thing 'why is the government taking more of your money than it needs?'. Those were record deficits in good times. Didn't hear many conservative complaints back in those days.

Of course, it depends on who's getting the monies...

TenuredVulture wrote:... and Florida, I believe, has no income tax.

Correct. Tourism pays the bills.

allentown wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as silly a position as spending money you don't even have. Almost.

Wasn't that the Republican mantra for the 8 years they were in power. They spoke of the Clinton surplus as if it was a dirty thing 'why is the government taking more of your money than it needs?'. Those were record deficits in good times. Didn't hear many conservative complaints back in those days. Now spending to short-circuit a depression is suddenly a horrible thing to do in the eyes of these Republican spendthrifts. Gotta make sure every i is dotted and every t crossed on the Obama admin. calculation that healthcare reform is paid for, after making zero attempt to pay for their own prescription drug coverage for seniors. Now THAT is what I call silly, not to mention extemely hypocritical.

Is this screed directed at me, or just the universe at large?

Sixty-five percent (65%) of New Jersey voters favor a one-year pay freeze on the salaries of administrators, teachers and school workers to reduce the state’s level of local school aid, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.

Just 28% of voters in the state oppose this pay freeze to meet Governor Chris Christie’s proposed $820 million reduction in school aid. The newly-elected Republican governor is proposing the reduction as part of his effort to close the state’s $11 billion budget deficit.

The state teachers’ union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), is angrily opposing the proposed pay freeze, saying it will set back education efforts. But 66% of New Jersey voters say the union is more interested in protecting its members’ jobs than in the quality of education. Twenty-four percent (24%) believe the union places the quality of education first.

Thank you Scott Rasmussen for polling this. Looks like a good place for the NJEA to dig in their heels. Got GWBesque approvals behind you.

It always amuses me freaking out about pay freezes. I have never ever gotten a raise in my life, and am making less now than I did when I first entered the workforce four years ago.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Sixty-five percent (65%) of New Jersey voters favor a one-year pay freeze on the salaries of administrators, teachers and school workers to reduce the state’s level of local school aid, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.

Just 28% of voters in the state oppose this pay freeze to meet Governor Chris Christie’s proposed $820 million reduction in school aid. The newly-elected Republican governor is proposing the reduction as part of his effort to close the state’s $11 billion budget deficit.

The state teachers’ union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), is angrily opposing the proposed pay freeze, saying it will set back education efforts. But 66% of New Jersey voters say the union is more interested in protecting its members’ jobs than in the quality of education. Twenty-four percent (24%) believe the union places the quality of education first.

Thank you Scott Rasmussen for polling this. Looks like a good place for the NJEA to dig in their heels. Got GWBesque approvals behind you.

Not sure where you live but did you see the front page of the Gloucester County Times today? Has a picture of a little kid at one of the rallies with some sign I assume they gave him which reads "Why Must I Suffer, Mr Christie? It's Not Fair" Pathetic exploitation.

Yeah, I haven't gotten a raise in over two years. I still do just fine and, given a 10% unemployment rate, I am happy as hell to just have a job. As for the union, I believe, perhaps obviously, that the union is worried first and foremost about the diminution of their power/influence should teachers acquiesce to a one-year pay freeze. Frankly, I think quality of education is well down on the NJEA's list of priorities.

VoxOrion wrote:

allentown wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as silly a position as spending money you don't even have. Almost.

Wasn't that the Republican mantra for the 8 years they were in power. They spoke of the Clinton surplus as if it was a dirty thing 'why is the government taking more of your money than it needs?'. Those were record deficits in good times. Didn't hear many conservative complaints back in those days. Now spending to short-circuit a depression is suddenly a horrible thing to do in the eyes of these Republican spendthrifts. Gotta make sure every i is dotted and every t crossed on the Obama admin. calculation that healthcare reform is paid for, after making zero attempt to pay for their own prescription drug coverage for seniors. Now THAT is what I call silly, not to mention extemely hypocritical.

Is this screed directed at me, or just the universe at large?

It is directed at anyone who professes to see a sudden burst of fiscal irresponsibility since Obama became President.

I didn't get a raise last year, but it looks like I'll get 2% this year. JH, you still have time to rethink your decision. And, yeah, I don't work at the greatest place in the world, but our fiscal condition is better than a lot of people in higher ed.

jerseyhoya wrote:If people misusing political terminology meant the terms were meaningless, then we wouldn't have any words left.

Explain to me what "small government" means and show me some examples of it being used in a meaningful and correct way. I don't think I have ever heard anyone use it in a meaningful way. The term is a slogan designed to circumvent thought and connect with emotions. Saying "small government" is great for a bumper sticker or to yell at a political rally. The quote from that woman made it obvious that she never even spent two seconds thinking about what it meant before she was asked about it. That is what it is designed to do. That's why I say it is meaningless.

If you can show me how it is used correctly and meaningfully, I'll be happy to admit that I exaggerated when I called it meaningless. I'll instead say that it is meaningless to the vast majority of people who use it and have never spent even two seconds thinking about what it means. The quote will still be a great example of that in action.

jerseyhoya wrote:Congratulations on your second point. Your anecdotal, hypothetical willingness to pay more to the state is just wonderful.

This is the exact type of mindless illogical political debate that I can't stand and should avoid. I tried to react to your extreme generalization ("liberals are happy to raise taxes on other people") with logic, which I admit was a mistake. I responded by saying I don't know what you mean by "other people." The only thing I can guess is that it is someone other than me. You didn't qualify "liberals" so I must assume you mean all liberals which would include me. Therefore, I used myself as an example of an exception to your extreme exaggeration to show it was false.

I could have also added that I do not consider myself unique. There are other liberals, even those making more than 99% of the rest of the population who would be fine with raising taxes if it meant fixing problems. Giving me a few examples of particular groups who do not want their own taxes raised or want to raise taxes on other people does not support your extreme generalization. I'll agree that "some" liberals are happy to raise taxes on other people. If you wrote that initially I wouldn't have responded. But you were obviously trying to be over the top and I should have recognized that and ignored what you wrote.

One final point: I have benefited my entire life from tax laws designed by wealthy people to help wealthy people and I benefit from them more now than I ever have in my life. You don't have to be THAT wealthy to benefit from them but people who do not make much money cannot take advantage of them. Lower income people are helping to subsidize my mortgage, my health insurance, my retirement savings, and even my tax preparation. As I have progressed in my career, I realize just how many of these tax benefits there are out there. There are lots of loopholes in the tax code and they primarily benefit wealthy people. I'd gladly give up my share of these benefits if the extra tax revenue helped fix problems.

Unless you are arguing that we should do away with taxes and pretty much everything the government does, taxes have to come from somewhere. Unless it is a head tax, it is going to disproportionately affect some people. Income taxes are not the only type of tax. Payroll taxes affect lower income people more than higher income people. I'm not a expert on taxes, but from what I know income taxes are not taxes on individuals, they are taxes on dollars of income. When taxes are raised on "people making over $400,000" what that really means is that the tax on income dollar # 400,000+ is slightly higher than income dollar # 399,999. Forgive me if my heart does not bleed for the poor people who lose a few extra pennies out of each dollar they make over $399,999 especially when the tax code is filled with hundreds of ways that they can keep those extra pennies anyway.

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:Actually, one of the problems with social security is that we pay it out to 62-year olds. The full-retirement benefit age increaased, the partial did not.

I'd be very much in favor of raising the full and partial ages, but not for people who've already reached them.

I'd like to see the SS age pegged to average life expectancy the same way some benefit calculations are pegged to inflation.

Never gonna happen, but it should.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:Actually, one of the problems with social security is that we pay it out to 62-year olds. The full-retirement benefit age increaased, the partial did not.

I'd be very much in favor of raising the full and partial ages, but not for people who've already reached them.

I'd like to see the SS age pegged to average life expectancy the same way some benefit calculations are pegged to inflation.

Never gonna happen, but it should.

Why not? Assuming you would grandfather in anyone over say, 45? No 25 year old is going to base their vote on whether the retirement age moves from 65 to 70. Not one (cue phdave)

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:Actually, one of the problems with social security is that we pay it out to 62-year olds. The full-retirement benefit age increaased, the partial did not.

I'd be very much in favor of raising the full and partial ages, but not for people who've already reached them.

I'd like to see the SS age pegged to average life expectancy the same way some benefit calculations are pegged to inflation.

Never gonna happen, but it should.

Why not? Assuming you would grandfather in anyone over say, 45? No 25 year old is going to base their vote on whether the retirement age moves from 65 to 70. Not one (cue phdave)

That 45 thing sounds pretty sweet, assuming it doesn't happen for at least 8 more months.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:Actually, one of the problems with social security is that we pay it out to 62-year olds. The full-retirement benefit age increaased, the partial did not.

I'd be very much in favor of raising the full and partial ages, but not for people who've already reached them.

I'd like to see the SS age pegged to average life expectancy the same way some benefit calculations are pegged to inflation.

Never gonna happen, but it should.

Why not? Assuming you would grandfather in anyone over say, 45? No 25 year old is going to base their vote on whether the retirement age moves from 65 to 70. Not one (cue phdave)

Interest-group politics.

edit: you'll say this doesn't make sense, and it kind of doesn't. But if AARP has the belief that their credibility is on the line if the age is raised, they'll go to the wall to fight that. And their folks vote; 25 year olds don't.

The political culture of the Cold War, where there was an actual middle, maybe could have carried this. Not now. The Republicans' schizoid leap to the position of Defenders of Medicare during the health care fight, and their really shameless Luntzian play of the moment arguing against bank bailouts solely so they can snag finance money, shows you how that fight would go.

So even though every member currently in AARP wouldn't be affected, AARP would still galvanize against this? I'm kind of not seeing it. Old people like taking away stuff from young people. Young people wouldn't care. This is win win. Make it 40 if you have to.

That'll be kinda crappy for blue-collar workers and African Americans, both who tend to have lower life expectancies than the national average.

They'll have to deal. Laws aren't one size fits all. Tell you what, you, liberal dems, can have some means testing. Would that make you feel better?

Alright, are we all on board? Because I need to get back to McConnell and Reid in the next couple hours.

Blue collar workers and African Americans tend to have lower earnings which means they benefit from the progressive benefit formula. That makes up for them dying young. If we're going to generalize wildly by racial or socioeconomic groupings.

jerseyhoya wrote:Bobby Jindal's fundraiser appears to have gotten beaten up and hospitalized because she works for a Republican. I blame Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I blame bad reporting. From the Times-Pic:

The three to five men who attacked Gov. Bobby Jindal's campaign finance director and her boyfriend after a Louisiana Republican Party fund-raiser in the French Quarter last Friday shouted obscenities at the couple and made reference to the fact they were nicely dressed, but made no political comments or other statements, according to a report released today by the New Orleans Police Department.

Still a crappy thing that happened. No one deserves it. But take a look at that initial link. Story cites Pat Dollard claiming a NOLA police spokesperson told him it was politically motivated, but it's been updated to reflect that Dollard/yahoo were called on the BS by the spokesperson. Hooray for backtracking. Could it still have been politically motivated? Sure, I guess.