No he said Obama’s did it those years which isn’t true. Situations are quite different but I know you don’t really get the details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 million civilian workers. The Federal Government is the nation's single largest employer. this includes the military

The public sector employs 20.2 million people in the US, approximately 14.5 percent of the workforce.

Seeing the private sector and republicans have screwed 85.5 % of the american worker now they are after the other 14.5 because they have to much to funny

for the second time, why didn’t the democrats put their
money where their mouth is, and give federal workers a raise, which if linerals are correct, would have helped the economy recover from the recession?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, everybody in the private sector is screwed? but of course. i’d
much rather be a public worker, especially here in CT, where public pensions ( after decades of pure liberalism) are funded at approximately 0%. the liberals are really looking out for the public workers!!!

nobody gets screwed worse than state workers. the union lies to them to get their dues, democrat
politicians lie to them to get their votes. i wouldn’t trust my financial
security to these people
for a day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no clearly you dont understand that somehow Trumps tax cut is a good thing but raises are a bad thing but you insist only one impacts the US budget aka raises

if the economy is booming as you constantly remind us how is a 2.5% raise hurting the budget????


“House and Senate Republicans have made a joint offer that includes the 1.9 percent pay raise

but Trump is against it? why is that ?? anger payback or he cares about the budget?

just a general statement but republicans have been after union workers for decades and they only account for 10% of the us work force ... dont understand so much attention against so few

So you're admitting that the economy is booming?

republicansnate after corruption and waste, and ground zero for that, is unions and democrats. look at what unions and democrats did to CT, and try to make me wrong. you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

I’m giggling again Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we’re all
laughing, glad you are too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good summary
And accurate as well



I usually giggle when Spence denies he is a liberal and says he is a centrist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As Jim noted, Krugman doesn't discuss things that run counter to what he is trying to say here. Instead, he focusses on international corporate investment and its influence on federal government revenues, and he reverts to his usual sweeping, generalized theories within theories which forces him to inject weasel words such as "probably" and "don't necessarily correspond to anything real" which give a shadowy image of plausibility to his assertions.

Within his narrow, limited focus he somehow manages to refer to a "national" income, which is presumably the rest of us, and that 90% of Americans will end up poorer because of the tax cuts. I didn't find in his point by point analysis how the tax cuts made me poorer. So far, I am getting more money, not less.

Now, if he is referring to inflation, which I didn't find a reference to in his article, he may have a point. But inflation generally reflects markets improving too rapidly (which may be why he didn't mention it), which can be induced by lowering taxes. So, yes, lower taxes can lead to market expansion, which means the tax cuts are working, maybe too well. But the Fed tries to control that by raising interest rates to slow down market transactions, which creates a market slowdown and gives the false appearance that tax cut policy is not working.

Another inflationary cause is the previous administration's massive money pumping that wasn't used as intended because it basically couldn't find a demand for it in a stagnant market, but is now flooding an expanding market with more money than needed, thus lowering that money's purchasing value. So there is an added layer of inflation that is not a result of the tax cuts.

So he manufactures a global centric argument about money not returning to America because of the tax cuts, but actually flowing to foreign investors who profit because of lower taxes, which, supposedly, in effect, somehow means that the tax cuts are not only not working but they are making 90% of us poorer. But, as I said, he doesn't specifically say how that is so regarding us as individual tax payers. But he implies that is so because the tax cuts also benefit foreign investors. Nor does he mention how the foreign investors contribute to the market in the first place.

But his whole thesis rests solely on his narrow focus on what he claims is money not returning to America, but merely benefitting large corporations, one third of which are owned directly or through investment by foreigners. He disregards the multi-faceted purpose of the tax cuts, the least of which is not to "bring back money" to the U.S., but to bring back and/or create more jobs, including those produced by foreign entrepreneurs moving here. As well, the freeing up of money already here to create more jobs. And, as I can personally attest, to keep some of the people's money in their pocket rather than in the government's. But all of that, to his chagrin, means government wealth shrinks and so will some programs that some "people value" (He didn't say "some", I made the clarification to be more precise.)

He, in the final analysis, worries more about the loss of government income than in individuals gains in money and jobs. But in the end, our federal government never loses money. It refuses to. Even if it has to bleed us to get it.

He didn't????

Let's try this again, don't forget to read slow and enunciate.


Don't forget the link, if you click on it magical things will happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and spence need to get your stories straight, he says it never happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are arguing with an idiot,and guess what happens next...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know, down the rabbit hole I go
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who controls both branches of government in the 20 states with the lowest household income?
Try and make that a shining star for Republicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, I don't think state government drives the average income of its citizenry, I think citizens determine that for themselves.

How about state debt, which clearly is a function of who is running the state? the highest debt is IL and CT.

CT also has very high incomes. That has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, an everything to do with our proximity to Manhattan.

Man.

So high taxes are Driven by state governments but state governments have no effect on income levels but the states adjoining them do have some effect

Education, availability of services and Transportation don’t make a difference in how well a state performs for its citizens
That attitude is what keeps the bottom 20 where they are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if those 20 states raised their taxes they would rise from whatever bottom you are trying to make relevant? They don't have schools and transportation and available services in those states? Are the average citizens in those states suffering from a low quality of life? Is the cost of living as high in those states as it is in the high taxed states? Is the income inequality as prevalent in those 20 states as it is in the high tax states?

There are many, many, factors and statistics that go into the quality of life in a given state. Until you can gather the totality of all those factors and statistics, and also determine the overall personal preferences and values of the citizens, pointing out one factor in which a state is at the so-called "bottom" has very little, if any, value.

not sure how your retirement works mine is based on. base pay last 3 years tax break does nothing to increase my retirement pay compared to a pay raise ... and not all states tax pension to start with

again your anti anything Government arguments are endless

and I said you fail to see context (nothing about it didn't happen)
.... once again your having a hard time about the details

fyi for those who forget history

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/new...ges/index.html


Shocking the decline of the private sector pay is because of private companies

but lets blame public sector unions

I'm pretty sure you are the one having the problem with the details. I think I'm the only one that actually supplied, you know, details.

Is the fact that Trump wanted to freeze the pay increases because of a need to reign in Government spending less noble than Obama doing it because of the recession? Is that the context that maybe you are missing? Or is the context just a hatred for the man that drives your every thought?

Public sector unions have nothing to do with private sector salaries.

Public sector unions have a lot to do with state taxes and debt. The marriage of public unions and democrats is working out awesome in CT and IL.

YES. BECAUSE SHUT UP.

The FIRST SENTENCE of your article says it was a big deal that last year, Walmart raised minimum wage and announced bonuses. But you and all the other liberals constantly said it was meaningless. So who is forgetting history?

Let's settle this once and for all. Were all those bonuses and wage hikes that stemmed from the tax cut, meaningful or not? Because you guys keep flip-flopping on that question, depending on which Maoist point you're trying to make at the time.

As for low wages at Walmart and other huge retailers...WDMSO, do you like low prices and getting good deals? If I had a department store and paid everyone a minimum of $50,000 a year, which forced me to charge $7.50 for a gallon of milk, would you shop at my store? Or would you go to Walmart?

You can't have low prices with razor thin profit margins, combined with across-the-board lucrative pay for all positions. That's not reality.

Public sector unions don't need to care about mathematical or marketplace reality, because they take what they need through force of law, I cannot decide not to pay my taxes. Private sector companies have it much, much harder. They have to make people CHOOSE to fork over their money, they have to make people want to do it. In order to make people want to give you their money, you have to have competitive prices. Your expenses cannot exceed your revenue.

That's what you fail to grasp. Public sector unions can confiscate whatever they want from the citizenry, we don't have the choice not to pay taxes. In the private sector, companies must (1) incentivize customers to voluntarily hand over their money, AND (2) expenses cannot exceed revenue. SO expenses need to be contained, or the company goes out of business. In the public sector, when expenses exceed revenue, you just raise taxes.

Big, big difference. I have worked in the public sector (I was a teacher for a very brief time), and now I'm in the private sector. Have you ever had a meaningful job in the private sector? Ever?

You literally have no idea what you are saying.

The Trump tax cut deals with FEDERAL income tax rates, not state income tax rates. If you were drawing on your pension, the federal tax cut would almost certainly have given you a bump in your take-home portion of your pension.

A federal tax cut will not increase your gross pension payment, because that is determined based on your contract. A federal tax cut will increase your net pension payment, and net is what matters.

If your gross pension is, say, $40,000 a year, and your federal tax rate decreases, then you have more money from each pension check How can you deny this?

My net pay increased by $200 a month after the tax cuts took effect, and my gross pay did not change. The increase was because of reduced federal withholding.

You are being completely irrational.

I think WDMSO is saying that his pension payments are calculated on a percentage of his base pay from his last 3 years of employment. So he's correct in saying that a raise has more of an effect on his pension, over the years, than a tax break does.

butba raise if $1 has less benefit than a tax cut of $1. bevause the raise is then taxed.

but you’re probably correct in what he meant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess if the tax cut is a static percent for many years, but pay raises are an annually applied percentage, and pay increases not given for a certain year(s) end up lowering your overall pay over, say, a ten year span as they are not compounded over the years.

I'm not an accountant, but I did stay at a holiday Inn Express last night :hee:

Just what would you suggest for this complicated algorithm that would define livability?

The only raises I've had in my Detroit pension were based on cost of living adjustments. In Michigan, pensions acquired after a certain date, don't remember which, are taxed. The Federal government taxes my Social Security. Public sector pay raises (which represent most pensions), as far as I know, are taxable at the federal, state and municipal levels.

I don't have any anti-government arguments. I have specifically said, many times, that government has a role. It is only when government overreaches, beyond its prescribed and necessary role in our country that I am against it.

But you have this endless inability to understand that simple concept. For you, any criticism of government, valid or not, is this ignorant, all encompassing, meme: "anti-government."

I suggested a few, but there are as many algorithms as there are people. Searching for a universal definition of livability doesn't interest me. What I consider livable would be too simple, too basic, in most ways, for many others.

In general, in political conversations, bringing up a particular statistic usually involves promoting or siding with some agenda.

Jan.4 AP headline:
US employers added 312,000 jobs in December

Full article:
https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/0...s-in-december/

Who knows how it will all shake out for the rest of "Trump's" economy. But to keep knocking his tax cut and tariff war and economic and regulatory policies as foolish, dumb, failures is obviously premature. And saying that the job and wage successes are merely an Obama carryover after two years is a stretch beyond reason. If I remember correctly wdmso claimed something to the effect that it would take two years before we could attribute success (or failure) to Trump's policies.

For me, I don't think presidential or political policies in general that try to "do" something are the main reason for US economic success. I believe more that federal government "undoing" overburdening tax and regulatory policies is more effective.

I'm not being "anti-government." I'm for government staying out of the way of what should be our constitutionally based inherent right to a free and open market. One of the federal government's few and important duties is to protect that freedom, not to regulate it.

Should there be any regulation of the market? For sure. But that should not be done by unelected bureaucratic agencies. It should begin with an actually free market's inherent tendency to self regulate. And it should be fortified by the direct and elected will of the people. And that should be "regulated" as constitutional by a Supreme Court guided by interpreting the actual text of the Constitution, not by Judge's personal opinion of what is right and just.

Interesting: CNN / Yahoo and others reporting that the refunds (cough Federal interest free borrowing of your money for a year) of taxes are about the same or slightly higher.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-n...170638232.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3026996002/

Now, can we go back to the Debt? The actual National Emergency?

You got that right boss, borrow and spend until the credit runs out, then file for bankruptcy; it's the American way. The problem is who bails out the US government? Trump probably has some good financial ties to Russia and Jarad of course can work his Saudi buddies for a bailout package.