Congress to lay off 240,000

[jstoesz]

oh come on LAR and Allan, you missed a golden oppurtunity to show off your astounding wit…Here I will pitch you it again…

There once was a republican from Nantucket
Who kept all his cash in a bucket
the democrat named Nan
a morally destitute man
and as for the bucket, Nan-tucket

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The “job” of government in America is NOT creating jobs. Do yourself a favor and re-acquaint yourself with your country, its history and the intent of the Founding Fathers when they created this great republic.
[/quote]

I thought that maximum employment was a mission of Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Or, move to France. I hear things are going swimmingly well there right now.[/quote]

Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The “job” of government in America is NOT creating jobs. Do yourself a favor and re-acquaint yourself with your country, its history and the intent of the Founding Fathers when they created this great republic.
[/quote]

I thought that maximum employment was a mission of Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Or, move to France. I hear things are going swimmingly well there right now.[/quote]

Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The “job” of government in America is NOT creating jobs. Do yourself a favor and re-acquaint yourself with your country, its history and the intent of the Founding Fathers when they created this great republic.
[/quote]

I thought that maximum employment was a mission of Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Or, move to France. I hear things are going swimmingly well there right now.[/quote]

Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The “job” of government in America is NOT creating jobs. Do yourself a favor and re-acquaint yourself with your country, its history and the intent of the Founding Fathers when they created this great republic.
[/quote]

I thought that maximum employment was a mission of Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Or, move to France. I hear things are going swimmingly well there right now.[/quote]

Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The “job” of government in America is NOT creating jobs. Do yourself a favor and re-acquaint yourself with your country, its history and the intent of the Founding Fathers when they created this great republic.
[/quote]

I thought that maximum employment was a mission of Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Or, move to France. I hear things are going swimmingly well there right now.[/quote]

Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html%5B/quote%5D

Brian: It actually falls into the category of “Way too obtuse to grasp nuance”.

France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

Hence, my suggestion that he/she move to France if he/she was such a supporter of these type programs.

It was not, however, a “love-it-or-leave-it” argument. Being Brian, you read it as such, proving yet again that not only are you incapable of advancing a reasoned argument, you’re also incapable of recognizing one.

Rock on, Brother.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html%5B/quote%5D

Brian: It actually falls into the category of “Way too obtuse to grasp nuance”.

France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

Hence, my suggestion that he/she move to France if he/she was such a supporter of these type programs.

It was not, however, a “love-it-or-leave-it” argument. Being Brian, you read it as such, proving yet again that not only are you incapable of advancing a reasoned argument, you’re also incapable of recognizing one.

Rock on, Brother.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html%5B/quote%5D

Brian: It actually falls into the category of “Way too obtuse to grasp nuance”.

France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

Hence, my suggestion that he/she move to France if he/she was such a supporter of these type programs.

It was not, however, a “love-it-or-leave-it” argument. Being Brian, you read it as such, proving yet again that not only are you incapable of advancing a reasoned argument, you’re also incapable of recognizing one.

Rock on, Brother.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html%5B/quote%5D

Brian: It actually falls into the category of “Way too obtuse to grasp nuance”.

France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

Hence, my suggestion that he/she move to France if he/she was such a supporter of these type programs.

It was not, however, a “love-it-or-leave-it” argument. Being Brian, you read it as such, proving yet again that not only are you incapable of advancing a reasoned argument, you’re also incapable of recognizing one.

Rock on, Brother.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sounds to me like this falls in the category of whoever-is-not-an-ultraconservative-is-a-socialist argument that eavesdropper wrote so well about on the other thread:
http://piggington.com/government_spending_is_more_beneficial_than_private_spending#comment-166788

This is the kind of argument people that I would expect from those with this bumper sticker:
http://needdecals.stores.yahoo.net/doesmyamflag.html%5B/quote%5D

Brian: It actually falls into the category of “Way too obtuse to grasp nuance”.

France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

Hence, my suggestion that he/she move to France if he/she was such a supporter of these type programs.

It was not, however, a “love-it-or-leave-it” argument. Being Brian, you read it as such, proving yet again that not only are you incapable of advancing a reasoned argument, you’re also incapable of recognizing one.

Rock on, Brother.

[permabear]

Luckily, there’s actual data available on this topic: http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/5-graphs-on-income-inequality-and-the-great-recession/

Everyone loves to argue opinions on both sides. The fact is: income inequality leads to major economic issues. And currently, there is massive wealth concentration in the US.

Really, it is that simple. Sorry to disappoint those calling for deregulation and lower taxes on the rich.

Now, what IS a valid discussion is what classifies as “rich”. During the early 1900’s, the top tax bracket was $2M. And that was 100+ years ago. I think there is compelling evidence that lowering the top bracket to $250k was an intentional act to get upper-middle-class people on the same side as the actual rich.

$1M in 1910 = $22.7M in 2009, and $2M in 1910 = $45.4M in 2009. Food for thought…

[permabear]

Luckily, there’s actual data available on this topic: http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/5-graphs-on-income-inequality-and-the-great-recession/

Everyone loves to argue opinions on both sides. The fact is: income inequality leads to major economic issues. And currently, there is massive wealth concentration in the US.

Really, it is that simple. Sorry to disappoint those calling for deregulation and lower taxes on the rich.

Now, what IS a valid discussion is what classifies as “rich”. During the early 1900’s, the top tax bracket was $2M. And that was 100+ years ago. I think there is compelling evidence that lowering the top bracket to $250k was an intentional act to get upper-middle-class people on the same side as the actual rich.

$1M in 1910 = $22.7M in 2009, and $2M in 1910 = $45.4M in 2009. Food for thought…

[permabear]

Luckily, there’s actual data available on this topic: http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/5-graphs-on-income-inequality-and-the-great-recession/

Everyone loves to argue opinions on both sides. The fact is: income inequality leads to major economic issues. And currently, there is massive wealth concentration in the US.

Really, it is that simple. Sorry to disappoint those calling for deregulation and lower taxes on the rich.

Now, what IS a valid discussion is what classifies as “rich”. During the early 1900’s, the top tax bracket was $2M. And that was 100+ years ago. I think there is compelling evidence that lowering the top bracket to $250k was an intentional act to get upper-middle-class people on the same side as the actual rich.

$1M in 1910 = $22.7M in 2009, and $2M in 1910 = $45.4M in 2009. Food for thought…

[permabear]

Luckily, there’s actual data available on this topic: http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/5-graphs-on-income-inequality-and-the-great-recession/

Everyone loves to argue opinions on both sides. The fact is: income inequality leads to major economic issues. And currently, there is massive wealth concentration in the US.

Really, it is that simple. Sorry to disappoint those calling for deregulation and lower taxes on the rich.

Now, what IS a valid discussion is what classifies as “rich”. During the early 1900’s, the top tax bracket was $2M. And that was 100+ years ago. I think there is compelling evidence that lowering the top bracket to $250k was an intentional act to get upper-middle-class people on the same side as the actual rich.

$1M in 1910 = $22.7M in 2009, and $2M in 1910 = $45.4M in 2009. Food for thought…

[Author]

Posts