My new hero strikes again

Originally posted by no1marauder
How many points does David Patterson get? He's proposed at least as far reaching cuts in state spending as Christie has.

Hey, I like Patterson. He's a man with a visio...

oh, never mind.

Seriously though, I absolutely think that Patterson got a raw deal in that people blamed him for making cuts he had to make.

Then again, New York's welfare state is so out of control that somebody had to cut something eventually.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Christie's budgets and proposals reflect the extreme right wing agenda of punishing certain occupations that they don't like, rewarding others that they do and refusing to tax the wealthy an equitable amount. A doctrinaire refusal to even consider any tax increases is hardly a serious way to close a budget deficit nor is it "making tough decisions". He's ...[text shortened]... (I can guess what our right wing friends would say if Obama had acted in the same manner).

True. But have the teachers asked for it by beoming a voting block for the Democratic party via their partisan unions? If you ask me, they kinda asked for it. Once you join any particular side and sign up for war you tend to get shot at.

Originally posted by whodey
True. But have the teachers asked for it by beoming a voting block for the Democratic party via their partisan unions? If you ask me, they kinda asked for it. Once you join any particular side and sign up for war you tend to get shot at.

So you would have no problem with a Democratic governor reducing the pay of only police because most of them vote republican (I'm assuming that they do for the sake of argument)???

Do you approve of this kind of political revenge?

Originally posted by sh76
Hey, I like Patterson. He's a man with a visio...

oh, never mind.

Seriously though, I absolutely think that Patterson got a raw deal in that people blamed him for making cuts he had to make.

Then again, New York's welfare state is so out of control that somebody had to cut something eventually.

And a clear example of the risks that Christie is taking. There's a reason why even GOPs tend to be almost all bark and no bite when it comes to cutting government. Tough decisions require having a certain kamikaze attitude.

It might be good politics to attack "teachers" in the abstract. But when a parent's kid's school soccer team is actually being threatened with cuts, that parent is going to be just as angry regardless of ideology or party.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The wealthy in the US are grossly undertaxed and some of their major sources of income (like capital gains and dividends) are taxed at lower rates or are largely exempted from taxes at all.

Nonsense again.
A top taxation rate of 35% seems to me perfectly reasonable bearing in mind that among the top earners are those who create wealth by launching new projects at personal risk.
Unlike State employees, such as teachers who enjoy a featherbedded existence safe from instant dismissal, these people put their money where their mouth is and if taxed unreasonably will just move eleswhere, as happened in the UK in the 60s and 70s when the then Labour government introduced a top tax rate of 83% and even taxed the top band of teachers at 60%.
Clearly you have no idea of living in a 'tax and spend' society beloved of armchair socialists and those with safe jobs paid for by those who put their necks on the line.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Nonsense again.
A top taxation rate of 35% seems to me perfectly reasonable bearing in mind that among the top earners are those who create wealth by launching new projects at personal risk.
Unlike State employees, such as teachers who enjoy a featherbedded existence safe from instant dismissal, these people put their money where their mouth is an ...[text shortened]... rmchair socialists and those with safe jobs paid for by those who put their necks on the line.

Good riddance if they do. I wonder how societies ever got anything done without a few at the top creating all that wealth for the rest of us peons.

Originally posted by sh76
Hey, I like Patterson. He's a man with a visio...

oh, never mind.

Seriously though, I absolutely think that Patterson got a raw deal in that people blamed him for making cuts he had to make.

Then again, New York's welfare state is so out of control that somebody had to cut something eventually.

Blind jokes?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So you would have no problem with a Democratic governor reducing the pay of only police because most of them vote republican (I'm assuming that they do for the sake of argument)???

Do you approve of this kind of political revenge?

Well in my local city the Mayor was selling a tax hike that the voters had to approve. Of course, he was a Democrat so he threatened that jobs would be lossed on the police force if the tax hike was not approved. I'm sure that if it were a Republican perhaps the salaries of the teachers would have been a target. So what is more important? I suppose the voters will have to decide. In this particular case the voters voted for the tax increase and gave in to his threats. However, if I had been allowed to vote I probably would have voted against the tax hike. Government needs to learn to balance their books with a set amount of taxation flowing in, adjusted for inflation, of course, and learn to do their best with the funds available.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
As usual you are talking nonsense. The 'wealthy' will not only continue (rightly) to pay more in taxes than the less wealthy, but will usually suffer substantial capital losses in an economic downturn since any investments they possess will immediately lose value.

The wealthy will still have the same number of shares, the same number of bonds, the same amount of property ... ok the value of them is temporarily lower but that will only affect those wanting to cash in ... and if you are wealthy you dont need to cash in now - you wait.

Downturn in markets effect the small investor and the man in the street with 'hidden' investments (like life-insurance)

Now is not the time to feel sorry for the well-off!

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Nonsense again.
A top taxation rate of 35% seems to me perfectly reasonable bearing in mind that among the top earners are those who create wealth by launching new projects at personal risk.
Unlike State employees, such as teachers who enjoy a featherbedded existence safe from instant dismissal, these people put their money where their mouth is an ...[text shortened]... rmchair socialists and those with safe jobs paid for by those who put their necks on the line.

I do agree that if their tax levels become too high, people will move elsewhere in droves. This is especially likely at the state or local levels (it's much easier to change towns or states than to change countries).

On the other hand -- those who are wealthy do live an extremely "feather-bedded existence". That large bank account provides a rather warm and secure nest. Even if every new project totally tanks, they know they'll still be able to lavishly feed and house their families.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
...

Also, it might be different in New Jersey, but around here teachers may not have to teach all year round, but that doesn't mean that they don't work during the summer. In fact, anyone who intimately know teachers or teachers that I've met said that that's a stupid assumption that people make and I'm hoping Chris Christie isn't stupid enough to have made it himself.

...

$83K for nine months salary, lots of teachers take full time jobs outside teaching during the summer.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
...
Clearly you have no idea of living in a 'tax and spend' society beloved of armchair socialists and those with safe jobs paid for by those who put their necks on the line.

applies to large government contractors as well, here.

i've seen a guy hang around for five months on HR appeal, after it was clear he was just piddling around and probably lying about it and his manager took all his work away (he was running a real estate business on the side). in the commercial world he probably wouldn't have made it past his one-month probation period, or if he had, he've been given a half-day notice to clear his desk (zero-day with security guard present if they expected trouble from him), with a couple of weeks severance.

the difference with the commercial world is if they don't produce a market-worthy product within a commercially justifiable time period, they fail. in govt, if they don't stretch out projects as long as possible, milking the taxpayer for as much as possible, they fail. in that light, keeping a non-performer around may be irritating to front-line mgt who has to nominally make schedule, but makes good business sense.

and this was for a hard engineering project! imagine how much easier it is for things like legal services!

Originally posted by zeeblebot
$83K for nine months salary, lots of teachers take full time jobs outside teaching during the summer.

Like I said, it might not be like this in every state but many teachers don't have time to have a full-time job in the summer.

It's not only for 9 months in every state you know. Also, there is more to being a teacher than just being in classes.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Like I said, it might not be like this in every state but many teachers don't have time to have a full-time job in the summer.

It's not only for 9 months in every state you know. Also, there is more to being a teacher than just being in classes.

There's absolutely more to being a teacher than in the classroom and teaching is (or should be) a full time job... during the school year.

But I don't see what teachers have to do in July and August. Any teacher that tells you that s/he's working July and August to prep for the school year is preparing more than s/he has to. I taught for almost 10 years and I never had to prepare in the summer beyond perhaps a week before Labor Day. Writing syllabi and reviewing the textbook doesn't take 10 weeks.

Now, I understand that some teachers teach summer school, etc. But my understanding is that this is apart from and paid over and above the teacher's salary.

I have a pretty good idea of what's it's like to live in a 'tax and spend' society. It's not so bad.