For Californicators

Moron.

e tax

ly -

ibe

id

go

ket

s.

ax,

ax,

A month or so ago the Big O blamed his fiscal fix on Bush's "tax cut for millionaires," which Mr. O said 'cost' him $700B worth of other peoples' money.

What he didn't say is that's $700B over ten years, or $70B a year.(*) Mr. O's deficit is running roughly $1,400B a year.

Next question?

(*Others estimate the revenue closer to low-$30-billions a year. Doubling personal income taxes would only raise $900B extra--assuming no one tried to avoid it--which is still not nearly enough to pay for current spending.)

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Don't forget to count the monies from all 70-odd assistance programs, including food stamps, housing, WIC, childcare credit, etc. in your calculation.

Misses the point. The question is whether incentives for non-wed motherhood encourage it.

One simple metric might be: What were the out-of-wedlock birth rates before and after the incentives?

Another metric might be: What happens when you change the incentives? Welfare reform under Clinton lowered them. This chart shows the effect:

The quoted argument makes a bunch more mistakes, but it'd be too boring to harp on all of them.

Here's one--they start with this premise: "Myth: Welfare gives mothers an economic incentive to have more children."

Bzzzzt. Obviously it's an incentive for unwed mothers to have children. Whether or not they do is another question.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Can you be more specific? Can you explain exactly what your objections are?

Or are you so totally out of Big Government Apologia that you have no choice but ad hominem?

Thanks, Rich

You keep posting childish bullshit, then get upset when people point it out. Nothing you suggest works in the real world, but you've smoked so much pot that you have no brains left.

No, what happened was that, due to lack of funds, they were unable to increase salaries, so they increased pension benefits instead, operating on the principle that tomorrow we will be able to afford it...

they then added insanities like basing your retirement income on your last year (or is it last six months?) of income, allowing workers who are going to retire to get sudden 'promotions' and additional 'overtime' for a short while, and get huge increases in retirement income!

The legislature didn't mind. They got the same retirement packages!

Charlie

fat

word,

by

some

government

Unfortunately those same financiers seem to remain connected to the politicians no matter how radical the regime change (1776, 1790s, 1917 e.g.). Perhaps they like the politicians to be crazy (finding more = gains that way).

Cargill

Cargill

more "stuff"

"stuff" that we

that life is

something

scum

to

and

outcome.

sum

And that is different from any other "pension" plan how?

"stuff"

we

is

Some pension plans are fully funded. *ALL* should be, though I also see a problem with government pension funds controlling Wall Street.

sum

I haven't noticed any of late, which one(s) have you found that are = fully funded (able to pay their existing and foreseeable future obligations without (normally very substantial) additional funds)?

Mine.

i don't begrudge the state workers their retirement rewards, i just don't believe the private sector should have to pay for them. the plans should be self funding, if that means that the guaranteed payouts are a thing of the past so be it. the plans should be renegotiated to bring them in line with current economic reality. if that means that calif has to file for bankruptcy, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

..

..

It may be an incentive for an unwed woman to have the first child, but the question was what incentive would she have for the second or third, other than $90 a month?

I understand there are 70 some welfare programs, but having trouble finding a list of them all other than food stamps, health care, education, housing, and cash benefits. Do you have a reference for the other 65?

And the question is not how many benefits are available, but how much "additional" are they worth to a mother supporting an extra child? Not the first one, but the second and third.

On the lighter side, I found a deal at GW a couple weeks ago. A brand new (in the box) single channel scope (10 Meg) (Elenco model S-3000A) with manual, schematic and calibration instructions. All discrete parts, no ICs, for $50.

I love this little scope, it's so cute and small and clean. It only has 6 time base ranges and 4 amplitudes, but has verniers to fill in the rest. I spend hours looking at sine waves.

-Bill

I think that this is where the tea party folks are going to make a stand - that government workers have better benefits and pay than public sector workers. If you want to balance the budget, reducing all government wages by 20% will make a big dent!

Charlie

zero sum

see a

fully

Then you are among about 1 in 1,000,000 payees (potential recipients) = that have such a plan. Good work.

Except the pay cut would not really affect the retirement payout which is based on the highest year or highest three years. Then within 10 years the wages will creep back up to the same levels.=20

Your numbers are off. There more than a hundred thousand in my plan alone.

It=92ll be interesting to see what the latest crop of yo-yo=92s have to contribute. If they continue down the superficial path of =93reduce=94 taxes for everyone and do nothing significant to deal with the elephant in the room, =93entitlement=94 spending, then we=92ll know we=92re all just dead fish.

Remember, ss, medicare, and other social spending make up 75 of the budget. They need cuts right now.

The poor and any family of four making less than 100K with a mortgage don=92t pay any significant taxes under the current tax scheme.

It=92s the single folks and couples making over 150K to 500K and working as employees, (without significant deductions), that get butt f*****.

What do you expect to happen as soon as a proposal is made to modify SS or Medicare? Jimmy and his buds on will be up in arms!!!

Cut all that stuff =85 if you haven=92t saved for your old age, sorry time to go! Not my problem! Right, Jimmy?

We=92ll get to see who the true fiscal conservatives are!

They'll up the retirement age a year or two, over the next 20 years.

Your plan is to do nothing and go bankrupt. How positively French of you.