Teachers & Cops & Firefighters: The New Welfare Queens?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Republicans

If you’ve been following the politicking surrounding the $26 billion in emergency state aid, you might be wondering if Republicans are really thinking through their current strategy to its end game.

Basically, the vast majority of the money would save over 300,000 state and local jobs, 100,000 of which are local teaching jobs that would have been eliminated before the school year even started.

Republicans are calling this a “bailout” and say that Dems can’t help but spend more money. Only problem with that logic…this money is paid for by cuts in other programs and would reduce the deficit.

Also, Repubs claim that states need to tighten their belts.

Really?

They do know that the budget gap in these states total $85 billion, right?

But let’s take a step back.

Before Bush came into office, nearly every single state had record surpluses and their budgets were balanced. After The Great Recession, nearly every single state ran a deficit. So, again, we’re presented with a logic gap. You have to either believe that they all became incredibly fiscally irresponsible…

OR…

…that the market imploded, access to credit became very difficult, businesses slashed jobs as a result, pushing up unemployment, making consumers spend far less, resulting in businesses generating even less revenue, thus pushing up unemployment into double digits, which results in far less sales and income tax and subsequently the surpluses vanished.

For even more evidence that states are hurting, you might be surprised to find out that even tax-cutting, deficit hawk Governors like Mark Sanford are taking stimulus money when they had previously said they wouldn’t. South Carolina is $1 billion in the hole. You think Sanford was spending unwisely?

Listen, it’s easy to just say “tighten your belt” and accuse states of being reckless. But, by the way, states have tightened their belts and they’ll have to do more, as is evidenced by the $59 billion gap left after this money finds its way into their hands.

But when the rubber meets the road and the GOPers go back to their states for the fall elections, they’re going to have to explain to voters that they positioned teachers, cops and firefighters as the new welfare queens. To me, that’s a bad spot to be in.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 and is filed under Democrats, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Responses to “Teachers & Cops & Firefighters: The New Welfare Queens?”

  1. kranky kritter Says:

    But when the rubber meets the road and the GOPers go back to their states for the fall elections, they’re going to have to explain to voters that they positioned teachers, cops and firefighters as the new welfare queens. To me, that’s a bad spot to be in.

    Perhaps. After all, most folks value public safety and education. At the same time, awareness of the compensation gap between public sector employees and private sector employees seems to be getting higher and higher.

    Most folks know someone with a government job who gets great healthcare and other benefits, often including an extraordinarily generous retirement plan of some sort. Now, we could get distracted by an argument about whether or not such folks deserve those benefits.

    But let’s not. Because, a la Eastwood, deserve’s got nothing to do with it. Instead,for regular folks it’s an issue of what we can afford. Private citizens are forced by the inexorable power of math to balance their expenses with their resources. They have to face the reckoning when it comes each month. As this keeps getting harder, they expect government to do the same thing, instead of reaching into taxpayer pockets again.

    No one wants to decrease numbers of teachers or police or firemen. But if states and localities are given another round of federal assistance for this year, where will they stand at this time next year? It’s quite fair for struggling everyday Americans to expect state and local governments to match staffing levels with the amount of available revenue expected,

    Are they hard choices? You betcha. And you can bet that there are plenty of folks who want government to make hard choices just like many other Americans have had to do over the last 2 years.

  2. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Teachers & Cops & Firefighters: The New Welfare Queens? -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Vurban Guevara and John Hermann, Ellen. Ellen said: Teachers & Cops & Firefighters: The New Welfare Queens?: If you’ve been following the politicking surroun… http://bit.ly/by2l7E [...]

  3. Greg Says:

    See the problem is the government jobs are about 40 years behind the private sector jobs. That’s why people get paid decent salaries and have benefits. If everyone wasn’t so eager to throw out the social contract for the promise of a free market utopia they wouldn’t have to complain about their crap benefits and salaries.

  4. Justin Gardner Says:

    kranky, perhaps you missed it, but this money is already paid for. This is not new money.

    Also, we’re not talking about government agencies that have little to no affect on public well being. Teachers, firefighters and cops make up the bedrock of our society.

    I agree that states may have their hands open next year as well, but there are some things you shouldn’t be cut to the bone, especially when the reason to not do it is ideological. And, as mentioned, there’s still another $59 billion for these states to make up. Plenty of belt tightening to go for the deficit hawks.

    By the way, a new poll shows Indys approve this measure 57 to 43 and overall 6 in 10 Americans approve

  5. kranky kritter Says:

    kranky, perhaps you missed it, but this money is already paid for. This is not new money.

    Who said it was new money? Not me. It’s sure not paid for in the sense that there is still a screeching chasm of a budget deficit, which is due to the federal government spending far more than it has collected. Ultimately, taxpayers nationwide are footing the bill for unseemly growth in spending by some states. In terms of rhetoric, I don’t necessarily buy the notion that budget neutral = paid for. As long as their is a deficit, something’s sure as hell not paid for, right? Plus, the measure is only budget neutral if food stamps really do get cut as claimed. We’ll see. In the meantime, no one has explained to me what the rationale is for cutting food stamps during difficult economic times.

    …we’re not talking about government agencies that have little to no affect on public well being. Teachers, firefighters and cops make up the bedrock of our society.

    Quite true. I don’t disagree with the idea that a certain level of staffing for such positions is crucial. Cheerfully granted.

    What’s still true (and unavoidable) is that sooner or later, it’s an issue of what we can afford. If, as you concede, states are quite possibly going to come back to the feds with their hats in their hands next year, we have to look at saying no. IMO, the clock is ticking on the current scope of overspending that we saw beginning with the last Bush budget. It’s not sustainable. As a nation, we have to focus on finding ways to live with what we can afford.

    That’s an important takeaway. And IMo, there’s nothing wrong with Republicans playing the role of fiscal watchdog, since the democrats won’t do it. So the remaining question for me is this. How well is the discussion about this bill served by moronic partisan rhetoric like

    When the rubber meets the road and the GOPers go back to their states for the fall elections, they’re going to have to explain to voters that they positioned teachers, cops and firefighters as the new welfare queens.

    IMO, not well served.

    Regards,
    The Cranky Critter

  6. the Word Says:

    @Kranky
    And IMo, there’s nothing wrong with Republicans playing the role of fiscal watchdog, since the democrats won’t do it.

    Surely this was a joke.

  7. Justin Gardner Says:

    kranky, come on…did you even read where this money is coming from?

    The money is paid for. It’s money cut from existing, paid for programs. You might not believe it, but that’s the reality.

    Also, even if it wasn’t…so we stop everything right in the middle of a recovery and focus on the budget deficit…when we’ve run deficits for the past 30 years…and nearly every other successful 1st world country has as well? Forgive me, but that seems really naive.

    Yes, we have to say no…and we are…to the other $59 billion in shortfalls. Also, Obama has said that nearly all discretionary spending will be frozen in next year’s budget. And then there’s the deficit commission he has appointed. Things are in motion. But we can’t stop right in the middle of the marathon.

    As far as the Repubs being the fiscal watchdogs…come on. They lost that after they called for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for the wealthiest 2%, which isn’t paid for and adds $700 billion to the deficit. Meanwhile, they’re calling this a bailout for teachers? I mean, even if it was, which group deserves a bailout more than teachers? They’re really starting to count their chickens before they’re hatched.

  8. Chris Says:

    ^^ that’s hilarious Kranky, you can’t be serious. The republicans are great at being the watchdogs, watching the money go into their sponsor corporations pockets.

  9. Mike A. Says:

    “And IMo, there’s nothing wrong with Republicans playing the role of fiscal watchdog, since the democrats won’t do it.”

    Wow….the GOP is truly the master of the message, regardless of the truth

  10. kranky kritter Says:

    Look guys, I’m the first to acknowledge that the Republicans have feet of clay here, so spare me. I’ve made it copiously clear on multiple occasions that I am not a republican or a partisan.

    Without a doubt, there’s reason to question the GOP’s credibility and willingness to follow through as fiscal watchdogs. That doesn’t make them incorrect.

    Like so many other people who can actual do the math, I don’t give a flying rat’s patootie about the caliber of the messengers. The message itself is what matters. I could care less WHO says that we need to find ways to spend within our means. I’ll agree with them.

  11. kranky kritter Says:

    The money is paid for. It’s money cut from existing, paid for programs. You might not believe it, but that’s the reality.

    As we both know, budget neutral doesn’t mean paid for. You’re incorrect. I’m glad that this doesn’t make the existing deficit any larger. But the scope of the overspending of the last 3 budgets is alarming and unsustainable. And at no point have you made any attempt to speak to that.

    … we’ve run deficits for the past 30 years…and nearly every other successful 1st world country has as well….

    This has to be the sh!ttiest argument I’ve seen in months. Are you really hypothesizing that the last 30 years prove that deficit spending is harmless or even beneficial? Are you utterly incapable of connecting the dots and doing the math? Nope, I know you understand my argument and why I am right. But you’re unwilling to make any concessions that harm your defense of current policy, so you’re highlighting a small part of the truth and ignoring the inconvenient parts.

    You’re right, Justin, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with deficit spending. As long as the amount of overspending is sustainable based on a realistic conception of expected growth, small deficits can be indefinitely sustained. And if the extra money spent goes to sound investments that bring desirable returns, then TA-DA. Success!

    The current problem is not deficit spending as a principle. It’s the scope of the overspending. We can certainly muddle along when we overspend by 2 or 3% And we can make do for extended periods where we go higher from time to time, so long as economic growth bails us out or comes close. That’s what we did for the last 15 years, give or take.

    But starting with the last Bush Budget, we began spending something like 4 and a half or 5 dollars for every 3 we collected. That can’t possibly be sustained for more than 2 3, or 4 budget cycles without bringing serious undesirable consequences.

    I appreciate that the government is borrowing money to keep suffering states, towns, and individuals afloat, and pumping money into a flaccid economy. I get that. I don’t claim, as some do, that overspending we have seen lately is indefensible. That’s not the point. The point is that it has to stop before we dig a hole too big to escape.

    I’m worried that there are so many defenders of America continuing to borrow way beyond its means. I’m naive? You’re blithe which is far worse. You refuse to acknowledge that a reckoning is inevitable. You want to just keep kicking the can down the road. This makes me worry that we’ll engineer circumstances so that America will never face its insolvency until the point where it literally has no other choice. That’s the very worst way to handle a revenue shortfall.

    Regards,
    The Cranky Critter

  12. kranky kritter Says:

    @word The point is not that I seek to defend the Republicans. The point is that I deeply want someone to play the role of fiscal watchdog. America need that. If democrats won’t, then the role goes to the Republicans. It’s too important a role to leave unfilled.

    I award the point to point to whoever says that we need to try to sharply curb the current scope of deficit spending within the next 2 budget cycles. And I refuse to take seriously anyone who says that “I’m sure it will be fine” in response to concerns about the scope of deficit spending beginning with the last Bush budget.

    “I’m sure it will be fine” is always a lie. It’s said when the speaker means “I’m really not very sure at all whether it will be fine, but I’m going to go ahead anyways, and hope for the best.” Mathematics does not yield to hoping for the best.

  13. Chris Says:

    ” The message itself is what matters.”

    I don’t give a crap about the message, the action they take is what matters. And the truth is they say one thing and do the opposite.

  14. anon Says:

    The real question everyones asking the Democrats.

    “Where are the jobs Mr. President?”

    and the answer is.

    Its Bush’s Fault………LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

    Pathetic.

  15. theWord Says:

    @Kranky

    Sorry but taking the GOP’s word on it is about as productive as those who in willful ignorance take them at their word that they are more moral. I’ve seen no evidence of that.

    One of their new rationalizations for extending the tax cuts for the top two percent is that it will hurt small business owners. A non-partisan group however says that it would affect 3% of small businesses. I see the 97% while you see the 3%. So while you see everyone as all the same, I see a group more than willing to do or say anything because they know some will buy anything.

    Do you really think that the GOP would bitch any less about the lack of firefighters, cops or teachers or would they just blame the government more? Somehow they are good at passing the blame but they never acknowledge they deserve it. I say that not because they are Republicans but because they IMO truly did the most to get us into this mess. They are now coming back to finish off the survivors and some are saying give them another shot. What have they learned? What new solutions have they offered? What new ideas? Their bottom line seems to be, “We’ll be ok, screw everyone else.”

  16. theWord Says:

    anon-
    great name btw- So what is wrong at all about asking these questions? How did we get here, what did we learn and what is proposed to get us out? I have heard ZIP from the Republicans in the way of new ideas and zero acknowledgement that maybe the whole get rid of regulations and trust the big corporations meme they have been pushing for decades has now proven itself twice to be an unmitigated disaster.

    I’m not laughing about it either, it’s too serious but on the one side you have people who are intelligent coming up with ideas that may or may not work and on the other you have Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman and people who like to play dress up. I have to go with the experts. Show me a compelling alternative other than let’s redouble what got us into the mess and change nothing and I’ll be listening.

  17. kranky kritter Says:

    @word

    Maybe what’s missing here is any appreciation by partisans that I am coming at such problems from a decidedly different angle than some of you folks. Let me use an example to illustrate:

    Sorry but taking the GOP’s word on it is about as productive as those who in willful ignorance take them at their word that they are more moral. I’ve seen no evidence of that.

    I didn’t say anything about taking the GOP’s word, etc., etc. I am looking at the discussion of the budget deficit first and foremost as an opportunity for regular folks to develop a greater appreciation of what’s at stake for America over the longer term.

    My interest in the democratic and republican takes on the issue goes only this far: let’s help folks see that neither side seems capable of telling more than half of the truth. And that’s not good enough for America we’re in too big of a jam for that sort of rubbish.

    Politically, America is stuck in a perpetual thesis-antithesis feedback loop. There is no institutional or popular vehicle for getting past this loop to reach synthesis, the point where we incorporate the insights of each side and come up with a sensible way forward. A better way forward. A way that isn’t constantly sabotaged by endless efforts to accumulate 51% of the votes by any means necessary.

    And I am pretty sure that while at least some folks like the sound of that in theory, there’s a very high probability that they’ll be unable to overcome the deep ruts in their mind that they’ve worn by re-fighting the same arguments over and over and over.

    Let me just say that I don’t adopt this perspective because I hope or expect other folks to want to transcend partisan politics. Instead, it’s more a matter of individual salvation. I love my country. I could not continue to grow as a citizen while being forced to think about politics in the ways that partisans demanded. I refuse to live between the horns of America’s dilemmas and conundrums as they are posed by partisans. I only visit.

    If any of you responds to such ideas, drop by my website, The Cranky Critter, and feel free to let me have it.

    I’m not laughing about it either, it’s too serious but on the one side you have people who are intelligent coming up with ideas that may or may not work and on the other you have Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman and people who like to play dress up. I have to go with the experts. Show me a compelling alternative other than let’s redouble what got us into the mess and change nothing and I’ll be listening.

    Maybe so. Can you honestly say that you’ve made a good faith effort to explore “the other side” beyond Sara Palin and Glenn Beck? At length? In depth? As a thoughtful liberal, you probably have a decent list of bookmarks of folks who you think offer liberal insight, right? Do these names match the list of folks that conservatives hold up as egregious examples of liberalism? Or are they different?

    Just in the last months, how many examples of non-liberal thought have you viewed? Of these exposures, what fraction of them came about as a result of some liberal citing an example of why conservatives are easily dismissed as idiots?

    I haven’t attended to the opinions of Sara Palin or Glenn Beck at all. The vast majority of the time that I am exposed to them is when someone at Donklephant features an especially juicy bit of kookery. The cartoon on the spoon, as it were. I don’t even know who Michelle Bachman is. (Did you mean Malkin?) And yet I get the sense from your post that you want me to answer for their sins, or that all conservatives should be expected to answer for them.

    See the game. Keep all your passionate views about what is right for our country policywise. But see the game.

  18. blackout Says:

    I have a hard time with the argument that the GOP is serving as fiscal watchdog here. They’re falling back on this rhetoric because it’s a mantle they’ve worn in the past (and so can don it again, regardless of their not deserving it) and because it happens to dovetail with their agenda of opposing literally any and every policy of the current administration. To propose that they’re holding the line, have relocated their principles, or even that they are accidentally doing the right thing ignores the nakedly political motive. This idea that simply espousing a principle, without meaning it, is ridiculous in every aspect. Everything the GOP is doing is designed to gain and/or consolidate power. The same can be said of the Dems, but that doesn’t make excusing the GOP in this instance any less egregious.

  19. theWord Says:

    @Kranky
    While I believe you buy the stuff you are trying to sell. I just don’t.

    You start with the “I’m above it all rejoinder” that makes me want to reach for a bottle of scotch.

    You said
    I didn’t say anything about taking the GOP’s word, etc., etc.
    But you started this whole thread with “there’s nothing wrong with Republicans playing the role of fiscal watchdog, since the democrats won’t do it.”

    Sorry but that is about as much a partisan hack statement as any seen on the blog. What’s wrong is not that they are saying it but that anyone is buying it. It’s like the abuser saying, “I won’t beat you this time if you take me back.” You take the position that we hear him out.-Absent any evidence whatsoever that he’s changed”

    If Ron Paul makes the statement, he has credibility because of the consistency of his views. Doesn’t mean I think he has any practical application but I don’t question his honesty or sincerity. It’s the thing that I do respect. But when these hypocrites tell me that NOW they believe in fiscal responsibility and NOW they want a filibuster and NOW it is OK to block appointments and NOW they want to solve the problems they ignored for decades and on and on. I can’t hear them because they have zero credibility.

    Hell I would have even given them the sham impeachment of Clinton had they gone for a justified one for Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush and Cheney. Show me some character and principles and you always will have my respect.

    You said
    I am looking at the discussion of the budget deficit first and foremost as an opportunity for regular folks to develop a greater appreciation of what’s at stake for America over the longer term.

    I’d be thrilled for that, but whom do you think is doing it? I’ve voted for both parties and worked for candidates in both (even Libertarian) Perhaps I left the GOP because I see no one with the integrity to pull to back from the evil, ignorant and bigoted group it has become. They just admitted that the Southern Strategy was real (30-50 years of planned race-baiting) I don’t know of an equivalent thing on the Democratic side.

    As to balance and consistency, when there was a debate on the Family Leave Act, Henry Hyde voted for it saying “How can we say we are pro family if we are against this?” I called his office and congratulated him on his stance and his honesty. We couldn’t be farther apart on almost everything else but he deserved the credit.

    Realizing you don’t see it and we won’t see eye-to-eye most likely. These are the statements that make me scream.

    You said
    My interest in the democratic and republican takes on the issue goes only this far: let’s help folks see that neither side seems capable of telling more than half of the truth. And that’s not good enough for America we’re in too big of a jam for that sort of rubbish.

    If one side does something — call them on it. When you make this moral equivalence argument absent any evidence you are feeding the beast. The slimy will say – “Do anything, they don’t see any difference in them telling the truth and us making stuff up.” Hence the Death Panel crap. My congressperson just said she was against financial reform because it meant taxpayer bailouts forever for corporations. It’s a lie and no person worthy of congress would make it or should be tolerated. You would likely say they all do it and we’d never see it end.

    You said
    Let me just say that I don’t adopt this perspective…

    I just don’t buy it. If you show me two decent and intelligent candidates arguing ideas. I will listen to both. I will decide on a course of action based on what I think is right. Amazingly, you will do the exact same thing. I, however, would want them to do what they say while you are thrilled that nothing happens. If you had people like Jim Leach (I can think of no current Republican) and Russ Feingold You would have two honest people with different views – they both should get respect and an open hearing.

    The problem is the person driving the Republican bus has been pitting the races against each other, the bigots against anyone different and using arguments that they know aren’t true like “death panels, socialism, birth certificates and the like.” Who are these Republicans that you think are out there that are different? If they are out there, why are they not the spokesman for the party? Why do none of them condemn the blowhards like Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and Palin and Coulter and Bachmann and Malkin? Why are they in bed with America’s Taliban — Falwell (gladly gone) and Robertson and the bushel of hypoChristians that ply hate?

    If a party ran a candidate like Palin or Bachmann or Gohmert or Angle, I would not vote for them. I’d call the chairman of the party and ask them what they were thinking. If they ran a candidate who marketed to bigots, I would not vote for them. If they elevated such people to the highest levels of power in the party, I’d be gone. (I didn’t vote for Clinton either time and as flawed as he is, I think he could have taught honesty and ethics to Bush and Cheney or Gingrich)

    I have conservative friends, we even agree on some things occasionally. There is at least in my sphere a difference though. I get factual articles asking me what I think from one group and I get racist jokes, socialist jokes, birther jokes and “true stories” that are almost universally shot down in one Snopes search that takes 5 seconds from the other. Usually, there is disdain for some group of their fellow citizens too. The conservative friends send these to extensive lists of people who pass them along unchecked and feed the frenzy. They are a bit like Creationists who like their conclusion and will not be shaken by any evidence. So far, in all of the years of receiving them I have had exactly one person who when I pointed out that what they had sent was total bullshit – sent an apology and an update to EVERY person he had originally sent it to. I’m willing to hear of consistent, intelligent alternatives but we voted not to be run by Republicans and it seems that they are unwilling to move an inch on anything. We didn’t vote for more of their policies. IMO, it is why we are in the dreadful position we are in now.

    I did like the comment about egregious liberals. I have seen election after election where anyone who runs is the most liberal person in the “name that group”. You and others do the same with the media, as one example, comparing someone like Rachel Maddow to Glen Beck. She does something routinely that I have NEVER seen on Fox. She introduces a topic and her understanding of their position and then asks the guest if she has stated it accurately. I see that as a huge difference, you likely say it is no different than the people who routinely just make things up and have an audience who gleefully accepts everything they say. If William F. Buckley was the voice of conservatives on Fox, I may disagree with him but I would not say that he was destroying America and politics in the way that I think Fox is. There is a difference. You can see that if you’ll look. Saying apples and oranges are the same fruit just shows IMO a lack of judgment skills.

    Finally you ended with
    And yet I get the sense from your post that you want me to answer for their sins, or that all conservatives should be expected to answer for them.

    Elevate the intelligent, honest and non-hypocritical people in their party (if there are any) and you can say there is no need to answer for them because they are outliers but when they are the voice of the party, you can’t really claim they shouldn’t be noticed.

    Who would you point to on the national stage as someone of principle and character on the Republican side that speaks with any level of authority? (Did you hear Cantor’s position on the Mosque in NYC? Is that someone whose views should be taken seriously?) Show me someone courageous enough to step away from the extremists and condemn their behavior and I’m all ears. Show me a thinker and I’ll hope that they have ended their celebration of ignorance.

  20. kranky kritter Says:

    I have a hard time with the argument that the GOP is serving as fiscal watchdog here.

    Not my argument. They’re representing a perspective. And they are doing so because it’s a perspective that many Americans share, whether you like it or not.

    They’re falling back on this rhetoric because it’s a mantle they’ve worn in the past (and so can don it again, regardless of their not deserving it)

    Agreed.

    and because it happens to dovetail with their agenda of opposing literally any and every policy of the current administration.

    Possibly true, but not relevant. I’m not talking about trust. I’m talking about whether or not the content of the message has any merit or not. Hate and distrust republicans all you want. Then tell me how long you think the government can keep collecting 3 dollars and spending 5. [or whatever it is exactly, I'm in the ballpark]

    To propose that they’re holding the line, have relocated their principles, or even that they are accidentally doing the right thing ignores the nakedly political motive.

    I agree. That’s explicitly what I’m doing, ignoring the motive. The GOPs motives are not relevant to the question of whether or not the content of the message has merit. Tell me how long you think the government can keep collecting 3 dollars while spending 5.

    This idea that simply espousing a principle, without meaning it, is ridiculous in every aspect.

    Not sure what this means.

    Everything the GOP is doing is designed to gain and/or consolidate power. The same can be said of the Dems, but that doesn’t make excusing the GOP in this instance any less egregious.

    Who said the GOP deserves to be excused for any of its perceived faults? I sure didn’t.

    I prefer to have the role of fiscal watchdog filled rather than have the role unfilled. Would I rather have a smart, trustyworthy, powerful, and committed watchdog? You bet your f%*kin life I would. In the meantime….

    If the democrats want to take some sort of reasonable stab at it, I’m more than happy to consider which party deserves the job and makes a more credible case.

    But as long as democrats are in charge and keep grossly overspending, anything they say amounts to excuses for overspending, not genuine concern. As I’ve said so very many times, the scope of overspending that began with the last Bush Budget is not sustainable. We can’t collect 3 and spend 5. Whoever’s in charge needs to begin winding us back down to something like “collect 20, spend 21.”

    I don’t mind sounding like a broken record on this. In fact, as far as debates go, I’m quite enjoying it. I’m still waiting for anyone here to put anything resembling a dent in it. The only things that have been mustered so far amount to changing the subject (Republicans are bad), or restating my argument in terms that misrepresent what I’m saying.

  21. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Comparing Bush’s Tax Cuts vs. Obama’s Tax Cuts Says:

    […] teachers, firefighters and cops don’t deserve to keep their jobs according to Republicans, but they want to give $10 billion more to people who are so wealthy that few of us will ever […]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: