Pelosi wants U and I to pay more taxes.... her statement: "I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."

What do we get for our tax dollars now?

extra gulfstream jets for nancy and her pals.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would pay more taxes for an increase in pay or salary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would pay more taxes for an increase in pay or salary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, until you hit AMT............. Government’s way to demotivate and encourage underachievement once you hit a certain number

Pelosi wants U and I to pay more taxes.... her statement: "I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."

What do we get for our tax dollars now?

That's not at all what she said. The media filter you get your news from took her quote out of context because they knew you'd lap it up like a toddler gulping anti-freeze from the fridge.

-spence

she can stuff all her idea's up her wazoo

Yea, until you hit AMT............. Government’s way to demotivate and encourage underachievement once you hit a certain number

Amen, amt is extremely painful and fubar
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not at all what she said.

-spence

Spence, what did she say?

Spence, what did she say?

Use the Google.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use the Google.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nah, not worth my time. I really couldn't care what she says. :doh:

Nah, not worth my time. I really couldn't care what she says. :doh:

And that is the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As soon as i heard of her "big Idea" of compromising the constitutional
right of free speech with a bill for an amendment... i see RED

no free speech when it comes to politics.... she is such a fool pfffff

Your right DAVE not even worth listening to

And that is the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Nah, it's just I heard enuff from her to last two lifetimes. :hihi:

So... it isn't on Fox News front page... was it really a big deal?

Spence, what did she say?

Nah, not worth my time. I really couldn't care what she says. :doh:

Nah, it's just I heard enuff from her to last two lifetimes. :hihi:

So you want to know what she said but then you really can't be bothered and you've heard all you can take from her. Is that about right? :confused:

So you want to know what she said but then you really can't be bothered and you've heard all you can take from her. Is that about right? :confused:

I think he was more interested in Spence' spin than what Pelosi said.

gulp......I agree with Pelosi...

Addressing the percentage of taxpayers who do not pay any income tax, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said these Americans have “skin in the game” since “they pay payroll taxes,” adding, “I wish they would earn more so they can pay more.”

“Well, you know, they do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes. And this is a tactic that the other side uses to make it sound as if these people are not paying taxes. They are paying taxes. They do have skin in the game. And I think that that should be respected,” said Pelosi at the Capitol Thursday.

“I wish they would earn more so they can pay more, and that’s what we’re about, the creation of good-paying jobs in our country that contribute to our international competitiveness to keep America number one.”

In 2009, 51 percent of American taxpayers did not owe any income tax. The number reportedly dropped to 45 percent in 2010.

I think he was more interested in Spence' spin than what Pelosi said.

Bingo. :D

I think he was more interested in Spence' spin than what Pelosi said.

So, it didn't need spin then, right?

Thats the crux of the argument. Revenue, under the current tax code was higher in the past b/c the economy was better.... so now, the difference is what to do to make up the difference. Cut everything in sight, raise taxes... OR

Something in between...

Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....

I think he was more interested in Spence' spin than what Pelosi said.

:spin:

We need a better spin emicon.

So, it didn't need spin then, right?

..

no, but spence would have added it.

Bingo. :D

If I misunderstood, my apologies!

No spin necessary, just read the full quote.

-spence

If I misunderstood, my apologies!

No problem Paul, it's been slow in here and we need a little fun. :)

No spin necessary, just read the full quote.

-spence

Nah, just a waste of time. :hihi:

Nah, just a waste of time. :hihi:

If understanding the debate is wasting time, then we are truly lost.

-spence

So, it didn't need spin then, right?

Thats the crux of the argument. Revenue, under the current tax code was higher in the past b/c the economy was better.... so now, the difference is what to do to make up the difference. Cut everything in sight, raise taxes... OR

Something in between...

Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....Simpson-Bowles....

Total BS!! Federal Receipts have gone up every year.

If understanding the debate is wasting time, then we are truly lost.

-spence

What debate, you didn't spin. :chatter

Total BS!! Federal Receipts have gone up every year.

:hs: Absolutely untrue. 2007: 2.5 trillion; 2008: 2.56; 2009: 2.1; 2010: 2.16; 2011: 2.3.

:hs: Absolutely untrue. 2007: 2.5 billion; 2008: 2.56; 2009: 2.1; 2010: 2.16; 2011: 2.3.

Huh??? 2008 4.7 trillion.....2011 4.85 trillion.

Huh??? 2008 4.7 trillion.....2011 4.85 trillion.

Numbers I posted are federal total direct revenue (that is...tax receipts). Where I wrote billions was meant to be trillions. Your numbers are not federal tax receipts.

Buckman. Curious as to source of numbers...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)

good chart. look at the deficit numbers in the far right for the last 3 years. thats insane

good chart. look at the deficit numbers in the far right for the last 3 years. thats insane


Also, interesting that the projected deficit over all of the next five years are a small percenter of gdp than 1982-1988. I wonder if those numbers are based on extension or ending of Bush tax cuts. Outlays as a percent of gdp are right in line with those Reagan years too.

Not comparing them to now, but how about 1943? I had no idea how much we were spending during the war.

Buckman. Curious as to source of numbers...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)

I will find it for you. The figure is based on all revenue. Not on just
tax revenue.

Total BS!! Federal Receipts have gone up every year.

I will find it for you. The figure is based on all revenue. Not on just
tax revenue.

Your numbers aren't federal receipts/revenues. They also aren't "all revenue" for the federal government. The revenue of the federal government is what is in the data table. Whatever the numbers you posted are, they have mislead you. No matter how it is spun, federal tax rates are pretty much as low as they have been in 60 or 70 years. As a result of the recession, fed revenues dropped.

Pelosi wants U and I to pay more taxes.... her statement: "I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."



Where did you get the quote from anyways? It seems like it has been altered?

Your numbers aren't federal receipts/revenues. They also aren't "all revenue" for the federal government. The revenue of the federal government is what is in the data table. Whatever the numbers you posted are, they have mislead you. No matter how it is spun, federal tax rates are pretty much as low as they have been in 60 or 70 years. As a result of the recession, fed revenues dropped.

You are right. My numbers are total government revenue which includes state and local. All the same to me.

Here is the site.
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html)

Not sure how you come up with the 60/70 year thing though

If boobs were brains Pelosi would belong to MENSA.

Not sure how you come up with the 60/70 year thing though

This graph shows taxes relative to gdp, which is one of the clearest ways to compare year to year, decade to decade. Blue is fed tax, red state, green business. There are many ways it can be compared, from total tax burden to effective rates. They all come out pretty much the same. Any honest comparison shows that taxes are effectively on the low end of where they have been since 1940. The gdp graph can't give you specific tax rates though. For example, taxes are lower now than they were a couple years ago, but as a percent of gdp, they are a slightly higher percent due to a decrease in gdp from the recession. This website has a whole pile of graphs, which give a pretty good overview of past values and projections of the near future. The analysis of the data is somewhat biased though, and makes a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates#the-federal-portion-of-that-tax-revenue-the-blue-part-in-the-chart-below-is-in-the-same-range-as-it-has-been-in-since-1950-15-20-of-gdp-state-red-and-local-green-tax-revenues-are-in-a-similar-long-term-range-state-revenue-has-actually-shrunk-of-late-3)

You are right. My numbers are total government revenue which includes state and local. All the same to me.

Here is the site.
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html)



The website you linked shows total revenue in 2007 at 5.2 trillion. Each year since then has been lower. Based on trickle down economics and conservative dogma, revenues should have increased after the Bush tax cuts.

If boobs were brains Pelosi would belong to MENSA.

Why, you think she has a nice rack? :yak5:

This graph shows taxes relative to gdp, which is one of the clearest ways to compare year to year, decade to decade. Blue is fed tax, red state, green business. There are many ways it can be compared, from total tax burden to effective rates. They all come out pretty much the same. Any honest comparison shows that taxes are effectively on the low end of where they have been since 1940. The gdp graph can't give you specific tax rates though. For example, taxes are lower now than they were a couple years ago, but as a percent of gdp, they are a slightly higher percent due to a decrease in gdp from the recession. This website has a whole pile of graphs, which give a pretty good overview of past values and projections of the near future. The analysis of the data is somewhat biased though, and makes a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates#the-federal-portion-of-that-tax-revenue-the-blue-part-in-the-chart-below-is-in-the-same-range-as-it-has-been-in-since-1950-15-20-of-gdp-state-red-and-local-green-tax-revenues-are-in-a-similar-long-term-range-state-revenue-has-actually-shrunk-of-late-3)


Thanks Zimmy

Don't need to read a chart to know that raising taxes
would mean more Govt. growth, like adding another 147,000
Govt. jobs since stimulus.

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.

After 3+ years we still don't have a budget. Imagine a household
or business without a budget? Simple, ya can't spend more than you have
without going broke.

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.



Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery. In spirit, you are right though that the business of cutting taxes and increasing spending at the same time, as was done in the 2000's, is terrible for short term and long term economy.

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.



Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery.

If boobs were brains Pelosi would belong to MENSA.

No she wouldn't.Her rack is nonexistent.

If being stupid and a talking head were brains then you might have an argument for MENSA membership!

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery.

First thing would be to have a budget.

Second,cutting 10% across the board could be done on waste alone.

Third, expanding Govt. which involved hiring 147,000 new Govt. workers, where taxpayers have to pay for salaries, benefits and retirement, for a bunch of people who's job it is to spend more tax payer money doesn't make short or long term sense.

Nah, it's just I heard enuff from her to last two lifetimes. :hihi:

being Sunday i call for an AMEN

:fight::fight::rumble:

Third, expanding Govt. which involved hiring 147,000 new Govt. workers, where taxpayers have to pay for salaries, benefits and retirement, for a bunch of people who's job it is to spend more tax payer money doesn't make short or long term sense.

Do you know what that 147,000 actually means? Is it new jobs that require new workers? Is it someone left the post office and a new person was hired, someone retired from the foreign service and a replacement was hired? There is so much assumption and misinformation spread that the truth is almost never the way things are presented. I would bet you $10,000 :biglaugh: that there is no way the government was expanded to add 147,000 new jobs. That sounds totally like the biased lame stream right wing media misinformation machine :uhuh: I will look into it, but I am guessing you were duped.

Here is a start, but this is from a year ago. As I suspected, though.

"House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) claimed this morning at a press conference that "under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs." That's at least a 344 percent overstatement. In reality, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the federal workforce has grown by only 58,000 jobs since Obama took office (and by just 25,000 jobs since his economic policies began to impact the economy). Furthermore, Boehner's implication that government workers are thriving in a recession does not jibe with the larger picture. While the private sector has added 381,000 net jobs since Obama policies took effect, overall government employment has fallen by 309,000 jobs over the same period."

Speaker Boehner Is Wrong About "200,000 New Federal Jobs" In Obama Era | Political Correction (http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201102150006)

here is some more. Your number is reasonably close to that range, but the part about the jobs being to spend tax payers money doesn't really seem to coincide with h-s, justice, veterans and defense.

"Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.
The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm)

That sounds totally like the biased lame stream right wing media misinformation machine :uhuh:

LOL, as you use a year + old article by Political Correctness, the arm of the
left wing progressive Media Matters.

The CNN article said the Fed employment increase was not from
Obama alone, I never said that.

Right now the latest offical Dept of Labor statistics only go to 2010.
We will have to see what the true # is when 2011 is posted.

LOL, as you use a year + old article by Political Correctness, the arm of the
left wing progressive Media Matters.

The CNN article said the Fed employment increase was not from
Obama alone, I never said that.

Right now the latest offical Dept of Labor statistics only go to 2010.
We will have to see what the true # is when 2011 is posted.

I pointed out it was a year ago, but it demonstrates the lies that confuse people. Boehner says 200000, and some people believe it without questioning it. The point was that it was a lie 3 times over. Where did you get your numbers? What do they mean? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are you upset with increases in homeland security and defense jobs? You said 145000 jobs created designed to spend taxpayer money. Perception and lies fool a lot of people.

I pointed out it was a year ago, but it demonstrates the lies that confuse people. Boehner says 200000, and some people believe it without questioning it. The point was that it was a lie 3 times over. Where did you get your numbers? What do they mean? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are you upset with increases in homeland security and defense jobs? You said 145000 jobs created designed to spend taxpayer money. Perception and lies fool a lot of people.

The #s you quoted were 130,000, I said 147,000 which makes sense as the Dept of Labor Statistics only go to 2010 and like I said no one will know the true # until they post the 2011 #s. No problem with Military or Homeland security increases.
The #'s are both an indication of a growing and larger Govt and all it's ramifications.
All the boards I ever served on looked to spend all their $ before the fiscal year
was out to at least keep their current budget or get more $$. Can't be any different
with the Govt. and thus part of the waste. A 10% cut in spending is not unreasonable.

Yeah, I am going to leave it at that I am going to question the validity of your comment that 147,000 jobs created for people who's job it is to spend tax payer money. There is no information that backs the accuracy of that comment. Whether it is 123,000 that I posted or 147,000. Cutting 10% is a different question. There is no way to do that without cutting medicare and social security. 10% is an enormous amount of money, but I am not opposed to it in principal.

Perception and lies fool a lot of people.

Yes this is one thing we can agree upon.
It happens on both sides of the isle and one of the
main reasons we are in the fix we are in.
There are very few politicians doing what they are elected to do,
serve the American people and not themselves.
Service, character, honesty and integrity are sorely lacking.

Yes this is one thing we can agree upon.
It happens on both sides of the isle and one of the
main reasons we are in the fix we are in.
There are very few politicians doing what they are elected to do,
serve the American people and not themselves.
Service, character, honesty and integrity are sorely lacking.
You are right there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just my 2 cents on the Government Jobs.

There was also a directive that came down a couple of years ago to get away from Government Contractors. so as Contractors were eliminated, Goverment positions were created to replace them. So a lot of the Jobs Created were actually positions that they we were paying for as contracted labor.

Just my 2 cents on the Government Jobs.

There was also a directive that came down a couple of years ago to get away from Government Contractors. so as Contractors were eliminated, Goverment positions were created to replace them. So a lot of the Jobs Created were actually positions that they we were paying for as contracted labor.

Good example of growing the government sector while shrinking the private sector.

Good example of growing the government sector while shrinking the private sector.

Also an example of trying to save money.....they are paying a lot less for Gov employees than they were paying for contractors....salary wise

Also an example of trying to save money.....they are paying a lot less for Gov employees than they were paying for contractors....salary wise

You sure about that? Government employees have some of the best pension and benefit plans. They are also more permanent. The cost of contractors is usually competitive by bidding. But the standard for bidding is dictated not only by the cost to the contractor, but by Federal Gvt. generosity. The government has historically been known to overpay compared to the private sector. That cost can be lowered if government has the motivation and will to do so.

But the real question is, what should the Federal Government be doing--Constitutionally? We are so used to it doing far more than what it has been granted the power to do by the Consitution, that we take it for granted. That it must be so. And when it takes on more tasks, even at the expense of the private sector and the tax payer, we assume that it should be so. We assume by expanding its domain of activity and workforce it's merely saving money. That the national debt keeps rising doesn't seem to connect in our unhistoric minds with the federal expansion. And we have been trained by time and custom that government expansion is right and good.

It was not originally so. And the national debt was not out of bounds before the progressive, big government mentality took hold.

Saving money by expanding government and its power seems to be a contradiction. Even more to the point, it is a consolidation of that power into a central authority, which is a contradiction to individual liberty and to the reason this country was founded.

You sure about that? Government employees have some of the best pension and benefit plans. They are also more permanent. The cost of contractors is usually competitive by bidding. But the standard for bidding is dictated not only by the cost to the contractor, but by Federal Gvt. generosity. The government has historically been known to overpay compared to the private sector. That cost can be lowered if government has the motivation and will to do so.

I can only talk to the Federal Gov but....

The Pension/Benefits are not as good as everybody thinks.....people who have been in the Gov for decades are Grandfathered in to the sweet pension plan but new employees are in TSP which is a form of 401k. and a much reduced pension plan, and the Medical bennies they offer are nothing to write home about either.

The salaries they pay, at least in my field, are lower than what is offered in the private sector too, by about 5%

I'm not saying there aren't some issues with what the governemnt is spending.

I was just pointing out that the job creation that was talked about had somewhat to do w/ the decrease in contractors...the work still needs to get done so as contractors were eliminated, jobs were created

I can only talk to the Federal Gov but....

The Pension/Benefits are not as good as everybody thinks.....people who have been in the Gov for decades are Grandfathered in to the sweet pension plan but new employees are in TSP which is a form of 401k. and a much reduced pension plan, and the Medical bennies they offer are nothing to write home about either.

Not sure what everybody thinks, and the cost to the federal employee in terms of contribution to the pension has gone up recently, but, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, average annual federal gvt. job compensation including pay, health and retirement bennies is $123,049 compared to $61,051 for annual average private sector combined pay, health and retirement benefit compensation. The Salary Reporter states that the average federal worker gets $40,785 annually in benefits compared to $9.882 annually for average private sector workers.

The salaries they pay, at least in my field, are lower than what is offered in the private sector too, by about 5%

It's true that some federal jobs pay less compared to comparable private sector, but the reverse is true in most cases, and by a greater than 5% margin. A U.S.A Today survey in 2010 found that 180 federal jobs paid higher salaries than their private counterparts, and only 36 private sector jobs paid more than comparable federal jobs. Also federal jobs are far more secure than those in the private sector.

I'm not saying there aren't some issues with what the governemnt is spending.

I was just pointing out that the job creation that was talked about had somewhat to do w/ the decrease in contractors...the work still needs to get done so as contractors were eliminated, jobs were created

Has any analysis been done to determine how many of the "new" jobs were a result of replacing contractors with federal employees? That might be more enlightening.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, total number of federal personnel rose by 237,000 from 2008 to 2010 which included 148,000 uniformed military personnel and 84,000 executive branch civilians.

The Federal Jobs Network noted as of today that a further expansion of 182,629 workers were added to the federal workforce from 2010 to 2012. They point out in particular possibilities for future federal job expansion created by new health care legislation which calls for the formation of 150 new regulatory agencies and commissions. And many more federal regulators are needed to manage failed banks and TARP funds. They point out that the federal government owns 60% of GM and all of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and have now taken over 100% of the student loan program. They say "There are many more jobs projected and those who start early will have a better chance of success." Jobs are available in the the U.S. and abroad.

Which all begs the question, is the Federal Government doing too much? Has it expanded its mission well beyond constitutional limitations? Is there an end goal to this trajectory?

We assume by expanding its domain of activity and workforce it's merely saving money.

Agree, and what are we lacking in the current government programs
that we need more of? If the Govt. was serious about getting the debt
under control it would become mean and lean like a corporation that
is failing. Get a budget, 3and1/2 years without one, and put a hiring freeze on until the debt is paid down.
According to an article in USA today Fed Govt retirement plans are almost
as costly and are falling short almost as much as Social Security is falling .
Last year they paid our 168 Billion in pensions.
Farm out what they can to the private sector and let them pay the benefits and pensions.

The Federal Jobs Network noted as of today that a further expansion of 182,629 workers were added to the federal workforce from 2010 to 2012. They point out in particular possibilities for future federal job expansion created by new health care legislation which calls for the formation of 150 new regulatory agencies and commissions. And many more federal regulators are needed to manage failed banks and TARP funds.

And therein lies the answer Johnn Boener was giving, about 200,000 Fed jobs added, let alone what was added between 2008 and 2010. Much higher than the 130,000 Zimmy said and the 147,000 I heard.

And therein lies the answer Johnn Boener was giving, about 200,000 Fed jobs added, let alone what was added between 2008 and 2010. Much higher than the 130,000 Zimmy said and the 147,000 I heard.

I checked the fedjobs website. There is no source for the numbers listed on the website. Where did they get the numbers? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are these really people hired to spend taxpayer money. Is a postal worker (who's numbers are decreasing) considered people hired to spend tax payer money. What is the truth and reality of these numbers, as opposed to generalization and misperception?

I checked the fedjobs website. There is no source for the numbers listed on the website. Where did they get the numbers.

As Debutch said, The Federal Jobs Network noted it. What ever the reasons
they were hired, as I stated, it means larger Gov't, more taxes to pay and
what more Govt. programs do we need that are not already in place?
How many jobs were granted for political favors?
If you check the Bureau of Labor statistics you will find over 80,000 jobs
were created just between2008 and 2010.

These graphs are pretty self explanatory. Defense, veterans affairs, homeland security increased. Health and human services up a little since 2006. Commerce, state, interior, education, etc decreased or stayed the same. Federal employees as a percent of the total civilian workforce has varied betwee 1.2 and 1.25% for at least 11 years. Can't find the data for before that. So basically, people are being scammed into thinking there is some great growth of government workers who's job it is to spend taxpayer money.

How many jobs were granted for political favors?
.

That's where this is going now? How the heck could anyone ever quantify that. Yes, in times of war and terrorism, people were hired to help protect the country. Good.

what more Govt. programs do we need that are not already in place?


This is about jobs numbers, not programs. They don't say anything about new programs created that weren't in place. Hiring people for homeland security is not adding a program not in place.

Here is some more about the reality of the numbers:
"Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of [federal] employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008."
Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/2/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/?page=all)

Even the opening paragraph of the Wash. times article shows how the lame stream right wing media will try to incite people. Boehner did a nice job tricking people. At least be angry about facts, not distortions of facts.

Here is some more about the reality of the numbers:
"Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of [federal] employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008."
Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/2/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/?page=all)

Even the opening paragraph of the Wash. times article shows how the lame stream right wing media will try to incite people. Boehner did a nice job tricking people. At least be angry about facts, not distortions of facts.

Maybe the only place they should increase is in Border Patrol.:)

Maybe the only place they should increase is in Border Patrol.:)

The numbers of illegal immigrants in the country is down since 2007. I will trust DOD and homeland security experts to put the funds to use based on their expertise, not on what is popular with the tea party.

The numbers of illegal immigrants in the country is down since 2007. I will trust DOD and homeland security experts to put the funds to use based on their expertise, not on what is popular with the tea party.


Population Bulletin Update: Latinos in the United States 2010 - Population Reference Bureau (http://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins/2010/latinosupdate1.aspx)

Tea party??

We spend too much...Do too much. Privatization is still spending the money we don't have. Crazy Tea Party thinking I guess.

I don't understand how the Latino link is directly related. It doesn't give any info on illegal immigration.

Number of illegal immigrants in U.S. is stable: DHS | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/24/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE82N09I20120324)

We spend too much sounds good. Secure the border sounds good and gets people riled up. In reality, the new jobs are to protect us and the number of illegal immigrants in the country has declined. The details underscore the difference between the sound bites and reality.

Zim, we will not know the true new Fed employees employed under the current
administration until 2013 when the Dept of Labor posts them. Can't believe the
2011 #s aren't posted yet. I gues they find it hard to count.
No need to worry about hiring freezes, no politician would have the guts to
introduce that, they don't even have the guts to pass a budget.

Tea party??

We spend too much...Do too much. Privatization is still spending the money we don't have. Crazy Tea Party thinking I guess.

Buck, you have to come in here more often,
ya crack me up everytime. :hihi:

"I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."



you think you'd want people to make more, particularly those at the bottom rungs, so that they could support themselves without government asistance, secure their futures through savings and investment and provide a better standard of living for their families without having to rely on the government to subsidize different parts of their lives that are "unaffordable" but "necessary", like cell phones and such....

but Pelosi just wants them, you and me to make more so that she(we) can tax more... for most people, "making more" involves "working more"...more hours, weekends, nights, part-time jobs, nice to know that she'll be there.... waiting.... to collect more of what you earn :uhuh: nice people :)

So even though it was determined that the quote was made up your going to use it anyways?

So even though it was determined that the quote was made up your going to use it anyways?

I apologize..her actual quote was completely different....:confused:

"I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."


'I wish they would earn more so they can pay more'


45% of US households paid no federal tax- MSN Money (http://money.msn.com/tax-tips/post.aspx?post=292d620a-6459-4381-a22b-f3b59dc64ff8)

what was "made up" was her class warfare argument that "the other side" is somehow demonizing low end earners (Pelosi's "they") by pointing out the inequities in the current tax system and the system of government give aways, the inequities are across the board, read the article to find out who "they" are... she would seek to make it even more inequitable(or equitable in her mind) by deamonizing certain tax payers without ever addressing the fundamental issues of spending and the disaster that is the current tax code....fundamentally she can't help but want/wish you(they) to pay more as a result of earning more, her solution to all problems is more Federal Tax revenue...this was simply an opportunity for her to drum up class warfare and further divide Americans:uhuh:


how about this ...

"I wish that we(the federal government) would spend and do less, so that they(Americans) could keep more of what they earn, enjoy greater opportunity and become less reliant on our Federal "charity".... "

Only part of the quote which changes the context.

Only part of the quote which changes the context.

we're talking about Nanct Pelosi here...essentially, Joe Biden in drag and not nearly as amusing :)

what she said after the "part" of the quote...was laughable....what she said before the "part" of the quote was based on a flawed premise and wildly misleading...the "part" of the quote you refer to was the only honest( and these are hard to come by with Pelosi) thing she said in the entire meaningless, phony divisive and dishonest diatribe...cliche' leftist rhetoric...which, according to you, was taken out of context....

I'm happy to dig my heels in on the side that refuses to raise taxes on anyone until we have meaningful reductions in the size and the spending of government and meaningful changes and simplification of the tax code(Pelosi will be the first one out there bashing anyone proposing either of these)....to raise taxes and ignore the others is to continue down the unsustainable track that we're on currently and would be like giving an alcoholic a hundred bucks because he promised to quit drinking next month....:)

Pelosi simply wants to pit one group of earners against another to try to leverage the political capital to justify raising rates(taxing more) on one group, ostensibly championing the other...it's shameful, but like I said, it's Pelosi we're talking about :)

timely...


"What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills, and a forest of straw men.

Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage."

Divider-in-Chief - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/298909/divider-chief-charles-krauthammer)

we're talking about Nanct Pelosi here...essentially, Joe Biden in drag and not nearly as amusing :)
]

Your right Scott. Remember when Pelosie denied being told about water boarding when briefed by the CIA back in 2009.
Well, the X CIA Chief, Jose Rodriques, who was at the briefing said water boarding was discussed at the briefing and said Pelosie had no objections.
Selective memory on her part.