Thank you for your hard work for the state, Libertina. Frequent commentors here are likely to demonize you. Such commentors don't have the werewithal to control or improve their lives, so they feel they need to put down public sector workers.

Pensions are good thing, if managed properly. They give a much better return than typical 401K and IRA plans -where individuals are overmatched against Wall Street.

A lot of the demonization of teachers and state workers boils down to ignorance, and an aggressive well-financed tea party propaganda machine.

Often state workers, in the course of their work deal with people that nobody else will touch, from teachers of the poorest of the poor, caretakers of abused children taken from their homes, elderly without family, mental health facility workers, wards of the state, and prison workers.

Of course, not all state jobs are that treacherous - there is a need for clerical work with the state. And of course there are the numerous state legislators and Lt. Governor that embarrass our state with worthless partisan legislation at considerable taxpayer expense.

RD, you make some good points, as it is not the hired population that will recieve these benefits, it will be those who are either elected or appointed.

In the case of the Chicago teachers' strike though, these are the highest paid teachers in the country, with some of the worst results in the country, who were striking on a few different issues, not the least of which was a 19% raise, in a state that is the worst (if not 2nd-worst) at managing money.
Not to knock them, but this is an insult to teachers everywhere, not to mention, the students they "teach", who (if left up to these kinds of organizations & the politics they support) will never see a lucrative career, much less a 19% raise.

Thanks for the kind words Devon. However, your comments on the Chicago teachers are irrelevant and factually-challenged. Let me assist you, yet again.

Yes, they are getting a raise -avg 4% per year over 4 years. Chicago teachers should have a higher pay-rate, because it costs a boatload to live there. It is dangerous work, and the kids come in more messed up than elsewhere.

I suggest to the tea party folks to apply themselves and work hard for the dream of teaching innercity kids in the Chicago. Bring your own flak jacket. And be sure to wear your tri-cornered hat.

Out of curiousity, I googled 19% raise chicago teachers, and I found were links tea party folk parrotting talking points without any facts.Townhalltipsheet, USmessage, Reason.com, freeenterprise.com, blahblahcrap.com Is this the "research?" that you so often crow about?

Teachers are a disparate group of people. However, the several that I talked to were supportive of their fellow teachers in Chicago, not insulted, as your browbeat contends. I am sure you can go back onto breitbart and find a quote of one that was insulted though. lol.

Again, your comments are irrelevant. This is Missouri, not Chicago IL.

Not exactly relevant either, but thought I'd pass along something I read on the internets. Chicago Cub owner Tim Ricketts is funding Romney ad campaign for $10 million, while he's asking for public assistance to renovate Wrigley.

WHY does it cost a boatload to live there? Why are the kids so messed-up? 1) IL is the second largest wellfare state in the union. 2) These same teachers.
Per my previous statement, they already were the highest paid teachers in the country. Just another place where your politics have created a situation (IL is about as blue as it gets), then use it as a reason to pretend you have the answer for it.

FYI - I get the same news accross my desk that your beloved liberal manure spreaders leave out, that's how I know what's missing.
Speaking of crow about, you couldn't objectively state what the Tea Party was about if you had to, all you know is what you are told to know.
As much as you try, you can't call out my sources. They happen to be the same as the sources your "news" comes from. I see what's there before the mob is told how to digest it. So, good luck.
FYI2 - There are THOUSANDS of "organizations" that beg for money from the people, some even using injured animals (you've seen them), that collect those "donations" & "memberships", only to push legislation, and donate to the democratic party. Where's that list, Mr Fix-it?
Remember the so-called "puppy-mill" law? Didn't read that bill did you? Didn't read the fine-print as to where that donation money goes either did you? THOUSANDS, but it's ok as long as they lie to people to donate to your party, I guess.
It's perfectly relevant, whether you want it to be or not. I don't want to turn into IL, you do.

I'd love to go into the financials of the Chicago Cubs with you, not to mention the history of their owners, but I doubt I could break it down simply enough for you. But I'll try. Why don't the Cubs have a brand new stadium? The fans insist that even though they have never won there, there is something historic about it, and until it's condemned (which it probably should be), they will not be allowed to replace it.
Meaning, he doesn't have the same revenue streams as other teams, he has to keep putting money into a pile of crap for those fans. Why should that come from his pocket? If it were up to him, if he were allowed, he could build a state of the art stadium in order to make more money, just like they did across town, where the entire area benefited from it.

So are you saying your 19% raise claim was not factually-challenged? It really is tiresome fixing just a small portion of your "research?".

And please explain to Libertina how the Chicago teacher tangent you cut and paste from Breitbart/Fox/poop news is relevant to her situation.

You're a joke. Don't attribute your methods to me. I have a brain of my own. I don't need to cut & paste primetime TV to give my opinion.
By the way, did you check-out Ogilvy International, the Syracuse story, the Freeh Report, the Grand Jury testimony, Fair Housing Regulatory or the Community Reinvestment Act, CSPAN footage of the OFHEO hearings, the Banking Laws that kicked-in, how much money comes out of the economy for every $100,000 foreclosure......?
Then you can call-out my sources. Otherwise you'll remain the idiot simply making a laughable effort to do so.

You have been "researching?" a lot there, lately Devon Breitbart.com AND Townhalltipsheet. Must be exhausting. Is there time leftover for the Blaze?

And really, your name-calling is unneccessary, especially when people are generous enough to clean up your misinformation to minimize your embarrassment.

No, those zany conservatives won't allow book-burning just yet, 4 more years maybe...

So you think we should go in the direction of CA, IL, or NY? Check out the pension problem in those states. You're not paying a bit of attention to who is failing & who isn't.
I mentioned Chicago teachers above. Do you think it's a good idea to collapse common sense & reward failing teachers just because they have a union & the ability to disrupt the very education with which they are charged until they get what they want?

The problem isn't that government employees aren't taken care of, it's that there are too many of them. They should also be aware, upon putting in an application to the government, that they don't produce anything, the private sector does, so they are NOT equivilent, no matter how much you insist on comparing them to the private sector. It isn't the same thing.
Government jobs only drain the system, it's not possible for them to do anything else. If you want a job at a profit-producing company in order to receive a higher salary, get one. No one in that sector is guaranteed a raise when all they do is hemorhage money. If you want a government job, you should enter into it knowing it doesn't produce anything, including a lucrative salary.

What on earth is the south better at that any other US region, or Canada, doesn't do ten times better? Besides creating rural poverty, that is.

And there's the bigotry.
ALL of the other states are better at managing their economy than those 3 states I gave you. We're not talking about a perception that's been built for you, we're talking about 3 real, miserable failures vs nearly every other state.

Bigotry? I happen to like states that generate lots of patents per capita, which CA, IL, and NY do. Someday NC might join that list, but now is not that time. Let me also say this: I'd rather live in a broke NYC than a solvent Dallas, any day of the century. It is a better city in every conceivable way.

Furthermore, CA has an awesome economy. They (and NY, NJ, MA, IL, WA, and MN - and someday NC) practically own tech. They just have an asinine funding mechanism that requires referendum for state revenue/spending items. NY has an awesome economy and one of the world's best arts scenes, if not the best. And IL has Chicago, which is full of big pharma companies, some of the best universities in the country, and headquarters to John Deere, Caterpillar, McDonald's, and numerous other iconic companies. IL's main problem is a state legislature that doesn't grasp that as Chicago goes, so goes IL - kind of like how the MO legislature puts too little priority on KC and STL.

I see taxes going up in all of them, and failing economies, I'd love to hear you back-up the claims that their economies are flurishing. Flourishing economies (even with those huge companies you cited laying-off workers) don't need to keep raising taxes to cover their deficits. I see entire cities in CA filing bankruptcy, and I would rather live anywhere than NYC. In a world where "my body, my right" is the cry of the hypocrite, that slogan no longer applies to the size of soda I may want to buy.
Then for you to say that there is too much regulation on government spending illustrates that you don't understand that's how they got there. You're giving me art.
As Chicago goes, so does IL... That part is right, but when's the last time your emensely screwed-up & crooked Chicago (since the days of Capone) was run by anyone who was fiscally responsible? When's the last time, the messed-up cities of Chicago, St Louis, & KC, who blame all of their problems on Republicans, actually elected one that could get anything done among all of those Dems who actually put them in the messes they are in. They don't need more government attention. They need to track their actions & elections, and pay attention to the results, and so do you.

It's not the Union Government Workers Fault for earning more Pay/Benefits than the average worker in Missouri. IT IS THE NEGOTIATOR BOARDS that need to be replaced.
Missouri's people need to be given Total Pay of all state workers.
It is time to lay out the outrageous pay of "Servants to the Public".
W-2 Gross IS NOT THE TOTAL PAY.
let's get the annual cost for:
1) Medical Insurance.
2) Life insurance
3) Overtime additions to Gross.
4) Sick Pay accumulations.
5) Vacations allottments
6) Pension Contribution Perentages of each Employee and the percentage paid by the state. (This is big-time dollars people) Really Big.
7) Cars , Cell Phones, Meals, Gyms.
8) Regular Retirement ages?
9) After retirement medical coverages?
This state needs a full disclosure of each and every State Employee cost.
It is safe to say, not even our Govt. Workers KNOW how much they are Costing this State.
Time to Flush out these "takers" of the hard earned Dollars of every Working Citizen in Missouri.
Government Workers should not be earning more than what the average worker earns in Missouri. If they feel they are worth more, than they should go out and earn it through the Free market pay system.
I say it is time for all Voters to turn down any Governor who does not make pledges to change ALL Government worker retirement ages, pension benefits and medical benefits.
Why should Taxpayers pay the commisions to their pension plan Brokers?
Those comm have created much of the losses.

Democrats

Blah blah blah blah blah blah Democrats bad! Blah blah blah blah takers!

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah Democrats bad! Blah blah blah blah takers!"

Made me spit my coffee. Nice.

Missourian, the usual clowns will claim to be experts on salary comparisons. What aren't they experts on? They will find some outlier example on the blaze or breitbart of a bus driver making six figures and they will get their bloomers all in a lather.

Yeah, there are some inequities in public sector workplace, just as there are in any workplace. It can always be better. However the tea-baggers will bluther on about the compensation of a public sector worker changing adult diapars at a state facility, or a teacher working with special needs kids..... when the irony is- if the state outsourced that same work to a private company, there would be less accountability a chance of poorer service, lower pay for worker - but a big fat bonus for the CEO of this company. Tea baggers claim to hate wasteful spending, except when it goes to to CEOs.

This chart:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=Missouri/Salary/by_Employer
shows MO state employee salaries are way below those of private industry. The median MO state employee salary is below even the bottom of most private employers.

Let's see if Mr. Reverse can add in the benefits to even start to get to some meaningful apples-apples comparisons.

RD,
You aren't saying that because the government changes diapers, that no one could do it better or more responsibly, are you?
That's your problem, you really do think that the government can fix all your problems, yet fail to understand how sending money through the most wasteful middle-man in the world, is the most expensive possible way to do things. Competition & customer options are what get you the best value & service in the private sector, what exactly keeps the government in-line?

Devon, your problem is you think that we privatize and give the business to some company run by CEO making 7 figures then everything gets fixed. A magic Rube Goldberg machine.

We will still have people to fill state prisons, mental health facilities, orphans, abused kids? By the way, you are free to work at those places if you please.

Ah no, now I've opened the door for a classic DevonRevere tangent about the capitalistic utopia we'd have if there were no taxes and regulation, and ergo we wouldn't have many poor people and orphans/abused kids to worry about anymore.....and for the few that remain, we can send them to charities.

.... like the one run by Jerry Sandusky. Or a venerable church.

Yes, that CEO is making money from his company, not my tax-dollars. You want to clamber on about CEO pay when you insist on ignoring who the bailouts went to. You have no clue the bonuses & golden parachutes involved with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, while those were paid for with tax-dollars, along with every bonus that was paid to the CEO's who bet all of our homes on loans they knew were bad.
You constantly go-on about CEO pay, paid for by their companies, yet I can point-out just as much that is paid to people so they could crash the economy, using OUR money.
Business didn't do that, government did. You can't argue enough to change it.
Are there any CEO's out there who made-off with over $900 million dollars in taxpayer money? Franklin Raines did, why wouldn't that bother you more than someone who has a lucrative business?

Halliburton, Blackwater. Yada yada yada.

Again, you think limiting government means "no" this or "no" that. That's not at all what anyone wants or is suggesting. It's not your fault though, it's what all small-minded people are told to think. Just more proof that you insist on working from broken economics & broken assumptions about those who actually try to fix it.

Jerry Sandusky didn't run a charity or an organization, he was a volunteer. But thank you for bringing that up, because thanks to the media you so dearly trust, this is also what you believe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJqRXKBrFRU

PS - ESPN/ABC sat on a tape of the Syracuse assistant basketball coach/pedophile's wife admitting she knew he was an active pedophile for 8 YEARS. (Check the number of Syracuse grads that work at those 2 networks.) Yet they all wanted to accuse Joe Paterno of the very thing that they did. They were wrong on both counts. How do I know? I read the grand jury testimony, and the Freeh report, as well as discussed them with a couple of different attorneys.
By the news they gave you, they didn't read either. They also didn't look into the positions & activities at the time, of the (R) Governor of PA, the University Pres, or the Head of the NCAA that dished-out the sanctions on a football-team that Sandusky hadn't worked for since early '98, before the whole thing began. It goes on & on, and you never received a drop of fact on the case, other than Jerry Sandusky had sex with children. Nothing else even tried to be accurate.

Blackwater, Cheney, Koch Brothers, Halliburton, Tom Ricketts, Sheldon Adelson, Ted Nugent, GWB, Romney's $3.500,000 foreign investment income for 2011, Weapons of mass destruction, crappy replacement refs, CEO pay versus employee pay, Mitt's five wives yada yada, 34.5% of the wealth is held by 1%, my effective tax rate is 8% higher than Mitt's

Just doing a little "research."

Yeah, the government should've just put them out of business like they did Merrill Lynch & Bear-Stearnes.
Haliburton & Blackwater, still not your money. Fannie/Freddie was. Why can't you get that?

Ogilivy International gets your tax-dollars. Do you know what they do?

Do a little more, you'll find that same population covering an even larger percentage of the tax-burden. And again, you still can't say why those successful businesses owe more to a government that isn't successful. You still can't say why the government having more money to waste would fix anything. You're just toting the party football, you don't have anything that effects MY money, only what others do with theirs. It's always the same.
By the way, you still need about 1500 more of those to reach the effect that Fannie & Freddie had on the economy when they sold all of those companies bundles & bundles of bad loans, while your party crashed the economy, forcing bailouts to those that got them elected, decided who stayed in business & who would go out of business, and got rich from payoffs & insider trading.
By the way, Claire's husband got a million dollars of those bailouts through HUD.
Again, not money from a successful business, but tax-payer dollars. If you're really about CEO bonuses, at least get upset at the ones we paid for, not the ones that may have been earned instead of stolen.

How wasn't Halliburton/Blackwater my money? The US government was/is paying them billions....or are you saying it's not my money because we didn't fund the Iraq War and much of the Blackwater stuff was off the budget?

And Sandusky...really Devon? A non-accountable volunteer charity worker raping kids. I have no idea what your point is there, nor do I care. You seem to prove the need for better-paid, accountable (yet imperfect) state case workers, rather than more reliance on volunteer pedophiles.

DevonRevere, we can all find our way to Breitbart Townhall etc if we are bored and want to see your "research?" Lol. It's been real. Enjoy having the last comment - or ten.

The government gives billions to lots of people & companies, I've continually pointed them out to you. You can only focus on one or two that were paid to do a job. The MANY others (which you will refuse to acknowledge again) were paid back because government entities sold them bogus bundles of loans. Money they kept, but took again from the tax-payer to pay them back. They stole from the taxpayer twice, just to make the poor homeless again, only now with bad credit.

BTW, you mentioned Social Services. They also EXONERATED Jerry Sandusky back in late 1998, there's your training & accountability at work.

Missourian:
So why don't you get the Totals on each of your 1-9 benefits.
Now does that scare you? Can Govt Workers retire in their late 50's?
Can Govt workers retire with accum Sick days of 6 months to a year?
Can they get a lump sum check on Retirement for all unUSED sick days?
All Govt workers GET LIFE INS. It usually is equal to
1 year pay. .
Your problem is, You do not know how much you cost the state to employ you.
Your self-assessed value comes from a "Tax" on society. Your Pay is not negotiated or RESTRAINED like any other Professional in Private industry.
SALES and CLIENTS and PRODUCT FAILURES all determine a Private industry worker wages. NO GUARANTEES in that world.(Avg Missourian $36K+-).
Avg 401k=3%. Only50%have401k.
After retirement medical coverages is not affordable by Private employers and I would challenge you to find non-union employers in Missouri who provide after retirement medical coverages.
IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR majority.

What age could you start retirement? Do you pay into the social security and medicare taxes of the USA? Teachers DO NOT? Why?
Why are we paying taxes to support $70,000 annual teacher pensions?
Why are we paying Union wages for Public-Education?
Quit suggesting all Govt employees are Professional status, because they are not.
So calculate in DOLLAR AMOUNTS all the Pay/&benefits you get , and then justify how People who earn much less could continue to pay taxes to support thousands of "YOU".

"too."
What are they missing exactly? I get sick days & some vacation, that's it. As it stands right now, I'd be paying for other people to have what I don't.
I thought we started out by talking about fairness.

Do a better job negotiating, and you'll get those things. I did.

In my business, to get those things, you have to sell-out & start lying to the likes of you. That's where the money comes from. That's the stance you take.
It's not worth that to me.

Ah, the old sellout argument. If someone makes money they've sold out. If the indie band signs to a label with real distribution or places their music, or records with clear fidelity, they've sold out. Doing awesome work and getting paid for a unique skill is not selling out.

The problem with you, is that rather than trying to make my situation less the exception, you look at people without as the model for what to do. Race to the bottom rather than the top. That doesn't make any sense. And it results in defunding or underfunding everything that makes society a nice thing to be a part of.

No. Not if someone makes money they are a sell-out. I didn't say that at all. If they become OK with dropping their morals, and abandoning simple right & wrong for that money, that's a sellout.
You aren't even close to what I believe. I have sold-out for that 'more money' & couldn't live with myself & gave it up. I used to be the one who told you those very same lies you want to keep repeating back to me.
And if you think the people are "doing an awesome job, just because they make a lot of money, you're dillusional.
One of the reasons I don't have those "benefits", is because I have been smart enough to take care of my own "insurance" (medical, life, car & otherwise), my own retirement, etc. But now, because "the rest of you" aren't smart enough to start your own family bank scenario & take care of yourselves, I am going to have to give that money to the government & insurance companies instead of my kids.
Not to mention, I was never going to have my needs evaluated by those people now holding my money & making me beg for just a portion of it back, I was able to get whatever done, whenever I wanted (including contraception), and never had to fight for my own money that someone else now makes interest on besides me & my family.
But thanks to people like you who somehow think you're getting something for free (that isn't free but actually the most expensive possible way to go about it) that you weren't smart enough to provide (in a WAY CHEAPER way) for yourselves.

Keep wearing that tin foil hat.

"And then class... when you can no longer stand the sound of the facts, don't worry, it's as easy as attacking the person who points your ignorance. See, if you can simply label or make fun of them, then their facts and all of your ignorance are magically forgotten, and you can feel smart again. The best part is: you don't even have to know what you're talking about or actually be smart, just think of a way to put them in a category like we taught you in PC-101, and you can make those pesky facts disappear."
"RD? Can you show the class how it's done?"

Missourian:
If you work in the Private sector, you or your employer must rely on some type of Government work. (Sub-contract?).
I have been in business 40 years and NEVER met a Taxpayer so willing to increase their own Tax rates for the benefit of Equal pay to Govt workers.
You are not concerned about the millions of private workers who are underemployed today. Working 12 hour days to support themselves.
Apparently, that's not you. No current Govt worker makes less today.
If that does not worry , you, I am convinced you Live off the taxpayers dollar.
Maybe , you are one of those Financial Brokers getting Commissions on Public Pension Plans?
The fact that you will not debate the "Dollars" of total Pay rather than the benefits is interesting. You are scared to let the public taxpayers see those numbers.
Just one---How much does a $50,000 Govt worker get put away into his/her pension each year. (Percentage and amount)! H-mm?
I do know that Teachers get 29.5%. That equals $15,000 per teacher in tax revenues.
That alone is about 40% the average (mean-medium-mode) workers TOTAL GROSS PAY in Missouri.
Just who's side are you on? ) It's still Robbery.
Keep voting Democratic, because that is the new "Slavery Party" all over again.
(it includes whites-Blacks-Hispanics etc)..
Warning ! A vote for Democrats is a vote to Lose your Job. A vote against your own employer rights. It's a vote to guarantee higher Taxes to each and every one of you. Slaves you will be.

Their "counter-parts" produce something. These employees are an expense to those "counterparts" who do produce something. The states & the federal government already can't pay for these "benefits". So, it's basically an expense that "their counterparts" will therefore HAVE to pay for. The 2 are not comparable.

That means that everytime someone in the private sector gets a raise, their government employee "counterpart" would get one too. Meaning only, that the guy in the private sector doesn't really get a raise, because he has to pay for the equal salary-increase of his "counterpart".
As usual, the economics don't work, and it have to be spelled-out for you.

"I have been in business 40 years and NEVER met a Taxpayer so willing to increase their own Tax rates for the benefit of Equal pay to Govt workers. "

That's because I'm not an ___hole.

Your logic - the equivalent of "my toilet is broken, so I'm going to break yours, too," is the kind of thing I'd expect from a 3 year old, not a 60+ year old.

I don't rely on government contracts. But I do know which screw to turn when the factory stops running.

I do understand that low taxes get you crappy services.

I do understand that there is high unemployment, and that now that the housing bubble is history, a lot of people have skillsets that are irrelevant to the new economy. If you aren't boning up on your STEM skills, good luck to you.

Averages tell you nothing. The average income in the city of STL is $30k, but 1/4 of the city earns next to nothing, and another big chunk earns $100k+

Not unwilling to talk numbers, bro. Just told you I have pretty standard benefits, which I laid out, and which are pretty similar to gov workers. Deal with it.

As per teachers, it only took me four years to overtake the salary and benefits of my sister, who had been teaching for a decade. Next please?

I'm on the future's side. I'm a 22nd century kind of guy.

You're not on future's side, you can't even comprehend the effects of your policies on the future. You claim to be for the future, yet can't explain who will pay the debt your short-sightedness has created by the time we get to the 22nd century. You can't explain how those generations are going to pay for the debt on top of more debt you continue to insist on increasing. Where does spending $41,210 per second that you don't have factor into a successful 22nd century? You can't keep taking from the providers to give to those who don't provide and expect this country to even make it to the 22nd century, but let's say you do make it, what resources will you drain in order to not pass a budget then? Who will pay for your causes? Your ideas are mortgaging (pun intended) said 22nd century, and you are in full support of it.

You know Devon, for someone who seems to know everything, you sure don't have a clear picture of how our country's debt will be handled. Our country was in a similar bind debt-wise after the depression and WWII. And you know what? We made it out. It took top marginal rates of 70% to 90% to do it, but we did it. And we'll do it again, because that is what it takes. Maybe you've never looked into the subject - I can understand that, with economics being detail oriented and full of nuance - but the country's debt began its upward march - which has continued to this day - after marginal tax rates were slashed in the early '80s. This whole notion that you can have a great country without taxes is stupid. As long as the state provides the many valuable services it provides, including but not limited to the university system (grossly underfunded), public schools, forest management, highway patrol, agricultural extension, unemployment benefits, the DMV, MoDOT, and 80 other things, those things will cost money. And in order to ensure that those things are done well, it is my expectation that we pay the people providing those services on par with the private sector - not less than as we currently do - to ensure the highest caliber of employee and the best services. Being part of society just costs money. But hey, if you like dereg and low taxes, there's always Somalia or Afghanistan. Those places have a real libertarian spirit!

No. What's stupid is thinking that taxes & the government can fix all your problems when they are the ones that caused them, and you can't find a situation that supports your unfounded trust in them. Stupid is thinking that the economy is based on how much money the government spends & not how much you & I have to spend. But that's what you do, take common sense to the extreme, so you can poke fun, it's called reductio ad absurdum, and it doesn't work with me, or for you. No one said no taxes, except you. These things you say are "underfunded" are only underfunded because you insist on going through the world's most wasteful, irresponsible, unnaccountable, middle-man... The notion that the government is there to provide some of those "services" is asinine, the government is there to provide people the opportunity to get those services on their own. Stop using the poor you created as a reason to create more, all while pretending to care for the people you are crippling. You mentioned post-WWII. Did we recover from that by creating more dependents, making healthcare more expensive, or the largest tax-increase ever in American history? No. For you to assume we did, or to compare what's happening now to then, is just innaccurate. How many more taxes would you say we have now compared to then? Go back & count them, I lost track around 400,000. How much more government involvement in industry? From none to what... Auto, Power, Banking, Student Loans, Insurance, Medical...

I don't care how many taxes are being levied. That number only speaks to the complexity of the tax code. All that matters is the total revenue per capita, and adjusted for today's dollars, rates overall are lower than post WWII. Post WWII is the same in the way that counts: we have a debt that is nearly equal to GDP, and playing the outraged patriot doesn't pay it down. Since cutting services even further is not a good option - for instance if you drastically reduced the money that funds the "welfare queens" that are supposedly living large, you'd be lucky to cut spending by 5%, if that. So where do the cuts come from? Not from state universities that have seen their funding slashed and been forced to increase tuition such that it is almost impossible to pay your way through college without taking on debt (the next bubble, by the way). Not from transit spending. Not from foreign aid (which is a blip). You raise taxes on those that can afford it - those who have benefited the most from our society, at the very least to the rates levied under Clinton. End of story. Sayonara, tomodachi!

Clueless tangent. I didn't suggest any of that.
I say, start with the waste. Have some accountability. Stop betting everyone's homes, losing the bet, selling the worthless loans back to the public, then blaming them for going out of business, using the people's money again to "save" the companies who you were dealing under the table with in order to cover their bets & drive their competition out of business. I'm for anyone who profited from that bet, or insider-traded on, or received money through earmarks in the resulting bailouts being voted out. I'm for those in love with regulations, be regulated & held responsible themselves. I'm for voting out anyone who criminally refuses to pass a budget in over 1200 days. Speaking of which, how could you know what those cuts would do, when it's been 1200 days since you've even had a budget to look at?

1) I didn't run-up this debt, they (& you) did.
2) When a government spends too much, it needs to slow it's spending, not spend more, anyone that's not an idiot understands that. That's how "playing the outraged patriot" DOES pay it down. Make them accountable.
4) Stop "investing" in technology that we knew didn't work in the 1970's
3) The government continues to control more & more, and things keep getting worse. You insist it's making everything better, yet you can't give 1 single example in history, or here, where it's ever worked for the people.
4) I didn't take money from Universities, I'm not even in favor of it. Again, it was YOUR beloved that spent the money that should have gone to State U's, not mine.
5) People on government-aide, as you pointed-out, don't have much to spend, they can't pay into the system without a job, and can't purchase most products. How exactly, in your genius, have you been able to explain how the job-creator who can no longer employ those people or sell his products to them, is going to be able to be able to support them... Or how that way is better than the employer being able to sell his products to a person he can now afford to hire, who can now afford to buy their own products, and is now not only a contributor to the economy, but no longer a drain on it.
The difference is how a worker votes, compared to how a recipient votes.
PS - Keep listing the areas that suffer due to their unaccountability, you might start getting my point.

Did some "research?" and googled Devon's "1200 days without a budget" buzzline..

Yeah I knew already about the budget -the GOP congress and Paul Ryan and their childish games etc etc. I was just curious what prompted Devon to mark the "1200 day" milestone. Was Devon sitting in the basement marking X's on the calandar? Or was he just checking into the dailycaller, twitter@ Freedomworks, and Hale-BoppComet.com

http://tinyurl.com/8o4u2q7

(looking at my watch)

I stand corrected, since RD did some research, that means the Senate did pass a budget. Call it 4 years if you want, but we're not there yet, 1200 days is more accurate than 4 years.
So, now you're calling me out for being too accurate? Thanks for cleaning up my mess.

And that's the way it should be, Because there is no accountability in State jobs.
Ever hear of GSA?

So which is it? Now you're saying government jobs don't pay that well? I thought every government employee was supposed to have their own personal gold toilet or something?!?!?! My mind is blown!

Missourian-- It was you that said "State Job positions don't pay as well as Private job".
I never said that.
All I said was "That is the way it should be". But state jobs DO pay more than private jobs. When you find the time to Use actual Dollar comparisons, you will be embarassed about everything you spew on this site.
Comprehension requires more than Reading.
Just don't be fooled by my typing.

I believe it would be the private sector that would be charged with paying for those raises & pensions. What makes it okay to KEEP screwing them?

So where would you live Missourian. In City T or in City F.?
No calculations necessary.

Those both look like boring, and weird towns. 100 naked, unsheltered, but marginally literate farmers. Or 100 naked, unsheltered, starving teachers.

Paul,

Teachers do not collect Social Security. Why should they pay into it? I don't think you understand how much of a teacher's paycheck goes into the PSRS.

For all of you CEO haters out there...My father was the former CFO of SBC (Now AT&T). Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't all country clubs and fine dining.

I rarely saw him since he was constantly in meetings, serving on the boards of other companies and running a company which at the time was grossing over 22 billion dollars.

Being responsible for that kind of money and to the shareholders was an immense, constant pressure and there was truly very little joy for him in it. He just happened to be very good with numbers and honest to the bone.

He got up before the light of day, was at work before everyone else and if he made it home before the sun set, it was a rare thing.

People love to mouth-off about these types of things when they truly have no idea what it's all about.

Honestly, I appreciate your father's work. Perhaps those are better days, when the CEO raise wasn't dependent on gaming the short-term stock price by laying people off, outsourcing jobs, mergers & acquisitions, spinoffs, and or raking in taxpayer incentives from states with threats to leave. et etc. The old corporate model for getting stock price to go up was based on earnings per share, and demonstrating long-term sustainable growth.

Chart on increase of CEO pay versus avg worker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/Users/cunninghamlg/CEOvsWORKERcomp

Rich Pope:
I know that 29.5% of Teacher Gross pay goes into PSRS. It is substantial compared to the regular workforce putting 7.5% of their money into Social Security.
Now, Did you understand my Question?
It simply asks WHY Teachers DO not Have to Pay into the social Security System like all Other workers?
I know they don't receive it.
BUT, we Taxpayers are paying the full 29.5% into their Pensions , while we are all forced to Pay into the social security system. Why don't we pay only 7.5% into their pension plans , like all other Workers in America--Get my point?
Teachers have some special Exclusions on belonging to the Social Security system. They have no skin in the Collapse of that system. They could care less about soc sec going bankrupt. That is simply wrong as American Workers.
There is precedent for opting out of social security, and our Public union Teachers in Missouri are not supporting America's Debt crisis. Yet, we are supporting the comfort of their pensions and retirement guarantees. That is why I asked.

"Why do a majority of Teachers vote Democratic?"

Because they have the empathy to understand why a 15-year old rape victim would not believe that she couldn't have a common medical procedure because of their beliefs.

Because they have the knowledge of science and sociology, and decency, to not tell any woman she couldn't have a common medical procedure because of their beliefs. And to know better than to tell her to have an invasive medical procedure first, just because they say so.

Because they have the hogwash detection capabilities to know when they're being lied to.

Because they know the value of competition, including winning arguments based on fact and reason.

Because they know that when someone resorts to labeling, name calling, selective amnesia, and telling them to leave, the competition is over.

Because they've seen that Wall St. doesn't care about people who work hard every day.

Because they have studied enough American history to understand what separation of church and state means.

Because they appreciate that people can have differences but can still treat each other with respect.

Because they understand that everything isn't as simple as they might want it to be.

These people want to cite CEO salary increases like business is booming, and mislead you to believe these people make more money than they used to. Well, the ones that are left might. When all of the competition has gone out of business, it's not hard to make more money. There isn't more money, it's just going into fewer pockets, leave that out & those arguments make sense, but again, given the whole picture, they don't make any sense at all. It's just a misleading number that the uninformed use to further mislead.
And don't give me teachers.
You mean the same ones who are experts at global warming, but know & teach nothing of Nikola Tesla. You mean the ones that still teach the Newton theories on gravity (180-degrees wrong) as fact?
The ones who still teach Edison, yet nothing about the guy who wakes them up in the morning, provided the power to turn-on their new energy-saving lighbulb he invented, turned on their TV, raised & lowered their garage door, powered their car (electric, hybrid, or conventional), allows them to hear their favorite radio station, remote-locked their car, as they walk into a building heated & cooled by his technology, and go to teach under the same bulbs he could light without wires? Those teachers?
Have they studied enough history you think to be able to find anywhere where bigger government has ever been good for the people? No. Wouldn't matter anyway, cuz it ain't there. They still call for it though, the union makes sure of it.

Since you blog about understanding climate change and it's implications, I'm guessing you have an armegeddon-style stockpile of Sharpies.

"You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Debating them only encourages them more"

Honestly, I like to encourage them to spout off whatever comes to their mind (or from the mind of Hannity and Limbaugh). While there's a vocal minority, there are a lot of "normal" people reading this. I think it's important for people to see what the Tea Party hath wrought.

I think there is a reasonable majority of people out there that have good intentions and strong convictions. I may not agree with them, nor they with me... but they're capable of reasoning through a philosophical difference without resorting to asinine fantasy about Kenyan birth, opaque definitions of "freedom," xenophobia, inarticulate accusations of Socialism, or latent racism and bigotry. Those people see these looney tunes for what they are.

If you don't respond, it simply concedes the field to the loons. It's a tiring enterprise, to be sure. But the more they shriek, the more obvious the landscape is to those watching. They're the ones who I hope see through the fog of stupidity.

There are true conservatives, and then there's the Tea Party and the wackos on display. I get true conservatives. I understand conservatism. I even respect it. William Buckley Jr was a razor-sharp conservative that I admired. However, the modern Republican Party has been overtaken by wackos. I think it's a good thing that people see this.

Thanks for the stonekettle links. Mr. Wright has some very sage advice. And now I get RDBet's comment about Sharpies.

I wonder if one of the tri-corners, you can guess which one I'm thinking of, is a plant by the DNC. He's certainly not helping the GOP. Or maybe we're all playing in some big Turing test?

Yes, but the evil PUBLIC SCHOOL teachers, the 47% TAKERS, Union THUGS, and the Obamacare $500 gazillion tax, ACORN, and the Freeh Report, MLK the staunch Conservative, Job Creators! and the no-tax Utopia.....

...THOSE ARE ALL nuanced, and maybe IT IS YOU, the LIBERUL that CANNOT look past what the LAMESTREAM media has drilled into your HEAD.....

Whoops. Sorry. That breitbart kool-aid is wicked potent stuff.

RDBet,

"Say listen, after work a bunch of us are going down to Mexico for margaritas and to have our funberries hacked off by a drug lord’s plastic surgeon, then we’re going to dress up in purple capes and white sneakers and drink the strychnine Kool-Aid and put plastic bags over our faces. We’re doing this because Zombie-Jesus-who-lives-in-my-head says the Earth is about to be destroyed by aliens but we’re going to abandon our bodies and go live on the comet with the comet people.

We’ve got an extra seat, you interested?"

You forgot predictable name-calling, labeling, and reductio ad absurdum...
Oh... no you didn't, they're all in there.

"They think that calling us "liberals" is some kind of slur. They don't have the wherewithal to understand that it is the grandest compliment that they can give a person. If nothing else, it seperates us from the animals, which, you notice, are all conservative, self-centered, self-interested creatures."

Sometimes I wish I could call myself a liberal, but I'm not nice and christian enough to be one.

Larry, mike explained it all in a Patch comment he posted on Monday:

"a great deal is being made that this countries test scores in math and science are well behind other Western countries and are actually falling. The reason given is our country is more diverse. That's the PC way of saying that this country has a much larger minority population than in the past. Frankly hispanics and blacks are not as smart as whites and asians. Sure there are exceptions like Obama who we must remember is half white but overall as the United States becomes more brown we will be viewed as dumber and dumber, but on the plus side really good in soccer and basketball."

You see, mike doesn't have to answer to the inferior races. If you're not being jaw-droppingly racist, you're just being one of those jokers who falls all over himself to be "PC". Thank God Obama is half white so he can be half smart.

Rachel,
Wow, that sure explains mike's worldview! Thanks for calling it to my attention.

Btw, one of the great things about Stonekettle is that there is a blog post for just about every situation. This one helps explain mike k.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/03/america-you-keeping-using-that-word.html

Enlightening, yes? It was removed, but I saved it so I could send his thoughts, along with his address, to my meanest brown friends.

(Just kidding, mike. I'm terrible at basketball so I don't have any brown friends.)

I don't know, I think we should have to look this stuff in the eye and mike should have to defend his remarks, though something tells me he's not unwilling to try.

Great stonekettle piece, btw. That about sums it up.

We can expect more of that from the mikes, considering the overt racism put forth regularly by GOP leaders like Newt Gingrich.

Rachel, are you the high school sophomore that I found on facebook?

"Rachel, are you the high school sophomore that I found on facebook?"

That is really creepy, mike. Stop looking for high school sophomore girls on Facebook.

"Rachel, are you the high school sophomore that I found on facebook?"

Actually no, Super Sleuth, but you are correct in assuming that a 16 year old could see you for the bigot you are. By the way, I have no idea who you are or where you live (a bad joke), but if you're feeling uncomfortable you should probably think twice and post once.

why am I a racist for posting the facts based upon valid scientific studies
go to iq-v-races.png
average IQ by race
Asians - 106
Whites - 101
Hispanic - 90
Blacks -86
Now we need to work to level the playing field by allowing through vouchers for students to transfer out of failing schools to better schools and weed out the poor teachers that are protected by the unions.
Whites - 1010

Creepy is right. Karl, here's an example of why some people don't user their real names.

mike k, your interpretation of the "valid scientific studies" is racist. If you're interested in correcting your interpretations, and what you say about them, one place to start would be to look at discussions of IQ tests themselves: who writes them, what they measure, how they measure it, how results are interpreted by people who understand the tests, and so on. Here's another place to start, maybe not the best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

sensible, did you even bother to read the link you referenced. In paragraph two it states "While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause". I guess Wikipedia is racist as well. By the way, your boy Obama really bombed last night.

A major factor in IQ testing and school performance is the question of nature versus nurture. We're all born with potential. But cultural values play a big part in what we do with it. Go to the bombed out parts of NSL or some of the smaller towns in the Ozarks, and I guarantee you will find lower IQs, because education isn't a priority in the homes. This is a way more complicated topic than a discussion forum allows, but the short answer is that by looking at race alone you are looking at the wrong metric. If you equalized those IQ scores for family composition, accumulated family wealth, poverty ratio in the surrounding community, and proximity to amenities like grocery stores, etc, you'd see race's impact being well within the margin of error of the tests - in other words probably not a factor. It's all about the opportunities we are given as children and the world we come to regard as normal.

Of course I read the Wikipedia article. You obviously didn't read the entire article. Or try to understand anything beyond what reinforces your bias.

"While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause"

That is not racist, in spite of what you said.

Your original post, which has been removed, said "smarter". That isn't the same as IQ.

Did you remove your original post?

"This is a way more complicated topic than a discussion forum allows, but the short answer is that by looking at race alone you are looking at the wrong metric."

Thank you, Missourian and Sensible.

mike, you're a racist because you're willing to draw simplistic conclusions about two highly complex constructs--race and intelligence--and use them to justify your belief that our differences can determine individual achievement. But oh well, you're not some sort of groundbreaker. People have been using this sort of thinking for ages to rationalize some pretty horrific behavior. At least you're just the harmless racist in the suburbs.

I'm a Conservative and a Liberal and a Socialist.
-I'm conservative because I think we should conserve life and money - which is why I support single payer univeral coverage
-I'm conservative also because think we should conserve the climate for our children - which is why I blog about climate change and organize a meetup.com group on climate change
-I'm Liberal in that I appreciate individual liberties. I could care less if gays get married.
I'm a socialist in that I consider the society to be more important than the individual. I also think society should pay infrastructure, education and scientific advancement.

Call me a "ConservaLiberialist" or something like that