Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Cecilie1200]

. Every one is lazy when they

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

I was the somebody - I could back it up with anecdotal information (40 years worth).

You are the one who tried to avoid the conversation by using the 'show me' ploy, combined with 'and don't give me anecdotal evidence' BS.

Put the blame where it belongs - you didn't want the conversation.

I swear, you have to wonder what LaLa Land some of these people live in, where government employees are polite, conscientious, and ambitious. The rest of us live in a world where dealing with civil servants is an experience to be dreaded and delayed until it simply cannot be put off any longer.

When I worked at the Post Office, it was in the department that handled processing of forwarding addresses. Our busy season was late spring, summer, and early fall, the times of year when people in my area move a lot. During that time, our department was authorized for a maximum of 60 hours a week for each employee, with time-and-a-half for the first two hours a day over 8, and double-time for anything beyond that.

I type 110 wpm with near-perfect accuracy, and never had to be switched out of the typing positions to prevent cramping or carpal tunnel syndrome like my coworkers. There was not a single measured period of time at that job in which I was not among the top three employees for number of pieces processed hourly and accuracy.

This being said, I was told by multiple coworkers with seniority to me AND by some of the supervisors that I should slow down during the busy season, so that we could run out the maximum allowed overtime for the extra money. No point in finishing early, they said.

That all goes on in the private sector. But, you two wouldn't understand, you both appear to be very disgruntled former government employees who didn't get along with your co workers.

Quite the imagination you have there. You've not only imagined a whole conversation topic that never existed and points being made that weren't, but you also think you know all about the lives of two total strangers.

Might wanna polish that crystal ball a bit there, Miss Cleo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

. Every one is lazy when they

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

I was the somebody - I could back it up with anecdotal information (40 years worth).

You are the one who tried to avoid the conversation by using the 'show me' ploy, combined with 'and don't give me anecdotal evidence' BS.

Put the blame where it belongs - you didn't want the conversation.

I swear, you have to wonder what LaLa Land some of these people live in, where government employees are polite, conscientious, and ambitious. The rest of us live in a world where dealing with civil servants is an experience to be dreaded and delayed until it simply cannot be put off any longer.

When I worked at the Post Office, it was in the department that handled processing of forwarding addresses. Our busy season was late spring, summer, and early fall, the times of year when people in my area move a lot. During that time, our department was authorized for a maximum of 60 hours a week for each employee, with time-and-a-half for the first two hours a day over 8, and double-time for anything beyond that.

I type 110 wpm with near-perfect accuracy, and never had to be switched out of the typing positions to prevent cramping or carpal tunnel syndrome like my coworkers. There was not a single measured period of time at that job in which I was not among the top three employees for number of pieces processed hourly and accuracy.

This being said, I was told by multiple coworkers with seniority to me AND by some of the supervisors that I should slow down during the busy season, so that we could run out the maximum allowed overtime for the extra money. No point in finishing early, they said.

That all goes on in the private sector. But, you two wouldn't understand, you both appear to be very disgruntled former government employees who didn't get along with your co workers.

Wrong, it doesn't go on in the private sector.

Not for long, anyway. The private sector will fire your ass for that kind of shit, AND the supervisors typically are given incentives to keep overtime down, even when it's necessary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

"I've worked in the private sector, they expect results"

He's all about the public sector.

the Right is too cognitively dissonant when being all about a Warfare-State and (good) Patriot laws.

And the Left is clueless in general.

This is because clues have to be either purchased or earned. There is not currently a government program for the distribution of taxpayer-funded clues.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

"I've worked in the private sector, they expect results"

He's all about the public sector.

the Right is too cognitively dissonant when being all about a Warfare-State and (good) Patriot laws.

And the Left is clueless in general.

This is because clues have to be either purchased or earned. There is not currently a government program for the distribution of taxpayer-funded clues.

our Founding Fathers put our clue and our Cause, in writing.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

That's all dishonest propaganda, you realize, don't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

You babble a lot. The more you talk, the less I think you're actually expressing any real thought or opinion of your own, and are instead trying to impress us with what someone else has told you you should think.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

"I've worked in the private sector, they expect results"

He's all about the public sector.

the Right is too cognitively dissonant when being all about a Warfare-State and (good) Patriot laws.

And the Left is clueless in general.

This is because clues have to be either purchased or earned. There is not currently a government program for the distribution of taxpayer-funded clues.

our Founding Fathers put our clue and our Cause, in writing.

Oh, God, THIS meaningless, bullshit line again. I swear, you remind me of this old lady I have friended on Facebook who has to comment on EVERYTHING, and it virtually never has any relation to the context, and displays zero sense of humor, or even comprehension of the concept.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

That's all dishonest propaganda, you realize, don't you?

No, simply because it supports my contention. In any case, it is an encyclopedic entry of that record of inconvenient fact, for the Right.

 

[Ame®icano]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

You realize that US joined WWII over two years after it started. Why would american economy switch to war production in 1939, as per your text here?

Unless FDR need war to switch attention away from his failed "new deal" policies. From the link:

Roosevelt’s New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany’s invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression.

Bripat9643 called you out... dishonest propaganda. I call you a troll.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

I was the somebody - I could back it up with anecdotal information (40 years worth).

You are the one who tried to avoid the conversation by using the 'show me' ploy, combined with 'and don't give me anecdotal evidence' BS.

Put the blame where it belongs - you didn't want the conversation.

If government employees are lazy, find the metric.

It's the lack of accountability. Every one is lazy when they are not accountable

True. Public employees just don't care. They go to work knowing they'll get their paycheck regardless of their performance. That's how you got shitty service in post office, public schools, AmTrak...

Can't be fired, and make twice what the private sector worker makes.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

You realize that US joined WWII over two years after it started. Why would american economy switch to war production in 1939, as per your text here?

Unless FDR need war to switch attention away from his failed "new deal" policies. From the link:

Roosevelt’s New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany’s invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression.

Bripat9643 called you out... dishonest propaganda. I call you a troll.

Don't blame me for your lack of a "work ethic" for your Cause:

In spite of these dismal statistics, the United States was, in other ways, reasonably well prepared for war. The wide array of New Deal programs and agencies which existed in 1939 meant that the federal government was markedly larger and more actively engaged in social and economic activities than it had been in 1929. Moreover, the New Deal had accustomed Americans to a national government which played a prominent role in national affairs and which, at least under Roosevelt’s leadership, often chose to lead, not follow, private enterprise and to use new capacities to plan and administer large-scale endeavors.

 

[bripat9643]

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

You realize that US joined WWII over two years after it started. Why would american economy switch to war production in 1939, as per your text here?

Unless FDR need war to switch attention away from his failed "new deal" policies. From the link:

Roosevelt’s New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany’s invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression.

Bripat9643 called you out... dishonest propaganda. I call you a troll.

Don't blame me for your lack of a "work ethic" for your Cause:

In spite of these dismal statistics, the United States was, in other ways, reasonably well prepared for war. The wide array of New Deal programs and agencies which existed in 1939 meant that the federal government was markedly larger and more actively engaged in social and economic activities than it had been in 1929. Moreover, the New Deal had accustomed Americans to a national government which played a prominent role in national affairs and which, at least under Roosevelt’s leadership, often chose to lead, not follow, private enterprise and to use new capacities to plan and administer large-scale endeavors.

And you think that's a good thing?

 

[lake avenue]

Does the government pay their fair share? After all; they're the ones taking our money. It would be fine to tax the rich if you think they're actually making good use of it, but it seems to me that all they do with our money is start and fight useless wars.

Remember no taxation without representation? Do you even know where half of your tax money goes to? Forget the rich; what about us?

 

[Ernie S.]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Yes, DP always speaks like a pretentious douche. That's why he is on ignore. He's really not worth the effort.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe the public sector should compete on a not-for-proit basis with the private sector; merely to "harass" the more capitalist Right.

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Yes, DP always speaks like a pretentious douche. That's why he is on ignore. He's really not worth the effort.

Yes, DP always speaks like a pretentious douche.

It's funny, when you consider his room temperature IQ.

 

[Ame®icano]

So, public sector use taxation to take money from private sector, then use that money to "compete" against private sector. And you can call that competition?

Second, assuming someone will hire you, who would you rather work for, public or private sector?

it depends; if it is something important to our Republic, i should work in the public sector, if it is merely for private fun and private profit, i should work in the private sector.

Two questions leap to mind here. The first is, are you really telling us that you chose your job based on what you think others need and want from you, rather than what is best for you? And the second is, do you really believe that the private sector does not provide things that are "important to our Republic"?

Oh, third question. Do you always speak like a pretentious douche, or is that just to try to impress us here?

Here is a context of what I mean when I claim what I do:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--Source: The American Economy during World War II

You realize that US joined WWII over two years after it started. Why would american economy switch to war production in 1939, as per your text here?

Unless FDR need war to switch attention away from his failed "new deal" policies. From the link:

Roosevelt’s New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany’s invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression.

Bripat9643 called you out... dishonest propaganda. I call you a troll.

Don't blame me for your lack of a "work ethic" for your Cause:

In spite of these dismal statistics, the United States was, in other ways, reasonably well prepared for war. The wide array of New Deal programs and agencies which existed in 1939 meant that the federal government was markedly larger and more actively engaged in social and economic activities than it had been in 1929. Moreover, the New Deal had accustomed Americans to a national government which played a prominent role in national affairs and which, at least under Roosevelt’s leadership, often chose to lead, not follow, private enterprise and to use new capacities to plan and administer large-scale endeavors.

Roosevelt endorsed Mussolini who did exactly the same thing in Italy. Fascism there, "new deal" here...

 

[danielpalos]

Does the government pay their fair share? After all; they're the ones taking our money. It would be fine to tax the rich if you think they're actually making good use of it, but it seems to me that all they do with our money is start and fight useless wars.

Remember no taxation without representation? Do you even know where half of your tax money goes to? Forget the rich; what about us?

It is what I mean; why can the Right not find good Capitalists who can make more money, with an official Mint at their disposal?

 

[SwingVoter]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA
First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

It's involuntary and there's no guarantee it will be solvent when I retire, so it's a tax. Insurance also has a limit on payouts, Social Security and Medicare allow people to take out many times what they put in.

"Fair share" is arbitrary and subjective, what matters is how to finance the massive spending bills both parties keep passing. Don't begin to tell me any Republican is actually practicing limited government.