Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 17, 2018

The same lawmakers who exploded the federal deficit by gifting millionaires and billionaires a favorable corporate tax bill are now telling the public that the way to fix the deficit is to shred the social safety net. Asked about the federal debt reaching $21 trillion and the deficit projected to top $1 trillion next year, McConnell did not mention tax cuts at all.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

New from us: Republicans are responsible for more than 100% of the deficit.
Bobby BOO!th Kogan

www.budget.senate.gov

@BBKogan
Including ensuing interest payments, in FY2018:

The Bush tax cuts cost $488 bn
The Trump tax cuts cost $164 bn
The overseas wars cost $127 bn
The base defense increases post 9/11 cost $156 bn

If not for those, the deficit of $779 billion would have been a surplus of $156 bn. .
https://twitter.com/BBKogan/status/1051943266567028738/photo/1

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-17 12:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The not so funny fact, cuts to SS and Medicare hurt Trump's base and McConnell's supporters just as much as it will hurt the rest of us but they will cream like stuck pigs when they finally figure it out. They're dumb. You just can't fix stupid. Oh, and I can't wait for the post that says because I call them stupid that's why they vote for Trump. Realize that just proves they are stupid. Republicans deserve to lose very seat in the Senate and the House, every governorship, every Legislator seat. Don't think it can't happen. Anyone remember the Whigs?

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-17 08:53 AM | Reply

Better find the best place under a bridge, now.

MAGA and DIE!!

#3 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-10-17 10:55 AM | Reply

I don't understand why you would post an article from ThinkProgress! That's like posting something from Breitbart.

#4 | Posted by JordyPete at 2018-10-17 11:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I don't understand why you would post an article from ThinkProgress! That's like posting something from Breitbart."

Not even close. Think Progress has a great reputation, it is not a propaganda portal to convey the lies of the right. Are you going to try and argue the truthfulness of the article? Did McConnell actually say what the article says he said?

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-17 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I don't understand why you would post an article from ThinkProgress! That's like posting something from Breitbart.

#4 | POSTED BY JORDYPETE

Are you saying ThinkProgress is lying about McConnell saying he wants to make these cuts?

#6 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-17 12:11 PM | Reply

#6 - It's the propaganda that goes along with it.

Again:
I don't understand why you would post an article from ThinkProgress! That's like posting something from Breitbart.

How about posting from a site that is honest... nevermind. That's impossible. It's difficult to have a discussion these days.

#7 | Posted by JordyPete at 2018-10-17 12:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wow, there are so many contradictions from other articles (Liberal and Conservative) in this one that it's more proof there is no true information to be found anymore. It's impossible to even begin anywhere without having to dissect all of it at the same time. Basically, someone just said, "Let me create an article that just bitches about everything that is wrong" and then made one. Unfortunately, that is the easiest but the worst kind of journalism in this country. No thought, just whining about what is wrong. Glenn Beck made a career out of it and look what happened to him.

#8 | Posted by humtake at 2018-10-17 12:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#5,
Danni, read the article again. The most dishonest part is the assumption that soaking the rich is going to solve the budget problem. Everyone in Washington knows that end game of that is more and more tax avoidance. If you believe that taxing the rich will solve the first world problems we have, you would be in the minority. You can't even define what poverty means! You want to give everyone in the country a college education! What? Are you going to hold a gun to their head?

ThinkProgress is as bad as Breitbart. It's a Leftists propaganda outlet. They are never honest. There is always going to be a Leftist, anti-American slant to every article. Yes, Breitbart is anti-American too. Anything or anyone that puts people into categories based on skin color or gender or anything else is anti-American.

#9 | Posted by JordyPete at 2018-10-17 12:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

- I don't understand why you would post an article from ThinkProgress!

Not too surprising... but the article is based on Senate Dem research which is easily verifiable.

And your #9 is just economic neo-liberal apologetics... with a smattering of fake news about the source.

en.wikipedia.org

As with most Republican policy, it is a throw-back to the 19th century.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-17 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

btw.... 100 SIGNS YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERTARIAN.

internetisinamerica.blogspot.com

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-17 12:36 PM | Reply

The funniest video on you tube is the one about obamacare and its' perception in a west virginia town. one guy is dying of emphysema and says that the insurance the ACA provided was the only thing keeping him alive. a woman who signs people up for healthcare that says she can't hardly stand to say "affordable health care act" and how Obama just makes her sick. if you truly love america, then sign up for that trump dating app...find out who they are and then take care of business.

#12 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-10-17 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Is it any wonder in red states the smart kid learn reading writing and relocating?

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2018-10-17 01:35 PM | Reply

Jordy sure has a ------ for ThinkProgress.

Regarding the $700 Billion+ deficit, McConnell said:

"It's very disturbing, and it's driven by the three big entitlement programs that are very popular: Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid...There's been a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs. Hopefully at some point here we'll get serious about this."
You can find the quotes on any of your favorite news sites that don't frighten you. So are you going to discuss the quotes or cry about a website?

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-17 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"it's more proof there is no true information to be found anymore. It's impossible to even begin anywhere without having to dissect all of it at the same time. "

Nonsense. The bottom lines are there for all to see: $2.1 trillion of tax cuts, followed by cries of pauperdom. Bailing out bankers to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars, yet crying poor when it comes time to help average Americans.

You're only unsure if you don't want to know.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-17 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#5,
Danni, read the article again. The most dishonest part is the assumption that soaking the rich is going to solve the budget problem. Everyone in Washington knows that end game of that is more and more tax avoidance. If you believe that taxing the rich will solve the first world problems we have, you would be in the minority. You can't even define what poverty means! You want to give everyone in the country a college education! What? Are you going to hold a gun to their head?

#9 | POSTED BY JORDYPETE

See, you say that, but it doesn't happen any time taxes are increased on the rich.

Why? Because the rich use every tax avoidance scheme already.

Taxing the rich frankly works. It works in every country that does it. It worked here for many years until Reagan took over.

So you are basing your point on what imaginary world?

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-17 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"Danni, read the article again. The most dishonest part is the assumption that soaking the rich is going to solve the budget problem."

Just eliminate the caps on income subject to SS and Medicare taxes. Case solved. Permanently. Nuf said.

"Taxing the rich frankly works. It works in every country that does it. It worked here for many years until Reagan took over. "

We paid down our war debt after WWII by taxing rich folks 94% on income over $200,000. It worked great.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-17 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Just eliminate the caps on income subject to SS and Medicare taxes. Case solved. Permanently. Nuf said.

Do you have the math to back that up? Also, if I'm not mistaken, at least in terms of SS some of the benefits are indexed to how much is contributed, so some of the revenues you think can just be had with the wave of a wand will also increase liabilities.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-17 02:29 PM | Reply

I understand the need to identify specific threats.

But the way this battle is fought, Republicans are ALWAYS ready to cut Social Security and Medicare.

They are like the Minutemen they told us about in grade school, ready to rush to Congress at a moment's notice and defend the rich when the call goes out.

It's just that most of the time they don't think they can get away with it and keep theit jobs or their majority.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-17 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As with most Republican policy, it is a throw-back to the 19th century."

So, that's what you're calling it now?

#20 | Posted by JordyPete at 2018-10-17 03:07 PM | Reply

#16 "Why? Because the rich use every tax avoidance scheme already."

Exactly.

#21 | Posted by JordyPete at 2018-10-17 03:13 PM | Reply

#17 "We paid down our war debt after WWII by taxing rich folks 94% on income over $200,000. It worked great."

Danni, you are like Ron Paul, but... different.

#22 | Posted by JordyPete at 2018-10-17 03:14 PM | Reply

The most dishonest part is the assumption that soaking the rich is going to solve the budget problem.

Yes but it makes those of us that aren't rich more likely to take our medicine.

#23 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2018-10-17 03:46 PM | Reply

#17 "We paid down our war debt after WWII by taxing rich folks 94% on income over $200,000. It worked great."
jordypete

you're right! that was the most prosperous time in american history at that time.

#24 | Posted by cjk85 at 2018-10-17 04:22 PM | Reply

It's difficult to have a discussion these days.

#7 | POSTED BY JORDYPETE

Especially with dain bramaged people that really believe (because people believe what they want to believe) a site like thinkprogress is anything like Breitbart. The two sites are not even remotely comparable. The fact that you think they are says a lot about you though.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-17 09:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

good people must get out and vote and vote Dem your life just might depend upon it

#26 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-10-17 10:00 PM | Reply

Think Progress is out hanging up all their scary Halloween decorations.

Entitlements aren't going anywhere.

#27 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-17 10:05 PM | Reply

"Think Progress is out hanging up all their scary Halloween decorations."

They quoted Mitch McConnell, Einstein.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-17 10:32 PM | Reply

This is Congress literally robbing America.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-18 12:24 AM | Reply

"Think Progress is out hanging up all their scary Halloween decorations"

You should of see the decorations over at Breitbart.

They could turn Boaz white. (If he had a soul)

Some oldies but goodies for your growing pleasure.

Enjoy! 😉

BILL KRISTOL: REPUBLICAN SPOILER, RENEGADE JEW

HOIST IT HIGH AND PROUD: THE CONFEDERATE FLAG PROCLAIMS A GLORIOUS HERITAGE

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES WOMEN UNATTRACTIVE AND CRAZY

TEENAGE BOYS WITH ----: HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH GHOSTBUSTERS

PAMELA GELLER'S MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST IS NO DIFFERENT FROM SELMA

THERE'S NO HIRING BIAS AGAINST WOMEN IN TECH, THEY JUST SUCK AT INTERVIEWS

One of my all time favorites:

THE SOLUTION TO ONLINE 'HARASSMENT' IS SIMPLE: WOMEN SHOULD LOG OFF

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-18 10:42 AM | Reply

I was curious, so i googled it. Per the CBPP, "Changes to the tax cap could close roughly a quarter to nearly nine-tenths of Social Security's solvency gap, depending on how they were structured." Additionally, "Including employer-sponsored health insurance premiums could close over one-third of Social Security's solvency gap; including other fringe benefits could close one-tenth." Finally, "Increasing rates alone could close the entire solvency gap; even a modest change, such as a gradual increase of 0.3 percentage points each for employees and employers (or less than $3 per week for an average earner), could close about one-fifth of the gap."

www.cbpp.org

There is literally no reason to cut benefits other than to be cruel.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 10:54 AM | Reply

There is literally no reason to cut benefits other than to be cruel.

#31 | POSTED BY JOE

Your c/p only addresses Social Security. Medicaid and Medicare are FAR bigger drivers of our debt. Some people would call what you just did "cherry-picking".

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 11:02 AM | Reply

More was spent on Social Security than on Medicare in 2017, and I never claimed to be answering every problem in the world, so some people would call your post "stupid."

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More was spent on Social Security than on Medicare in 2017

The issue is the trajectory - unfunded liabilities. Medicare is a much bigger problem than SS.

and I never claimed to be answering every problem in the world

Actually, you did. You zeroed in on SS and then claimed: "There is literally no reason to cut benefits other than to be cruel."

I pointed out that you cherry-picked SS when the thread title is: "McConnell Ready to Cut Medicare and Social Security"

So yeah, you cherry-picked.

some people would call your post "stupid."

#33 | POSTED BY JOE

ALL people would call you stupid.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 11:21 AM | Reply

So i can't make recommendations to save one program without solving all of them? Give it up, Jeff.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 11:24 AM | Reply

So i can't make recommendations to save one program without solving all of them? Give it up, Jeff.

#35 | POSTED BY JOE

They are joined at the hip. FICA taxes don't solely fund SS.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 11:39 AM | Reply

FICA isnt a tax, it's a statute. Social Security and Medicare are separately imposed taxes.

But you probably knew that; you're just pushing goalposts all around the field in some desperate attempt to play "gotcha." Sad, really.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 11:49 AM | Reply

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is the federal law that requires you to withhold three separate taxes from the wages you pay your employees.

Ditch the shovel, Joe.

Your core argument is: There is literally no reason to cut benefits other than to be cruel

And you demonstrated that by ONLY addressing SS funding. I pointed out the fallacy of your argument and you've been thrashing ever since.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 12:02 PM | Reply

You assume i was talking about anything other than SS benefits. I wasn't.

Are you done now?

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 12:06 PM | Reply

And your quote doesn't refute anything i said. Just because one law created three taxes doesn't mean you can't adjust one tax to fix one program.

I can't tell if you're really this stupid or if you're just pretending to be in some lame effort to "get" me. I also don't know which is worse.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 12:08 PM | Reply

Like I said, they are joined at the hip, along with Medicaid.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 12:09 PM | Reply

Just because one law created three taxes doesn't mean you can't adjust one tax to fix one program.

OK. But it doesn't address the broader problem. Unfunded liabilities (think about that) are over $100 trillion.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 12:11 PM | Reply

Ok. I never said it did.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 12:12 PM | Reply

Then I guess we are in agreement. See? Miracles do happen. :-)

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 12:13 PM | Reply

"Unfunded liabilities (think about that) are over $100 trillion."

And did you oppose the new tax code, or did you support exacerbating the problem?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 03:54 PM | Reply

Do any of the mouth breathing deplorables who oppose SS and Medicare even realize these aren't entitlements. But a retirement plan we all pay into?

Do any of the mouth breathing deplorables who oppose SS and Medicare realize before congress started playing with the money (thanks Republicans) there was a 2trillion dollar surplus in SS and Medicare funds?

Our nation has enough money to provide healthcare and an education for all it's citizens.

But.

Republicans, dumbest people in America and are gullible as fffk.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-18 04:05 PM | Reply

"Some people would call what you just did "cherry-picking"

JeffJ's been hearing that lots of people ate calling it cherry picking.

JeffJ are you channeling Trump consciously or subconsciously?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 04:12 PM | Reply

OK. But it doesn't address the broader problem. Unfunded liabilities (think about that) are over $100 trillion.

Still trotting out that horse ----?

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 06:21 PM | Reply

Still trotting out that horse ----?

POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-10-18 06:21 PM | REPLY

He's a useless Republican that's why. There's no such thing as unfunded liabilities for Social Security nor Medicare. IMPOSSIBLE.

www.theatlantic.com

(1) That's not our debt. Our $16 trillion in debt and our $87 trillion in "unfunded liabilities" represent two very different ideas: real past promises and projected future promises. Real past promises are, well, very real. We have to pay back our debt. Failing to do it would be an illegal and disastrous default. Unfunded liabilities are future promises, and, since they're not as real, we can change them whenever we want without destroying ourselves. For example, raising the taxable income ceiling and slowing the growth of benefits could reduce the Social Security gap to zero tomorrow.

And that's if there is a Social Security "gap" to begin with. Technically, it's not legal for Social Security to have "unfunded liabilities" since it can only pay as many benefits as it receives in earmarked taxes. Both it and Medicare hospital insurance are prohibited from spending money they haven't collected from specific revenue dedicated to their programs (i.e.: payroll taxes). It is impossible for either to technically be "unfunded", since they cannot legally outspend their funding.

#49 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-18 06:30 PM | Reply

It's called math, JPW. You should check it out sometime.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 06:32 PM | Reply

Laura's source says it's not legal to have unfunded liabilities. I guess the money will come from the Tooth Fairy.

The problem is this issue is beyond Laura's comprehension. JPW doesn't have that excuse.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 06:35 PM | Reply

www.washingtonpost.com

#52 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 06:42 PM | Reply

It's called math, JPW. You should check it out sometime.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ

It's called a projection.

It's garbage and has been shot down repeatedly when you insist on trotting it out.

www.theatlantic.com

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 06:43 PM | Reply

Thanks, Joe. That's the link I've posted over and over and over and over in response to Jeff sharting that nonsense.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 06:43 PM | Reply

Joe,

Your WaPo article links to a piece at Powerline which cites multiple Noble Laureate economists who have the number pegged over $200 trillion. The longer we wait to act the more austere the solutions become.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 06:51 PM | Reply

Anyone who supported trillions in tax cuts aimed at the world's wealthiest, and now pipes up about debts/deficits should respectfully STFU.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 06:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"The longer we wait to act the more austere the solutions become."

Why is austerity needed at all?
Why not just make the rich pay?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 06:53 PM | Reply

Well, that's certainly a reason to discard the entire WaPo article. What was i thinking?

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 06:55 PM | Reply

"The longer we wait to act the more austere the solutions become."'

Sounds like we need another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 06:55 PM | Reply

I read the entire WaPo article.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 06:59 PM | Reply

It's going to require raising the eligibility age and tax increases to even make the problem manageable.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 07:00 PM | Reply

Did it make sense?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 07:01 PM | Reply

It's going to require raising the eligibility age

No it isn't. That's one option.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 07:03 PM | Reply

"It's going to require raising the eligibility age and tax increases to even make the problem manageable."

Meanwhile, you vote for the party that's gleefully chained itself to Grover Norquist's "no new taxes" pledge.

Crocodiles are reporting severe eye strain and itchiness after you cried out so many tears they have none left.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 07:04 PM | Reply

I think that the budget should balance during good times, maybe even run a surplus. Deficits should be limited to recessions and war. That's it. In order to fully fund our government taxes need to be raised across the board. That includes the lower middle to upper middle class.

I'm all for it. People will like big government an awful lot less if they are forced to actually pay for it.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 07:15 PM | Reply

Jeff is lost cause. He's bought acreage on the Republican plantation and drinks freely from their koolaid.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-18 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I think that the budget should balance during good times, maybe even run a surplus"
~Jeff

"Deficits don't matter"
~Republicans

"You've got my vote!"
~Jeff

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 07:20 PM | Reply

"In order to fully fund our government taxes need to be raised across the board."
~JJ

"We're cutting taxes across the board"
~Rs

"You've got my vote!"
~JJ

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 07:22 PM | Reply

"He's bought acreage on the Republican plantation"

His rich in-laws bought it for their daughter and the lovable half-wit orphan she adopted.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 07:26 PM | Reply

Danforth,

Meaningful spending cuts and meaningfull adjustments to entitlements will never happen until people are forced to pay for government largesse in the short term and understand the entitlement trajectory long term.

If the Democratic Party EVER addresses either one in a meaningful and realistic way they will have my vote in a heartbeat.

The GOP isn't addressing it either. So I'm back at square-one. Which party has better policies in other areas. For me it's the GOP.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 07:27 PM | Reply

"If the Democratic Party EVER addresses either one in a meaningful and realistic way they will have my vote in a heartbeat."

Can you explain why Al Gore's Lock Box wasn't meaningful and realistic enough for you?

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 07:36 PM | Reply

#71. Sure. It only addressed SS. Also, neither party is talking about that notion today.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 07:38 PM | Reply

"Meaningful spending cuts and meaningfull adjustments to entitlements will never happen until people are forced to pay for government largesse in the short term and understand the entitlement trajectory long term"

Remember all your posts railing against adding trillions to the debt via tax cuts?

No one else does either.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 07:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If the Democratic Party EVER addresses either one in a meaningful and realistic way they will have my vote in a heartbeat."

That's incorrect. Both parties adhere to 1/2 of your equation; only one would agree to both halves.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 07:54 PM | Reply

"#71. Sure. It only addressed SS."

And why was that "not meaningful" and/or "not realistic?"

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-18 07:59 PM | Reply

Remember all your posts railing against adding trillions to the debt via tax cuts?
No one else does either.

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-10-18 07:50 PM | REPLY

Jeff BRAGGED about the Trump tax cuts so much so that he declared his brother received a thousand dollar bonus because of the tax cuts. Only problem with that narrative AT&T laid off 4000 people in the process.

#76 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-18 08:21 PM | Reply

Short term, the tax cuts are good.

They exacerbate the long-term problem.

Only problem with that narrative AT&T laid off 4000 people in the process.

#76 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Ny brother not only got a bonus due to the tax cuts, he got his annual raise as well. AT&T's structural problems that prompted the layoffs far preceded the short-term boon they received from tax relief.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 09:00 PM | Reply

That's incorrect. Both parties adhere to 1/2 of your equation; only one would agree to both halves.

#74 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Agreed. From my perspective spending is a far bigger problem than taxation.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 09:02 PM | Reply

Fact is. McConnell will succeed at his task.

He will be well paid for it.

Americans will be robbed.

Trumpublicans will cheer at their own loss.

America will become weaker.

And more like Russia.

#79 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-18 09:06 PM | Reply

"Short term, the tax cuts are good."

No, they're not.
~Sincerely, Math.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 09:28 PM | Reply

"My brother not only got a bonus due to the tax cuts, he got his annual raise as well."

The unit tried to bargain for a higher raise, but got a smaller raise and a bonus instead. And as anyone who does payroll knows, raises cost more than bonuses, because raises increase the floor for all future years.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 09:31 PM | Reply

I'm all for it. People will like big government an awful lot less if they are forced to actually pay for it.

#65 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Well, that depends on which form of big government you're referring to.

The current one with billions in corporate welfare, handouts to the rich and armies of lobbyists doing their bidding at the expense of everyone else?

Or the one most people want with decent, cheaper healthcare, affordable education, maintained infrastructure and a safety net that's there when you need it?

Because people voted for the second option when they elected Obama and Trump, only to get obstructed by the GOP and defrauded by Trump.

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 09:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

www.kansascity.com

As AT&T hails tax cut with bonuses for some workers, it hands pink slips to others

But The New York Post reports the company has laid off more than 700 DirecTV technicians. Said an AT&T spokesman: "We continue to align our workforce with the changing needs of the business. This includes some premises technician jobs."

Fox4 said the layoffs affect five states, including Missouri. The others are Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. It is not clear how many workers in the Kansas City area are affected.

"This is a difficult pill to swallow," Joseph Blanco, president of Local 6360 Communication Workers of America, told the TV station.

#83 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-18 09:41 PM | Reply

- the company has laid off more than 700 DirecTV technicians

Because they're using more contractors to do the same work. Almost all Telco outside plant work now is being done this way.

It started back in the late 90's. I took a buyout in 2005 from Verizon (was Bell Atlantic). Now I do the same gov't based work, but for a defense contractor.

IOW, the work itself didn't go away. Who cuts the paychecks changed hands.

#84 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-18 09:46 PM | Reply

Well, that depends on which form of big government you're referring to.

I'm opposed to all of it. Federalism. De-centralize the federal government, per it's Constitutionally constrained powers and let the states experiment with various forms of central planning.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 09:50 PM | Reply

I'm opposed to all of it.

Of course.

I'm for a balanced amount of it. We're not in the 19th century anymore where one's world is a 50 mile radius from the town they were born in.

#86 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 10:14 PM | Reply

"Because they're using more contractors to do the same work. "

When you say "contractors", are they being paid as independents, with no taxes withheld, or employees, where taxes are withheld from their paychecks?

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 10:15 PM | Reply

"I'm opposed to all of it."

"I'm for a balanced amount of it."

I just want to live up river.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 10:16 PM | Reply

#87 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

They're employees of a company who have a contract with the regional telephone company.
Major telcos like Verizon, Centurylink, AT&T don't just hire some dude with a truck. it just doesn't work that way.

#89 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-18 10:31 PM | Reply

#89 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Yes. Anecdotal - I work in distribution for a print-media conglomerate. Print media is a dying industry so cuts are a necessity. A few years ago our union contract was NOT renewed and distribution was contracted out. Not only did this save millions but after the transitional bumps out of the gate our service improved.

Like you said - the work is still being performed.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 10:50 PM | Reply

"They're employees of a company who have a contract with the regional telephone company."

So they may or may not have any benefits, like the unit members get.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 10:51 PM | Reply

"Major telcos like Verizon, Centurylink, AT&T don't just hire some dude with a truck. it just doesn't work that way."

Oh, it certainly does at times; I've had work done by clear stringers; the last installation guy was from out of town due to demand.

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-18 11:00 PM | Reply

Whoever installed the dish on your house worked for a contractor, who has a contract to provide labor to AT&T.

Whether the "guy was from out of town due to demand" is likely true. People have to go to where the work is in this business.

I've worked all over the country myself. The same is true for many craft trades.

#93 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-18 11:09 PM | Reply

#82 - Great post.

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-18 11:19 PM | Reply

Like you said - the work is still being performed.

#90 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

With more profit going to a few, resulting in less buying power by fewer employees which saps the local economy.

The inevitable end of the path we're on is an economy unable to hold itself up as the cap stone of the pyramid increases its own size by turning the base into swiss cheese.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-18 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JPW - the contractors I manage all make more than I do.

Nevertheless, I'm in a declining, if not dying, industry. The contractor model was inevitable in order to keep the ship afloat longer. It's different with a growing company.

It's the same question: Which is worse - a reorganization where the company stays afloat but the workers make less or the company goes out of business and the workers are now unemployed?

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-18 11:58 PM | Reply

"Whoever installed the dish on your house worked for a contractor, who has a contract to provide labor to AT&T."

So the guy turning the screws may or may not have been an independent contractor. Correct?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-19 12:01 AM | Reply

Nevertheless, I'm in a declining, if not dying, industry.

Which is, of course, slightly different from the norm.

The norm being shifting most workers to positions of lower pay and decreased benefits to maximize shareholder value.

Which is worse - a reorganization where the company stays afloat but the workers make less or the company goes out of business and the workers are now unemployed?

It depends on the context.

Is the company going out of business because an online seller can sell books cheaper or is it going out of business because the new CEO is also the head the hedge fund who bought the company and is using the soon to be bankrupt company as a conduit to personal wealth via debt and asset liquidation?

#98 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-19 12:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's quite an announcement, with about 2 weeks ahead of the vote.
Nice try but we're not biting.
Speaking of uncanny timing, it looks like Muleman is winding down.

#99 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-10-19 08:22 AM | Reply

Like everything emanating from Trump and the Republicans, the deficit crisis is a fraud, deliberately dramatized by the recent tax cut, which is the most immediate cause. The fraud is labeling those payments as "entitlements" when it is a pay as you go insurance program. Taking away benefits from which workers have paid into for a lifetime is stealing, which is what McConnell is attempting to do. His behavior must not be tolerated and if people have any brains they would run the bum out of office.

Social Security is currently running a surplus, any shortfall is not anticipated until 2042, although that depends on our economic health and taxation rates. Falling wages strains the social security system, raising the cap, or better yet eliminating the SS taxation cap solves any projected shortfall. Of course all this depends on a substantial percentage of the population continuing to work, which automation and robotics may threaten.

As far as medicare and medicaid are concerned removal of the taxation cap has a similar effect. But more importantly, if everyone is put on the same medicare system, costs will drop overnight somewhere between 25-50% by removing the insurance company cut and eliminating all the wasted time doctors, patients and insurance companies argue and litigate over who has to pay for those services. Litigation costs can quickly dwarf health care costs, something that can only happen in America where people seem to still be able to waste much and still survive.

Its hard to believe anyone could believe Trump's rants about how everyone will be screwed if Democrats are elected, while he's actively screwing us all. But amazingly, that happens here, exclusively in America.

#100 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-19 08:43 AM | Reply

"It's the same question: Which is worse - a reorganization where the company stays afloat but the workers make less or the company goes out of business and the workers are now unemployed?
#96 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Worse for whom?

Anyway, that sounds like a "lesser of two evils" question.

We should let SheepleSchism answer.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-19 02:53 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort