Why are so many who are outraged over a fed. pay freeze fine with letting mid class tax cuts expire?

[phleshdef]

Its just a devil's advocate type of question. I personally would like to see middle class tax cuts extended and see everyone get raises, regardless of who they work for. Its called being an idealist.

But double standards perplex me. Like how the same people that always criticize the President for trying to deal with Republicans are yelling that he should have used a federal worker pay freeze as a bargaining chip to deal with Republicans.

Anyhow, if you are fine with letting middle class tax cuts expire, the federal pay freeze shouldn't bother you. In the long view, tax increases on the middle class will have a greater dollar cost to the middle class than any 2 year pay freeze on federal workers would have, mainly because there are a lot more people in the middle class than there are that work for the federal government.

On a side note, I do wish I could get away with accusing my employers of "cutting my pay" every year they don't give me a raise without looking foolish for making such a weak argument.

[vi5]

1. I can only speak for myself.....

But even based on what I've read elsewhere, there are 2 things at play for me
1) the pre-emptiv capitulation and the negotiating with himself before he even gets to the bargaining table that is infuriating. He does this every time. Every. Single. Time. On every major issue. If he fought a hard battle over the deficit and budgets and all that and everyone wound up bloodied and bruised on both sides and the pay freeze came out of it....it would still suck that anyone had to have their pay frozen but if it was a casualty of a hard fought battle then it would go down slightly easier. But he didn't. Once again he's barely within shouting distance of the negotiating table and he's already throwing things overboard in an attempt to appear "bipartisan" to a group of people for whom their is no bipartisanship and who will never give up anything.

2) It's the fact that once again it's unions who are being asked to take hits and to give up what they've fought for. It's punishing a group who DID fight hard for what they wanted and who DID go at things aggressively and as a result gave themselves some security in a tumultuous time. It's once again asking union people to sacrifice and be sacrificial lambs, instead of the real culprits with the deficit. If he did this in conjunction with a decrease in military spending, a pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan or something else where other groups (especially Republican base groups) were being asked to sacrifice as well then so be it. But he's not suggesting those other things and we all know the repubs won't give them up willingly.

So....yeah. Off the top of my head this is why I think it's a bad idea and why I'm against it. Tax cuts aren't the same thing as salaries so it's not an apples to apples comparison. An apples to apples comparison would be asking private companies to freeze workers salaries but not asking government workers to do the same.

Oh and edited to add: I'm not o.k with the middle class tax cuts expiring. I think they should be extended. But I don't think they should be extended if the only price for doing so is extending the upper class cuts.

[phleshdef]

4. You lost me at the pretentious "pre-emptive capitulation" comment.

And you missed my point about "bargaining with Republicans". Anytime he actually tries to bargain with them, he gets shat upon. Now that he isn't trying to, he is getting shat upon.

You assume that he is doing this for Republicans. Its more likely he is doing this to show the country that he is serious about deficit reduction, even in a symbolic sense. After all, that worked very well for Bill Clinton, so why wouldn't he go that route.

If this were actually a pay cut in the real sense and not some bullshit philosophical sense then I would understand the outrage.

It is an apples to apples comparison. Either people have more money next year or they have less. Whether that effect happens via a tax cut or a tax increase or a pay cut or a salary freeze or what have you is irrelevant.

[displacedvermoter]

10. Every time he bargains he does get shit on, by the GOP

and some of you seem to think that this is a good thing.

Your assumption that he isn't doing this for the Republicans is absurd, as it is the republians have shown themselves to be complete hypocrites on the issue -- Cheney said Reagan proved deficits don't matter, but now the GOP and apparently Obama consider them critical -- and he is playing right into their hands. Same with the Simpson Commission. Did he do that for us?

Recent polling shows that being serious about deficit reduction isn't anywhere near the top of the people's concerns, but Obama seems to think that as it is improtant to the GOP, he needs to look tough on this.

Ideological nonsense and weakness come together to hurt working people, Unions, and the poor. Again, a hallmark of the current regime.

[phleshdef]

13. Your assumption that public polling means anything is absurd.

This is the same public that sent Bush to the White House, TWICE. This is the same public that supported the Iraq war whole heartedly when it was first going down. The hell with public polling. The public is full of low information idiots who don't know what to be concerned about and I'm not afraid to say it. Deficit reduction DOES matter, a LOT. More for progressive causes than anything else.

You just WANT to believe that this is somehow a move to kiss Republican ass because it kisses the ass of the false narrative that you want to push. Yet there is really no evidence for that at all. Obama talked about doing this sort of thing during the State of the Union and he campaigned heavily on the need to reduce deficits.... which is something Democrats tend to do when they are President, unlike Republicans who always raise deficits and just talk about how they need to be reduced.

But go ahead and keep pretending that a salary freeze will actually have some grand negative effect on the only workers in the country that have gotten raises for 10 consecutive years.

[displacedvermoter]

16. And the same fucking public that sent Obama to the White House

so your point is what?

I wanted to believe that my fears that Obama was not up to the job -- didn't think any of his competitors was either to be honest -- and would not cave to the pressures he would surely face from the gangsters in the GOP were unfounded. My fears were proved accurate.

But go ahead and keep pretending that everything will be fine as long as Obama does just enough to get reelected.

The election results of November somehow convinced some folks here that all is well. For the life of me I don't understand.

[phleshdef]

19. So maybe you just voted for Obama because it was the popular thing to do then.

I voted for him because he was the best choice. Maybe next time you shouldn't rely on polling to decide who you are going to vote for as the basis of your argument can only lead to such a conclusion.

[displacedvermoter]

23. What?

Are you saying that when I had to choose between Obama and McCain I made the wrong choice voting for Obama?

Where do you guys get your talking points?

[phleshdef]

26. No, that was all you.

Of course it doesn't really make sense, but you were having such fun getting yourself wound up in your own attempt to make a weak argument about public opinion that I had to have some fun with it too.

[vi5]

14. I lost you? Oh dear, no.......say it isn't so.

He's not bargaining with the republicans? O.K. so I was giving the benefit of the doubt in that he was still being naive and did this out of negotiation. Which is still better than actually believing Republican talking points about the deficit and acting on them, which is the other option in this case.

And as far as "showing the country he is serious about deficit reduction", apparently you haven't seen nearly every single poll which shows that the country doesn't give a damn about the deficit. Again, the only people who do are Republicans looking to kill anything and everything that democrats want (with a little help from our president of course).

And do you really want to compare him to Bill Clinton? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Fine. Like I said if Obama is serious about the deficit and vetoes any tax cut for the above $250K crowd, even if it's temporary then I'll buy that comparison and believe he's serious about the deficit rather than just trying to get the Republican media to say nice things about him.

Also, I should have known you weren't playing "devils advocate" as much as just trying to get people to agree with your point. Someone announcing that they're playing devil's advocate is pretty much of the same sincerity level as someone pre-empting something racist by saying they're not racist.

And seeing your response to the person above, if he is doing this to "show the country he is serious" then if the country is as stupid and low information as you say then why would he be trying to show them that? You can't have it both ways although (big shocker) I'm going to guess that you'll try.

[phleshdef]

17. Every single poll, at one time, favored war with Iraq. You know what you can do with your polls.

Obama is pushing to raise taxes on the wealthy, so thats a non-argument.

I am playing devil's advocate and quite successfully and evidenced by your foamy mouthed ranting.

And yes, he is trying to show the low information public that he is serious about it. And yes I CAN have it both ways. I believe the country is generally low information when it comes to politics. I also believe that you don't have to be anything beyond low information to understand what the deficit is and that if something isn't done about it now then taxes will eventually have to skyrocket in the future. You don't have to be a political junky to get that. See, thats me having it both ways and loving every second of it.

[vi5]

21. Devils Advocate

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

Speaking of frighteningly low information people....I guess I've got another one to add to my list.

Have fun.:hi:

[phleshdef]

22. I don't necessarily agree with a pay freeze. So yes, its 100% correct in the context.

I'm just not outraged by it, so maybe thats the difference.

Playing word nazi isn't helping your argument at all though. It just makes you look cheap and desperate. Try a better tactic.

[displacedvermoter]

25. What "foamy mouthed ranting"

are you talking about?

Again, are your instructions to not only pump up the President regardless of what he does, but to also dismiss all disagreement in as nasty a fashion as possible?

[peace13]

2. Yes, I would love to make what I made ten years ago.

These folks have been getting raises over the last ten years. They will have to get over it. It is sad but those at the bottom of the scale have a job at least. Most non-fed jobs have had pay increases frozen years ago. Where does this outrage come from?

[harun]

3. Letting the Middle Class tax cuts expire means also expiring

the Upper Class tax cuts. Freezing Fed pay only hit's the Middle Class.

But I am not outraged over the fed pay freeze, it is better than laying people off. I would rather have them keep pay increases and institute a hiring freeze though. I feel they took the option that would win them the most political points, instead of what was best for the employees.

Also no one thinks they would actually let the Middle Class tax cuts expire. It is political death to both parties and it would hurt the economy. The small amount of debt reduction that would occur isn't worth the political fallout, hence we know they won't really do it. We just want to see them end the tax cuts for the top, instead of caving on yet another issue.

[phleshdef]

6. No one things they would actually let them expire? Really?

The hell they won't. The Republicans will in fact shoot the hostage as they have proven time and time again.

[xchrom]

5. simpson bowles must have a lot of support on DU. nt

[phleshdef]

7. Actually if you trash their social security/medicare recommendations, I'm all for most of it.

We have a deficit to pay down and I'm sick of so called deficit hawks using it as a weapon anytime they want to kill spending that will help people with healthcare, unemployment and education expenses. Its time to take that weapon away from them and shove it up their asses. If we didn't have a deficit problem, then they wouldn't be able to kill progressive legislation with it.

[xchrom]

8. the problems with the deficit do not have to be paid on the backs of the people.

so, why start then with the recommended freeze?

why is there only one narrative allowed on board -- the so called 'shared sacrifise' -- that never really gets shared except by lower and middle classes?

[phleshdef]

9. It didn't START with freezes. The President has been making deficit reduction moves for 2 years.

[displacedvermoter]

11. And what good has that done us, one might ask.

Has the real world economy improved for the man-on-the-street, has the US's economic standing improved on the world stage?

Would not a vigorous program of public work creation ala the New Deal -- which would have created a larger deficit but would have also created a stronger infrastructure -- been a better thing for all of the economy? Instead of naming deficit reduction as his number one priority, wouldn't taking a stand on rebuilding our crumbling nation have been more beneficial?

We are so proud of our President getting elected, that we no longer care about his stand on the issues really impacting real people.

But jeez, it looks like he is going to get reelected so that is all OK, damn the consequences.

[phleshdef]

15. The good that comes from paying down a record high deficit can't be seen in 2 years.

But had Obama walked into the Whitehouse with the same surpluses Bush got, you can guarantee it would have done a LOT of good. All this wasted energy fighting the deficit argument would have never happened. We actually COULD pass more spending for infrastructure and those sorts of things without having blue dog Democrats yell about deficits every step of the way. If Obama can bring back surpluses, then the next Democratic President might actually have a chance at working an agenda without the spending stigma.

Its the political long view and you would best improve upon your own sense of patience and attention span if you don't want it to frustrate you.

[displacedvermoter]

20. People in my world are suffering now, and the long

view is a luxury folks like you apparently have.

It is good to get lectured from people in a condo somewhere sitting at a computer, while the people I work with everyday are facing all manner of cuts -- while we spend billions of dollars on wars that the Obama administration continues to prosecute. Day care centers and health care facilities continue to close, while we spend our fortune on war.

Patience is a virtue you can apparently well afford, so good for you.

[phleshdef]

24. Fine lets do it your way. Help everyone that needs it now so we can fuck them all later.

If we don't get a handle on our deficits thats exactly what will end up happening. You think the Republicans are making a case now against helping people because of the deficit, just wait until it grows even higher and then even higher. Putting it off is only going to strengthen the argument that deficits are such a problem that we have to forsake social safety nets to take care of them. We have a chance to minimalize that NOW and take that away from them altogether.

Your judgemental bullshit doesn't phase me. I grew up poor and paid for my college entirely with student loans. And I don't want to see the next generation be denied the opportunities things like student aid grants them because we put off the deficit for another decade. Apparently, you don't give a shit about that.

[xchrom]

12. no but it's the first on the recommendations from simpson bowles

to be acted on. one year short.

so now he goes into a huddle with republicans on short term governing agendas -- and we're already signaling we will
play on the republican playing field.

so where do we go from here?

why is the ONLY NARRATIVE ALLOWED the 'shared sacrifice' narrative that isn't?
why not tax rises, closing tax loopholes on corporations, collecting taxes from corporations for fuck's sake, etc

the wage freeze is just part of a larger assault on us.
i'm not willing to be divided on the subject -- i'm not willing to throw one damn worker under the bus.

[phleshdef]

18. We HAVE closed some tax loopholes. We ARE pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Why not pay attention to positive measures that actually have happened over the past 2 years instead of coddling closely to the only ones that suit the argument you want to make.

[xchrom]

29. ...

:woohoo:

[harun]

27. Our deficits were made by wars and defense spending. It is there we should cut.

[phleshdef]

30. Not just that, also tax cuts for the wealthy and the POS medicare plan Republicans passed.

We undid the POS medicare plan, mostly. We are working on raising those tax levels.

We do need to cut the hell out of defense of course. But even if we do that, we all ready spent the money on the wars. Stopping the wars isn't going to bring that money back, it will just stop the bleeding. We still owe it either way.

[displacedvermoter]

28. How many of these do you guys get assigned each day?

And are you instructed to insult people in each posting?

[phleshdef]

31. Yea because I can't have a free thought that opposes your grand knowledge of the world...

...without having it been assigned to me.

Just more soft bigotry from people who have no sense of when to recognize it.

[displacedvermoter]

32. It smells like team spirit to me

from a select crew. Sorry if that somehow equates to soft bigotry.

Do you intentionally insult people in all your posts with stuff about "foamy rants" and "grand knowledge of the world" or can yuo just not help it?

I will let you get the last word in on this, as I am sure I will see you insulting people who disagree with you down the road.

[phleshdef]

33. LOL. I don't mind being insulted, but apparently you are super sensitive about it.

You really should stay away from political arguments if thats the extent of the fortitude of your sensibilities.

My whole point is, that if you care about the middle class so much that a federal wage freeze (not a cut, not a layoff) angers you so much then you should be equally angry at allowing middle class tax rates to rise from current levels. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. And if you use the argument that the public doesn't care about the deficit as a reason not to be interested in it, then you shouldn't give a shit whether we raise taxes on the wealthy or not.

I don't think the wage freeze is a good idea because its not going to make a significant impact. I also do not believe its the end of the world or some terribly evil thing to do. You act like these people were all going to get $5,000 salary increases next year or something. In truth, any increases would have been insignificant chump change for a struggling family.

[golfguru]

34. It is really very simple....to avoid another shellacking in 2012

The published unemployment rate is 9.6%
If you include people over 18 and under 65 without jobs,
25 to 30% of adults have no jobs, or have poorly paid part time jobs.

That is the real problem. That is why there was shellacking on November 2nd.
It haqd nothing to do with Obama's popularity. He is still very popular.

The unemployment rate needs to come down to normal levels, under 6%.
Otherwise there will be even worse shellacking in 2012.

So, whatever needs to be done to improve employment is all that matters.
IMHO, the best approach is to eliminate all taxes on small businesses earning
less than a couple of million dollars per year. That does not include rich people
who do not run a business employing many people. CEO's and actors and sports figures
and stock traders should have their tax cuts expire.

As for federal workers, their wages should be in line with wages in private sector.
Just leave it at that.

[Kweli4Real]

35. Actually,

I would say the announcing a pay-freeze is a politically smart thing to do that is completely unrelated to "negotiating against oneself, kissing republican ass, or being non-supportive of the middleclass.

As phleshdef mentions, announcing the freeze takes deficit reduction off the table and sets the administration up to make the argument "I have done stuff to cut the budget, something you claim to want; but your only offerring is to continue and to the budget."

And BTW, as one whom hasn't had a pay-raise in over 10 years (except through promoting into high positions), a pay freeze does not hurt nearly as much as pay cuts via furloughs, wage reductions or lay-offs.

[Clio the Leo]

36. "Its called being an idealist." ... HA!

Great question.