Because of the documentation I presented
here that show that public unions have most recently been declining, and that was before the war this year waged on unions by the GOP.
no, you showed that they had a slight decline in 2009 - a year in which unemployment rose and remained high in general. one year is not the same as "several years".
We will see in November of next year how the working class responds to this war that has been waged against them by not only attacking their rights to bargain collectively
well if Wisconsin (which was a light blue state to begin with) is any indication, the main "working class" that is upset is the people "working" for governments. only the public unions were effected by the recent legislation.
why do left-wingers insist on pretending that somehow the working class - which is a huge segment of the American population - can be defined solely within the context of public employee unions? that's like saying that the American economy can be defined by our top 10% of income earners.
but in the continued practice of tax cuts for the rich
(I think I've had to tell you this before) the 2012 House Budget plan is actually tax neutral. Indeed, it keeps top tax rates
higher than the President's own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission suggested - and
they estimated that the effect would actually be a tax
increase of $100 Bn. So according to one estimate, it's tax neutral and according to another it's a tax increase.
the House 2012 Budget asks the President to come together with Congressional leadership to figure out how to fix Social Security. Nowhere does it propose any policy changes whatsoever.
the House 2012 budget does not cut Medicaid. not a single dollar was spent last year that will not be spent next year, and not a single dollar will be spent next year that does not get spent the following year. Indeed, spending on Medicaid
keeps going up under the Republican plan. What happens
instead is that Medicaid is transformed into a block grant, which allows state governments flexibility in systematic reform, and removes their incentive to cram as many people as possible into the system to get that "free" federal money. If Medicaid expenditures go down
it will be because people are moving up. The mindset of someone who would see that as a negative boggles me.
Both Republicans and the Democrats plan to reduce Medicare expenditures. The Presidents' plan is to have the cuts get made through rationing, which would be planned by a bureacracy known as the IPAB, and would be imposed one-size-fits-all style on America's seniors and current retirees starting in 2014. The 2012 House plan is to allow retirees to allocate their own Medicare dollars so that
they decide what is important and what isn't (this is the same plan, btw, that members of Congress are on - I don't see many of them screaming about how what they need is an IPAB to make their decisions for them), but to keep the system currently in place for everyone 55 and older. So whereas the President intends to start cutting Medicare expenditures for our current retirees (who may or may not be able to make needed adjustments), the House plan is to start 10 years from now, so that anyone who will be effected will have plenty of time to plan.
One of these programs screws current seniors, the other doesn't.
