Maybe it's like that $75/hour the auto workers were supposedly making. - SM

Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees.

 FULL QUESTION

How much does a UAW member make at a domestic auto plant? Various sites have cited the figure at an average of seventy-three dollars an hour (The Heritage Foundation). Keith Olbermann says that the figure is actually at twenty-eight before benefits, which only add ten dollars to the amount. Other sources indicate that Toyota workers (who are not unionized) made more last year after profit sharing was calculated. So clear it up for us. What’s the real bottom line?

FULL ANSWER

$80K for teachers? What a crock! - wow

If all teachers everywhere - Fanatical Hypocrite

are getting $80K that is way too much considering the economy.  Very, very, very few teachers get that much though.  

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank20.html

As for school administrators, I have no idea what they get paid or how hard they work, so I won't venture a guess.  If they are being overpaid (as most bureaucrats are) then their pay should be reduced.  Also, get rid of sports before any academics.  There's cheaper and easier ways to injure children and give them lifelong health issues.  Huffing glue for instance.  

As for bridges, it still takes a great deal of manpower.  Robots help us build just about everything, yet they haven't replaced human beings.  Even if the individual parts were made only by robots, the assembly process involves no robots and is the most work intensive part.  Here's an interesting article about bridge building, historically and now:  

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge.html

In fact, a decent sized bridge requires a huge number of people and man hours.  As for this modular bridge building technique that can be done quickly and cheaply, the only thing I've ever heard of are temporary bridges, like the kind the military uses:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_vehicle-launched_bridge

Most bridges are huge undertakings.  Hence the reason 70,000 bridges in America are said to be structurally deficient.  Since most of our bridges can be repaired or reinforced, there's plenty of work for people.  Our country's crumbling infrastructure is a huge problem.  It's not simply an aesthetics issue, but one of safety and utility:  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/11/04/americas-most-dangerous-urban-bridges/

Spending cuts are important for cutting down the debt.  Although, I would prefer my spending cuts in the form of cutting waste first (no more delinquent defense contracts, legalizing pot, taxing it and granting retroactive amnesty to anyone imprisoned for possessing or dealing to adults, fossil fuel subsidies, tobacco subsidies, corn subsidies, subsidies to any company making insane profits, complete overhaul of the medical billing system to lower costs on ObamaCare and Medicare, ending all three wars, stop sending vehicles, weapons and explosives to other countries, selling Alaska to the Russians, etc.)  However, cuts alone won't get us what we need.  We need to let the Bush tax cuts expire and close massive corporate lax loopholes like offshoring money.  

If AT&T wants to be in the Cayman Islands, they can move there.  In fact, AT&T, nevermind, just leave.  Go Galt.  I'm sick of your lousy customer service, your swiss cheese network coverage, your stupid phone plan and the fact that you charged me 80 dollars that one time for calls to a house 4 miles from where I live that was "outside the local call tree!"  And instead of trying of sending me a bill, you sent me to collections!  I had the money!!!  But I digress... where was I...

Budget Control Act - BillyJoe

"As for Dems trying to make a deal for cuts in return for revenue, check your history on how that worked in the past. Dems don't want cuts. They only want the revenue. If you can show me in writing by a neutral source (like other posters here wanted from conservatives), then by all means, I'd like to see it."

1) Budget Control Act
2) Is out of the mouths of Republicans sufficient of a source for you? Hal Rogers Republican from KY.  "Now, I don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to cutting spending. Since I've chaired this committee the last 2 years, we've cut $100 billion off of discretionary spending, 2 years in a row, going on a third. That's not happened since World War II. So I know whereof I speak."

3) Boehner.


1) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365enr/pdf/BILLS-112s365enr.pdf

2) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-01-15/html/CREC-2013-01-15-pt1-PgH109.htm

3)

I dont believe that is the case. - BillyJoe

Here it is - BillyJoe

12. The fiscal-cliff deal left $85 billion of cuts hitting March 1 through Sept. 30 — half from Defense, half from domestic accounts. Many programs are exempt, including Social Security, Medicaid, uniformed military, veterans benefits and some programs for the poor. Medicare will be limited to a 2 percent cut to providers. Everything else must be cut, program by program, line by line, with no flexibility. Agencies, congressional offices and the president’s own staff will have only seven months to make those cuts to their full-year budgets.

I was talking about the bills themselves, not something from newspapers - Truthhurts

My Mistake - BillyJoe

Reid vote procedural - BillyJoe

Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the info. - Truthhurts

A bigger of course, of course, is that a vote "for" or - "against" may be either or neither. :) n