Military retirees, budget cuts, and politics

[Kyle Reese]

Military retirees are outraged that Congress will start voting Thursday on a budget deal that trims military pensions, calling the move "an egregious breach of faith."

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/12/news/economy/military-pensions-budget/index.html

[Joseph B.]

That is just crazy….oh and I just love how the point that retirees from the military don’t work as long (i.e. retiring at 40’ish vs 60’ish) yet fail to address that most people do not start a civilian career until they are almost 30 years old, that most military retirees, go right back to work after leaving the military, and that most civi’s do not have to deploy all over the world, be shot at, blown up and possibly/likely come home crippled. Retards…

I really think all the playing around with the Army regs and policies, and stuff like the pay increases, retirement ages, pension adjustments and COLA reductions, are all part of a bigger picture, where they are trying to discourage longer service and completely gut the current reliability of the human factor.

We don’t need to send pilots, we can just use a UAV….and we don’t need to pay a person to be in the military to become a UAV pilot, we will just hire contractors for that…the future is going to be very different for the US Military.

[JV_]

most people do not start a civilian career until they are almost 30 years oldDo you have some data to back this up? It certainly does not mesh with my experience.

[Cookie Monster]

Do you have some data to back this up? It certainly does not mesh with my experience.

I don't got a dog in the fight.

Myself and my peers graduated college, wandered around, worked random jobs, some went to grad school, wandered around, and ended up finding out way into careers in our late 20's and early 30's. Small data set but I only have one friend who went straight out of college into a career. My people were mostly environmental folks.

In these time, automatic cost of living raises are less and less common. Federal civilian pay has been frozen since 2009, I believe. Last fiscal year any sort of awards were forbidden.

Moving forward it is going to be different. My co-workers are counting on social security went they retire. I doubt it will be around I retire.

Cookie Monster.

[ToddG]

The proposal trims COLAs for retirees under the age of 62 who were already getting full CPI COLAs (not all retirement programs granted such). As I understand it -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- people under the REDUX system will still get the normal COLAs they've always been promised.

None of which changes the fact that people under pre-REDUX (or who opted not to do REDUX) will see their COLAs lowered which can have a significant impact on lifetime retirement payment total.

Government pensions are a huge liability and I understand why they have a big bullseye on them when the bean counters look for ways to save money. However, a pension isn't just a commitment to do something nice for someone once he's retired. It was part of his compensation from day one. People most certainly make career selections based on retirement factors and having a guaranteed paycheck from a pension is a bonus that makes poorer pay or other reduced benefits worthwhile. Coming in years (or decades) after the fact and telling those people we're not going to pay them what they earned isn't just wrong, it's criminal.

And these ideas always spring from the same people who'd lose their minds if you suggested that iPhones and high-speed internet weren't "critical" items that lower-income households should be getting for free, or if you suggested reducing any other welfare program by 1% per year to their constituents.

As for the idea that most civilians don't start their careers until they're almost 30, I guess that depends on how you choose to define things. Plenty of people start in one job (like, say, the military) but don't stick with it through to retirement. They're still in the workforce, though, and most of them are working either from their late teens or early 20's depending on whether they attend any post-secondary education.

[JV_]

Federal civilian pay has been frozen since 2009, I believe.http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2012/08/pay-raises-and-colas/57196/
It looks like there was a 2 year stretch of no COLA/raises. It differed for retirees and current employees.

And FWIW, the 'Federal Government' COLAs only apply to the executive branch. The Judicial and Legislative branches are not under OPM and can do whatever they feel is necessary/needed.

[Joseph B.]

Do you have some data to back this up? It certainly does not mesh with my experience.

No I do not have any data to support it. I heard it in an ACAP brief when I was retiring, and took it at face value. It was explained that most people do not enter into a trade training program or higher learning education school until they are in their early 20’s and normally do not complete and start a career until their late 20’s early 30’s. It was given as an example of draw backs and advantages of military services as competitive to the civilian workforce, also to encourage immediate education or making use of government hiring preference, while making the transition from the Army to the civilian workforce. It could have been an opinion of the lecturer, but it seemed to make sense.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'd like to see those guys collect for what they have gone through.

My dad never really got to, dead at 49 he was. Veteran of Korea and three tours of Vietnam, shot, blown up, agent orange, busted up knees, etc.

The .gov wants to use people up in the prime of their lives, deploy them all over the world in really crappy conditions, jack with having a family life, etc., and now they don't want to fully pay for the retirement they have earned with sweat and blood? Sure, trim all of the congress, senator and POTUS pensions first.

[ford.304]

I'm one of the first guys to hop on the "government pensions are too high" bandwagon. But you cut future pensions, not current ones. Cutting pension someone has already earned is straight out theft.

[JHC]

The proposal trims COLAs for retirees under the age of 62 who were already getting full CPI COLAs (not all retirement programs granted such). As I understand it -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- people under the REDUX system will still get the normal COLAs they've always been promised.

None of which changes the fact that people under pre-REDUX (or who opted not to do REDUX) will see their COLAs lowered which can have a significant impact on lifetime retirement payment total.

Government pensions are a huge liability and I understand why they have a big bullseye on them when the bean counters look for ways to save money. However, a pension isn't just a commitment to do something nice for someone once he's retired. It was part of his compensation from day one. People most certainly make career selections based on retirement factors and having a guaranteed paycheck from a pension is a bonus that makes poorer pay or other reduced benefits worthwhile. Coming in years (or decades) after the fact and telling those people we're not going to pay them what they earned isn't just wrong, it's criminal.

And these ideas always spring from the same people who'd lose their minds if you suggested that iPhones and high-speed internet weren't "critical" items that lower-income households should be getting for free, or if you suggested reducing any other welfare program by 1% per year to their constituents.

As for the idea that most civilians don't start their careers until they're almost 30, I guess that depends on how you choose to define things. Plenty of people start in one job (like, say, the military) but don't stick with it through to retirement. They're still in the workforce, though, and most of them are working either from their late teens or early 20's depending on whether they attend any post-secondary education.

The details also include the provision that younger retirees affected by the COLA reduction, will upon reaching the age of 62, have their payments recalculated to catch up the years of COLA reduction. I haven't seen any of the "top line" news articles get that deep into the details.

http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364048

Are there any counter proposals out there with less painful ways to lower the personnel costs in the future?

[littlejerry]

Disclaimer: I believe all of our service members deserve the fullest compensation for what they have done and the sacrifices they have made.

But, unfortunately they were lied to. Someone told them "Don't worry, we can't pay you today, we'll pay you tomorrow" and they bought it.

The math of the situation is that anyone who is expecting a payout from the Federal government in the near future is going to be severely disappointed. Promised or not that money doesn't actually exist(as of today, 50% of what we are spending doesn't exist and its trending in the wrong direction).


Do you have some data to back this up? It certainly does not mesh with my experience.

That doesn't mesh with my experience either. I went straight into college out of high school and started my career immediately out of college. But it also doesn't have anything to do with when I retire...

[Drang]

But, unfortunately they were lied to. Someone told them "Don't worry, we can't pay you today, we'll pay you tomorrow" and they bought it.
Personally, I've been expecting this crap since before I even dropped my retirement packet.

[JV_]

I went straight into college out of high school and started my career immediately out of college. But it also doesn't have anything to do with when I retire...Yep. I had a two week break between college graduation and starting my new job, and those two weeks were over Christmas. None of my friends that I've kept up with have done anything different.


It was part of his compensation from day one. People most certainly make career selections based on retirement factors and having a guaranteed paycheck from a pension is a bonus that makes poorer pay or other reduced benefits worthwhile. Coming in years (or decades) after the fact and telling those people we're not going to pay them what they earned isn't just wrong, it's criminal.I wholeheartedly agree. And to add to this, the FERS retirement compensation, unlike CSRS, is based on that employee receiving social security as part of the package. When there's talk of SS cuts, are they cutting it for the folks who had that in their retirement package?

I'd like to see us offer folks buyouts from their retirement packages.

[JHC]

Today's Tricare wasn't part of the comp package decades ago but my sense is shutting it down (which as been discussed) would be far more painful than making up the COLA cut at age 62.

[Corvus]

Congress has betrayed every productive person in the US , not just those who draw a check from the gov't. The gov't needs to be cut and cut big and it is long past due. Plenty of people in the private sector have lost big and I have yet to hear any of them whine and cry like spoiled gov't workers do.

What was promised was not reasonable and yet there are still those taking gov't jobs today expecting to get the same big payouts. If you hand over your life savings to some person in Africa you only met through an email so your share from a gold mine can be mailed to you I will not feel sorry in the least. The productive people in the private sector should not be on the hook for everything that everybody on the gov't payroll feels they deserve.

There is a pile of money that comes from the private sector taxpayer , it is taken by threat of force and imprisonment. This pile is where those gov't benefits come from and it is the same pile that welfare and food stamps come from. People in gov't need to remember where it comes from a little more often.

Those that have truly sacrificed such as WW2 combat vets deserve much more than they got , many others get much more than they deserve.

[JV_]

Plenty of people in the private sector have lost big and I have yet to hear any of them whine and cry like spoiled gov't workers do.Government pensions, like FERS, are partially paid by the employee. They're paying in to it every month, in addition to paying social security, and they can't opt out.

I hear just as much complaining from private sector union workers, who've had their pensions cut, as I do from government employees. Besides, it's part of the compensation package. Many of them take far less salary for the job in return for better benefits, some also get more job security.

[BaiHu]

I hear just as much complaining from private sector union workers, who've had their pensions cut, as I do from government employees. Besides, it's part of the compensation package. Many of them take far less salary for the job in return for better benefits, some also get more job security.

This is somewhat of a facetious statement, but isn't a "private sector union worker" and a "government employee" a distinction without a difference these days?



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[JV_]

but isn't a "private sector union worker" and a "government employee" IMO, No. There are plenty of government employees that aren't GS employees, under OPM, and aren't afforded the same benefits.

A friend of mine recently took a job, not under the Executive branch / OPM, and he signed forms on his first day stating that he's not a GS employee and can be fired for any (or no) reason and at any time.

It's just like the news around DC saying "The Federal Government is Closed Today". No, it's not. The Executive branch may be closed, but there are two other branches of government that are (potentially) still open. Whenever the news states something about the "Federal Government", you can almost always substitute that with "the Executive Branch" and it will be a lot more accurate.

[BaiHu]

Thanks JV.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[JHC]

I think it was a decent deal to get out of the self defeating cycle of continuing resolutions and government shutdown brinkmanship. You keep that up; you lose national elections. You keep losing national elections you can't undo squat. Basic civics. Controlling the House alone does not a repeal of O'care or major reform of the entitlements sinkhole make.

Also without this deal, continuing the sequester cuts was going to do progressively more damage to the national defense including personnel.

[Kyle Reese]

Where are the corresponding cuts to runaway entitlement programs / spending?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[JV_]

Actually this new budget undoes much of the sequester cut, and makes it so future spending increases only require a majority vote, not a super majority.

[littlejerry]

Where are the corresponding cuts to runaway entitlement programs / spending?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

They won't come until the bond market crashes and we lose over half of our budget overnight. Then everyone will have stupid looks on their faces and demand answers for "how did you let this happen."

[BaiHu]

They won't come until the bond market crashes and we lose over half of our budget overnight. Then everyone will have stupid looks on their faces and demand answers for "how did you let this happen."

QE 4evah!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[JHC]

"The bill has a "catchup provision" so that at age 62 the retiree's pension goes up to where it would have been without the COLA reduction. "I don't think people know there's a catchup provision," said Ryan. "Once they hit the age of 62, this provision recalculates their benefits so they get the full adjustment for inflation and their pension pay goes up as if nothing had happened. And from then on they have full inflation protection."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-defends-reduction-cost-living-adjustments-early-military-retirees_770921.html

[JHC]

Where are the corresponding cuts to runaway entitlement programs / spending?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

The heavy lifting there will need a cooperative Senate and President of course.

[Tamara]

The heavy lifting there will need a cooperative Senate and President of course.

...and House.

All made up of politicians who are willing to get fired for making the tough cuts rather than get reelected for bringing home the pork.

I see no evidence that causes me to think this is a thing likely to happen.

[JHC]

...and House.

All made up of politicians who are willing to get fired for making the tough cuts rather than get reelected for bringing home the pork.

I see no evidence that causes me to think this is a thing likely to happen.

Very little has been offered for sure. The giant entitlement issue has had fixes designed by think tanks for years. If a pol gets seriously near it, he/she is pilloried. Its the rare elected official that will volunteer for that. We bitch about it all the time. No guts.


Which brings us back to the article in the OP and Paul Ryan.

[Hammer21b]

Guys, this is my first post, and let me say thaks for allowing me the opportunity to join. As a recently retired Army combat veteran with 30 of service, I think I'm qualified to speak on this subject. Someone has already hit the nail on the head that our retirement is not a handout, it was part of the deal! We knew coming into this that the pay and hours sucked. We knew we'd be dragging our families all over the world, that we'd loose freinds and not keep in contact with family, that there would be new schools every 2 or 3 years, that family would be left to fend for themselves while soldiers were deployed (again and again, and again). But this is the end gain. And now, after 30 years of getting shot at, blown up, my knees, back and neck bad, they have cut the Tricare program, and now want the retirement that I have endured all of this for back!? Lets first start with Congress' s paycheck! They have been the most ineffective part of government for years, lets take their retirement, how about the POTUS. Let's cut his retirment and protection detail after he leaves office. I could go on, but it won't make a difference. I've had soldiers while deployed worried about their wives and kids back home eating and keeping a roof over their heads. Soldier's dont make a lot, especially the lower enlisted. I've had soldiers whose family was drawing foos stamps, WIC, and any other assistance they could to survive. I didn't need this to be a distraction while in a combat zone! I've said for years that the military is not a social experiment! This crap about gays, women in combat units, ships, is crazy! We discriminate every day! If you're fat, we dont want you, if you cant run, we dont want you, if cant cope with military life, we dont want you! Military sevice is not a right, it's a privilege! There's a reason that less than 1 % of the population joins us. Leave us alone and follow thru on promises, and let us do our jobs! Sorry for the rant, as I said, this is my first post and I look forward being participating member of this forum.

[SGT_Calle]

Welcome and congratulations on your retirement. 30 years is a serious, admirable commitment.
You bring up a lot of great points, especially the fact that a lot of our junior Soldiers rely on government assistance (WIC, SNAP, etc..) which I don't think most people know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Kyle Reese]

Hammer21B,
Congratulations on your well earned retirement and for your faithful service. Welcome to the forum!

[TCinVA]

We're coming into times where pain will be inflicted somewhere. It's the reality of the math.

Modern politics assures that those who have the weakest political machine will feel the most of it.

[JHC]

We're coming into times where pain will be inflicted somewhere. It's the reality of the math.

Modern politics assures that those who have the weakest political machine will feel the most of it.

Other alternatives that have been considered and some recommended by DoD.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2012/05/07/11573/reforming-military-compensation/

[Tamara]

We're coming into times where pain will be inflicted somewhere. It's the reality of the math.

Modern politics assures that those who have the weakest political machine will feel the most of it.

We're just waiting for our Marius and Sulla at this point.

[NickA]

We're just waiting for our Marius and Sulla at this point.

Wasn't it one of those two who said "Do not speak of laws to men with swords"?
Might become all too appropriate.

[JHC]

This article is very unfortunately titled as emotions are running too high to be trifling.

But it has some interesting info about benefits paid above original retirement contracts/terms also. There are separate news releases on military.com that discuss that this same budget bill eliminated the planned hike in Tricare fees. When Tricare started in '96, the individual kicked in 27%. That is now around 11% IIRC.

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2013/12/heres-why-proposed-military-retiree-benefit-cuts-are-no-big-deal/75587/?oref=d-interstitial-continue

http://www.military.com/military-report/171k-retirees-may-get-tricare-prime-back

http://www.military.com/military-report/house-bill-stops-tricare-hikes?ESRC=miltrep.nl

[TCinVA]

My personal read on this is that this whole "You're being mean to veterans!" thing is a cynical ploy to try and derail any serious attempt at discussing our completely out of control spending (we have more people on food stamps than the entire nation of Germany has people...and they're one of the largest economic powers in the world) and to try and enhance the Dem position for the mid terms.

The old Washington trick of calling a COLA of X% instead of X+Y% is back in full force, it seems, and is as effective as ever. Those who remember the 1995 budget battle should remember this well. Not only can you not make an actual cut, but not supporting a large enough increase is the same as a "cut" in dem-speak. It's ridiculous.

The ugly truth is that every dime of the federal budget has a constituency. Farm subsidies are painted as keeping Ma 'n' Pa's farm operational, when in reality it's large agribusiness that's taking the lion's share of the subsidy. Medicare and medicaid are rife with fraud, but any attempt to do something about the out of control programs is being mean to old people and the indigent...etc.

From what I understand, COLA's for military retirement are no different than COLA's for any number of other federal programs like Social Security. They've always been at the discretion of Congress. A smaller COLA than the last one isn't really a betrayal of any contract terms as far as I can tell.

Sure, it would be ideal if military benefits weren't touched at all and instead we focused on the literally tens of millions of people who are third or fourth generation wards of the state first, but that's not how it's going to work absent a super majority of sensible people. Anyone who expects Washington to be swept up in a tidal wave of common sense in the next couple of years is in for disappointment.

Any attempt to reduce entitlement spending is going to bring along cuts to the DOD budget in one form or another, often in the most cynical way possible. That's going to be a legislative ploy to try and stop progress on anything meaningful. Specific projects important to congressional districts will be targeted for elimination not based on rational budget concerns, but in an effort to threaten Congressman X or Y so he/she doesn't vote for a bill that will compromise the goodie train. Just as the administration tried their very best to make the "government shutdown" (which absolutely wasn't) as painful as possible to teach the ignorant plebes a lesson, you can expect the "progressive" wing of politics to try and make bringing any attempt at reason to our national spending habits as painful as possible to key constituencies as a means of stopping progress altogether.

The fight hasn't even really begun yet. Lord help us when it does, because playing the resentment game is going to be huge business as politicians feverishly work to make person A resentful that their stuff is being cut because they deserve it, while person B isn't getting cut but should because they're scum who doesn't deserve what they're getting. The goal ultimately being that no progress whatsoever gets made, and that the few politicians who are serious about resolving the issue get tarred, feathered, and burned at the stake.

[Guinnessman]

Senate Dems block amendment to restore veteran benefits by closing illegal immigrant welfare loophole:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/senate-dems-block-amendment-to-restore-veteran-benefits-by-closing-illegal-immigrant-welfare-loophole/

[Kyle Reese]

Senate Dems block amendment to restore veteran benefits by closing illegal immigrant welfare loophole:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/senate-dems-block-amendment-to-restore-veteran-benefits-by-closing-illegal-immigrant-welfare-loophole/

Gotta protect their base, right?

[TCinVA]

Senate Dems block amendment to restore veteran benefits by closing illegal immigrant welfare loophole:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/senate-dems-block-amendment-to-restore-veteran-benefits-by-closing-illegal-immigrant-welfare-loophole/

Another tactic specifically to generate the headline "Dems screw veterans, vote for illegal aliens!"

Fighting fire with fire, of course, but it is what it is.

I'm rapidly forming the conclusion that being completely ignorant is the best way to go. You have just as much power to change things as the person who takes the trouble to educate themselves, but without the knowledge you don't get the rage to go along with your general sense of impotence.

[JHC]

without the knowledge you don't get the rage to go along with your general sense of impotence.

ooooh potential sig line :D

[littlejerry]

Another tactic specifically to generate the headline "Dems screw veterans, vote for illegal aliens!"

Fighting fire with fire, of course, but it is what it is.

I'm rapidly forming the conclusion that being completely ignorant is the best way to go. You have just as much power to change things as the person who takes the trouble to educate themselves, but without the knowledge you don't get the rage to go along with your general sense of impotence.

Being informed isn't about influencing the process, its about seeing the writing on the wall and preparing for the inevitable fallout.

[TCinVA]

Being informed isn't about influencing the process, its about seeing the writing on the wall and preparing for the inevitable fallout.

I'm reminded of being in the passenger seat of a BMW M5 at high speed in the moment just before it spun. I could tell that something was not going according to plan. All that really gave me was some more time to ponder how much slamming into that wall over there was going to hurt than the other passengers in the car.

That's pretty much how I feel about politics.

[David Armstrong]

IMO we'd all be much better off if we did away with the idea of defined benefit retirements entirely and force everyone into some sort of a 401K or something similar, be they government, military, union, and other. I'm a vet and I have worked for the govt. and I have never understood the idea of being able to retire at 37 and have a guaranteed salary for the rest of your life. Heck, I'm aware of folks who are getting multiple govt. retirements that add up to more than they ever got in a salary and are still working, drawing a taxpayer-funded paycheck while drawing multiple taxpayer-funded retirement checks.

[littlejerry]

IMO we'd all be much better off if we would let people manage their own money however they saw fit.

Fixed it for you.

Pay me what I'm worth for the work I do today. I'm not your problem when I leave.

Promising to pay me in 30 years for what I did yesterday is a scam.

[JHC]

IMO we'd all be much better off if we did away with the idea of defined benefit retirements entirely and force everyone into some sort of a 401K or something similar, be they government, military, union, and other. I'm a vet and I have worked for the govt. and I have never understood the idea of being able to retire at 37 and have a guaranteed salary for the rest of your life. Heck, I'm aware of folks who are getting multiple govt. retirements that add up to more than they ever got in a salary and are still working, drawing a taxpayer-funded paycheck while drawing multiple taxpayer-funded retirement checks.

That's what these guys are arguing.

"The current retirement system provides no retirement benefits at all to servicemembers who serve less than 20 years. If MOAA, which used to be called the Retired Officers’ Association, really cared about the overwhelming majority of the enlisted men and women who serve in the military, they would advocate scrapping the current outmoded retirement system in favor of a 401(k) type system for all who serve."

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2013/12/heres-why-proposed-military-retiree-benefit-cuts-are-no-big-deal/75587/?oref=d-interstitial-continue

The 401K ideas like this I've read of differ from mine in that DoD contributes for each service member vs me contributing myself from my comp IIRC.

Those are changes to phase in way in advance of course. It's hard to see how we are going to manage the current $100B personnel spend doubling by 2034.

[JV_]

The 401K ideas like this I've read of differ from mine in that DoD contributes for each service member vs me contributing myself from my comp IIRC.
FWIW: Employers matching a portion of employee contributions pretty common. Mine matches dollar for dollar, up to 5% of my annual salary.

[Joseph B.]

LMAO... if you want to cut guaranteed retirements, than 1) they need to pay a salary on par with the civilian sector, 2) provide better insurance and compensation for work related disabilities and 3) go to a strictly performance driven promotion and bonus system.

FYI: The civi counterpart of my job in Iraq paid between $130-$200k and offered better health and disability insurance, a 401k and had no "up or out" and promotion was strictly based on experience and performance, and bonuses, well a daily rate increase that would blow your mind for working during holidays, extended tours, etc.

The military has been getting off cheap frombthe very beginning and the only reason, was and is the retirement. If you pull that away, nobody in their right mind would serve for less than minimum wage longer than an enlistment. Personally, the retirement package is crap to begin with anyway, 50-70% of a crappy base pay, is crap. Unless you are E8-9 CW4-5 or O7-O10, the retirement is nowhere on par with the duties/responsibilities of the equivalent civi job. Not even close...

[JHC]

FWIW: Employers matching a portion of employee contributions pretty common. Mine matches dollar for dollar, up to 5% of my annual salary.

Roger that. Prior ones did. Current one it's all on me.

[JHC]

LMAO... if you want to cut guaranteed retirements, than 1) they need to pay a salary on par with the civilian sector, 2) provide better insurance and compensation for work related disabilities and 3) go to a strictly performance driven promotion and bonus system.

FYI: The civi counterpart of my job in Iraq paid between $130-$200k and offered better health and disability insurance, a 401k and had no "up or out" and promotion was strictly based on experience and performance, and bonuses, well a daily rate increase that would blow your mind for working during holidays, extended tours, etc.

The military has been getting off cheap frombthe very beginning and the only reason, was and is the retirement. If you pull that away, nobody in their right mind would serve for less than minimum wage longer than an enlistment. Personally, the retirement package is crap to begin with anyway, 50-70% of a crappy base pay, is crap. Unless you are E8-9 CW4-5 or O7-O10, the retirement is nowhere on par with the duties/responsibilities of the equivalent civi job. Not even close...

It's deferred not cut. It is caught up compounded at age 62. I've take big cuts for the team. That's gone and never coming back. Big difference.

None of the folks I know served for the money. I didn't. I don't think the "right mind" is germane to the calling.

[98z28]

FWIW: Employers matching a portion of employee contributions pretty common. Mine matches dollar for dollar, up to 5% of my annual salary.

This is becoming less common from what I have read. Many employers are offering very low match rates, or none at all. My classmates that went into industry instead of academia in the last four years are not getting employer matches.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[Joseph B.]

It's deferred not cut. It is caught up compounded at age 62. I've take big cuts for the team. That's gone and never coming back. Big difference.

None of the folks I know served for the money. I didn't. I don't think the "right mind" is germane to the calling.

You get less money until age 62, so while the cost of living skyrockets from inflation, you get stuck with an ever increasing void. Yeah sure that's cool...

No people don't serve for the money, but they sure don't serve 20+ years to be lied to and have there retirement, healthcare and benefits package reduced/taken away. Its complete BS. This country is going to take away from the one's who earned their way, and continue to give it to those who won't get off their butts and put in the time...

Yep that makes perfect sense....I don't know why any retired service member would be upset with that. CRAZY!

[littlejerry]

You get less money until age 62, so while the cost of living skyrockets from inflation, you get stuck with an ever increasing void. Yeah sure that's cool...

No people don't serve for the money, but they sure don't serve 20+ years to be lied to and have there retirement, healthcare and benefits package reduced/taken away. Its complete BS. This country is going to take away from the one's who earned their way, and continue to give it to those who won't get off their butts and put in the time...

Yep that makes perfect sense....I don't know why any retired service member would be upset with that. CRAZY!

Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that this is the tip of the iceberg.

Consider for a moment that 50% of the money they are paying you(and spending on your healthcare) is being borrowed. Guess what happens when the Government can't borrow that 50% anymore.

Frankly I hope this is a wake-up call for anyone who was expecting to survive on their "promised" pension or retirement package. The money flat-out does not exist and the situation is getting worse every day.

I agree its wrong. I agree we shouldn't be doing this to veterans. We should be calling out out our Pols on the BS they are parroting on the news. "Hurray us! We "cut" spending by promising to reduce an increase in spending by 1% 3 years from now!"

[Alaskapopo]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/12/news/economy/military-pensions-budget/index.html

Cutting the pay for our military retires is despicable. Congress and the president should cut their pay and retirement benefits before cutting anyone else's.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

You get less money until age 62, so while the cost of living skyrockets from inflation, you get stuck with an ever increasing void. Yeah sure that's cool...

No people don't serve for the money, but they sure don't serve 20+ years to be lied to and have there retirement, healthcare and benefits package reduced/taken away. Its complete BS. This country is going to take away from the one's who earned their way, and continue to give it to those who won't get off their butts and put in the time...

Yep that makes perfect sense....I don't know why any retired service member would be upset with that. CRAZY!

Agree. They may not serve for the money but they do have to pay the bills and make a living just like anyone else. Our vets deserve better than this.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

IMO we'd all be much better off if we did away with the idea of defined benefit retirements entirely and force everyone into some sort of a 401K or something similar, be they government, military, union, and other. I'm a vet and I have worked for the govt. and I have never understood the idea of being able to retire at 37 and have a guaranteed salary for the rest of your life. Heck, I'm aware of folks who are getting multiple govt. retirements that add up to more than they ever got in a salary and are still working, drawing a taxpayer-funded paycheck while drawing multiple taxpayer-funded retirement checks.

Yes and they earned those retirements. I am totally against doing away with defined benefit. The problem with 401k's is you can be fine if the markets fine and if its not you can't retire. Generally 401K's are no where close to what defined benefit retirements paid out. I feel bad for our new hires that are on 401K's Most will probably never be able to retire unless they get work some where outside of law enforcement later on.
pat

[Corvus]

Welcome to the real world , it is about time you joined us.

I see nothing funny about someone loosing benefits but it is simple math , the benefits never should have been offered in the first place if the money was not there to cover them. In the private sector when a company goes bankrupt all deals are off and benefits are gone. I lost retirement medical and a pension when a company I had 17 years in with filed bankruptcy. The gov't is out of money and everything should be cut. Deserve or not has nothing to do with it.

[JHC]

You get less money until age 62, so while the cost of living skyrockets from inflation, you get stuck with an ever increasing void. Yeah sure that's cool...

No people don't serve for the money, but they sure don't serve 20+ years to be lied to and have there retirement, healthcare and benefits package reduced/taken away. Its complete BS. This country is going to take away from the one's who earned their way, and continue to give it to those who won't get off their butts and put in the time...

Yep that makes perfect sense....I don't know why any retired service member would be upset with that. CRAZY!

Was Tricare also included in the long term promises? It was created in '96 and required a 27% contribution. That's been lowered to 11%. It was due to be hiked in 2014 but this new budget deal stopped that. A family friend, retired military with kids in school told us they pay $600 in change a year for Tricare. (Is that representative? IDK) When I was raising a family I was paying $800 per MONTH. Health care for civilians has only gone sideways since. We now see millions thrown off these plans and facing worse deals. So who is working up the value of Tricare and compounding that amount across 30-40 years?

$100B annual spend on personnel and I fail to see a country betraying it's retirees (17% of those who serve). I've searched with no luck on how much more generous any other nation on earth is in this regard but I'm all ears if anyone knows.

Now the enlisted vets that did an enlistment or two and did multiple combat tours then got out? I'd be more concerned about them and their transition.

As I am for those who will face the next nasty war and clean up the current ones. All of whom needed some DoD relief which they got from this deal.

[David Armstrong]

Fixed it for you.

Pay me what I'm worth for the work I do today. I'm not your problem when I leave.

Promising to pay me in 30 years for what I did yesterday is a scam.
Not a fix, IMO. Most folks simply will not save adequate amounts unless you force them to do so.

[David Armstrong]

That's what these guys are arguing.

"The current retirement system provides no retirement benefits at all to servicemembers who serve less than 20 years. If MOAA, which used to be called the Retired Officers’ Association, really cared about the overwhelming majority of the enlisted men and women who serve in the military, they would advocate scrapping the current outmoded retirement system in favor of a 401(k) type system for all who serve."

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2013/12/heres-why-proposed-military-retiree-benefit-cuts-are-no-big-deal/75587/?oref=d-interstitial-continue

The 401K ideas like this I've read of differ from mine in that DoD contributes for each service member vs me contributing myself from my comp IIRC.

Those are changes to phase in way in advance of course. It's hard to see how we are going to manage the current $100B personnel spend doubling by 2034.
True. My point is that we would be better off to require it across the board, all businesses, all employees, not just military.

[David Armstrong]

LMAO... if you want to cut guaranteed retirements, than 1) they need to pay a salary on par with the civilian sector, 2) provide better insurance and compensation for work related disabilities and 3) go to a strictly performance driven promotion and bonus system.

FYI: The civi counterpart of my job in Iraq paid between $130-$200k and offered better health and disability insurance, a 401k and had no "up or out" and promotion was strictly based on experience and performance, and bonuses, well a daily rate increase that would blow your mind for working during holidays, extended tours, etc.

The military has been getting off cheap frombthe very beginning and the only reason, was and is the retirement. If you pull that away, nobody in their right mind would serve for less than minimum wage longer than an enlistment. Personally, the retirement package is crap to begin with anyway, 50-70% of a crappy base pay, is crap. Unless you are E8-9 CW4-5 or O7-O10, the retirement is nowhere on par with the duties/responsibilities of the equivalent civi job. Not even close...
I don't know about that. I went in knowing my pay was going to be low and that I wasn't planning on retiring, and I think lot's of others do the same.

[David Armstrong]

Yes and they earned those retirements. I am totally against doing away with defined benefit. The problem with 401k's is you can be fine if the markets fine and if its not you can't retire. Generally 401K's are no where close to what defined benefit retirements paid out. I feel bad for our new hires that are on 401K's Most will probably never be able to retire unless they get work some where outside of law enforcement later on.
pat
Please note that I did not say anything about taking away any retirements that have already been earned. My point is simple...defined benefit retirements are pretty much unsustainable and we would be better off if we did not have them. Do you really think that the loss of retirement benefits following municipal bankrupt findings, or the loss of your retirement when your business goes bankrupt, is a good idea? One should own their own retirement, IMO. If you can't retire on a decent 401 plan the problem generally is not with the plan it is with an unwillingness to fund the plan adequately. I had the option of a defined benefit plan and a 401 plan when I went to work here and took the 401, as have many of my colleagues. We are doing quite well. The defined benefit program, BTW is approximately $18 billion (yes, with a "B") in the hole.

[Alaskapopo]

Welcome to the real world , it is about time you joined us.

I see nothing funny about someone loosing benefits but it is simple math , the benefits never should have been offered in the first place if the money was not there to cover them. In the private sector when a company goes bankrupt all deals are off and benefits are gone. I lost retirement medical and a pension when a company I had 17 years in with filed bankruptcy. The gov't is out of money and everything should be cut. Deserve or not has nothing to do with it.

Lots of places to cut before you go after peoples retirements. Maybe a few less F22 Raptors. Also the government does provide some pension relief for people who worked at a private company that goes under. Not great but you don't lose everything. I understand that things need to be cut and revenue also needs to be raised. But when you start making cuts it should not in my opinion be an across the board cut. You cut what you need the least and keep what is essential. Say your running a city you cut the library, parks and rec, not the police, fire and roads departments. You have to keep the lights on but you can live without being able to play volley ball at the rec center. Target cuts make more sense than across the board slashes.

Pat

[littlejerry]

I understand that things need to be cut and revenue also needs to be raised. But when you start making cuts it should not in my opinion be an across the board cut. You cut what you need the least and keep what is essential. Say your running a city you cut the library, parks and rec, not the police, fire and roads departments. You have to keep the lights on but you can live without being able to play volley ball at the rec center. Target cuts make more sense than across the board slashes.

Pat

You may not understand the magnitude of the problem.

We could, tomorrow, completely eliminate the DOD and still have to borrow money cover the remaining budget. Not "buy a few planes less", but eliminate the whole damn thing.

On the other hand we could completely eliminate Medicare and Medicaid tomorrow and also still need to borrow money to cover the remaining budget.

"Targeted cuts" aren't going to get us there. Its not a question of being mean or spiteful. Its not an opinion. Its simple math. The money does. not. exist.

[JHC]

Lots of places to cut before you go after peoples retirements. Maybe a few less F22 Raptors.

"go after people's retirement" in this context means deferring 1% of the annual COLA (it varies year to year) til age 62 when it is caught up, as if it had never been reduced. While they utilized a Tricare health plan that my estimates has got to valued at around $8K per year from what I can tell from friends using it vs what I paid for a family of four. That's not factoring in how Obamacare has just skyrocketed health plans for middle class people who are actually earning a living.

As far as the Raptors, this budget exists for national defense above and beyond everything else. Critics may say Raptors are excessive, too complex, won't work. I heard the exact same thing in the '80's about the M1 Abrams, the Bradley and the Patriot missile system. Smarter folks than us are on those issues. Even in this info age, everybody with a keyboard can't be the expert on what is or is not appropriate for the next big one.

But there are lots of places to cut; I will agree - but whether that can be done right now, depends on a deal passing Reid's Senate. If people want to help they can work to flip the Senate. Emotional meme's across the web; I'm skeptical of that tack.

This budget deal also changed Federal civilian workers pension contributions. Hired after 2012 pay 3.1%. Hired after Jan 1 2014, 4.1%. Ryan worked for all Federal civilians to contribute something but they through their union had too much sway with the Democrats and that was not possible. Again, flip the Senate.

[RoyGBiv]

But there are lots of places to cut;
I'm not a huge Ron Paul fan (I DO like Rand), but I believe Ron was pointing in the right direction HERE (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-proposes-saving-1t-by-scrapping-five-federal-departments/)


Along with the Departments of Energy and Education, Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior. Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration, leaving security at airports and other transportation systems up to the private sector.

Paul's plan would set the budget for most other departments at 2006 levels, which for some agencies would mean eliminating certain programs.
Cutting the size of government dramatically CAN be done and I bet few people would notice.

I'd go further than RP and cut the EPA's budget by 50% and strip them of their rulemaking authority, giving that back to Congress. Yes, Congress would be befuddled fighting over EPA rules, and that's a good thing... fewer EPA rules.

Smaller government, more personal responsibility, set the stage for job creators to create jobs. No picking winners.

In the end, I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that the above adds up to more than $1T in spending that can be shed with little to no real negative impact (macroeconomically-speaking). Now we just need to elect some leadership with sufficient testicular fortitude.

[Tamara]

If people want to help they can work to flip the Senate.

That's too hard. How about if I put a "Ron Paul for President" sticker on my car, even though I can't be arsed to vote*?


*Because I'm lazy, but I spin all kinds of Lew Rockwell philosophical excuses drivel when confronted on the topic on internet fora.

[JeffJ]

Not a fix, IMO. Most folks simply will not save adequate amounts unless you force them to do so.

Why is this any employers problem? Now, I know that comes across a little snarky, but it's a legit question. What moral imperative is there for a corporate entity to provide for an individual once that person has ceased to provide for that corporate entity?

A significant portion of the work force receives no, or very little, employer related help towards retirement. And many of them are able to retire.

[Alaskapopo]

Why is this any employers problem? Now, I know that comes across a little snarky, but it's a legit question. What moral imperative is there for a corporate entity to provide for an individual once that person has ceased to provide for that corporate entity?

A significant portion of the work force receives no, or very little, employer related help towards retirement. And many of them are able to retire.

Things are different now with people working multiple jobs before they retire. But in the old days someone would stay loyal to a company and give them the best years of their life and be rewarded by being taken care of in their golden years which mean about 5 to 10 years after retiring until they died. If you cut retirements you need to increase compensation so the employees can take care of themselves. If you don't you are just going to transfer the problem from the companies to the tax payers when these people get old and can no longer work and need to go on some type of government assistance.
pat

[Alaskapopo]

I'm not a huge Ron Paul fan (I DO like Rand), but I believe Ron was pointing in the right direction HERE (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-proposes-saving-1t-by-scrapping-five-federal-departments/)


Cutting the size of government dramatically CAN be done and I bet few people would notice.

I'd go further than RP and cut the EPA's budget by 50% and strip them of their rulemaking authority, giving that back to Congress. Yes, Congress would be befuddled fighting over EPA rules, and that's a good thing... fewer EPA rules.

Smaller government, more personal responsibility, set the stage for job creators to create jobs. No picking winners.

In the end, I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that the above adds up to more than $1T in spending that can be shed with little to no real negative impact (macroeconomically-speaking). Now we just need to elect some leadership with sufficient testicular fortitude.
Yea fewer EPA rules and an environment like China where people die from the smog and kids with 6 toes on each foot. No thanks.
Pat

[Tamara]

Did someone order some Reductio ad Absurdum?

[RoyGBiv]

Yea fewer EPA rules and an environment like China where people die from the smog and kids with 6 toes on each foot. No thanks.
Pat

Yes.. Exactly... Because of course that's the only other possible outcome. http://texaschlforum.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Drang]

Did someone order some Reductio ad Absurdum?

One of many standard features of the Internetz.

[Tamara]

To paraphrase MZW on the Book of Face yesterday: "Fine! You don't like North Korea? Move to Somalia!"

Because, you know, there's just no middle ground between Stalag 17 and Lord of the Flies. :rolleyes:

[MDS]

That's too hard. How about if I put a "Ron Paul for President" sticker on my car, even though I can't be arsed to vote*?


*Because I'm lazy, but I spin all kinds of Lew Rockwell philosophical excuses drivel when confronted on the topic on internet fora.

I can't decide which internet confrontation I'd rather endure: being hassled for not voting, or being hassled for throwing away my vote. I vote libertarian because I can, but I expect to survive into Argentina 2.0 - Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.

[Tamara]

I can't decide which internet confrontation I'd rather endure: being hassled for not voting, or being hassled for throwing away my vote. I vote libertarian because I can, but I expect to survive into Argentina 2.0 - Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.

Hey, I'm only speaking from my own experience in my post there. I was an oh-so-principled non-voter for over a dozen years, but I've been convinced that if people are going to vote at me, I might as well vote back at them, even if it just cancels out an idiot's vote. Another point someone made that affected my outlook was that not voting at all just told the PTB I didn't care; if I found none of the above acceptable, then I should have at least gone in and voted for None Of The Above.

Personally, I agree that it's all an isometric exercise at this point because everybody knows who they think the president who can solve all their problems should be, and almost nobody can name two members of their city council. A working democratic republic requires people with skin in the game who can be arsed to put in the effort to make it work, not people cheering for their favorite Chariot Racing Team. Go Team Red! Boo, Blues!

[Drang]

Another point someone made that affected my outlook was that not voting at all just told the PTB I didn't care; if I found none of the above acceptable, then I should have at least gone in and voted for None Of The Above.
the one silver lining in the everyone-votes-absentee/mail situation here in the Evergreen State is that it's easy to write in Malcolm Reynolds, Zoe Washburn, Kayley Frye, Dagney Taggart, Bernardo de la Paz...

[Corvus]

Also the government does provide some pension relief for people who worked at a private company that goes under. Not great but you don't lose everything.



That statement is the same as "if you like your health plan , you can keep your health plan". The Gov't provides nothing they do not first take from the private sector tax payer. Key words there are "private" and "sector" as anyone working for the gov't is paid with private sector taxes to start with and do not truly pay their own taxes.

There was ZERO from the gov't ( private sector tax payer ) and there should not have been anything. The company filed bankruptcy and had the courts approve stripping away the benefits then they kept right on making product until they managed to sell the division to a Mexican company.

When the pension fund was frozen most of us took out what we could get but it was nothing compared to what we would have drawn if we had been able to draw a pension from it. What is being asked of gov't workers is not out of line and far better than what the private sector has had to deal with.

[JHC]

Did someone order some Reductio ad Absurdum?

:cool:

[David Armstrong]

Why is this any employers problem? Now, I know that comes across a little snarky, but it's a legit question. What moral imperative is there for a corporate entity to provide for an individual once that person has ceased to provide for that corporate entity?

A significant portion of the work force receives no, or very little, employer related help towards retirement. And many of them are able to retire.
It is not an employer problem, it is a simple matter of human psychology and economics. If you give people money and tell them they need to save "X" amount, quite a few will not save "X" amount even if they could. But if one deducts the "X" prior to the employee getting it then the employee tends to adjust and the money is put away and saved. In addition, lumping savings from several people can give a benefit in fees, purchase, etc based on scale. There are plenty of reasons why 401 plans have the rules they have, such as the required contribution and the limits on withdrawal, that still allow the individual to control the money.

[Alaskapopo]

Yes.. Exactly... Because of course that's the only other possible outcome. http://texaschlforum.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yea because we can totally trust corporations to do the right thing by the environment like they do in all the countries with little to no environmental regulations. :)
Might as well have the fox guarding the hen house. leaving it to congress whose constituents depend on income generated by said corporations to police these corporations is very foolish.
Pat

[Joe in PNG]

Yea because we can totally trust corporations to do the right thing by the environment like they do in all the countries with little to no environmental regulations. :)
Might as well have the fox guarding the hen house. leaving it to congress whose constituents depend on income generated by said corporations to police these corporations is very foolish.
Pat

But, funny enough, the places with the absolute worst, bar none environental records are (drumroll) countries with statist governments! And your solution is more power to the state?

[Alaskapopo]

But, funny enough, the places with the absolute worst, bar none environental records are (drumroll) countries with statist governments! And your solution is more power to the state?

Well we all know what corporations will do without someone to keep them in check. The one thing that all countries with bad environmental records have in common is a huge build up corporations with little state control over them rather because of a weak government or because of a strong government that has a lot to gain from said corporations tax dollars (case in point China)

There are examples of bad governments that don't keep industry in check when it comes to the environment but there are far more examples of countries with weak environmental laws polluting away.

[Joe in PNG]

Well we all know what corporations will do without someone to keep them in check. The one thing that all countries with bad environmental records have in common is a huge build up corporations with little state control over them rather because of a weak government or because of a strong government that has a lot to gain from said corporations tax dollars (case in point China)

There are examples of bad governments that don't keep industry in check when it comes to the environment but there are far more examples of countries with weak environmental laws polluting away.

Um, which "huge build up corporations" are responsible for the environmental wreck that was once known as the 'Eastern Bloc"?

[Tamara]

Well we all know what corporations will do without someone to keep them in check. The one thing that all countries with bad environmental records have in common is a huge build up corporations with little state control over them rather because of a weak government or because of a strong government that has a lot to gain from said corporations tax dollars...

So, what "huge build up corporations" caused the Black Triangle, one of the most polluted areas on earth?


Um, which "huge build up corporations" are responsible for the environmental wreck that was once known as the 'Eastern Bloc"?

Heh. Jinx! I think somebody's just repeating what they were told by rote. ;)

[Kyle Reese]

So, what "huge build up corporations" caused the Black Triangle, one of the most polluted areas on earth?



Heh. Jinx! I think somebody's just repeating what they were told by rote. ;)

The East Bloc didn't have enough government control, right? :cool:

[Kyle Reese]

Um, which "huge build up corporations" are responsible for the environmental wreck that was once known as the 'Eastern Bloc"?

It's COMECON's fault!

[Tamara]

The East Bloc didn't have enough government control, right? :cool:

They were in thrall to the taxes paid by the all-powerful corporations. :D

[Corvus]

People in gov't are no more moral or likely to do the right thing than people in private sector. To think different by those on the taxpayer payroll is just a good example of the elitist mentality of those that draw a gov't check.

The private sector breathes the same air and eats the same food as those living on money taken for the private sector. They have no more reason to harm the environment than those in gov't jobs.

[Corvus]

leaving it to congress whose constituents depend on income generated by said corporations to police these corporations is very foolish.
Pat

Your income also depends on said corportations. Every Penny you have ever been paid as LE comes from the pile of money taken from these corporations and their employees. The same pile of money that food stamps and welfare is paid from.

[JAD]

It's COMECON's fault!

I don't see what a bunch of geeks running around an exhibition hall in Costume have to do with any of this.

[BLR]

I was going to mention that "corporations" don't harm the environment, people do. Corporation don't pay taxes, people do.

But then I had flashbacks of a McD and Walmart thread. :rolleyes:

[Tamara]

I was going to mention that "corporations" don't harm the environment, people do. Corporation don't pay taxes, people do.

You're just blinded by the corporations' PR.

[Alaskapopo]

Your income also depends on said corportations. Every Penny you have ever been paid as LE comes from the pile of money taken from these corporations and their employees. The same pile of money that food stamps and welfare is paid from.

Great more tin foil rhetoric. So cops are the same as welfare recipients. So by your logic military vets are also the same as welfare recipients because they are paid from tax dollars as well. Sorry but your logic sucks. Where is that ignore button?
Pat

[Kyle Reese]

Let's keep it civil, please.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Corvus]

Great more tin foil rhetoric. So cops are the same as welfare recipients. So by your logic military vets are also the same as welfare recipients because they are paid from tax dollars as well. Sorry but your logic sucks. Where is that ignore button?
Pat

Where am I wrong ? I have said nothing of anyone being the same as another. Only that they are paid from the same source which is the private sector taxpayer.

[Alaskapopo]

I was going to mention that "corporations" don't harm the environment, people do. Corporation don't pay taxes, people do.

But then I had flashbacks of a McD and Walmart thread. :rolleyes:

Actually Corporations do pay taxes and according to the Supreme Court they have the same rights as people. (not a good move on the courts part.) I am not anti all corporations but I don't trust them to police themselves. Anyway this thread is about vets getting the shaft. Lets get back on topic.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Where am I wrong ? I have said nothing of anyone being the same as another. Only that they are paid from the same source which is the private sector taxpayer.

You may find this surprising but government workers also pay taxes so in a sense I pay part of my own salary. Its not all money from corporate taxes and taxes on private sector employees only.
Back on topic I am sure a lot of places can be cut before they go after peoples pensions who served their country.

[Tamara]

You may find this surprising but government workers also pay taxes...

...and where does the money you pay your taxes with come from*? You're arguing that by carrying water from the deep end of the pool back to the shallow end, you're helping make the pool deeper. That's perpetual motion. I may not agree with the other poster on everything, but he's absolutely right that there's only one source for putting more water in the pool.


(*Just in case we need to break this down line-by-line: Where does the money you get to pay your taxes come from? Your paycheck. Where does your paycheck come from? The department. And where do they get that money? Taxes. But the money you pay taxes with comes from inside the loop. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps; value needs to come into the system from somewhere. This is basic, bedrock-level, how-kitten-works stuff that people just don't seem to think about.)

[BLR]

Actually Corporations do pay taxes and according to the Supreme Court they have the same rights as people. (not a good move on the courts part.) I am not anti all corporations but I don't trust them to police themselves. Anyway this thread is about vets getting the shaft. Lets get back on topic.
Pat

Allow me to fix that for you:

Corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution.

That little emphasized part is often missed. So, you see, the companies do not have the same rights as people.

[ToddG]

Actually Corporations do pay taxes and according to the Supreme Court they have the same rights as people.

Holy cow, that's news to me. I must have slept through all three years of law school and then passed the bar by random chance.

Or...

[Tamara]

Holy cow, that's news to me. I must have slept through all three years of law school and then passed the bar by random chance.

It's a pretty standard HuffPo/Kossack/DU shibboleth.

[BLR]

Holy cow, that's news to me. I must have slept through all three years of law school and then passed the bar by random chance.

Or...

Well, in all fairness, you did miss out on 1911 awesomeness....for how many years ;)

[BaiHu]

I was going to mention that "corporations" don't harm the environment, people do. Corporation don't pay taxes, people do.

But then I had flashbacks of a McD and Walmart thread. :rolleyes:

I think this puts a nice cherry on the top of this thread.

In the end, IMO, it's all about balance. If the government or corporations/private citizens are not keeping each other in check, then we're doomed and that doom is on a sliding scale of "awesome filled freedom and success" to "wow, humans live here, really?"

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Tamara]

Uh, can we pass a hat to hire somebody to man the missile silos at least, Corvus? I mean, Ron Paul wookie-suited Anarchotopia sounds cool on Internet fora, but the Chicoms might not get the joke.

[TCinVA]

Folks, let's remember to express our opinions in ways that aren't needlessly inflammatory. The post I removed was too far over the line.

[dustyvarmint]

-What is the Thrift Savings Plan, available to all service members and GS employees, in relation to a 401K? I don't know, I'm asking. I don't believe active duty gets any matching contributions, but GS employees do.

-How do we know the COLA reduction is a renege? Was it a promise/contract or a nice additive along the way? Again, I don't know, I'm asking.

Now, don't get me wrong, as a 20-year Navy retiree, I don't appreciate the reduction in COLA. Sure, it is disturbing that the Senate chose illegal aliens over veterans, but, honestly, what am I going to do about it? Not vote for Represenative Paul Ryan, but some democrat instead? That'll show him, er, me, for sure. Cry on FaceBook or here on PF.com? I'll continue to not vote for my democratic Senator. She already misses my vote on gun control. So, there I am...

happy shooting, dv

[Alaskapopo]

Holy cow, that's news to me. I must have slept through all three years of law school and then passed the bar by random chance.

Or...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

This anti government movement is getting a little old. Do some things need to be reformed sure. But anarchy is not the answer. Its getting to where people blame the government for everything including their own failures. The reality is without these agencies doing their job we would have a lot more problems then we do now. There was a reason each and every agency was formed and they serve a purpose. Without the EPA our country would be worse than China environmentally. Just look at what corporations like Chevron have done in smaller countries to the environment. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/13/chevron-ordered-on-appeal-to-pay-ecuador-9-51-billion-for-environmental-damage/
Pat

[Kyle Reese]

Who has called for anarchy?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

Who has called for anarchy?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Anyone who doesn't want our current overweening level of government.
It's Nanny or Nothing!

[BaiHu]

Go Super Nanny or go home :what:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

1. Wikipedia is a poor substitute for actually understanding legal doctrine.

2. The second sentence in the wiki article reads: "This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution." (emphasis mine)

You said they had all the same rights. That was incorrect. That is what sparked my comment.

[littlejerry]

You may find this surprising but government workers also pay taxes so in a sense I pay part of my own salary. Its not all money from corporate taxes and taxes on private sector employees only.
Back on topic I am sure a lot of places can be cut before they go after peoples pensions who served their country.

I and many others would be interested to see your proposed budget which eliminated the annual deficit yet didn't touch any service members retirememts or health care.

[Alaskapopo]

1. Wikipedia is a poor substitute for actually understanding legal doctrine.

2. The second sentence in the wiki article reads: "This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution." (emphasis mine)

You said they had all the same rights. That was incorrect. That is what sparked my comment.

The point was clear and Wikipedia is correct on this. There are other legal discussions on this out there but that was the easiest to reference in a short time. The fact is the court made a decision that basically allows the rich to buy elections now far more easily than ever before. We have a government bought and paid for by big business.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

I and many others would be interested to see your proposed budget which eliminated the annual deficit yet didn't touch any service members retirements or health care.

1. Institute a flax tax or fair tax and get more income from the rich.
2. Tighten up spending on social programs that are abused such as disability. I know several people who get social security checks for being disabled supposedly who could easily hold down jobs. Welfare should be a safety net not a way of life for generations.
3. Cut military spending we spend 10 times what the rest of the world does combined on our armed forces. We simply can not afford to be the worlds police force anymore. But we can still honor our commitments to those who have served and earned their pensions.
4. Cut spending on pork programs.
5. Also before you cut any line workers pay such as military personal cut the pay for the politicians and their staff. Lord knows they can afford it.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Go Super Nanny or go home :what:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Super Nanny vs Anarchy. There is a balance in the middle.
I respect all of your opinions even though I feel like a moderate in a sea of extremists. lol
Pat

[BLR]

The point was clear and Wikipedia is correct on this. There are other legal discussions on this out there but that was the easiest to reference in a short time. The fact is the court made a decision that basically allows the rich to buy elections now far more easily than ever before. We have a government bought and paid for by big business.
Pat

You mean like big labour and the democratic party?

You a union guy, pat?

[Alaskapopo]

You mean like big labour and the democratic party?

You a union guy, pat?

Lets set the record straight I don't like either side being able to buy votes. However big business spends several times more than big labor ever did simply because they have more money to leverage.
Pat

[JV_]

I feel like a moderate in a sea of extremists. lol
After reading a few of your posts here, moderate is not a word that I'd use to describe your political ideas.

[Kyle Reese]

Super Nanny vs Anarchy. There is a balance in the middle.
I respect all of your opinions even though I feel like a moderate in a sea of extremists. lol
Pat

Are you referring to members of this forum as extremists?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[BaiHu]

Lets set the record straight I don't like either side being able to buy votes. However big business spends several times more than big labor ever did simply because they have more money to leverage.
Pat

I respect your tenacity and consistency, but you might be surprised by the reality of your above statement versus your assumption. With 47 million on food stamps and about 20 million in unions or working for the government (guesstimate), that's a lot of interested parties that will lean almost 100% towards more government and higher taxes. Couple that with the fact that we only have about 116 million with full time employment currently IIRC.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BLR]

And pat, ole buddy, you might wanna take a look at the political affiliation of those evil CEOs. Cause most aren't republican or conservative. They be tofu sucking liberals.

And with Iran moving to 60 percent enrichment, I'd like to keep my military over big union payouts, thank you.

[TCinVA]

The point was clear
Pat

What's clear is that there's a far more nuanced and involved explanation of the court's views on the rights of corporations than the simplistic one you put forward.

[Joe in PNG]

Super Nanny vs Anarchy. There is a balance in the middle...
Pat

The Left often says that, and in almost the next breath calls for yet more government. More funds! More programs!

And we get more regulation! More taxes! More red tape!

But when we try and ask for cuts, we're called 'anarchist'.

[Drang]

Who has called for anarchy?
Standard #OWS/anti-Tea Party rhetoric, often expressed a la "If you hate the government and love guns you should move to Mogadishu!"

[Alaskapopo]

The Left often says that, and in almost the next breath calls for yet more government. More funds! More programs!

And we get more regulation! More taxes! More red tape!

But when we try and ask for cuts, we're called 'anarchist'.

And the right calls for more de-regulation (like what caused the last economic crisis) less funding for government telling them to do more with less. Again there is a balance.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Standard #OWS/anti-Tea Party rhetoric, often expressed a la "If you hate the government and love guns you should move to Mogadishu!"

All the Tea Party is is rhetoric. Lol
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

And pat, ole buddy, you might wanna take a look at the political affiliation of those evil CEOs. Cause most aren't republican or conservative. They be tofu sucking liberals.

And with Iran moving to 60 percent enrichment, I'd like to keep my military over big union payouts, thank you.

Really? Source?

[JV_]

Really? Source?


While folks are providing sources, please provide your source for this:

However big business spends several times more than big labor ever did simply because they have more money to leverage

[BaiHu]

And the right calls for more de-regulation (like what caused the last economic crisis) less funding for government telling them to do more with less. Again there is a balance.
Pat

And a wholly Democratic controlled government and media doubled down on the above.

ETA: it's a mentality problem not a party problem.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BLR]

And the right calls for more de-regulation (like what caused the last economic crisis) less funding for government telling them to do more with less. Again there is a balance.
Pat

Uhhhhh,,, Pat, dude, almost everyone but the talking heads at CNN agree the housing problem was caused by Slick Willie and Jan the Man making sure people who couldn't afford a house could get a loan for them, which loaded up the banks with piles of toxic mortgages. A little sumpin' for you to get started with your own research: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2011/10/24/jimmy-carter-bill-clinton-janet-reno-to-blame-for-mortgage-mess-704

As for my CEO statement:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wealthy-ceos-you-probably-didnt-know-support-democrats/#0

http://blogs.reuters.com/taxbreak/2012/07/09/study-companies-of-republican-ceos-pay-more-tax-than-democrats/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2011/05/09/evil,_greedy_ceos_give_heavily_to_democrats

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/15/news/economy/obama_ceo_meeting_political_donations/

The list of sources is huge. Did you even look for yourself? All I did was google "rich CEO democrat."

[BLR]

While folks are providing sources, please provide your source for this:

Allow me -

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Oh, gosh. Imagine my surprise when I found that the top two donors were democrat donors...and the #2 was,,,,,,,, wait for it,,,,,,,,,, a union! A quick look at the top 10 yields similarly interesting results.

Orders of magnitude more money to spend, indeed.

[will_1400]

Allow me -

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Oh, gosh. Imagine my surprise when I found that the top two donors were democrat donors...and the #2 was,,,,,,,, wait for it,,,,,,,,,, a union! A quick look at the top 10 yields similarly interesting results.

Orders of magnitude more money to spend, indeed.

Looks like the majority of the Top 16 are strongly Dem. But I thought Dems wanted to tax the super rich! :rolleyes:

It also appears that the richest members of Congress (each with over $200 Million in personal wealth) are all Democrat. Source (dated 2009 so it's a tad dated, but still interesting.) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html

ETA: let's also not forget Nanny Bloomie who loves to throw his wealth around. About $31 Billion. Source: http://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/

[BLR]

Pat?

I do hope there is a response forthcoming.

[Alaskapopo]

Yes there are rich democrats. One thing totally glossed over was spending of the Super Pacs.
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

How did we go from talking about vets getting screwed to unions. I get it some on here hate working class people. But lets move back on topic.
Pat

[BCL]

Yes there are rich democrats. One thing totally glossed over was spending of the Super Pacs.
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

How did we go from talking about vets getting screwed to unions. I get it some on here hate working class people. But lets move back on topic.
Pat

So disliking unions means I hate working-class people?

I guess that means I must also hate the environment because I disagree with some EPA regulations and am a racist because I don't agree with the President's agenda.

On the original topic, it would be nice if they would make cuts to other entitlement programs as well. This reminds me of sequestration, where DOD had to take 50% of the cuts while it only comprises 20% of the overall USG spending.

[JV_]

Since this is the RR, we have some flexibility with thread drift. I've edited the title to be a little more broad. Political spending is now on topic - according to the thread title.

Since that's out of the way now:


Yes there are rich democrats. One thing totally glossed over was spending of the Super Pacs.
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

How did we go from talking about vets getting screwed to unions. I get it some on here hate working class people. But lets move back on topic.
Pat

How about addressing some of the requests that you backup your statements. How about starting with mine, post 129:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10620-Military-retirees-You-betrayed-us-Congress&p=185943&viewfull=1#post185943

[Tamara]

So disliking unions means I hate working-class people?

Since in modern American political discourse, "rich" means "anybody who makes more than me", my dislike of unions just means I hate the rich.

#occupyalaskapopospaycheck

[BLR]

Pat,

Seriously, I found the donor list for you. The one you asked me for. I want you to comment on that, and your previous comments about "orders of magnitude more money" given by those evil corporations. Why are the top 15 spots dominated by liberal organizations?

Am I the only one who, whenever they hear the word "corporation" in this context, instantly sees the college hippies in South Park?

[Tamara]

Am I the only one who, whenever they hear the word "corporation" in this context, instantly sees the college hippies in South Park?

The sight of the word "Inc." affects liberal thought processes the way the sight of two dudes holding hands does to those of Conservatives. Rational thought goes out the window to be replaced with bumper-sticker philosophy and regurgitated soundbites.

Waving an anti-business placard in front of a big box retailer is a tribal in-group signaling device on the order of meeting for lunch at Chick-Fil-A.

[Corvus]

But lets move back on topic.


Things are on topic , it is all related. You made claims now back them up as asked instead of trying to change the subject.

Also on topic is the fact that a "cut in benefits" is not what has been proposed but a reduction in the amount of increases is what has been suggested. There is a difference and just as the private sector has seen their pay scale increases stall the people they are supporting should share in the sacrifice.

[ToddG]

I get it some on here hate working class people.

Come on, Pat. Do you really think this forum is made up of people who don't have to work for a living? Isn't there a thread going on right now about how a $10 difference in the cost of magazines is a factor in pistol selection? I've seen some of your 3-gun kit... I bet you have at least as much invested in firearms as I do.

I could just as easily turn your comment around and say, "Apparently some people on here hate anyone who isn't on welfare." Is that how you really feel? I doubt it. It's a ridiculous mischaracterization. Yours was no better.

[littlejerry]

Yes there are rich democrats. One thing totally glossed over was spending of the Super Pacs.
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

How did we go from talking about vets getting screwed to unions. I get it some on here hate working class people. But lets move back on topic.
Pat

I don't hate the working class.

I hate people who feel entitled to steal my income, by threat of force via the Federal gov, just because I make marginally more than them.

[Corvus]

Those people want to steal a big cut of your income regardless of it is more than they make.

I changed employers the first of Sept. , part of the job offer was a bonus check to be paid after 90 days was completed. Bonus was paid first of December , 42% was taken in taxes before the money even got to me. I will of course use it for something shooting related which means another 11% in excise tax plus another 6% in my state for sales tax.

Over half of the money goes to the gov't and then we have to listen to them whine and cry because they are not getting what they think they deserve.

[Drang]

I don't hate the working class.

I hate people who feel entitled to steal my income, by threat of force via the Federal gov, just because I make marginally more than them.

You racist tea-bagging rhetorician!

[TGS]

I get it some on here hate working class people.

Pat......seriously? I'm a low-income earner. I live in a blue collar neighborhood in a decayed industrial city, with a neighborhood that is straight out of the TV show Shameless. I paid my way through college. I helped pay the rent when I was in high school. I look at scrapple as a gourmet meat.

I am about as working class as you can get. I don't hate the working class.....I hate egalitarian policies that suppress economic growth and foster textbook Communist co-option methods through regressive (progressive is exactly what liberals aren't) political theories of entitlement which attempt to strip us of the very radical principles our country was founded on, and take us back to being subjects of an all-powerful benevolent government which provides us with what we need. I absolutely despise Unions which stymie productive workers and in principle are barely recognizable from organized crime protection rackets, and in many real life cases operate exactly the same through physical violence and intimidation.

So, you implying that anyone who disagrees with you "hates working class people" is supremely out of touch with reality. What I do admit to is that I'm positively 100% anti-egalitarian; the world needs ditch diggers, minimum skills+minimum motivation=minimum pay, and no one is responsible for paying you a "living" wage. The fragility of our economy is directly caused by the destruction of American industry through Unions voting their workers out of their own jobs through ridiculous compensation packages compared to their actual value to a company. I really have no sympathy, whatsoever, for other low-income earners. If that means I hate myself, then so be it. My take on the situation is to improve my income through bettering myself with more valued, marketable skills and education with realistic goals....not to hump the government's leg and be supported by taking rich people's income through entitlement programs, thus being dependent on government to provide for me and subsequently being held hostage for my vote.

*microphone drop, walks off stage*

[BaiHu]

Slow golf clap...
Welcome back. Keep this up and you might be able to stay here a little longer :-P

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Corvus]

TGS....excellent post. Maybe they will leave it up long enough for it to be read by a few they need to read it.

[Kyle Reese]

TGS....excellent post. Maybe they will leave it up long enough for it to be read by a few they need to read it.

Lots of class enemies, Junkers and kulaks here!

Forward!


;)

[LittleLebowski]

TGS....excellent post. Maybe they will leave it up long enough for it to be read by a few they need to read it.

Hate those censors! Hates them ssssso much!

[ToddG]

What I do admit to is that I'm positively 100% anti-egalitarian; the world needs ditch diggers, minimum skills+minimum motivation=minimum pay, and no one is responsible for paying you a "living" wage.

Crazy talk. How can a guy who has half a million in debt after spending eight+ years getting through college and medical school possibly deserve more money than some who didn't finish high school and can't hold a job for four weeks straight?

I also don't understand why The Palm gets to charge more for beef than McDonald's or why I shouldn't be able to get a Porsche for the price of a Kia.

We need to learn from the successes of great nations like the USSR and North Korea.

And monkey's might fly out my butt.

[BaiHu]

And monkey's might fly out my butt.

Better hope Bruce almighty doesn't hear you say that ;-)



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Corvus]

Hate those censors! Hates them ssssso much!

I guess Jack was right , some people just can't handle the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

[Joe in PNG]

Ah, "working class people", a phrase that makes me wonder if the person using it has actually worked an actual job type job that involves actual work, and if that person would be worth a kitten on an actual job site.

And what, pray tell is a working class job? Is a building contractor who owns his own business in that magical bracket? Or is he excluded because he has a couple of guys he hires?
How about the paving guy who works solo, 10 hours a day, 6 days a week? Is he working class?

And please note, that is how you really get ahead in the world. All that government free stuff, or goverment mandated minimum wages, rules, work regulations, environmental compliance, et al, comes out of the hide of these guys.

[Tamara]

Some people are all about private property until somebody does something with theirs that they don't like.

[Alaskapopo]

Ah, "working class people", a phrase that makes me wonder if the person using it has actually worked an actual job type job that involves actual work, and if that person would be worth a kitten on an actual job site.

And what, pray tell is a working class job? Is a building contractor who owns his own business in that magical bracket? Or is he excluded because he has a couple of guys he hires?
How about the paving guy who works solo, 10 hours a day, 6 days a week? Is he working class?

And please note, that is how you really get ahead in the world. All that government free stuff, or government mandated minimum wages, rules, work regulations, environmental compliance, et al, comes out of the hide of these guys.

I have worked since I was 12 years old. I have done everything from crappy food service jobs to digging post holes for satellite dish installations to working in retail. I paid for my own college education and nothing was handed to me so you can take your insinuations and shove them where the sun don't shine. The reality is without minimum wages, work regulations and environmental laws we would live in an even bigger world of crap than we do now. (picture industrial revolution period with workers making starvation level wages and a polluted environment worse than China's) While I don't trust big government I trust big corporations far far less. Every government agency on the books has a purpose and they were started up because of past problems and abuses. And no I don't support free stuff and I have said that before 1000 times and I am definitely a supporter of welfare reform. The tin foil movement has gone full retard in recent years and is far worse than any progressive.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Crazy talk. How can a guy who has half a million in debt after spending eight+ years getting through college and medical school possibly deserve more money than some who didn't finish high school and can't hold a job for four weeks straight?

I also don't understand why The Palm gets to charge more for beef than McDonald's or why I shouldn't be able to get a Porsche for the price of a Kia.

We need to learn from the successes of great nations like the USSR and North Korea.

And monkey's might fly out my butt.

Or we could learn from countries like Somalia where there is no working government. Should be a right wingers paradise.
Pat

[JV_]

Or we could learn from countries like Somalia where there is no working government. Should be a right wingers paradise.
Pat

Are you capable of arguments which don't involve straw men? I've not seen any legitimate 'right winger' calling for no government.

Nice attempt at deflection.

Let me ask you again, for the third time, please provide data for your assertion:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10620-Military-retirees-You-betrayed-us-Congress&p=185943&viewfull=1#post185943

[Corvus]

Or we could learn from countries like Somalia where there is no working government. Should be a right wingers paradise.
Pat

No gov't is your idea not the "right wingers" , the founders were "right wingers" and they set up the Federal Gov't to manage the country. Government has forgot its place just like those that draw a check from it.

[Kyle Reese]

Pat,

2004

Much?

[will_1400]

Are you capable of arguments which don't involve straw men? I've not seen any legitimate 'right winger' calling for no government.

Nice attempt at deflection.

Let me ask you again, for the third time, please provide data for your assertion:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10620-Military-retirees-You-betrayed-us-Congress&p=185943&viewfull=1#post185943

This.

I'm also curious to see his source that big business outspends big labor by an "order of magnitude". Using the numbers provided by 1911guy, the contributions to the Democrat Party alone for the top 100 campaign donors is about $1.36 Billion. By definition that means the opposition (not just Republicans but also Libertarians and so on) should be receiving an aggregate of $13.6 Billion from the Super PACs Pat brought up.

My method for coming up with that number is I took the total amount contributed by each group in 1911guy's link, each amount by the percentage reported donated to X party (I picked Dems in this case, especially since they dominated at least the top 20 for donations recieved), and then added the numbers up.

[Joe in PNG]

Pat, I say that because your arguments seem rather detached from the reality of what a small businessman endures in the current regulatory environment.
And there is a point where if the regulations get too restrictive, they get ignored.

[TGS]

Or we could learn from countries like Somalia where there is no working government. Should be a right wingers paradise.
Pat

Which one of us called for no government?

[Alaskapopo]

Pat, I say that because your arguments seem rather detached from the reality of what a small businessman endures in the current regulatory environment.
And there is a point where if the regulations get too restrictive, they get ignored.

Regulations need to be based on actual needs learned from past problems. If there is a problem that justifies intense regulation then if people ignore them they should be fined or imprisoned in an amount of money or time appropriate to the offense.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Which one of us called for no government?

When did I call for giving people free stuff. There is a balance between countries like Somalia and China.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Are you capable of arguments which don't involve straw men? I've not seen any legitimate 'right winger' calling for no government.

Nice attempt at deflection.

Let me ask you again, for the third time, please provide data for your assertion:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10620-Military-retirees-You-betrayed-us-Congress&p=185943&viewfull=1#post185943

A lot of you need to take a look in the mirror also just a few posts back someone was calling for doing away with agencies like the EPA. Sounds like incremental steps towards no government to me but nice back pedal.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

No gov't is your idea not the "right wingers" , the founders were "right wingers" and they set up the Federal Gov't to manage the country. Government has forgot its place just like those that draw a check from it.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Humor/tinfoil.jpg (http://s59.photobucket.com/user/355sigfan/media/Humor/tinfoil.jpg.html)
Some of them also supported slavery as well and slept with their slaves. Many also felt that only rich land owning white me should be allowed to vote. Government is the new boogy man to tin foil heads.

Pat

[JV_]

A lot of you need to take a look in the mirror also just a few posts back someone was calling for doing away with agencies like the EPA.Doing away with the EPA is not the same as doing away with the entire US Government.


Sounds like incremental steps towards no government to me but nice back pedal.No, you're taking it all the way to no government.

Please provide your source for this:

However big business spends several times more than big labor ever did simply because they have more money to leverage

[BLR]

Pat, please respond to my posts where I answered your requests.

Also, when the EPA makes statements like this: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified
maybe it's time to take a good hard look at what they are doing. I don't believe anyone at GE is making statements like that.

Anyway, again, please respond to the numbers I put up. I'd like to know where you obtained yours.

[Alaskapopo]

Things are on topic , it is all related. You made claims now back them up as asked instead of trying to change the subject.

Also on topic is the fact that a "cut in benefits" is not what has been proposed but a reduction in the amount of increases is what has been suggested. There is a difference and just as the private sector has seen their pay scale increases stall the people they are supporting should share in the sacrifice.

When you don't keep up with inflation you are indeed cutting benefits. Simple concept I can break it down if youneed me to.
Also my pay has not kept up with inflation and the merit raises I have gotten have been around 70 cents while one of my best friends in the private sector has generally gotten raises of at least $4 at a time and now he makes a flat day rate of $650 a day. Generally people in the private sector make more money for similar jobs while government sector workers make less but generally get better benefits like medical and retirement. We have had officers quit and go work private security on the slope and make more money. So all this whining about government workers not having to share in the economic down turn is just bullcrap.
Pat

[BaiHu]

Forgive me in advance mods, but Pat, did you get a deal on a dozen shovels for the hole you're digging yourself in or did you go right for the backhoe this Christmas? Seriously, you're the only one here casting a wide net with these "all or nothing" aspersions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Alaskapopo]

Pat, please respond to my posts where I answered your requests.

Also, when the EPA makes statements like this: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified
maybe it's time to take a good hard look at what they are doing. I don't believe anyone at GE is making statements like that.

Anyway, again, please respond to the numbers I put up. I'd like to know where you obtained yours.

Your not going to get me to feel sorry for oil companies. I remember the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and I know the damage they have done to the environment. Take a look at Chevron trying to run from its reponsiblities for the massive pollution it caused in Ecuador http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/13/chevron-ordered-on-appeal-to-pay-ecuador-9-51-billion-for-environmental-damage/

Yes examples like this are why we need the EPA and why the industry can not be trusted to police itself.
Pat

[BaiHu]

And the EPA, MMS, Matt Damon and everything Obama et al did what exactly to stop the BP disaster? They elected the most highly fined company to drill in the GOM. Do you know what petrochemical engineers in the business called BP? Beyond pathetic. What did the EPA and Obama's pals say? Drill it and if you eff it up, it's not our fault for allowing the worst oil company to do the work.

ETA: Thats the main difference. Government gets no blame for hiring the wrong guy. Ask an employer what happens when they hire the wrong guy and it goes pear shaped.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BLR]

Your not going to get me to feel sorry for oil companies. I remember the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and I know the damage they have done to the environment. Take a look at Chevron trying to run from its reponsiblities for the massive pollution it caused in Ecuador http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/13/chevron-ordered-on-appeal-to-pay-ecuador-9-51-billion-for-environmental-damage/

Yes examples like this are why we need the EPA and why the industry can not be trusted to police itself.
Pat

Pat, please respond to the numbers first. JV keeps asking, and I'd like to hear your reasoning also.


Then we can discuss tax dollar sponsored activism.

[TGS]

When did I call for giving people free stuff. There is a balance between countries like Somalia and China.
Pat

Did I write that you called for "giving people free stuff," whatever the heck that means?

No.

Keep digging that hole, dude. Strawman extraordinaire.

[will_1400]

Pat, please respond to the numbers first. JV keeps asking, and I'd like to hear your reasoning also.


Then we can discuss tax dollar sponsored activism.

I, too, am curious about his numbers.

[Alaskapopo]

I, too, am curious about his numbers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/21/us-usa-court-politics-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121

I also linked an article earlier about super pacs. Its common sense. Unions don't have nearly as much capital to spend as corporations do. Now with the courts decision that corporations and unions can spend what they want and the formation of super pacs to hide who is really donating the money. Its nearly impossible to see who is spending how much exactly.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

And the EPA, MMS, Matt Damon and everything Obama et al did what exactly to stop the BP disaster? They elected the most highly fined company to drill in the GOM. Do you know what petrochemical engineers in the business called BP? Beyond pathetic. What did the EPA and Obama's pals say? Drill it and if you eff it up, it's not our fault for allowing the worst oil company to do the work.

ETA: Thats the main difference. Government gets no blame for hiring the wrong guy. Ask an employer what happens when they hire the wrong guy and it goes pear shaped.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The BP disaster yet another reason why the industry can not be trusted to police themselves and why the EPA is needed.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Doing away with the EPA is not the same as doing away with the entire US Government.

No, you're taking it all the way to no government.

Please provide your source for this:

Actually its an incremental step towards that goal. Some don't like the EPA. (generally those who pollute) Some don't like the IRS (those that don't want to pay their share of the taxes). Some don't like xyz agency. However the simple fact is all of those agencies were started to address real problems like pollution for example. Getting rid of the watch dog will not help make the problem go away.
Pat

[BaiHu]

Uhhh. They were fined the most of any other oil company about two months before the Obama administration allowed them to operate there. If the EPA and MMS were as aware as every other oil company, then BP would never have been allowed to drill. Who paid off who and who accepted the bargain? Couldn't have been done without government approval.

ETA: My buddy's dad wrote a book about the EPA, called "Victim: Caught in the environmental web". He's since deceased. It highlights how people get screwed by previous owners of land-in NJ-not a conservative stronghold, I recommend you read it. The EPA nails the new owner for previous owners indiscretions/lack of disclosures, simply because they've been grandfathered in. That sound right to you?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Alaskapopo]

Uhhh. They were fined the most of any other oil company about two months before the Obama administration allowed them to operate there. If the EPA and MMS were as aware as every other oil company, then BP would never have been allowed to drill. Who paid off who and who accepted the bargain? Couldn't have been done without government approval.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I don't know what your talking about with BP honestly so I won't comment. But spills like these show us why the industry needs to monitored and regulated. What is sounds like your saying is we need more regulations due to BP being allowed to do the drilling or at least better enforcement than we currently have. So things need to be stricter not looser.

Anyway I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole. Yes I am pro union and I know most of you are not. None of us are going to change our minds. This thread started as not being anything about that. Can we all agree to just get back on topic. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I refuse to debate the whole union issue with you all again and we will never see eye to eye on it ever. I hope we can all agree to disagree.
Happy new year.
Pat

[WobblyPossum]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/21/us-usa-court-politics-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121

I also linked an article earlier about super pacs. Its common sense. Unions don't have nearly as much capital to spend as corporations do. Now with the courts decision that corporations and unions can spend what they want and the formation of super pacs to hide who is really donating the money. Its nearly impossible to see who is spending how much exactly.
Pat

Nowhere in that article does it say that corporate/conservative interests spend more money financing politics than unions/liberal interests. The closest it comes is a quote by Chuck Schumer saying that the real winner of the next election is Corporate America. We all know that Senator Schumer is a non-partisan, un-biased guy (sarcasm), but one man's unsupported opinion does not data make.

1911Guy provided a link to hard data with clear numbers of who is spending what. That's all anyone is asking of you.

[Alaskapopo]

Nowhere in that article does it say that corporate/conservative interests spend more money financing politics than unions/liberal interests. The closest it comes is a quote by Chuck Schumer saying that the real winner of the next election is Corporate America. We all know that Senator Schumer is a non-partisan, un-biased guy (sarcasm), but one man's unsupported opinion does not data make.

1911Guy provided a link to hard data with clear numbers of who is spending what. That's all anyone is asking of you.

1911 Guy's data did not show super pac spending nor did it lay down the total spending. It was just a list of individual contributors. Anyway enough I wanted to talk about how vets are getting the short end of the stick no old tired debates where everyone's mind is already made up.
Good bye.
Pat

[littlejerry]

Actually its an incremental step towards that goal. Some don't like the EPA. (generally those who pollute) Some don't like the IRS (those that don't want to pay their share of the taxes).
Pat

Are you kittening kidding me?!?

Talk to any small business owner or self-employed entrepreneur and see how much they like the IRS. And it has nothing to do with "paying their share."

My wife owns her own business and works as a contractor. She does photography, graphic design, and catalog design. Her taxes are a royal pain in the ass every year because she treads a fine line between over-paying thousands of dollars and avoiding being audited. There are people whose career is to navigate the labyrinth of tax laws and write-offs to keep their customer from getting screwed legally or financially. Its not about "not paying your share," its about having something left over at the end of the year.


Some don't like xyz agency. However the simple fact is all of those agencies were started to address real problems like pollution for example. Getting rid of the watch dog will not help make the problem go away.
Pat

And clearly all of these were the best and only solutions. Like Fannie and Freddie being the "solution" that led to our housing crisis. Just like the AWB is the solution to Newtown. Just like Fast and Furrious is the solution to what exactly? Our "watch dogs" aren't watching anything but their own paychecks. Hell, sometimes they are guilty of outright fraud and no one is held accountable.

[will_1400]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/21/us-usa-court-politics-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121

I also linked an article earlier about super pacs. Its common sense. Unions don't have nearly as much capital to spend as corporations do. Now with the courts decision that corporations and unions can spend what they want and the formation of super pacs to hide who is really donating the money. Its nearly impossible to see who is spending how much exactly.
Pat

I read the article on the Super PACs. Running the numbers for the opposition figures in the link you provided shows that the Super PACs spent about $32 million more on trashing Obama than they did the Republican candidates ($149 Million vs $117 Million). So there is an edge against Obama but it apparently didn't work since we know how the election went. Running the numbers for just the Democrat Party's receipts from the Top 100 contributors in one 1911guy's links (www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php) came out to $1.36 billion. To reach just one order of magnitude, the Republicans would have had to receive $13.6 billion which is much less than what Buffett or Bloomberg have in their personal pockets. In the interest of disclosure, I just ran with the Democrat side on this link (www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php) because I was having to figure out how much each group gave to the Dems and crunching 100 numbers for the sake of an argument isn't what I consider fun.Please note the names of in the top 20 listed: they are...
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (#2)
National Education Association (#4)
National Association of Realtors (#5)
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (#6)
United Auto Workers (#8)
Carpenters and Joiners Union (#9)
Service Employees International Union (#10)
Laborers Union (#11)
American Federation of Teachers (#12)
Communication Workers of America (#13)
Teamsters Union (#14)
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (#16)
Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union (#20).

That's 13 of the top 20 campaign donors for the period of 1989-2012, as reported to the Federal Election Commission; information cut-off listed as 25 March 2013. Also note that at least one PAC is listed in that link (the #1 entry is a solid Democrat/Liberal PAC).

I want to know where you get "orders of magnitude" since business would have to be shelling out at least $13.6 billion to meet just one order of magnitude (or if we assume at least two orders of magnitude as your plural use of the term implies, $136 billion). From the reported donation figures, AT&T has done the most campaign contributions at about $56 million while the National Education Association alone accounted for $54 million. "Orders of magnitude" indeed.


Its nearly impossible to see who is spending how much exactly.

I find this statement interesting. I looks a lot like another dodge and to me carries an implication that you don't have any hard evidence to back your claims. Once again the question is: where is your evidence that big business spends more on campaigns than the unions?

[Corvus]

When you don't keep up with inflation you are indeed cutting benefits. Simple concept I can break it down if youneed me to.
Also my pay has not kept up with inflation and the merit raises I have gotten have been around 70 cents while one of my best friends in the private sector has generally gotten raises of at least $4 at a time and now he makes a flat day rate of $650 a day. Generally people in the private sector make more money for similar jobs while government sector workers make less but generally get better benefits like medical and retirement. We have had officers quit and go work private security on the slope and make more money. So all this whining about government workers not having to share in the economic down turn is just bullcrap.
Pat

Wrong...again.

Gov't jobs ARE NOT similar to the private sector. Private sector jobs are productive , they generate profit , they help pay the countries operating costs , gov't jobs only take from others.

If you want your friends pay rate then you should do your friends job instead of whining for the taxpayer to sacrifice even more in taxes to give you the same thing. In Ky. a 70 cent raise is a very good raise , my last one was .63 and many of the area companies average around 35 cents.

[Corvus]

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Humor/tinfoil.jpg (http://s59.photobucket.com/user/355sigfan/media/Humor/tinfoil.jpg.html)
Some of them also supported slavery as well and slept with their slaves. Many also felt that only rich land owning white me should be allowed to vote. Government is the new boogy man to tin foil heads.

Pat

....and that shows right wingers want no gov't exactly how ????????

You should stop asking others to stay on topic until you can do the same yourself.

[Alaskapopo]

Wrong...again.

Gov't jobs ARE NOT similar to the private sector. Private sector jobs are productive , they generate profit , they help pay the countries operating costs , gov't jobs only take from others.

If you want your friends pay rate then you should do your friends job instead of whining for the taxpayer to sacrifice even more in taxes to give you the same thing. In Ky. a 70 cent raise is a very good raise , my last one was .63 and many of the area companies average around 35 cents.

Actually Govt Sector jobs have a vital function like protecting us from foreign countries (US Military). Protecting us from criminals (law enforcement), Protecting your homes from fires (fire department) the list goes on and on. Also government R&D has benefited the private sector greatly. Technologies developed by the government think tanks latter applied to civilian applications. Some technologies were so expensive to R&D that only the government could afford it and later after the money was spent the private sector was able to expand on it. Also instead of whining about how much a cop makes apply put on the badge and gun and risk your own life. Also the cost of living in Alaska is a lot more than the cost of living in Ky. The US taxes is citizens the least of any other 1st world country. Sorry but your tears just are not having an impact. Govt Jobs give a lot you have your freedom thanks to the sacrifices of government workers called vets who answered the countries call. ungrateful does not even begin to describe your attitude.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

....and that shows right wingers want no gov't exactly how ????????

You should stop asking others to stay on topic until you can do the same yourself.

I was responding to your left field post.
Pat

[Tamara]

When did I call for giving people free stuff. There is a balance between countries like Somalia and China.
Pat

So, North Korea should be your Left Winger paradise, right?

[Tamara]

Actually Govt Sector jobs have a vital function like protecting us from foreign countries (US Military). Protecting us from criminals (law enforcement), Protecting your homes from fires (fire department) the list goes on and on.

Nobody's saying this stuff isn't important, they're just explaining to you where the money to pay for it comes from, and all you do is put your fingers in your ears and go"LALALALA! I pay taxes too!"

I'm out of this thread. This is like trying to talk to a flat earther or a young earth creationist. Facts get responded to with rote recitations of left wing scripture, culminating with the bit about slavery.

Hey, what party did those slaveholder belong to? Yours. And you still wanna keep me down on the farm.

[JV_]

I'm out of this thread.Yes, it appears to be an impossible discussion.

Chris Plante's saying keeps popping up in my head: ... [it's] like chasing a squirrel around the back yard with a tennis racquet.

[BLR]

I was going to mention that "corporations" don't harm the environment, people do. Corporation don't pay taxes, people do.

But then I had flashbacks of a McD and Walmart thread. :rolleyes:

Ahem.

Anyway, Tam, if you really want to see red, I can forward you some of the emails I got from my student concerning grades this last semester.

It will make you fell all warm and confident of our future.

[BaiHu]

Oooh, do share.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BLR]

Oooh, do share.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Check your PMs

[ToddG]

Gov't jobs ARE NOT similar to the private sector. Private sector jobs are productive , they generate profit , they help pay the countries operating costs , gov't jobs only take from others.

When the professionally trained, excellently equipped, dedicated paid firefighters in my county show up to put out the fire in my house I am not going to consider them "only taking from others."

When our soldiers prosecute a war far from home, risking life and limb so I can hang out at Starbucks, I don't consider that "only taking from others."

When my wife calls 911 because she heard someone in our backyard and the police drop everything to rush to her aid, I don't consider that "only taking from others."

When the passenger jet I'm flying in is about to land at a busy airport late at night in a squall, I don't consider the air traffic controllers "only taking from others."

I could go on and on.

Heck, the woman at the DMV who makes sure the worst of the worst "drivers" don't get licensed to prowl our streets is doing more than "only taking from others."

When Tom Jones's wife, Deputy Robin Hopkins, risked her life and got shot trying to stop a madman on a rampage through Albuquerque I don't consider that "only taking from others."

[Tamara]

2006

Why won't you blind statist sheeple vote for us?

(My team has serious image problems, and I think it's due to the high concentration of Aspies.)

[TGS]

When the professionally trained, excellently equipped, dedicated paid firefighters in my county show up to put out the fire in my house I am not going to consider them "only taking from others."

When our soldiers prosecute a war far from home, risking life and limb so I can hang out at Starbucks, I don't consider that "only taking from others."

When my wife calls 911 because she heard someone in our backyard and the police drop everything to rush to her aid, I don't consider that "only taking from others."

When the passenger jet I'm flying in is about to land at a busy airport late at night in a squall, I don't consider the air traffic controllers "only taking from others."

I could go on and on.

Heck, the woman at the DMV who makes sure the worst of the worst "drivers" don't get licensed to prowl our streets is doing more than "only taking from others."

When Tom Jones's wife, Deputy Robin Hopkins, risked her life and got shot trying to stop a madman on a rampage through Albuquerque I don't consider that "only taking from others."

You're taking it out of context.

He's speaking in a financial sense. Most government jobs do not generate revenue. They only take money from others (taxes) who do generate revenue from business.

[Tamara]

I get what he's saying.

Would you agree that it could probably be phrased better?

[will_1400]

I get what he's saying.

Would you agree that it could probably be phrased better?

As Sterling Archer has taught us, phrasing is always important. ;)

[JV_]

Most government jobs do not generate revenue. They only take money from others (taxes) who do generate revenue from business.

But they're helping to create/run the underlying infrastructure which allows businesses to exist, which is needed to create the money.

Without some government, it wouldn't work so well, right? You can reach a point where we have an excess of government employees where they're not adding any real benefit too.

[BLR]

But they're helping to create/run the underlying infrastructure which allows businesses to exist, which is needed to create the money.

Without some government, it wouldn't work so well, right? You can reach a point where we have an excess of government employees where they're not adding any real benefit too.

Food for thought:

711 Human Performance Wing was protected from the recent furlough.

Instead of working somberly and diligently during that period, they had 2 office parties. One was an alcohol involved October Fest. Figure 100 employees at an average of $130/hr with overhead. So the party cost the taxpayers 4 hrs x 100 employees x $130 = $50k for a half day party.

Then you have a former UES employee, turned GS project manager, funneling $45M in contracts to UES over 10ish years.

[TGS]

But they're helping to create/run the underlying infrastructure which allows businesses to exist, which is needed to create the money.

Without some government, it wouldn't work so well, right?

Absolutely, but that's not the point I believe Corvus is trying to make. While necessary, the FBI and Congressional Research Service doesn't generate revenue for America the way that the United States Steel Corporation, Colt, or Ford does. The government at-large only takes money from the revenue generators to support their own programs.

[JV_]

Instead of working somberly and diligently during that period, they had 2 office parties. One was an alcohol involved October Fest. Figure 100 employees at an average of $130/hr with overhead. So the party cost the taxpayers 4 hrs x 100 employees x $130 = $50k for a half day party.

I can see both sides of this.

It's not like they had to hire someone else to do their jobs while they took a few hours for a party, right? The work just waits, or it's down time, and there's nothing to really wait. I'm not sure it's fair to calculate the cost in this manner.

I've had plenty of less than productive days at work, and on the flip side, I've worked a lot of OT hours too. I had an entire year were I worked almost 20% more than my standard work week, and didn't get anything extra for it. When you try to put a price on my less than productive days at work, you're not factoring all of the time I've worked OT (and not gotten paid for it).

[ToddG]

You're taking it out of context.

Not as I read it. When someone goes on a repeated rant about how government employees "just take" and that they don't really pay taxes (?) etc., I see a context that is a little less simplistic than you, apparently. Hey, how about we reduce it all the way: the government is the one that prints all the money so the private sector are just taking what the government makes. :confused:

[JV_]

The government at-large only takes money from the revenue generators to support their own programs.They take money from revenue generators to keep the lights on, right?

I don't think it's ideal to put this in terms of yours/ours and the government.

[TGS]

Not as I read it. When someone goes on a repeated rant about how government employees "just take" and that they don't really pay taxes (?)

Well, they don't. They're paying taxes using money they're paid with from taxes.

This isn't hating on government employees or saying they're unnecessary or don't add any value to the country. It's just the simple truth.

[BLR]

I can see both sides of this.

It's not like they had to hire someone else to do their jobs while they took a few hours for a party, right? The work just waits, or it's down time, and there's nothing to really wait. I'm not sure it's fair to calculate the cost in this manner.

I've had plenty of less than productive days at work, and on the flip side, I've worked a lot of OT hours too. I had an entire year were I worked almost 20% more than my standard work week, and didn't get anything extra for it. When you try to put a price on my less than productive days at work, you're not factoring all of the time I've worked OT (and not gotten paid for it).

I get your point.

Time for this guy to back out.

Hope to see a bunch of you at SHOT.

[ToddG]

Well, they don't. They're paying taxes using money they're paid with from taxes.

"They don't pay taxes because they pay taxes with..." How is that even logical?

When my county police officer pays federal taxes then how does that work in your schema here? He's paying taxes to an entity other than the one from which he received his salary, just like I do as a private sector employee.

Saying they don't pay taxes is just a ridiculous spin to make it sound like they keep their paychecks while the rest of us have to pay taxes. They pay the exact same taxes we do. Their families have less to spend at the end of the day just like ours do.

I suppose the alternative would be to create a system where public employees are exempt from taxes but then what? Are state employees exempt from federal tax? Are federal employees allowed to ignore city taxes? Donations public employees make shouldn't be offset the way private sector employees' are? And of course the big one, everyone will whine and moan that public employees are tax exempt.

Grab the nearest cop and tell him he doesn't pay income tax, Social Security, etc. See if he agrees.

[Tamara]

And of course the big one, everyone will whine and moan that public employees are tax exempt.

I was actually thinking at length about this the other day and that's the only real reason I could come up with to not do it.

(That, and explaining to some people "No, we're going to give you a 30-50% pay cut, but you will be exempt from all taxes," would be a tough sell, too.)

[TGS]

"They don't pay taxes because they pay taxes with..." How is that even logical?

When my county police officer pays federal taxes then how does that work in your schema here? He's paying taxes to an entity other than the one from which he received his salary, just like I do as a private sector employee.

Saying they don't pay taxes is just a ridiculous spin to make it sound like they keep their paychecks while the rest of us have to pay taxes. They pay the exact same taxes we do. Their families have less to spend at the end of the day just like ours do.

I suppose the alternative would be to create a system where public employees are exempt from taxes but then what? Are state employees exempt from federal tax? Are federal employees allowed to ignore city taxes? Donations public employees make shouldn't be offset the way private sector employees' are? And of course the big one, everyone will whine and moan that public employees are tax exempt.

Grab the nearest cop and tell him he doesn't pay income tax, Social Security, etc. See if he agrees.

I think you're sort of jumping the shark here Todd, and purposely trying to turn these statements into insults which they're not suppose to be.

Of course .gov employee's pay taxes, but they're paying taxes using tax-money, so there's not any actual gain to the government purse. They're not paying taxes using revenue generated from business.

Think about it like this: if everyone were a government employee, pretty soon there would be no tax money to pay the government employees or support the government. The money has to come from somewhere, and it doesn't magically appear out of nowhere; it comes from businesses making money, paying their employees, and those employees paying taxes.

[JV_]

TGS: I'm reading what you're writing in the same way Todd is, and I don't think it's insulting.

[ToddG]

Of course .gov employee's pay taxes, but they're paying taxes using tax-money, so there's not any actual gain to the government purse. They're not paying taxes using revenue generated from business.

I think that's still a misunderstanding. If every government employee in the country suddenly stopped paying taxes, that would be a lot less money coming in to the government. The fact that the money is being paid by one agency of one government doesn't change that fact.


Think about it like this: if everyone were a government employee, pretty soon there would be no tax money to pay the government employees or support the government. The money has to come from somewhere, and it doesn't magically appear out of nowhere; it comes from businesses making money, paying their employees, and those employees paying taxes.

And if everyone was a frog...

Like I said, if you want to reduce it completely then you get "the government prints the money." You want to reduce it to an intermediate step to make a point that just doesn't matter. Everyone understands that government employees' salaries come from the government. Saying they don't pay taxes is just stupid. I've been a government employee. I've seen the taxes taken out of my paycheck.

Are you saying that government employees shouldn't be paid? Because while you might care where the source of the money paying them comes from, they just get a paycheck. Their paycheck is no less valid than the fry cook at the local McDonald's or the guy who runs Microsoft. And they pay taxes just like those guys.

[JV_]

if everyone were a government employeeWhen you reach this point, there's no point to our government, right? The purpose was to build the foundation for a thriving private sector, not to exist for it's own existence.

[TGS]

I think that's still a misunderstanding. If every government employee in the country suddenly stopped paying taxes, that would be a lot less money coming in to the government. The fact that the money is being paid by one agency of one government doesn't change that fact.



And if everyone was a frog...

Like I said, if you want to reduce it completely then you get "the government prints the money." You want to reduce it to an intermediate step to make a point that just doesn't matter. Everyone understands that government employees' salaries come from the government. Saying they don't pay taxes is just stupid. I've been a government employee. I've seen the taxes taken out of my paycheck.

Are you saying that government employees shouldn't be paid? Because while you might care where the source of the money paying them comes from, they just get a paycheck. Their paycheck is no less valid than the fry cook at the local McDonald's or the guy who runs Microsoft. And they pay taxes just like those guys.

Todd, I've also been a government employee. This is not some sort of hate on government employees. Your reductio ad absurdum and purposely turning a simple statement into an insult against government employees simply to turn this into a flame fest is not really kosher with me, and obvious that you're only in this to be argumentative. So, I'm done.


I'm done with you.

[TGS]

When you reach this point, there's no point to our government, right? The purpose was to build the foundation for a thriving private sector, not to exist for it's own existence.

That makes sense to me.

[will_1400]

"They don't pay taxes because they pay taxes with..." How is that even logical?

When my county police officer pays federal taxes then how does that work in your schema here? He's paying taxes to an entity other than the one from which he received his salary, just like I do as a private sector employee.

Saying they don't pay taxes is just a ridiculous spin to make it sound like they keep their paychecks while the rest of us have to pay taxes. They pay the exact same taxes we do. Their families have less to spend at the end of the day just like ours do.

I suppose the alternative would be to create a system where public employees are exempt from taxes but then what? Are state employees exempt from federal tax? Are federal employees allowed to ignore city taxes? Donations public employees make shouldn't be offset the way private sector employees' are? And of course the big one, everyone will whine and moan that public employees are tax exempt.

Grab the nearest cop and tell him he doesn't pay income tax, Social Security, etc. See if he agrees.

According to my LES, I'm paying Federal income tax and Social Security. I don't pay State or local taxes due to how Michigan's tax policy for military.

[Jac]

I really have nothing to add to this conversation other than to say that, as an actual anarchist, it's fun to watch...

[Tamara]

...as an actual anarchist...

Speaking as someone who has used that term to self-describe, can I tell you how much the quoted sentence fragment sounds like some guy in costume at DragonCon referring to the people outside the hotel as "mundanes"?

It's almost impossible to read aloud without it coming out in a Comic Book Guy accent. :p

[Jac]

Speaking as someone who has used that term to self-describe, can I tell you how much the quoted sentence fragment sounds like some guy in costume at DragonCon referring to the people outside the hotel as "mundanes"?

It's almost impossible to read aloud without it coming out in a Comic Book Guy accent. :p

I know... Lost a bit in the medium, I'm afraid. I just meant to make the point that the accusations being thrown at the "right-wingers who want to do away with government" were amusing to someone who really does.

Hard to do without sounding a bit Comic Book Guy-ish. But then, I probably am a touch on the aspie end of the spectrum anyway... :)

[TGS]

I know... Lost a bit in the medium, I'm afraid. I just meant to make the point that the accusations being thrown at the "right-wingers who want to do away with government" were amusing to someone who really does.

Hard to do without sounding a bit Comic Book Guy-ish. But then, I probably am a touch on the aspie end of the spectrum anyway... :)

I'm curious......what is your response when someone makes the "you must love Somalia" comment?

[TCinVA]

Why is it that whenever anyone discusses removing so much as a dime from the federal budget we are inundated with howls and screams about anarchy? As if every last penny of the federal budget is, has always been, and always shall be the thinnest of protections from an outbreak of absolute anarchy.

It's rather like someone saying "Hey, dude, you should lose some weight" and the fat guy saying "YOU WANT TO STARVE ME TO DEATH!!!"

Utter bullsmurf.

[Alaskapopo]

I think that's still a misunderstanding. If every government employee in the country suddenly stopped paying taxes, that would be a lot less money coming in to the government. The fact that the money is being paid by one agency of one government doesn't change that fact.



And if everyone was a frog...

Like I said, if you want to reduce it completely then you get "the government prints the money." You want to reduce it to an intermediate step to make a point that just doesn't matter. Everyone understands that government employees' salaries come from the government. Saying they don't pay taxes is just stupid. I've been a government employee. I've seen the taxes taken out of my paycheck.

Are you saying that government employees shouldn't be paid? Because while you might care where the source of the money paying them comes from, they just get a paycheck. Their paycheck is no less valid than the fry cook at the local McDonald's or the guy who runs Microsoft. And they pay taxes just like those guys.

Thank you for the excellent and articulate post.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Nobody's saying this stuff isn't important, they're just explaining to you where the money to pay for it comes from, and all you do is put your fingers in your ears and go"LALALALA! I pay taxes too!"

I'm out of this thread. This is like trying to talk to a flat earther or a young earth creationist. Facts get responded to with rote recitations of left wing scripture, culminating with the bit about slavery.

Hey, what party did those slaveholder belong to? Yours. And you still wanna keep me down on the farm.

I get where money comes from and at the end of the day just because something is not generating income does not mean its not an essential service. You don't want cops or firefighters to be revenue generators. People get pissed at the departments that do use officers to write tickets just to generate income. Basically there is more to life than just money.
Pat

[BLR]

Pat, are you going to give me a direct response or not?

I looked up numbers and provided them for you. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

[Alaskapopo]

Pat, are you going to give me a direct response or not?

I looked up numbers and provided them for you. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

I covered this in two previous posts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/21/us-usa-court-politics-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

Take a look at how much Restore our Future spent for Romney and against Obama. Look also at who the top contributes are yep CEO's.


pat

[will_1400]

I'll see your "Restore Our Future" and raise you "ActBlue". https://secure.actblue.com/

Let's see...

Restore Our Future is listed at ~$142 Million on your link and here: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00490045&cycle=2012

ActBlue: Research shows ~$151 million through this link here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00401224&cycle=2012 . They also claim to have raised about $445 Million since 2004 on their website.

Still waiting to see your "orders of magnitude".

[TCinVA]

I get where money comes from and at the end of the day just because something is not generating income does not mean its not an essential service.

I don't believe anyone with sense ever said that it did. There are some prerequisites for economic prosperity, one of them being a sufficiently strong national defense that the country next door doesn't come over the border and take all your stuff. The other being a sufficiently robust civil justice system that your neighbor can't just come over and take all your stuff. These things need to exist to make economic prosperity possible...but these things don't generate the prosperity in and of themselves. They serve as a protection for the conditions that make prosperity possible, and that's why society organizes and pays for them.

Equally true is that our government's reach extends FAR beyond the absolute necessities, and anyone who dares point that out is neither arguing for total anarchy or elimination of every single government service.

[Corvus]

The government takes in XXX amount of dollars every year from the private sector , that is the budget (plus what they borrow or print). I don't care how many times it goes from dept to dept , agency to agency or gov't employee to gov't employee the dollar amount is still the same. Call the money taxes , fees , contributions or kick backs and the tax base is still the same XXX is was before. Only the private sector adds to the tax base , if your "taxes" do not add to the base then they are not taxes.

It was never said that some things are not "essential" but essential or not that same service could be done by the private sector better and cheaper. Does anyone here actually think that the current healthcare fiasco is the only thing the gov't does not manage well. Every other thing the feds do is managed by the same idiots and the same policies that have created the current healthcare system.

The USPS for example , an essential service that has total market share , laws are in place to make competition illegal and yet they still operate in the red every year. Does anyone think that the UPS management would be in the red with a set up like the USPS has ? If the USPS was ran by the private sector it would be a cash cow.

If some are going to go full retard with statements like " if you want to reduce it completely then you get "the government prints the money " explain to us how much money the gov't cold print without the equipment which is produced by the private sector , the power that is produced by the private sector and the technology that is produced by the private sector ?

The private sector is who serves this country.

[JV_]

if your "taxes" do not add to the base then they are not taxes.

Is this your definition of a tax?

Webster's definition:

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

If a government employee doesn't pay his/her taxes, then it wouldn't contribute to revenue - right?

[JHC]

Re the OP - in 1982 and again in '86 the actual calculation of retirement pay was reduced and has since been restored. One would gather recent times are entirely without precedent and the greatest calamity in history.

[BLR]

There are different filters to look at GS types paying taxes.

Are they contributing to society? Absolutely. Well, some are. I know many who aren't. But that's a different rant.

Are they paying taxes? Reminds me of relativity theory. Depending on your frame of reference, yes and no. If you draw the envelope around the individual, they do, just as any employee does. If you draw the envelope around the country, no. No "product" is being generated and sold on the free market. In essence, my tax dollars go to pay G-mans salary; Uncle Sam, depending on how cynical you want to be, skims off the top or taxes them to simplify the tax system (I can't believe I actually wrote that... ;) ).

Gov't employees don't (typically, there are a few exceptions) generate product. They regulate. They are not income generators, they are income redistributors. That doesn't mean they are by any stretch unneeded, unwanted, or don't serve a purpose (though there is a HUGE amount of bloat that can be removed). That doesn't mean there aren't whole administrations and bureaus that could and should be done away with.

Just because this lesson is worth repeated learning:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgXdbtJ13oc

[Tamara]

For-profit law enforcement would be the very definition of "perverse incentive". And with that, I really am bailing off this train before it gets any further from the tracks.

Maybe I'll go read some of my anarchotopian posts from a dozen years ago at TFL and wince a little.

[BaiHu]

Before we lose total sight of the balance of government and private entities, let me just put this here (the government can't "print" without them): http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Now, I'm not saying the Fed is any better, but there are very clear issues that our country has and one of them is too much government, but the other is too much complicit behavior from private institutions that have made out like bandits due to too much government crushing the aforementioned private institutions' competitors. Monopoly doesn't exist if it's government sanctioned, but who owns who when I say JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, BOA/Merrill and Goldman Sachs, et al?

Now, it is my opinion that government should shoulder more blame here, because without a willing bribee, there can be no bribery. Lobbying should be replaced by a intellectually curious and honest press and an educated voter. And that's an incredibly optimistic and naive thing to say. So the only other thing I can say that would solve the above issue is reduce the size of government and when I say that, it doesn't mean I throw cops, fire, EMS and soldiers in the street, rather (and I believe I speak for many who have been misconstrued in this thread) it means throw the leech like plutocrats that exacerbate the situation out of our government and bring the private/public entities back to balance.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[TGS]

Are they paying taxes? Reminds me of relativity theory. Depending on your frame of reference, yes and no. If you draw the envelope around the individual, they do, just as any employee does. If you draw the envelope around the country, no. No "product" is being generated and sold on the free market.

Something is wrong, because we are thinking the same thing.

[Drang]

The USPS for example , an essential service that has total market share , laws are in place to make competition illegal and yet they still operate in the red every year.
As it turns out, it is illegal for the US Postal Service to operate at a profit. That is, postage is (theoretically) priced at what it costs to deliver the item posted.

Also, while "delivery of the post" is certainly an "essential service", I don't think the USPS has "total market share" any linger, and I'm not certain that UPS and FedEx couldn't do just as good a job of delivering the portion of my mail that USPS currently does carry. I get a lot more of my mail at the UPS Store than in the box across the street -- part of the reason I HAVE a UPS Store box is that my street box is across the street and a door over -- and nowadays I sign for much of it at the counter. Whether the Big Brown Truck or it's white and blue competitor could handle rural delivery and make a profit is another question, of course.

HH6 was disgusted with many of her friends this past year, she shared something about the proposed dropping of mail delivery on one day a week. (IIRC it was about the question of whether it should be Tuesday or Saturday.)
She said she hadn't realized how many of her friends were so emotionally invested in The State. (Not her words.)
So, just for fun I went and commented that I thought that USPS service should only apply to areas that commercial carriers couldn't handle daily delivery.
I'm pretty sure Facebook crashed from the statsist outrage.

Saw this on Facebook this morning, while a gross over-simplification, I think it illustrates the issue well. A Graphic Executive Summary, if you will:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WkHjKCucJqQ/UsGuofKC3wI/AAAAAAAAEHE/k2x2hpobM2o/s400/The+Great+Divide.png

[Drang]

Just because this lesson is worth repeated learning:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgXdbtJ13oc
Thank you for the video, sir, I've posted the text of that a few times on the blog and Facebook.

[NavyEngineer]

I can't claim to be impartial in this matter, since I have served 22 years and will be retiring within the next few months. Nobody I know made the military a career with the objective of getting rich, and it's true that the nation's budget problems are significant. I think one could make a strong argument that our government's failure to get our fiscal house in order is one of the greatest threats to our nation's future security and prosperity. I find it greatly disturbing that most of the discussion about the federal budget (from people on the political left as well as the right) focuses on reducing the deficit, instead of reducing the national debt. Unless we eliminate the deficit entirely and start to reduce the debt, we continue on a path toward financial ruin. Clearly there's a lot of wasteful federal spending, but many hard choices need to be made on beneficial things that need to be cut as well.

For the record, I believe a cut in military retirement Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) is a break in faith with military retirees and current servicemembers, since the DoD has and continues to promulgate that active duty military will receive a pension based on 2.5% of their annual pay multiplied by each year of service, providing they meet retirement conditions (generally 20 years of service, although DOD has sometimes allowed people to retire with a reduced pension before serving 20 years when they are trying to reduce the size of the force). DoD also states that retirees will receive annual COLAS equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index over the previous year to preserve the buying power of their retirement pay.
http://militarypay.defense.gov/retirement/

If the nation can afford to do so, I think a more fair approach to reducing promised benefits would be to grandfather current service members and retirees, and adjust the formula for people who join the military after a future specified date. If Congress assesses the nation can no longer afford to pay promised benefits to military retirees, it would be more palatable if the cuts were part of a comprehensive effort to balance the federal budget.

[Alaskapopo]

I don't believe anyone with sense ever said that it did. There are some prerequisites for economic prosperity, one of them being a sufficiently strong national defense that the country next door doesn't come over the border and take all your stuff. The other being a sufficiently robust civil justice system that your neighbor can't just come over and take all your stuff. These things need to exist to make economic prosperity possible...but these things don't generate the prosperity in and of themselves. They serve as a protection for the conditions that make prosperity possible, and that's why society organizes and pays for them.

Equally true is that our government's reach extends FAR beyond the absolute necessities, and anyone who dares point that out is neither arguing for total anarchy or elimination of every single government service.

Thank you for admitting this much. Rather our governments reach extends beyond these necessities is debatable and in the end its up to the voters to decide.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

The government takes in XXX amount of dollars every year from the private sector , that is the budget (plus what they borrow or print). I don't care how many times it goes from dept to dept , agency to agency or gov't employee to gov't employee the dollar amount is still the same. Call the money taxes , fees , contributions or kick backs and the tax base is still the same XXX is was before. Only the private sector adds to the tax base , if your "taxes" do not add to the base then they are not taxes.

It was never said that some things are not "essential" but essential or not that same service could be done by the private sector better and cheaper. Does anyone here actually think that the current healthcare fiasco is the only thing the gov't does not manage well. Every other thing the feds do is managed by the same idiots and the same policies that have created the current healthcare system.

The USPS for example , an essential service that has total market share , laws are in place to make competition illegal and yet they still operate in the red every year. Does anyone think that the UPS management would be in the red with a set up like the USPS has ? If the USPS was ran by the private sector it would be a cash cow.

If some are going to go full retard with statements like " if you want to reduce it completely then you get "the government prints the money " explain to us how much money the gov't cold print without the equipment which is produced by the private sector , the power that is produced by the private sector and the technology that is produced by the private sector ?

The private sector is who serves this country.
There are some things better done by the private sector no doubt and there are some things better done by the public sector. Private prisons are an example of a private sector failure and an absolute joke with tons of corruption and inmate abuses. The reason being you get what you pay for. You pay a guard minimum wage and have almost no background requirements you are going to get a bad employee. Now when it comes to making things for consumers like cars then the private sector does better and responds to consumer demands much faster. What is full retard is thinking just because I work for the government my taxes really are not taxes. Really? Also equally preposterous is thinking that government employees should not be compensated well for their labor. The same rule applies for any employment. If you want a good employee you need to pay them well if you don't they won't stay and will move on to another employer who does.
Pat

[ford.304]

I don't believe anyone with sense ever said that it did. There are some prerequisites for economic prosperity, one of them being a sufficiently strong national defense that the country next door doesn't come over the border and take all your stuff. The other being a sufficiently robust civil justice system that your neighbor can't just come over and take all your stuff. These things need to exist to make economic prosperity possible...but these things don't generate the prosperity in and of themselves. They serve as a protection for the conditions that make prosperity possible, and that's why society organizes and pays for them.

Equally true is that our government's reach extends FAR beyond the absolute necessities, and anyone who dares point that out is neither arguing for total anarchy or elimination of every single government service.

Always seems to make sense to me to think of government as the HR, IT, and Janitorial department of the company.

They're not revenue generating departments, but they're still required to let the rest of the company work.

That said, if you're spending more on your support staff than your actual profit earners you're not going to be a very successful company.

[BaiHu]

If the nation can afford to do so, I think a more fair approach to reducing promised benefits would be to grandfather current service members and retirees, and adjust the formula for people who join the military after a future specified date. If Congress assesses the nation can no longer afford to pay promised benefits to military retirees, it would be more palatable if the cuts were part of a comprehensive effort to balance the federal budget.

Absolutely agree with this. As a civilian, it is a disgrace that our retiring and current military gets hit first. Lower pay for incoming service members or no future retirement COLA starting at XYZ date? Sure. Reduce the size and scope of the military? Sure. But cut someone down after they provided a lifetime of service? Despicable and the authors and politicians that vote yes to that should be thrown out on their asses.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

Always seems to make sense to me to think of government as the HR, IT, and Janitorial department of the company.

They're not revenue generating departments, but they're still required to let the rest of the company work.

That said, if you're spending more on your support staff than your actual profit earners you're not going to be a very successful company.

This, this, so much this.

[David Armstrong]

Actually Govt Sector jobs have a vital function like protecting us from foreign countries (US Military). Protecting us from criminals (law enforcement), Protecting your homes from fires (fire department) the list goes on and on. Also government R&D has benefited the private sector greatly. Technologies developed by the government think tanks latter applied to civilian applications. Some technologies were so expensive to R&D that only the government could afford it and later after the money was spent the private sector was able to expand on it. Also instead of whining about how much a cop makes apply put on the badge and gun and risk your own life. Also the cost of living in Alaska is a lot more than the cost of living in Ky. The US taxes is citizens the least of any other 1st world country. Sorry but your tears just are not having an impact. Govt Jobs give a lot you have your freedom thanks to the sacrifices of government workers called vets who answered the countries call. ungrateful does not even begin to describe your attitude.
Pat
FWIW, the idea that protection from criminals is a government function is relatively new to society, and even now is not a sole government function. The same is true of firefighting. The importance of government funding for R&D is also fairly new, really taking off post WW2. Historically the importance and impact of government, particularly at the federal level, was rather minor in pretty much all sectors (military and roadway being two major exceptions) until the last 60 or 70 years. Big government has become important ONLY because the government has passed new laws making the government important.
Regarding taxes, it is rather unfair to compare strictly at the national level as a much higher percentage of taxes coming at the local level is traditional in the U.S. than other countries. If one compare the overall tax rates we don't necessarily come out so low.

[Alaskapopo]

Absolutely agree with this. As a civilian, it is a disgrace that our retiring and current military gets hit first. Lower pay for incoming service members or no future retirement COLA starting at XYZ date? Sure. Reduce the size and scope of the military? Sure. But cut someone down after they provided a lifetime of service? Despicable and the authors and politicians that vote yes to that should be thrown out on their asses.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I agree your solution is far better than what they are doing. But I will say I have quite a few friends in the Military and most of them struggle to make ends meet. I would hate to see their pay lowered especially since they are risking their lives for our country. Would much rather we reduce the size and scope of the military but no longer acting as the worlds police force.
Pat

[will_1400]

I covered this in two previous posts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/21/us-usa-court-politics-idUSTRE60K3SK20100121
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

Take a look at how much Restore our Future spent for Romney and against Obama. Look also at who the top contributes are yep CEO's.


pat


I'll see your "Restore Our Future" and raise you "ActBlue". https://secure.actblue.com/

Let's see...

Restore Our Future is listed at ~$142 Million on your link and here: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00490045&cycle=2012

ActBlue: Research shows ~$151 million through this link here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00401224&cycle=2012 . They also claim to have raised about $445 Million since 2004 on their website.

Still waiting to see your "orders of magnitude".

Hey Pat. You still haven't addressed your bit about big business being able to bring more money to bear than the people/unions. Care to elaborate other than "the biggest donors to X Super PAC are CEOs"? If anything, the numbers show a Democrat PAC raising more money than those CEOs. Further, I'm seeing a pattern of "$5000 here, $3000 there" from people listed as "unemployed". You still haven't backed up your assertion about big business spending more than big labor or the people on political elections since the evidence shows a near-even match.

[Corvus]

Is this your definition of a tax?

Webster's definition:


If a government employee doesn't pay his/her taxes, then it wouldn't contribute to revenue - right?

Really ???? We are going to now quote the dictionary ? .....Seriously ???????

[Corvus]

FWIW, the idea that protection from criminals is a government function is relatively new to society, and even now is not a sole government function. The same is true of firefighting. The importance of government funding for R&D is also fairly new, really taking off post WW2. Historically the importance and impact of government, particularly at the federal level, was rather minor in pretty much all sectors (military and roadway being two major exceptions) until the last 60 or 70 years. Big government has become important ONLY because the government has passed new laws making the government important.
Regarding taxes, it is rather unfair to compare strictly at the national level as a much higher percentage of taxes coming at the local level is traditional in the U.S. than other countries. If one compare the overall tax rates we don't necessarily come out so low.

Exactly correct....we have a winner !! I particularly liked this part "Big government has become important ONLY because the government has passed new laws making the government important."

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for those that have actually risked life and limb to defend this country but those that THINK they have risked life and limb only because of their outfit is another matter.

[Alaskapopo]

Exactly correct....we have a winner !! I particularly liked this part "Big government has become important ONLY because the government has passed new laws making the government important."

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for those that have actually risked life and limb to defend this country but those that THINK they have risked life and limb only because of their outfit is another matter.

Those of us who put on a uniform know that we are putting a target on our back. We have to treat each day like it could be our last.
Bigger government is a necessity as your population grows and as society becomes more complex. A loose confederation of states simply would not survive in this world. We would be speaking Chinese or Russian if that were the case.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Hey Pat. You still haven't addressed your bit about big business being able to bring more money to bear than the people/unions. Care to elaborate other than "the biggest donors to X Super PAC are CEOs"? If anything, the numbers show a Democrat PAC raising more money than those CEOs. Further, I'm seeing a pattern of "$5000 here, $3000 there" from people listed as "unemployed". You still haven't backed up your assertion about big business spending more than big labor or the people on political elections since the evidence shows a near-even match.

I have to admit after doing some research most sources put the spending by corporations and labor in almost a dead heat. So I was wrong on that ASSumption. I will eat the crow.
Pat