Anybody watching the debates?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Eliminate then cut. Not the other way around. That's exactly how we got here.

Same order for the other way, eliminate, then raise. Otherwise, you'll be in the same boat you are now.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: If its self funded you couls stop all new payments in and still pay all the payments out. SS simply can not do that. It is not self funded. It is funded by the people not yet born.

If we're arguing semantics, then you win. Okay. By your definition of self funded, it isn't. But you're not answering my question. By my (and, pretty much everyone else's) definition it is self funded, in that it doesn't spend money that it doesn't take in. So what is the point of your semantic argument? Gotcha? Okay, you got me. But everything else I said stands regardless of your word play. Cutting the spending and income of Social Security wouldn't effect the debt or deficit by your definition of self funded either. So why is it a target?

It's not semantics. And it isn't self funded any more than any other ponzi scam is self funded. It does spend money that it doesn't take in. Payments out are more than payments in. Cost is deferred down the road. That isn't self funded any more than a credit card paying off a credit card is.If you can't stop payments in and maintain payments out it is not self funded. It is a target for one good reason that the less you take out of an economy the more an economy grows and the more taxes you can get out of iot pay for spending? I went over that all ready. Or is that more word play on my part? I win because I'm not using cop outs like claiming semantics when my argument doesn't hold water.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Taxes are not too low, spending is too high. There isn't enough taxable income to pay for the spending.

We got here by not eliminating or cutting. First you have to cut spending to levels you can actually afford.

I hope you don't run your personal finances like you think the government debt needs to be run. If so you are demanding a raise instead of not spending so much or just going into massive debt.

ThePhranc wrote: Maybe its time these career government workers feel some pain the rest of the country does. You can even start with just a salary cut to more sane levels on par with private sector. Also no more paying people not to work would be great, like teachers who do horrible things but are kept on the books for what ever reason. Eliminate fraud waste and abuse in any way possible. You can also get rid of the redundant programmes. Instead of welfare turn it into a workfare system where people do something for those hand outs like picking up trash. I see garbage in the water ways every day that they could be cleaning up. Closing loopholes is good but raising taxes will hurt more than cutting spending.

Well not all government workers get payed more then the private sector employees. A number of my friends work for the DOD as engineers and they all make less then me (as an engineer in the private sector) even a couple who have been working for one or two years. Second ninety percent of teachers who are bad are there because NO ONE WANTS GET PAID JACK E36 M3 FOR ALL THE WORK THEY DO. I know people are going to say teachers get paid good yada yada but the number of hours good teachers put into teaching is insane (I am dating one). If you fire all the bad teachers, then you are going to be up E36 M3 creek in a hurry. It is time to make teaching a more desirable profession if we want to have a world class education system. Amen of the welfare thing, I have thought this for a while. If you aren't going to do jack E36 M3 we shouldn't give you jack E36 M3 for money. I still believe we are going to have to increase taxes and cut spending doing only one or the other is going to do to much damage to the economy.

ThePhranc wrote: I hope you don't run your personal finances like you think the government debt needs to be run. If so you are demanding a raise instead of not spending so much or just going into massive debt.

I run my personal finances exactly as I propose. My income is much higher than my expenses. I am not, nor have I ever been, in massive debt. When I didn't make enough to have the things I wanted, I went out and got a better job. If that is the bar, we should bear in mind that the United States is the wealthiest country on earth. If you look at our tax revenue as percent of GDP and compare that to other countries you'll find an interesting trend. Yes, there are countries that are much lower. Places like Afghanistan, Iran, Guatemala, El Salvador etc, etc. What do they all have in common? I don't want to live in any of them.

I just deleted a few other posts. Don't mean to threadjack or inflame. I'll move along. There have been a few facts made up in this thread. I pointed one out, but it was simply ignored. There are a few more here recently. I was going to point them out as well, but - you see how far that got me last time.

Have a great day and no hard feelings. Glad to live in a country with diverse opinions and freedom to express them.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: I hope you don't run your personal finances like you think the government debt needs to be run. If so you are demanding a raise instead of not spending so much or just going into massive debt.

I run my personal finances exactly as I propose.

You don't run your personal finances as you propose the government should be run. You live within your means and you propose the government just simply raise its means. If you spent all your money and them went into debt and them just decided to get more money every time you ran out then you would be running your personal finances just like you propose the government be run.

ThePhranc wrote: Maybe its time these career government workers feel some pain the rest of the country does. You can even start with just a salary cut to more sane levels on par with private sector.

Umm... Huh? Govt worker salaries are a fair bit less than comparible private sector positions. I know this as the child of a now retired govt worker. I have a friend who is a project engineering manager for the FAA. He could nearly double his pay going to the private sector.

Yes, there are some nice benefits to working for the govt - the vacation and sick day policies my mother worked under were quite enviable, but you have to be there for awhile before they get really good. Because of that, many govt agencies have trouble attracting good workers because the starting salaries are rather low.

Additionally, when younger workers get some experience, the lure of more money becomes to much and they jump ship. Even the supposed 'job security' isn't what it used to be. Over her 30 year career, my mother survived more than a few lay-offs in her dept.

ThePhranc wrote: You don't run your personal finances as you propose the government should be run. You live within your means and you propose the government just simply raise its means. If you spent all your money and them went into debt and them just decided to get more money every time you ran out then you would be running your personal finances just like you propose the government be run.

First, let me say, I was grumpy yesterday. Tried to keep it on track. I'm feeling a little better today. Sorry if I was anything less than cordial.

Your question can't be answered. We're in a position that I would never be in personally. But, again, the approach I took wasn't to cut. It was to make more. If the rules of personal finance apply, then what we can afford is relative to how much wealth we have.

I make a lot of these points that seem to get, shall we say, lost. So I'll start repeating a bit.

The United States is the wealthiest nation on earth. Look at our tax revenue as percent of GDP relative to other countries. Our tax burden is very low. And "the people", who are supposed to run the country through representative government, want a lot of expensive programs. And there’s no question we can afford them. We don’t have any significant, unique programs of major expense that many other nations don’t have. And, again, we’re wealthier than any of them. We can afford them. Where we run into trouble is when people tell us we can have all the programs and not pay for them.

Let me get back to one other point that may have been lost. There is a point at which lowering taxes no longer stimulates the economy enough to generate more tax revenue than it costs. If you like, you can go back to my other post on the subject where I laid it out in more detail. But the “optimal” tax rate is something greater than zero. Can you tell me what it is? Can you agree that the point of diminishing returns does exist?

Ian F wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Maybe its time these career government workers feel some pain the rest of the country does. You can even start with just a salary cut to more sane levels on par with private sector.

Umm... Huh? Govt worker salaries are a fair bit less than comparible private sector positions. I know this as the child of a now retired govt worker. I have a friend who is a project engineering manager for the FAA. He could nearly double his pay going to the private sector.

Just one other thing, then I'll step out for a bit and let you think on it. I’ll try to say it in an appropriate manner. And I would ask you to think about it for a bit before you respond. Bear with me if I am in any way abrasive. I’m trying not to be.

This point has been made a couple of times. Ian is right. It seems to be a fact that government jobs pay less than private sector jobs. NASA is notorious for paying much less than comparable jobs in the private sector. I know the same is true for lawyers- judges make a fraction of what they could make in the private sector, so much so that many places are having a hard time recruiting judges. Public defenders? Look at the differential in pay for University profs at private vs. public schools.

Similarly, I pointed out that you made some erroneous claims about the original intent of Social Security. I politely pointed out that you were mistaken, provided sources and the text of the bill. Optional and only for widows and orphans? I’ve never heard that claim before and I can’t think of any way to look at the bill and draw that conclusion. But you don’t seem willing to respond.

Then the issue of self-funding- you offer a definition that differs significantly from the generally accepted definition and not only doggedly stick to your own definition, but use it to suggest that everyone else is wrong. Self-funded is just that: funded. Not already paid for. I have a loan for my house. I pay it each month. The loan is funded. It is funded with my income. It is not paid for. If it was paid in full, there would be no loan. You might as well say the Military isn’t funded because the taxes to pay for it ten years down the road have not yet been collected. By your definition, nothing is funded. But when this is pointed out, you simply repeat what you said in the first place, offering no explanation for your point of view.

Then you claim that Social Security takes money out of the economy, but ignore the point that all of the money goes out in the form of benefits. It’s reasonable to think those benefits are spent, and therefore go into the economy. Again, I think you may be mistaken.

But even if they’re all being saved, you made the erroneous point that money sitting in a bank stimulates the economy, claiming that it can then be loaned to others. But banks are sitting on a mountain of capital and there’s a significant credit crisis. Many measures have been taken to try to encourage banks to loan the money they have in order to get it into the economy. Again, you make a point that seems to be at best misinformed.

I would just ask you to put yourself in the chair of any of us reading this thread. What would you make of someone who posted several things that seemed to be factually inaccurate and made no effort to explain their position? And moving forward, how willing would you be to accept their next point on face value? Again, I’m trying to put this politely, and I apologize if I have failed.

Eddie, some of your points may be valid, but keep in mind that some of us like lower tax rates, as, by definition, less services and more spending power as individuals increase our freedom, even if it is not the optimum for gathering money from the populace and increasing revenue. Whether or not SS is self-funded is irrelevant to me, because I don't think it's a good idea. Even if it made money.

Put it this way, leaning left as you do, this example may mean more to you. Let's say (hypothetically, it's just an example) that going to war with Badcountry increased the GDP due to military spending and spoils in the form of oil or uranium or something. Does that make it a good idea? War-mongers would defend it as such, much in the way that lefties are defending SS, medicaid, medicare, welfare, etc. My point is, even if they are right (and I doubt they are), I don't want my country to do those things. I want my country to do what the founders had intended and conveniently left in a constitution for us to read.

Sources say that private sector jobs pay less - see the link:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

tuna55 wrote: Eddie, some of your points may be valid, but keep in mind that some of us like lower tax rates, as, by definition, less services and more spending power as individuals increase our freedom, even if it is not the optimum for gathering money from the populace and increasing revenue. Whether or not SS is self-funded is irrelevant to me, because I don't think it's a good idea. Even if it made money.

I get that. That's a fine point of view and you said what you meant. If that's what people believe, that's what they should say. You have an opinion I respect. I even agree with you in many cases. Other cases I do not. But I think we always know where the other guy is coming from. We’re honest about what we think

I like many of the services the government provides, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes to have them. Like you, I say what I mean. If I want the services to be available, I have to pay for them. I don’t pretend it works any other way.

If we lay things out like that we can have a conversation. If I start saying that more government services somehow makes the need for taxation lower, we're going to have a problem. I'm not making an honest or logical argument at that point, and you would be right to say "I call BS".

On the same note, you can’t say over and over that lower taxes will always raise revenue. You can’t ignore that basic logic suggests, and even proponents of that argument agree, that it’s only true to a point. But as it has been said, I respectfully call BS. If, in reality, you’re not in favor of increased tax revenue, then say so (as, to your credit, you did).

tuna55 wrote: I want my country to do what the founders had intended and conveniently left in a constitution for us to read.

I love when people make this argument, like the founding fathers knew everything, could do no wrong, and we couldn't possibly be smarter than them in any way, and that the people you disagree with are DESTROYING the constitution.

The founding fathers clearly wanted a government. They wanted a government that would adapt to the changes in society. They created a framework with a system for amending that framework. They wanted us to have a legislature that would pass new laws.

They also wrote slavery into the constitution itself and didn't allow women to vote. So clearly they didn't get everything right.

More to the point, they provided us with a means to pass legislation knowing that a static Constitution couldn't accomodate every situation that could come along. I don't like to throw out the slavery thing. I think it's misleading. But what it does point out is that they were dealing as best they could and making compromises. But I can do the slavery thing one better...

You know who else was a founding father? Hitler!

tuna55 wrote: Sources say that private sector jobs pay less - see the link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

And to be fair, I'll look at this in more depth. Wondering about the source, as a quick scan seems to uncover the "error". Is this comparing every private job to all public jobs? So every McDonalds employee is in there? Governments don't hire nearly the number of unskilled workers private industry does. I think to do this fairly, you have to compare job for job. Teacher vs. Teacher. Engineer vs. Engineer. Lawyer vs. Lawyer. etc.

Salanis wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I want my country to do what the founders had intended and conveniently left in a constitution for us to read.

I love when people make this argument, like the founding fathers knew everything, could do no wrong, and we couldn't possibly be smarter than them in any way, and that the people you disagree with are DESTROYING the constitution. The founding fathers clearly wanted a government. They wanted a government that would adapt to the changes in society. They created a framework with a system for amending that framework. They wanted us to have a legislature that would pass new laws. They also wrote slavery into the constitution itself and didn't allow women to vote. So clearly they didn't get everything right.

Also to Eddie...

The constitution is not static and was never intended to be. There is an exact process defined in the constitution which allows for amendments (like not allowing slavery and allowing women to vote) to be added as things were required to be. It's simply a vote that's a higher majority than require to pass a simple law. If you want federal program X, fine, let's have a discussion and if enough agree, it'll be in the constitution and wham bam, now I'm happy. If you pass a simple up/down vote and circumvent it, you're not really being fair.

Nobody ever said it was perfect. Even the people who wrote and signed it spoke out about some of the issues, many of them included slavery and the right to vote!

One quick sidebar, the right to vote thing was not really as male-centric as you'd think. These people were largely married and Christian. Christian men are the head of their household, and they intended each family unit (wife, husband, kids) to get a vote. Not that I defend this, in today's world it makes no sense, hence the amendment.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I think to do this fairly, you have to compare job for job. Teacher vs. Teacher. Engineer vs. Engineer. Lawyer vs. Lawyer. etc.

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You have an opinion I respect. I even agree with you in many cases. Other cases I do not. But I think we always know where the other guy is coming from. We’re honest about what we think ....... If we lay things out like that we can have a conversation. If I start saying that more government services somehow makes the need for taxation lower, we're going to have a problem.

Agreed, ditto and thanks. If we never talked about the people, the pundits or the media, and only the substance and ideals, the populace would hardly ever get into pissing matches.

Now if only we could convince people to ignore all of that when they vote...

tuna55 wrote: Sources say that private sector jobs pay less - see the link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

You'd think in socialist Canada, gov jobs would pay more. You'd be wrong. For every equivalent position (except maybe the HIGHEST of high up top jobs), public employees are paid less than private. Having been a public employee for the past 5 years of my life, I'd know

tuna55 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I think to do this fairly, you have to compare job for job. Teacher vs. Teacher. Engineer vs. Engineer. Lawyer vs. Lawyer. etc.

Ask and you shall receive: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

As far as my personal experience that is not true (with engineers) but whatever.

tuna55 wrote: Ask and you shall receive: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Well shut my mouth. I'll say two things- first, and I can honestly say I've never heard anyone else ever say this on an internet forum, I'm surprised by that and it seems that some things I thought were so are not.

Having said that, overall it's not as far off as is often implied. And when you go through line by line there are some questions. For instance:

Clergy $70,460 vs. $39,247

I'm guessing a large number of Clergy employed by the government are in war zones. There are a few others that stand out. But you are clearly right that some jobs earn more in government work than private practice. I would guess you would have to go through it line by line and see what the story really is, like the Clergy example. But I can’t demonstrate that to be true.

(edit) Just scanned this, but it seems to draw the same conclusion I did. It does offer some insight into the actual study, which apparently noted the same thing. Very difficult to compare the jobs because they're often not the same job.

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

Round (3? 4?) FIGHT!

Perry (bush III) is trying to go all tough guy on Romney but won't look him in the eye. Bad form.

poopshovel wrote: Perry (bush III) is trying to go all tough guy on Romney but won't look him in the eye. Bad form.

It obviously got to Romney a little bit, though. During that exchange Romney babbled out a "sentence" that consisted only of the words "America," "Freedom" and "opportunity" just repeated in different orders.

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Perry (bush III) is trying to go all tough guy on Romney but won't look him in the eye. Bad form.

It obviously got to Romney a little bit, though. During that exchange Romney babbled out a "sentence" that consisted only of the words "America," "Freedom" and "opportunity" just repeated in different orders. jg

Surprised 9/11 wasn't worked in there for good measure.

93EXCivic wrote:

JG Pasterjak wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Perry (bush III) is trying to go all tough guy on Romney but won't look him in the eye. Bad form.

It obviously got to Romney a little bit, though. During that exchange Romney babbled out a "sentence" that consisted only of the words "America," "Freedom" and "opportunity" just repeated in different orders. jg

Surprised 9/11 wasn't worked in there for good measure.

Give it a minute.

It's crazy. I started out convinced I'd vote for Herman Cain. Then was convinced I'd vote for Ron Paul. Now I'm thinking "Who's going to beat Obama?" I don't think RP stands a chance in a head to head debate. Herman is getting more comfortable/sounding more presidential all the time.

My personal dark horse: Newt. Out of everyone up there, he'd eat Obama's ass for breakfast in a debate. (ewww, you'd eat Obama's ass for breakfast?)

The three dumbest people on that stage are getting the most mic time. The BVI is sounding better all the time.