Officially, 1 in 7.75 "Employed" Americans Works for Government [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Officially, 1 in 7.75 "Employed" Americans Works for Government


Durden
12-02-2012, 22:36
There are 154.9 million Americans officially deemed "employed" (although many of these people work in part time positions, never mind low wage and/or low or no benefit ones).

There are just over 20 million Americans that work for federal, state and local units of government (not including service members serving within branches of the U.S. military), but this is an "official" number that does not include other persons employed by corporations and contractors that work fully or significantly for government (therefore, if one were to include these individuals, the ratio cited in the thread title would undoubtedly be along the lines of 1 in 6 or so).

Isn't this a big problem?

JJohnson
12-02-2012, 22:41
What do you think the number should be? This is a very big country and requires a lot of people to manage the thousands and thousands and thousands of municipalities, before you even get to the federal level.

Scott3670
12-02-2012, 22:43
I work for the Government, and I'd say that 1 of every 7.75 people in my office actually work.

Durden
12-02-2012, 23:04
I work for the Government, and I'd say that 1 of every 7.75 people in my office actually work.


Now that's a lol all day and night long!

Nothing better than pure honesty.

Durden
12-02-2012, 23:05
What do you think the number should be? This is a very big country and requires a lot of people to manage the thousands and thousands and thousands of municipalities, before you even get to the federal level.

I honestly didn't and don't have an absolute number in mind.

I just know that the present number strikes me at first, second and third glance as excessive, and maybe dramatically so.

Edit - After reading your reply a second time, I find the portion that reads "requires a lot of people to manage the thousands and thousands and thousands of municipalities" as odd or ambiguous.

What's different about municipalities versus county, state or federal employment staffing requirements, if any, that requires more employees as a % of the population (assuming that's what you were stating)?

Peace Warrior
12-02-2012, 23:06
The percentage (number) is going to get higher in the next four years.

JJohnson
12-02-2012, 23:08
I honestly didn't and don't have an absolute number in mind.

I just know that the present number strikes me at first, second and third glance as excessive, and maybe dramatically so.

Do you have a source for the 20 million number? that might help narrow down what is included.

Durden
12-02-2012, 23:18
Do you have a source for the 20 million number? that might help narrow down what is included.

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (links within)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

devildog2067
12-02-2012, 23:25
I started a thread about this a few weeks ago.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1451184

devildog2067
12-02-2012, 23:26
I was reading the paper this morning, and something caught my eye. It was a statement that this recession is the first time that local government employment has shrunk since 1981.

I was curious enough about it that I went to BLS and dug up some data. Take a look:

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh568/devildog267/govtEmpl.png

The four lines are federal, state, local and private (i.e., non-government nonfarm) average annual employment since 1955 (the first year for which full data is available) and normalized to 1955 levels (so this shows the relative growth, not the absolute number of employees in each sector).

It's amazing how much history you can read into each of these lines.

If you look at the private sector line, you can see every speedbump the US economy hit since after the Korean war. The dip at ~1975 is the oil shocks, the one in the early 80's is the post-Carter stagflation, the one in the early 90's is the aftershocks of Black Monday and the S&L crisis. You can see a dip at the bursting of the tech bubble around 2001 and another starting in 2008.

Compare this to the local government line. Local government employment has gone up EVERY YEAR except 1981-1983 and post-2008. In other words, local government employment is virtually recession proof. Same thing with state government although the dips are in slightly different places.

State and local government employment has grown almost twice as fast as public sector employment. There are 2.5x as many private sector employees in the US today than there were in 1955--and 4x or more as many state and local government employees.

This is what the election should be about. Forget about social issues, this is what's going to kill us. The government is not a damn jobs program.

certifiedfunds
12-02-2012, 23:32
What do you think the number should be? This is a very big country and requires a lot of people to manage the thousands and thousands and thousands of municipalities, before you even get to the federal level.

It is a big country with a bloated federal government employing people to do a whole lot of stuff it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do and shouldn't be doing. I dare say we could cut federal employees 50% and no one would notice except welfare recipients and the terminated federal employees.

Durden
12-02-2012, 23:37
I was reading the paper this morning, and something caught my eye. It was a statement that this recession is the first time that local government employment has shrunk since 1981.

I was curious enough about it that I went to BLS and dug up some data. Take a look:

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh568/devildog267/govtEmpl.png

The four lines are federal, state, local and private (i.e., non-government nonfarm) average annual employment since 1955 (the first year for which full data is available) and normalized to 1955 levels (so this shows the relative growth, not the absolute number of employees in each sector).

It's amazing how much history you can read into each of these lines.

If you look at the private sector line, you can see every speedbump the US economy hit since after the Korean war. The dip at ~1975 is the oil shocks, the one in the early 80's is the post-Carter stagflation, the one in the early 90's is the aftershocks of Black Monday and the S&L crisis. You can see a dip at the bursting of the tech bubble around 2001 and another starting in 2008.

Compare this to the local government line. Local government employment has gone up EVERY YEAR except 1981-1983 and post-2008. In other words, local government employment is virtually recession proof. Same thing with state government although the dips are in slightly different places.

State and local government employment has grown almost twice as fast as public sector employment. There are 2.5x as many private sector employees in the US today than there were in 1955--and 4x or more as many state and local government employees.

This is what the election should be about. Forget about social issues, this is what's going to kill us. The government is not a damn jobs program.

Nice graph. It is fairly consistent with the data I sourced, also (including a peekaboo at BLS data-- linked above).

It would appear that there is no taming the government beast, which hires more and more people as a % of the total U.S. workforce and expends more and more $$$ in absolute, and more importantly, real terms, with each passing year.

Both political parties, despite what one or the other may say, clearly feel it's in their best political interests to keep growing government, the impact on the private sector and taxpayers be damned.

devildog2067
12-03-2012, 00:00
Nice graph. It is fairly consistent with the data I sourced, also (including a peekaboo at BLS data-- linked above).


I should have cut and pasted the footnote as well--I made that chart from BLS data.

CAcop
12-03-2012, 06:24
Everybody wants their slice of government cheese. Who else is going to deliver it?

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 06:31
Everybody wants their slice of government cheese. Who else is going to deliver it?

No, some folks produce the cheese and some folks consume it.

Tvov
12-03-2012, 06:33
Everyone says government is bloated, including those who work in government jobs. Yet nothing ever gets done except to hire more people to make study committees to study how to cut the government.

I am not sure what to do about it. I have friends who work for the local town government. They work hard, and say they could use more help, but I don't have the courage to say to their face that their entire department is redundant and should be reduced, if not eliminated.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 06:40
Start with a 50% cut in government employees. Then go from there.

mgs
12-03-2012, 06:42
Start with a 50% cut in government employees. Then go from there.

I agree with that!!!!!!!!! Please start at the very top. Fire Michelle.

CAcop
12-03-2012, 06:58
No, some folks produce the cheese and some folks consume it.

Hey don't b;ame me. My city government is shrinking while yor fire protection district went from vollie to full time.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 07:07
Hey don't b;ame me. My city government is shrinking while yor fire protection district went from vollie to full time.

Blame you for what?

CAcop
12-03-2012, 07:16
Blame you for what?

The growth of government. We are doing our part.

havensal
12-03-2012, 09:33
The last data I saw, about a year or so ago, 2 out of 3 in our county were paid from only taxpayer money. Now I am not an accounting major but I don't think one can last long with the scale tipped that way. :dunno:


:steamed::faint::crying::wow:

aplcr0331
12-03-2012, 09:40
Looks like out of work people should be looking to work for the government. Decent pay and good benefits abound. Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? If I work at Wal-Mart and don't like it, I can go somewhere else and work for more.

If I see one sector hires more, pays better, and has better benefits then you would think that most people would want to work in that sector.

aircarver
12-03-2012, 09:51
I agree with that!!!!!!!!! Please start at the very top. Fire Michelle.

Boy ! ...

Talk about your 'no return on investment' ... :upeyes:

.

SGT278ACR
12-03-2012, 11:28
It is a big country with a bloated federal government employing people to do a whole lot of stuff it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do and shouldn't be doing. I dare say we could cut federal employees 50% and no one would notice except welfare recipients and the terminated federal employees.

Start with a 50% cut in government employees. Then go from there.

Let me see if I understand you correctly... are you suggesting that taking 50% of Federal employees and shifting them over to the unemployed population is a positive solution?

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 11:31
Let me see if I understand you correctly... are you suggesting that taking 50% of Federal employees and shifting them over to the unemployed population is a positive solution?

Yes. Certainly

SGT278ACR
12-03-2012, 11:41
Yes. Certainly

Interesting. Just out of curiosity... is that personal opinion or are there facts you are considering to come to that solution? ... or is it some of both? I'm just curious because there may be information you know that I don't.

aplcr0331
12-03-2012, 11:43
Do those federal numbers count military?

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 11:47
Interesting. Just out of curiosity... is that personal opinion or are there facts you are considering to come to that solution? ... or is it some of both? I'm just curious because there may be information you know that I don't.

Oh, it's opinion. Federal employees are a net drain on the system. To pay them money must be confiscated from the productive sector and/or borrowed. They don't contribute to GDP or the tax base. Everyone would be much better off if as much of that money as possible stayed in the hands of the productive sector or was not borrowed against the labor of future generations.

If federal employees bolstered the economy we should just make everyone a federal employee and enjoy the economic benefits.

SGT278ACR
12-03-2012, 11:55
Do those federal numbers count military?

Unless I'm mistaken, I think they said that number doesn't include actual military personnel.

Durden
12-03-2012, 11:55
Do those federal numbers count military?

Enlisted service members or officers in the various branches of the military?

Nope.

devildog2067
12-03-2012, 11:59
Do those federal numbers count military?

Mine do.

*EDITED TO ADD: The ones that make the chart

Durden
12-03-2012, 12:01
Let me see if I understand you correctly... are you suggesting that taking 50% of Federal employees and shifting them over to the unemployed population is a positive solution?

What if he, and yes, I am speaking for him only in a hypothetical sense, said that it'd be best to cut unnecessary personnel employed by any unit of government, regardless if that measure were 10%, 25% or 50% of those currently employed, regardless of any consequence you claim would occur in the overall economy?

Is that a rational position?

In other words, should the private sector and private taxpayers be penalized in order to support a bloated government sector, and does a bloated government sector not create high adverse costs and higher private sector unemployment?

In other words x2, is there such a thing as a free lunch?

In other words x3, why not just cure unemployment/underemployment by giving all who want a job a government job?

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 12:06
The real problem we have in this country are the number of people being supported by the productive class. That includes:

Federal Employees
Federal Pensioners
Military
State Employees
State Pensioners
Local gov employees
Local gov pensioners
Welfare Recipients: "Traditional" welfare + social security/medicare recipients

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 12:08
Oh, and prisoners and some students

engineer151515
12-03-2012, 12:23
If federal employees bolstered the economy we should just make everyone a federal employee and enjoy the economic benefits.

This President would not mind. And U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner would like to remove the debt ceiling altogether, making it possible!


Yee-hhhaaaa! One big party. "Money ain't for nothing and your chicks for free"
:banana::banana::banana:

SGT278ACR
12-03-2012, 12:36
Oh, it's opinion. Federal employees are a net drain on the system. To pay them money must be confiscated from the productive sector and/or borrowed. They don't contribute to GDP or the tax base. Everyone would be much better off if as much of that money as possible stayed in the hands of the productive sector or was not borrowed against the labor of future generations.

If federal employees bolstered the economy we should just make everyone a federal employee and enjoy the economic benefits.

Thanks for elaborating. Again, that's an interesting assessment and I'm sure many citizens feel the same way. However, all federal empoyees, other than politicians I think, pay the same federal income tax as any other US citizen based upon the same criteria. Federal employees also pay the same state income taxes as the any other citizen depending on where they live. I know this because I've been a federal employee myself since 2003, prior to that I was a state employee and prior to that I was in the active duty military for 7 years. I finished my time in the reserve components and am now retired military as well. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 1 in 4 of the 2.1 million fed employees are Veterans and 1/3 of all new hires in the first half of fiscal year 2011 were Veterans. Federal employees also have to pay for their own health insurance just like any citizen as well. If 50% of the federal workforce was terminated, all that would do is drastically increase the unemployed population, not to mention the residual effect on the dependents of those employees. As far as there being a number of fed employees who don't really work that hard... that goes for the corporate or private workforce as well. There's slugs in all walks of life. Fed civilian employees are no more or less part of the productive sector than anyone else and our pay is not borrowed, our tax money goes right back into the same government pot that all tax payers money does. This is just the opinion of a 40 hour a week, middle class civilian tax payer who makes about $40,000 a year before taxes and I've worked for all that my family has. But, I do respect your opinion too. Just for the record... I'm not a supporter of obamacare. :supergrin:

devildog2067
12-03-2012, 12:38
What if he, and yes, I am speaking for him only in a hypothetical sense, said that it'd be best to cut unnecessary personnel employed by any unit of government,

First of all, let me say I'm with you guys. I'm not quite as hardcore as CF but I think it's clear from both of our posting histories that we fall on basically the same side of this issue.

The problem is basically twofold:

1) It's very, very difficult to say exactly how much government is "necessary." We all agree that we need a military, and even in economic terms that is true. A military is an economic necessity.

So is a strong legal system, which enforces contract law and generally respects the idea of private property. Yes, we've had some setbacks recently, but generally here in the US you can start a business and be reasonably sure that you won't be murdered and have your business stolen if the mayor's kid brother wants it. You can be reasonably sure that if you accept a check from a supplier, it will not bounce, and if it does, that supplier will have to face legal consequences.

Those basic institutions that are protected by the government are one of the foundations of America's economic success. It's not quite true to say that cops and firemen aren't part of the productive class. The existence of firemen encourages people to build businesses, which generate profit. It's indirect, but so is the contribution of say an accountant in a private company.

It's easy to say we have too much government, but it's much harder to say how much we "should" have.

2) By far the bigger problem is the problem of bureaucrats. It's the nature of bureaucracies to want to grow. If a town "needs" 10 volunteer firefighters to provide its firefighting services, but the opportunity comes about to convert the department into a full-time paid department with 20 paid guys... guess what the fire chief usually wants to do?

It's human nature to want to own a bigger empire, to be more peoples' boss, to control a bigger budget. In a private company the way you accomplish this is to grow your top line. In the public sector, you find an excuse to steal more money from taxpayers.

This is the real problem. Government, even the amount that's needed, grows out of control if you take your eye off of it for half a second.

devildog2067
12-03-2012, 12:40
However, all federal empoyees, other than politicians I think, pay the same federal income tax as any other US citizen based upon the same criteria.

This is a false way of looking at things.

Federal employees' salaries originate from tax dollars. It's not possible for federal employees to pay net federal taxes.

Yes, the IRS takes taxes out of your check, for the purposes of (essentially) controlling your behavior--by withholding, they can make you dance to the tune of the tax code just like everyone else.

But in reality, every dollar that a federal employee gets paid originally was a dollar taken from a private organization or citizen that paid it in taxes to the government. The government gives it to the federal employee and the IRS takes some of it back.

It's insane to say that means "federal employees pay taxes." They don't. Not really.

ustate
12-03-2012, 12:42
I work in one of our State's prisons and can tell you that with our Dept there are hundreds of people working, in the prison, the probation/parole area etc. You throw in regular police departments, fire departments and schools at the city, county and state level and the number of people adds up quick.

SGT278ACR
12-03-2012, 12:47
What if he, and yes, I am speaking for him only in a hypothetical sense, said that it'd be best to cut unnecessary personnel employed by any unit of government, regardless if that measure were 10%, 25% or 50% of those currently employed, regardless of any consequence you claim would occur in the overall economy?

Is that a rational position?

In other words, should the private sector and private taxpayers be penalized in order to support a bloated government sector, and does a bloated government sector not create high adverse costs and higher private sector unemployment?

In other words x2, is there such a thing as a free lunch?

In other words x3, why not just cure unemployment/underemployment by giving all who want a job a government job?

You make a good point, and I understand what your saying from that point of view. But who's to determine what government jobs are necessary and which ones are not? Considering the adult workforce population in the US and the opinions of the politicians, there would literally be millions of differing opinions. I don't believe in free lunches or in "giving" jobs either. Whether it's a government, corporate or private entity, people need to compete the best they can for the jobs that they can possibly get. Unfortunately, there are those that do that and still have a hard time getting employment as well as the many that are lazy and just want those free lunches that we mentioned. Unfortunately the ratio of jobs to those who want to work isn't an exact science.

sciolist
12-03-2012, 14:02
Thanks for elaborating. Again, that's an interesting assessment and I'm sure many citizens feel the same way. However, all federal empoyees, other than politicians I think, pay the same federal income tax as any other US citizen based upon the same criteria. Federal employees also pay the same state income taxes as the any other citizen depending on where they live. I know this because I've been a federal employee myself since 2003, prior to that I was a state employee and prior to that I was in the active duty military for 7 years. I finished my time in the reserve components and am now retired military as well. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 1 in 4 of the 2.1 million fed employees are Veterans and 1/3 of all new hires in the first half of fiscal year 2011 were Veterans. Federal employees also have to pay for their own health insurance just like any citizen as well. If 50% of the federal workforce was terminated, all that would do is drastically increase the unemployed population, not to mention the residual effect on the dependents of those employees. As far as there being a number of fed employees who don't really work that hard... that goes for the corporate or private workforce as well. There's slugs in all walks of life. Fed civilian employees are no more or less part of the productive sector than anyone else and our pay is not borrowed, our tax money goes right back into the same government pot that all tax payers money does. This is just the opinion of a 40 hour a week, middle class civilian tax payer who makes about $40,000 a year before taxes and I've worked for all that my family has. But, I do respect your opinion too. Just for the record... I'm not a supporter of obamacare. :supergrin:

You make a good point, and I understand what your saying from that point of view. But who's to determine what government jobs are necessary and which ones are not? Considering the adult workforce population in the US and the opinions of the politicians, there would literally be millions of differing opinions. I don't believe in free lunches or in "giving" jobs either. Whether it's a government, corporate or private entity, people need to compete the best they can for the jobs that they can possibly get. Unfortunately, there are those that do that and still have a hard time getting employment as well as the many that are lazy and just want those free lunches that we mentioned. Unfortunately the ratio of jobs to those who want to work isn't an exact science.

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that government employees pay tax. The point is government employees are paid FROM tax. Your $40K is taken from people whether they want (or believe in) your service or not. If people don’t want to consume my service, they don’t have to.

Most of us also agree that government is necessary, but I think reasonable people see the current level of governmental spending is too high. So the answer to “how much government should we have?” at present “less”.

Government by definition works for the private sector, not vice-versa. Of course there will be disagreement with respect to the absolute necessity of each individual government service and position. But because government services are funded with recourses taken BY FORCE, determination of the necessity of a government service should be held to a higher standard than in the private sector. I am free to start a private-sector business you may not agree with, and you are free not to patronize it. I don’t have that say with respect to your 40 grand.

Kingarthurhk
12-03-2012, 15:48
There are 154.9 million Americans officially deemed "employed" (although many of these people work in part time positions, never mind low wage and/or low or no benefit ones).

There are just over 20 million Americans that work for federal, state and local units of government (not including service members serving within branches of the U.S. military), but this is an "official" number that does not include other persons employed by corporations and contractors that work fully or significantly for government (therefore, if one were to include these individuals, the ratio cited in the thread title would undoubtedly be along the lines of 1 in 6 or so).

Isn't this a big problem?

The irony is the government workers paid for 99 weeks of those who either didn't get employed or didn't want to bother.

rauldduke1979
12-03-2012, 16:19
I work for the Government, and I'd say that 1 of every 7.75 people in my office actually work.

I too work for the governmnent. I'd say your office is unusually productive :rofl:

Ruble Noon
12-03-2012, 16:58
. However, all federal empoyees, other than politicians I think, pay the same federal income tax as any other US citizen based upon the same criteria. Federal employees also pay the same state income taxes as the any other citizen depending on where they live. I know this because I've been a federal employee myself since 2003, prior to that I was a state employee and prior to that I was in the active duty military for 7 years.

Government employees do not pay taxes. They produce nothing to be taxed. Saying that government employees contribute to the tax base is equatable to saying that dipping water from one end of a pool and dumping it in the other end raises the water level.

kenpoprofessor
12-03-2012, 17:22
Government employees do not pay taxes. They produce nothing to be taxed. Saying that government employees contribute to the tax base is equatable to saying that dipping water from one end of a pool and dumping it in the other end raises the water level.

Yep, this.

Fire 50%, let them go on UI, it'll cost us a 1/3rd of the previous money or less than having them full time . This will motivate the rest who have managed to keep their jobs to actually work for their money. Give them 6mo of UI, then cut them off, they'll either become productive citizens, or they'll end up on the street. I'm good with either choice.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 18:27
Government employees do not pay taxes. They produce nothing to be taxed. Saying that government employees contribute to the tax base is equatable to saying that dipping water from one end of a pool and dumping it in the other end raises the water level.

This is so wrong I just don't even know where you start. You're assuming that money starts somewhere private, goes somewhere (either public or private) and stays there.

That's just not the case. Money travels in a revolving manner, always going somewhere do to something. It travels into government, and then leaves government, thousands and thousands of times. The dollar that you pay into federal income tax gets paid to a federal employee, who spends it on a computer from HP, at which point it gets paid to an employee, who loses part of it to tax, but spends the rest on gas for his car, whereby it goes to the gas station owner, who records it as income, pays tax on it, and then spends it and so on and so forth. Every part of every dollar eventually makes its way though government, and then back out, and then back in, and then back out.

This is economics 101. If you deal with a governmentally-backed currency, this is just how it works.

Also, governmental employees do absolutely produce services that the public wants, no different than any other member of the service economy. The US hasn't had a manufacturing-based economy in decades.

2bgop
12-03-2012, 18:34
Thanks for elaborating. Again, that's an interesting assessment and I'm sure many citizens feel the same way. However, all federal empoyees, other than politicians I think, pay the same federal income tax as any other US citizen based upon the same criteria. Federal employees also pay the same state income taxes as the any other citizen depending on where they live. I know this because I've been a federal employee myself since 2003, prior to that I was a state employee and prior to that I was in the active duty military for 7 years. I finished my time in the reserve components and am now retired military as well. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 1 in 4 of the 2.1 million fed employees are Veterans and 1/3 of all new hires in the first half of fiscal year 2011 were Veterans. Federal employees also have to pay for their own health insurance just like any citizen as well. If 50% of the federal workforce was terminated, all that would do is drastically increase the unemployed population, not to mention the residual effect on the dependents of those employees. As far as there being a number of fed employees who don't really work that hard... that goes for the corporate or private workforce as well. There's slugs in all walks of life. Fed civilian employees are no more or less part of the productive sector than anyone else and our pay is not borrowed, our tax money goes right back into the same government pot that all tax payers money does. This is just the opinion of a 40 hour a week, middle class civilian tax payer who makes about $40,000 a year before taxes and I've worked for all that my family has. But, I do respect your opinion too. Just for the record... I'm not a supporter of obamacare. :supergrin:

What politicians don't pay taxes the same as everyone else?

2bgop
12-03-2012, 18:40
This is so wrong I just don't even know where you start. You're assuming that money starts somewhere private, goes somewhere (either public or private) and stays there.

That's just not the case. Money travels in a revolving manner, always going somewhere do to something. It travels into government, and then leaves government, thousands and thousands of times. The dollar that you pay into federal income tax gets paid to a federal employee, who spends it on a computer from HP, at which point it gets paid to an employee, who loses part of it to tax, but spends the rest on gas for his car, whereby it goes to the gas station owner, who records it as income, pays tax on it, and then spends it and so on and so forth. Every part of every dollar eventually makes its way though government, and then back out, and then back in, and then back out.

This is economics 101. If you deal with a governmentally-backed currency, this is just how it works.

Also, governmental employees do absolutely produce services that the public wants, no different than any other member of the service economy. The US hasn't had a manufacturing-based economy in decades.

The US is the top manufacturing county in the world, by a wide margin.

Ruble Noon
12-03-2012, 18:46
This is so wrong I just don't even know where you start. You're assuming that money starts somewhere private, goes somewhere (either public or private) and stays there.

That's just not the case. Money travels in a revolving manner, always going somewhere do to something. It travels into government, and then leaves government, thousands and thousands of times. The dollar that you pay into federal income tax gets paid to a federal employee, who spends it on a computer from HP, at which point it gets paid to an employee, who loses part of it to tax, but spends the rest on gas for his car, whereby it goes to the gas station owner, who records it as income, pays tax on it, and then spends it and so on and so forth. Every part of every dollar eventually makes its way though government, and then back out, and then back in, and then back out.

This is economics 101. If you deal with a governmentally-backed currency, this is just how it works.

Also, governmental employees do absolutely produce services that the public wants, no different than any other member of the service economy. The US hasn't had a manufacturing-based economy in decades.

Government employees do not produce wealth, they consume wealth. The taxes that you claim they pay are nothing more than giving back to the government a percentage of the money that was confiscated from the private sector.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 18:56
The US is the top manufacturing county in the world, by a wide margin.

You're going to have to back that up with some numbers. Because I'm going to say that you're just wrong.

http://euromonitor.typepad.com/.a/6a01310f54565d970c0162ffacb4e8970d-pi

This is data from 2010, when China's manufacturing output, in US Dollars, was just about TWICE was ours was.

Moreover, looking at the US economy in 2011, manufacturing (defined as both durable and non-durable goods) comprised a little less than 22% of the total private GDP. The services industry provided about 74%, and the information industry comprised about 4%.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 19:03
Government employees do not produce wealth, they consume wealth. The taxes that you claim they pay are nothing more than giving back to the government a percentage of the money that was confiscated from the private sector.

But that's just not true in the least.

Let's say that I make widgets. My widgets are really popular, and they sell well. Governmental employees, who are paid by tax dollars, buy my widgets. Additionally, the US Army, who is funded by tax dollars, thinks my widget is so cool that they order 20,000 of them for the troops.

Is the money that is paid for those widgets not wealth? I pay my employees to make them. I pay accountants and HR people and shipping people and trucking firms and all kinds of others to produce, ship, and deliver my widgets, and since they're a little complicated, I employ a handful of trainers that teach people how to use them better.

Each of those people in the process gets a salary, benefits, etc. All of which are partially paid by dollars that were originally collected as tax dollars. My total profit, which I keep as wealth and invest, also partially came from tax dollars.

The economy is not so simple as you think. All governmentally-backed currencies work like this. The only way to avoid it is to create your own currency, and somehow convince others to adopt it in some sort of a barter system.

engineer151515
12-03-2012, 19:10
Also, governmental employees do absolutely produce services that the public wants, no different than any other member of the service economy. The US hasn't had a manufacturing-based economy in decades.


What services did you have in mind when you said this?

I would exclude Military as it is a Constitutional mandate not a profit center exercise.

I agree that the services industry makes up roughly 75% of the US economy, but if you are lumping government employees into the services category, I would submit that would be quite a stretch. Government has no profit margins to realize, no threat of going out of business and no threat of competition. As an example, I present for the forum, the beloved United States Post Office. Their losses will reach 9.2 billion dollars this fiscal year. Their labor costs represent 80 percent of their expenses. What private company could sustain these losses even 1 year? Congress is "considering" changes.

Z71bill
12-03-2012, 19:11
Let me see if I understand you correctly... are you suggesting that taking 50% of Federal employees and shifting them over to the unemployed population is a positive solution?

It would be better to cut their pay by 50% - most will still be overpaid for what they contribute - so you would also make them 100% responsible for their own health care & retirement.

If someone quits - don't replace them.

Eventually you would get the number down and the pay would be close to fair (with no pay increases for 10 years)

2bgop
12-03-2012, 19:11
You're going to have to back that up with some numbers. Because I'm going to say that you're just wrong.

http://euromonitor.typepad.com/.a/6a01310f54565d970c0162ffacb4e8970d-pi

This is data from 2010, when China's manufacturing output, in US Dollars, was just about TWICE was ours was.

Moreover, looking at the US economy in 2011, manufacturing (defined as both durable and non-durable goods) comprised a little less than 22% of the total private GDP. The services industry provided about 74%, and the information industry comprised about 4%.

Yeah, you are right. The 2011 numbers are 18.7% to 18% of global share in total US dollar value add.

* I will add, I believe your graph excludes utilities, mining and petroleum extraction. If counted in "manufacturing", the numbers are significantly different.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 19:13
But that's just not true in the least.

Let's say that I make widgets. My widgets are really popular, and they sell well. Governmental employees, who are paid by tax dollars, buy my widgets. Additionally, the US Army, who is funded by tax dollars, thinks my widget is so cool that they order 20,000 of them for the troops.

Is the money that is paid for those widgets not wealth? I pay my employees to make them. I pay accountants and HR people and shipping people and trucking firms and all kinds of others to produce, ship, and deliver my widgets, and since they're a little complicated, I employ a handful of trainers that teach people how to use them better.

Each of those people in the process gets a salary, benefits, etc. All of which are partially paid by dollars that were originally collected as tax dollars. My total profit, which I keep as wealth and invest, also partially came from tax dollars.

The economy is not so simple as you think. All governmentally-backed currencies work like this. The only way to avoid it is to create your own currency, and somehow convince others to adopt it in some sort of a barter system.

This assumes that when money or resources pass through government control, that they are used efficiently. Of course, they aren't. Government spends money and consumes resources along political lines, not economic lines.

And your pie isn't getting any larger in the example you gave.

All government can do is redirect wealth. It makes nothing. By making poor (political) decisions about how to spend the money it confiscates from the citizens, it makes the pie smaller.

Otherwise the Soviet Union would have become the world's economic engine.

engineer151515
12-03-2012, 19:13
But that's just not true in the least.

Let's say that I make widgets. My widgets are really popular, and they sell well. Governmental employees, who are paid by tax dollars, buy my widgets. Additionally, the US Army, who is funded by tax dollars, thinks my widget is so cool that they order 20,000 of them for the troops.

Is the money that is paid for those widgets not wealth? I pay my employees to make them. I pay accountants and HR people and shipping people and trucking firms and all kinds of others to produce, ship, and deliver my widgets, and since they're a little complicated, I employ a handful of trainers that teach people how to use them better.

Each of those people in the process gets a salary, benefits, etc. All of which are partially paid by dollars that were originally collected as tax dollars. My total profit, which I keep as wealth and invest, also partially came from tax dollars.

The economy is not so simple as you think. All governmentally-backed currencies work like this. The only way to avoid it is to create your own currency, and somehow convince others to adopt it in some sort of a barter system.

Actually, per your example, the manufacture of "widgets" into a product more valuable than the sum of the components of the widgets is "generating" wealth.

Everything else you rolled around with the money, is just spit swap.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 19:21
What services did you have in mind when you said this?

I would exclude Military as it is a Constitutional mandate not a profit center exercise.

I agree that the services industry makes up roughly 75% of the US economy, but if you are lumping government employees into the services category, I would submit that would be quite a stretch. Government has no profit margins to realize, no threat of going out of business and no threat of competition. As an example, I present for the forum, the beloved United States Post Office. Their losses will reach 9.2 billion dollars this fiscal year. Their labor costs represent 80 percent of their expenses. What private company could sustain these losses even 1 year? Congress is "considering" changes.

I'm fine with excluding military. The governmental offices that I deal with are ALL in the service industry. The DMV that collects revenues that are used to pay my roads and provides me with a driver's license and license plates for my various road-travelling equipment is providing a service. As does the forestry commission with their advice on tree choice for replanting some land I own, and the county extension office for checking my soil and letting me know what kinds of grasses and other plants would be best for encouraging animals to come back to the clearcut. There are several offices within the Arkansas secretary of state's office, as well as the federal department of commerce, that have helped me tremendously with growing my full-time business internationally.

All the while, I use electricity that is generated by a nuclear power plant whose design was paid for, and is supervised by, the federal department of energy.

Not all governmental action is bad, just as not all of it is good. My point is that it is anything but SIMPLE.

Ruble Noon
12-03-2012, 19:32
But that's just not true in the least.

Let's say that I make widgets. My widgets are really popular, and they sell well. Governmental employees, who are paid by tax dollars, buy my widgets. Additionally, the US Army, who is funded by tax dollars, thinks my widget is so cool that they order 20,000 of them for the troops.

Is the money that is paid for those widgets not wealth? I pay my employees to make them. I pay accountants and HR people and shipping people and trucking firms and all kinds of others to produce, ship, and deliver my widgets, and since they're a little complicated, I employ a handful of trainers that teach people how to use them better.

Each of those people in the process gets a salary, benefits, etc. All of which are partially paid by dollars that were originally collected as tax dollars. My total profit, which I keep as wealth and invest, also partially came from tax dollars.

The economy is not so simple as you think. All governmentally-backed currencies work like this. The only way to avoid it is to create your own currency, and somehow convince others to adopt it in some sort of a barter system.

And the private sector foots the bill for all of it and that which cannot be funded by the private sector, because the growth of government has outstripped the production capacity of the private sector, is funded with debt and servitude of future generations.

engineer151515
12-03-2012, 19:39
I'm fine with excluding military. The governmental offices that I deal with are ALL in the service industry. The DMV that collects revenues that are used to pay my roads and provides me with a driver's license and license plates for my various road-travelling equipment is providing a service. As does the forestry commission with their advice on tree choice for replanting some land I own, and the county extension office for checking my soil and letting me know what kinds of grasses and other plants would be best for encouraging animals to come back to the clearcut. There are several offices within the Arkansas secretary of state's office, as well as the federal department of commerce, that have helped me tremendously with growing my full-time business internationally.

All the while, I use electricity that is generated by a nuclear power plant whose design was paid for, and is supervised by, the federal department of energy.

Not all governmental action is bad, just as not all of it is good. My point is that it is anything but SIMPLE.

I appreciate your reply.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 19:41
Let's say that I make widgets. My widgets are really popular, and they sell well. Governmental employees, who are paid by tax dollars, buy my widgets. Additionally, the US Army, who is funded by tax dollars, thinks my widget is so cool that they order 20,000 of them for the troops.



Your widgets are worth $20 on the open market. Your manufacturing process is inefficient, as is your supply chain. However, your plant is "green". Competing widgets are quality and sell for $15.

To start your company, you spent $200,000 to hire a lobbying firm. The lobbying firm got favorable legislation passed authorizing a special small business loan program. Your congressman arranged for you to receive favorable treatment and you secured a $200MM non-recourse loan to build your green factory.

To fund this loan the government took money from other businesses in the form of taxes, which reduced their own R&D budgets.

From your $200MM loan you used $125MM to build your green factory. $73MM went to executive compensation. $2MM went to soft money PACs which support your legislators.

A non-green factory could have been built for $90MM.

Now that your factory is up and running producing low quality $20 widgets that aren't selling, those same congressmen supported by your soft money managed to secure you a DOD contract to sell the Army 20,000 widgets that they don't need at a price of $75 per widget.

Congratulations. You just sold $1.5MM worth of widgets and put $50MM in your pocket. Unfortunately your widget business isn't viable and is folding. Your company will default on its federal loan. Thank goodness it is non-recourse, huh?

Now, there will be a scandal. You MAY even do some jail time, but probably not. To help fix things take $1MM of that $50MM and hire a PR firm. Now take $500,000 and hire the RIGHT legal counsel. Put another million into the soft money PAC. You'll be ok.

Move your money offshore. Look contrite whenever cameras are around.

Big Bird
12-03-2012, 19:45
What this means really? About 7 people pay the wages of a government worker. If you took the lower end of the scale and figure the government worker makes $50k salary plus benefits it means we are all paying about $10k per taxpayer a year towards government salaries. That doesn't include things like roads, tanks, bullets, paperclips, stuff...

Personally, I'm thinking it needs to be about $2500 per taxpayer and yes that includes cutting the .mil including troops.

Regardless of how you feel about all that the simple math is that we can't afford it. We currently borrow .40 cents of every dollar we spend. In very short order we borrow more than we take in. No nation on the face of the earth could sustain that for any period of time and no level of taxation will realistically support that level of spending.

We need to cut and in a big way.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 19:55
This assumes that when money or resources pass through government control, that they are used efficiently. Of course, they aren't. Government spends money and consumes resources along political lines, not economic lines.

And your pie isn't getting any larger in the example you gave.

All government can do is redirect wealth. It makes nothing. By making poor (political) decisions about how to spend the money it confiscates from the citizens, it makes the pie smaller.

Otherwise the Soviet Union would have become the world's economic engine.

Except that my personal pie is getting bigger, as are the personal pies of each of my employees, and the employees of the firms that I employ. This is because I bring in more than I spend, which I use to fund the growth of my company (which increases it's net worth, which increases my wealth) and I keep as profit for myself (which directly increases my wealth).

My employees then have more money with which they save and invest, increasing the size of their personal pies. Likewise, the firms that I employ also have additional funds for expansion or net profit.

Moreover, efficiency is not in my widget company's best interest. If I can charge the government $20 for a widget, and it's so good they're willing to pay for it, even if the actual value is $18, that's better for my widget company. This is the military industrial complex, writ very small.

And please, for the love of God, leave the damn soviet union out of this discussion. Marxist-Leninist policies have as much to do with this discussion as the rules of baseball have to do with making a really excellent fondue.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 19:57
Actually, per your example, the manufacture of "widgets" into a product more valuable than the sum of the components of the widgets is "generating" wealth.

Everything else you rolled around with the money, is just spit swap.

But it's ALL a spit swap. Every dollar that I bring in is a dollar that someone else paid out. The wealth I accumulate from my widget production comes entirely out of the pockets of my consumers, be they private or governmental. I haven't dug any gold out of the ground. I just make something cool and sell it. But the perceived value of my product verses its manufacturing cost is what makes it, and by way of it, my company, generate wealth for me.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 20:01
And the private sector foots the bill for all of it and that which cannot be funded by the private sector, because the growth of government has outstripped the production capacity of the private sector, is funded with debt and servitude of future generations.

Of course the private sector funds it. That's greatly preferable to the government getting into the wealth generation business, isn't it? Do you really want your government generating revenue the same way that private industry does? Mining, manufacturing, etc? The post office was used as an example above.

Moreover, the growth of the governmental sector has NOT outstripped the production capacity of the private sector. Not by a longshot. What is HAS outstripped is the tax revenues that are provided by the private sector, and since it's way easier to issue debt than it is to raise taxes, here we sit.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 20:06
Your widgets are worth $20 on the open market. Your manufacturing process is inefficient, as is your supply chain. However, your plant is "green". Competing widgets are quality and sell for $15.

To start your company, you spent $200,000 to hire a lobbying firm. The lobbying firm got favorable legislation passed authorizing a special small business loan program. Your congressman arranged for you to receive favorable treatment and you secured a $200MM non-recourse loan to build your green factory.

To fund this loan the government took money from other businesses in the form of taxes, which reduced their own R&D budgets.

From your $200MM loan you used $125MM to build your green factory. $73MM went to executive compensation. $2MM went to soft money PACs which support your legislators.

A non-green factory could have been built for $90MM.

Now that your factory is up and running producing low quality $20 widgets that aren't selling, those same congressmen supported by your soft money managed to secure you a DOD contract to sell the Army 20,000 widgets that they don't need at a price of $75 per widget.

Congratulations. You just sold $1.5MM worth of widgets and put $50MM in your pocket. Unfortunately your widget business isn't viable and is folding. Your company will default on its federal loan. Thank goodness it is non-recourse, huh?

Now, there will be a scandal. You MAY even do some jail time, but probably not. To help fix things take $1MM of that $50MM and hire a PR firm. Now take $500,000 and hire the RIGHT legal counsel. Put another million into the soft money PAC. You'll be ok.

Move your money offshore. Look contrite whenever cameras are around.

One bad example does not an entire system corrupt. I could not agree with you more that your scenario above is absurd. But if you think that there's really less corruption and dirty dealing in the private sector, you couldn't be more wrong.

Also:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Strawman-light.jpg

[no snark intended, but it is a funny picture]

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 20:10
What this means really? About 7 people pay the wages of a government worker. If you took the lower end of the scale and figure the government worker makes $50k salary plus benefits it means we are all paying about $10k per taxpayer a year towards government salaries. That doesn't include things like roads, tanks, bullets, paperclips, stuff...

Personally, I'm thinking it needs to be about $2500 per taxpayer and yes that includes cutting the .mil including troops.

Regardless of how you feel about all that the simple math is that we can't afford it. We currently borrow .40 cents of every dollar we spend. In very short order we borrow more than we take in. No nation on the face of the earth could sustain that for any period of time and no level of taxation will realistically support that level of spending.

We need to cut and in a big way.

You do realize that's a 75% cut, right? The budget sequestration we're facing now will almost certainly plunge the economy back into a recession (fewer people will be able to afford my widgets!). A 75% cut to federal spending would tank the country. There is literally no way to do it.

Big Bird
12-03-2012, 20:12
Of course the private sector funds it. That's greatly preferable to the government getting into the wealth generation business, isn't it? Do you really want your government generating revenue the same way that private industry does? Mining, manufacturing, etc? The post office was used as an example above.

Moreover, the growth of the governmental sector has NOT outstripped the production capacity of the private sector. Not by a longshot. What is HAS outstripped is the tax revenues that are provided by the private sector, and since it's way easier to issue debt than it is to raise taxes, here we sit.


Sorry...but you're wrong about that. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is at an all time high and there comes a point when government spending crowds out the private sector's ability to work and serves to punish the incentive to earn profits.

It happens all the time. Lower marginal rates and tax revenue grows. Raise marginal rates and revenues fall. People don't just simply shrug their shoulders and send in more dough when the government says it wants to confiscate more. Its a dynamic relationship. Business and people react to taxation. Worked for Kennedy. Worked for Reagan, Worked for Thatcher. Worked for Merkel. Its worked every time its been tried.

Its a simple concept. Taxes are a piece of the action. Grow the pie bigger and you get a percent of a larger pie. Take too big a piece and you shrink the pie for everyone and nobody gets what they want.

Big Bird
12-03-2012, 20:14
One bad example does not an entire system corrupt. I could not agree with you more that your scenario above is absurd. But if you think that there's really less corruption and dirty dealing in the private sector, you couldn't be more wrong.

Also:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Strawman-light.jpg

[no snark intended, but it is a funny picture]

How about 10 or 15 bad examples? Cause we can provide them in detail for you...

Ruble Noon
12-03-2012, 20:18
Of course the private sector funds it.

Well there you go. Now you can quit arguing about the government creating wealth by buying your widgets.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 20:22
Except that my personal pie is getting bigger, as are the personal pies of each of my employees, and the employees of the firms that I employ. This is because I bring in more than I spend, which I use to fund the growth of my company (which increases it's net worth, which increases my wealth) and I keep as profit for myself (which directly increases my wealth).

My employees then have more money with which they save and invest, increasing the size of their personal pies. Likewise, the firms that I employ also have additional funds for expansion or net profit.

Moreover, efficiency is not in my widget company's best interest. If I can charge the government $20 for a widget, and it's so good they're willing to pay for it, even if the actual value is $18, that's better for my widget company. This is the military industrial complex, writ very small.

And please, for the love of God, leave the damn soviet union out of this discussion. Marxist-Leninist policies have as much to do with this discussion as the rules of baseball have to do with making a really excellent fondue.

I get it, I really do. You're using taxpayer funded subsidies to get richer. I don't doubt it. I'm also willing to bet that you put a fair amount of effort into tax planning yourself.

The Soviet mention was appropriate. To hear your description you'd swear that the government was a money machine. Put $1 in get $1.25 out.

Yet the Soviets took that to the extreme and failed. They literally ran out of wealth. Must be the machine works in reverse.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 20:49
Sorry...but you're wrong about that. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is at an all time high and there comes a point when government spending crowds out the private sector's ability to work and serves to punish the incentive to earn profits.

It happens all the time. Lower marginal rates and tax revenue grows. Raise marginal rates and revenues fall. People don't just simply shrug their shoulders and send in more dough when the government says it wants to confiscate more. Its a dynamic relationship. Business and people react to taxation. Worked for Kennedy. Worked for Reagan, Worked for Thatcher. Worked for Merkel. Its worked every time its been tried.

Its a simple concept. Taxes are a piece of the action. Grow the pie bigger and you get a percent of a larger pie. Take too big a piece and you shrink the pie for everyone and nobody gets what they want.

You weren't talking about governmental spending as a percentage of GDP, you were talking about governmental spending outstripping the production capacity of the private sector. I quoted you verbatim. It has not happened.

While I don't disagree that lowering income tax rates will certainly help boost revenues eventually, we have a debt problem that needs to begin being addressed now. I hate taxes, and get pissed every quarter when I write out that check to the IRS.

That being said, there is no way out of this mess without

1. Spending cuts, and
2. Additional revenue.

We have reached the point that we cannot have one without the other.

Now it's just a matter of figuring out how to spread out the cuts, and find the additional revenue. Closing loopholes is certainly part of it. But, I don't know that closing loopholes alone is enough.

And this is said from a guy who owns a small-to-medium business, that would very much like to turn it into a big business.

*disclaimer* I do manufacture goods in addition to software, and am big into the services and advertising sector. I have not ever sold to the government. I wish I had a product that I could. They pay well. *end disclaimer*

However, your statement that "it's a simple concept" shows that you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Taxation and the economics surrounding it is anything but simple. Pick up the wall street journal, the financial times, and the economist. This is literally the hardest thing that the government does.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 20:51
I hate taxes, and get pissed every quarter when I write out that check to the IRS.


Why? They go to fund departments and pay employees that help to make us all wealthier.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 20:52
Well there you go. Now you can quit arguing about the government creating wealth by buying your widgets.

The government does not create wealth any more than I do. It is, however a conduit for MY wealth accumulation, both through direct (getting a check from uncle sugar) and indirect (getting a check from someone employed by uncle sugar) means.

But to discount the GDP of those employed by the government, and their income, as not being "money" shows that you really have no concept of economic theory as practiced here on earth. Employees of the government (which is where this discussion started, and I'd like to get back there) contribute to economic growth and wealth accumulation.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 20:52
That being said, there is no way out of this mess without

1. Spending cuts, and
2. Additional revenue.

We have reached the point that we cannot have one without the other.



There is no way out of this mess without economic growth. Taxes, debt and government spending stifle growth and have a net cooling effect on economic activity.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 20:53
The government does not create wealth any more than I do. It is, however a conduit for MY wealth accumulation, both through direct (getting a check from uncle sugar) and indirect (getting a check from someone employed by uncle sugar) means.

But to discount the GDP of those employed by the government, and their income, as not being "money" shows that you really have no concept of economic theory as practiced here on earth. Employees of the government (which is where this discussion started, and I'd like to get back there) contribute to economic growth and wealth accumulation.


Uncle Sugar doesn't have any money but that which it takes from a citizen, who could have spent or invested it himself, better.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 20:56
I get it, I really do. You're using taxpayer funded subsidies to get richer. I don't doubt it. I'm also willing to bet that you put a fair amount of effort into tax planning yourself.

The Soviet mention was appropriate. To hear your description you'd swear that the government was a money machine. Put $1 in get $1.25 out.

Yet the Soviets took that to the extreme and failed. They literally ran out of wealth. Must be the machine works in reverse.

I personally don't, given that my company does not sell to the government directly.

But to the theoretical me that owns the widget factory that's part of the governmental-industrial complex, it's entirely possible that I can get $1.25 out of my $1 payment in taxes.

But that's neither here nor there.

And again, the Soviet mention has no applicable bearing whatsoever. Get a book and read about Marxism-Leninism, and central planning, and you'll see for yourself.

To address what we actually started talking about, the soviet economy did not collapse because of the size of it's bureaucracy.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 21:00
I personally don't, given that my company does not sell to the government directly.



Sure you do. In your earlier post you said how you used several federal and state agencies to aid you in the growth and development of your business. Subsidy.

But to the theoretical me that owns the widget factory that's part of the governmental-industrial complex, it's entirely possible that I can get $1.25 out of my $1 payment in taxes.



Sure YOU can. The point of my hypothetical example was to illustrate exactly that. However, just because you (or anyone) can use the government as a money machine does not mean that the economy as a whole gets back more than is sucked out by government. it gets back less.



And again, the Soviet mention has no applicable bearing whatsoever. Get a book and read about Marxism-Leninism, and central planning, and you'll see for yourself.

To address what we actually started talking about, the soviet economy did not collapse because of the size of it's bureaucracy.

It is perfectly applicable. If the premise you set forth held true, then the Soviet economy should have set pace for the world.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 21:05
Uncle Sugar doesn't have any money but that which it takes from a citizen, who could have spent or invested it himself, better.

See, this is such a line of BS. I love it when this argument comes out. It means you're out of other ideas.

Joe Citizen is an idiot. He knows nothing about international relations, international business, roads, tunnels, post offices, armies and navies, law enforcement, criminal and civil litigation, or any of the other 100,000 functions that we have delegated to our government through our elected representatives.

Moreover, he doesn't want to.

Do I want to pay taxes? Hell no. Do I? Yes. I like having paved roads, and schools for kids, and law enforcement, and courts, and research, and armies and navies, and all of the other functions that I am unable to provide for myself? Yes, I do.

I am educated enough to know where my self-reliance ends and my dependence on others begins. Could I live a mountain-man style life in the woods somewhere if it came to that? Sure I could.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO.

I like being a member of modern society.

And you know what?

For all our weaknesses, all our flaws, all our shortcomings, we do a pretty damn good job.

Are we perfect? Hell no.

Should we strive to be? Hell yes.

Should we demand better from our elected representatives?

Absolutely.

But, there is no such thing as simple economics. And anyone who says there is, that dude's lying to you. This debt hole we've dug ourselves into, both the dems and the repubs are responsible. Which, boys and girls, means that we're responsible. We put them there.

What sucks is that now we're to put up or shut up time, and no one wants to put up.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 21:11
See, this is such a line of BS. I love it when this argument comes out. It means you're out of other ideas.

Joe Citizen is an idiot. He knows nothing about international relations, international business, roads, tunnels, post offices, armies and navies, law enforcement, criminal and civil litigation, or any of the other 100,000 functions that we have delegated to our government through our elected representatives.

Moreover, he doesn't want to.

Do I want to pay taxes? Hell no. Do I? Yes. I like having paved roads, and schools for kids, and law enforcement, and courts, and research, and armies and navies, and all of the other functions that I am unable to provide for myself? Yes, I do.

I am educated enough to know where my self-reliance ends and my dependence on others begins. Could I live a mountain-man style life in the woods somewhere if it came to that? Sure I could.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO.

I like being a member of modern society.

And you know what?

For all our weaknesses, all our flaws, all our shortcomings, we do a pretty damn good job.

Are we perfect? Hell no.

Should we strive to be? Hell yes.

Should we demand better from our elected representatives?

Absolutely.

But, there is no such thing as simple economics. And anyone who says there is, that dude's lying to you. This debt hole we've dug ourselves into, both the dems and the repubs are responsible. Which, boys and girls, means that we're responsible. We put them there.

What sucks is that now we're to put up or shut up time, and no one wants to put up.

Then surely you know that right about 100% of the taxes the federal government collects are spent on social welfare programs, and not roads and infrastructure.

But to the point on the top of your post: If I'm wrong, from where does government get its money?

You seem to have difficulty separating societal and economic interdependence from compelled interdependence via taxation and government spending. We all specialize so we're all dependent. It has nothing to do with funding a government that pisses away $2.3T per year and borrows another $1.6 Trillion.

BlisteringSilence
12-03-2012, 21:28
Then surely you know that right about 100% of the taxes the federal government collects are spent on social welfare programs, and not roads and infrastructure.

But to the point on the top of your post: If I'm wrong, from where does government get its money?

You seem to have difficulty separating societal and economic interdependence from compelled interdependence via taxation and government spending. We all specialize so we're all dependent. It has nothing to do with funding a government that pisses away $2.3T per year and borrows another $1.6 Trillion.

If you can figure out a way to exit the compelled interdependence without collapsing the country, I'm open to hear it.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the money paid into the federal (and state) governments just stays there. It doesn't. It gets spent, and that spending fuels the economy, just as private spending does. It's all part of the same whole.

Monies spent on "social welfare" end up in private hands the same way that private funds do. People take that money (and let's call a horse a horse, social welfare is social security and medicare. Medicaid and other welfare programs are minuscule by comparison) and pay rent and mortgages with it, they buy food, and cars, and guns, and everything else.

Non-social welfare spending goes to paychecks for governmental employees, governmental pensions, governmental purchasing, and interest. Of all of those categories, the money gets injected back into the economy the same way as the money from the social programs.

Now, should we spend less? Yes. But we don't "piss away" $2.3T. That money goes somewhere, and it provides jobs, and insurance, and yes, even wealth, for other segments of society.

But the government is not a black hole. The dollars do reemerge.

certifiedfunds
12-03-2012, 21:46
If you can figure out a way to exit the compelled interdependence without collapsing the country, I'm open to hear it.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the money paid into the federal (and state) governments just stays there. It doesn't. It gets spent, and that spending fuels the economy, just as private spending does. It's all part of the same whole.

Monies spent on "social welfare" end up in private hands the same way that private funds do. People take that money (and let's call a horse a horse, social welfare is social security and medicare. Medicaid and other welfare programs are minuscule by comparison) and pay rent and mortgages with it, they buy food, and cars, and guns, and everything else.

Non-social welfare spending goes to paychecks for governmental employees, governmental pensions, governmental purchasing, and interest. Of all of those categories, the money gets injected back into the economy the same way as the money from the social programs.

Now, should we spend less? Yes. But we don't "piss away" $2.3T. That money goes somewhere, and it provides jobs, and insurance, and yes, even wealth, for other segments of society.

But the government is not a black hole. The dollars do reemerge.

You are correct. That money is spent but it isn't spent efficiently.

First, there's the skim to support the bureaucracy.

Then, politicians decide how the balance should be spent. Politicians. Do they spend it in the best interest of their constituents or do they spend it in a way that best serves their own interests? To deny the latter is to deny human nature and the overwhelming body of evidence before you.

Who knows best what your money is worth and how best to spend or invest it? YOU or some congressman from California? Who truly appreciates the value behind that dollar? YOU or some congressman?

The $2.3 Trillion the government collects in taxation is redistributed to other people. The people who earned that money would have spent or invested it as well. Its not like we need government to seize it to make sure it moves.

Government can't create wealth. It can only seize it and re-direct it. You apparently have faith that government can do that better than the person who earned it. I don't.

Finally, when government spends money it distorts the market. One of the many side effects of this is price inflations. This exact scenario is what is responsible for the economic problems facing the U.S. healthcare system, the U.S. higher education system and the very thing that nearly brought down the economy in 2008 with the collapse of the housing bubble.

Z71bill
12-03-2012, 21:47
If you can figure out a way to exit the compelled interdependence without collapsing the country, I'm open to hear it.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the money paid into the federal (and state) governments just stays there. It doesn't. It gets spent, and that spending fuels the economy, just as private spending does. It's all part of the same whole.

Monies spent on "social welfare" end up in private hands the same way that private funds do. People take that money (and let's call a horse a horse, social welfare is social security and medicare. Medicaid and other welfare programs are minuscule by comparison) and pay rent and mortgages with it, they buy food, and cars, and guns, and everything else.

Non-social welfare spending goes to paychecks for governmental employees, governmental pensions, governmental purchasing, and interest. Of all of those categories, the money gets injected back into the economy the same way as the money from the social programs.

Now, should we spend less? Yes. But we don't "piss away" $2.3T. That money goes somewhere, and it provides jobs, and insurance, and yes, even wealth, for other segments of society.

But the government is not a black hole. The dollars do reemerge.

A car that gets 3 MPG can get you to the store - so can a 30 MPG car.

The government is like the car that only gets 3 MPG.

Peace Warrior
12-04-2012, 02:27
The US is the top manufacturing county in the world, by a wide margin.
Point of order on a technicality. Your info is dated by about 4 or 5 years. China is leading at the present time, but depending on how you calculate all the US debt that China "owns," they either beat us with their national GDP, or they take a HUGE hit when we fall off the errant named fiscal cliff.

China's nonmilitary, infrastructural government has but one goal, which is to lead the world in manufacturing. They literally OWNED the rest of the world's nations as far as manufacturing product for global distribution once, which was back in the 1800's before the british hooked them on opium in order to slow delivery of England's silver for China's manufactured goods.

Smart money says to learn Chinese in the next couple three years as it will come in "real handy" by the time 2015 rolls around. :whistling: (Think oil and do not leave Argentina out of the mix.) :wavey:

Ruble Noon
12-04-2012, 04:50
The government does not create wealth any more than I do. It is, however a conduit for MY wealth accumulation, both through direct (getting a check from uncle sugar) and indirect (getting a check from someone employed by uncle sugar) means.

But to discount the GDP of those employed by the government, and their income, as not being "money" shows that you really have no concept of economic theory as practiced here on earth. Employees of the government (which is where this discussion started, and I'd like to get back there) contribute to economic growth and wealth accumulation.

Then your wealth accumulation has come through government wealth redistribution. Now you must ask at what cost? How could that wealth have been put to use by the rightful owners? Maybe they are more productive than you and would have used that money to create more wealth but, there you are with your irresistible widget...

Ruble Noon
12-04-2012, 04:57
If you can figure out a way to exit the compelled interdependence without collapsing the country, I'm open to hear it.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the money paid into the federal (and state) governments just stays there. It doesn't. It gets spent, and that spending fuels the economy, just as private spending does. It's all part of the same whole.

Monies spent on "social welfare" end up in private hands the same way that private funds do. People take that money (and let's call a horse a horse, social welfare is social security and medicare. Medicaid and other welfare programs are minuscule by comparison) and pay rent and mortgages with it, they buy food, and cars, and guns, and everything else.

Non-social welfare spending goes to paychecks for governmental employees, governmental pensions, governmental purchasing, and interest. Of all of those categories, the money gets injected back into the economy the same way as the money from the social programs.

Now, should we spend less? Yes. But we don't "piss away" $2.3T. That money goes somewhere, and it provides jobs, and insurance, and yes, even wealth, for other segments of society.

But the government is not a black hole. The dollars do reemerge.

I think I know where you got your understanding of economics

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way To Create Jobs (Full Answer) - YouTube

Pelosi States Food Stamps Create Jobs - Leslie Marshall on "America's Nightly Scoreboard" 10/7/10 - YouTube

Peace Warrior
12-04-2012, 05:06
I think I know where you got your understanding of economics

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way To Create Jobs (Full Answer) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfP0iddR4lI)

Pelosi States Food Stamps Create Jobs - Leslie Marshall on "America's Nightly Scoreboard" 10/7/10 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWNSpjU8Yqk)
The sad thing is that the mass disinformation media intimates that pelosi's goofball, absurd, and purely foolish rhetoric is actually a viable answer to the questions.

I can't help but think that behind closed doors she and those of her ilk are laughing their butts off while declaring how the American People are imbeciles for believing whatever she says in front of a camera.

pelosi too is merely a puppet of the new world order's cronies.

2bgop
12-04-2012, 12:15
Point of order on a technicality. Your info is dated by about 4 or 5 years. China is leading at the present time, but depending on how you calculate all the US debt that China "owns," they either beat us with their national GDP, or they take a HUGE hit when we fall off the errant named fiscal cliff.

China's nonmilitary, infrastructural government has but one goal, which is to lead the world in manufacturing. They literally OWNED the rest of the world's nations as far as manufacturing product for global distribution once, which was back in the 1800's before the british hooked them on opium in order to slow delivery of England's silver for China's manufactured goods.

Smart money says to learn Chinese in the next couple three years as it will come in "real handy" by the time 2015 rolls around. :whistling: (Think oil and do not leave Argentina out of the mix.) :wavey:

If you count utilities, mining and petroleum extraction into the mix with manufacturing, the number looks entirely different. I can understand not counting those things as manufacturing, but I think you lose a little bit of the whole picture when you do not.

hotpig
12-04-2012, 22:18
I agree with that!!!!!!!!! Please start at the very top. Fire Michelle.

You should know better. Cuts start at the bottom and almost never reach the top.

hotpig
12-04-2012, 22:40
This is a false way of looking at things.

Federal employees' salaries originate from tax dollars. It's not possible for federal employees to pay net federal taxes.

Yes, the IRS takes taxes out of your check, for the purposes of (essentially) controlling your behavior--by withholding, they can make you dance to the tune of the tax code just like everyone else.

But in reality, every dollar that a federal employee gets paid originally was a dollar taken from a private organization or citizen that paid it in taxes to the government. The government gives it to the federal employee and the IRS takes some of it back.

It's insane to say that means "federal employees pay taxes." They don't. Not really.

In other words you are saying Government employees are actually getting paid a lot less than advertised. They must not be the parasites that many believe them to be.

They get paid then give some back. Sounds, looks, smells, and feels like a tax.

hotpig
12-04-2012, 22:46
Your widgets are worth $20 on the open market. Your manufacturing process is inefficient, as is your supply chain. However, your plant is "green". Competing widgets are quality and sell for $15.

To start your company, you spent $200,000 to hire a lobbying firm. The lobbying firm got favorable legislation passed authorizing a special small business loan program. Your congressman arranged for you to receive favorable treatment and you secured a $200MM non-recourse loan to build your green factory.

To fund this loan the government took money from other businesses in the form of taxes, which reduced their own R&D budgets.

From your $200MM loan you used $125MM to build your green factory. $73MM went to executive compensation. $2MM went to soft money PACs which support your legislators.

A non-green factory could have been built for $90MM.

Now that your factory is up and running producing low quality $20 widgets that aren't selling, those same congressmen supported by your soft money managed to secure you a DOD contract to sell the Army 20,000 widgets that they don't need at a price of $75 per widget.

Congratulations. You just sold $1.5MM worth of widgets and put $50MM in your pocket. Unfortunately your widget business isn't viable and is folding. Your company will default on its federal loan. Thank goodness it is non-recourse, huh?

Now, there will be a scandal. You MAY even do some jail time, but probably not. To help fix things take $1MM of that $50MM and hire a PR firm. Now take $500,000 and hire the RIGHT legal counsel. Put another million into the soft money PAC. You'll be ok.

Move your money offshore. Look contrite whenever cameras are around.

This worked for you?

CAcop
12-04-2012, 23:09
In other words you are saying Government employees are actually getting paid a lot less than advertised. They must not be the parasites that many believe them to be.

They get paid then give some back. Sounds, looks, smells, and feels like a tax.

Actually translating his post acurately,

"I like to make others feel bad about themselves so I crap all over them every chance I get. It makes me feel better about myself."

It defines about 90% of the posts here.

There are some people I would like to meet here just to see just how miserable they are.

Life is short, enjoy the ride, sometimes the scariest rides are the most fun.

Peace Warrior
12-05-2012, 05:56
Note: There are an extremely high number of different facets in view with this entire paradigm, so please keep in mind that the following take on everything I'm discussing is in very brief summary and is no where near an attempt at a full delineation on the matter.

If you count utilities, mining and petroleum extraction into the mix with manufacturing, the number looks entirely different. I can understand not counting those things as manufacturing, but I think you lose a little bit of the whole picture when you do not.
IN actual fact, China's buildup has actually helped buttress our GDP and economy in the recent past and will continue to do so for the short term future (e.g., 4 to 8 years) as a lot of what they are using to build it with comes from the US at the present time; however, once China becomes a more self perpetuating nation, as we in the US were for so long, they will not need the US production capabilities for most of their populations' needs. In other words, they will produce much of what they need in house, but of course not when it comes to the need for the actual crude oil itself, and then the US will only be getting China's money by way of them either buying "our scraps" (literally in some cases), or by needing our high degree of specialty manufacturing, which they cannot produce in house at the present time.


As you pointed out in a pure numbers way, yes, I agree the US had an ace in the hole with its oil refineries (e.g., oil into gasoline/diesel/plastics/etc.) for a while, and will still briefly keep for the short term, but China is building some extremely MODERN oil refineries, from scratch so to speak, and sooner before later they will not need any refined petroleum products from the US. Their only Achilles heel, if you will, is the crude oil they'll have to CONTINUE to import as unless something recent has been found, they have no substantial oil reserves of their own, which is why the Middle Eastern and South American oil reserves, especially Argentina's, are very much in play with respect to China's future. (The Chinese could care less about helping the Iranians were it not for the oil Iran sits over.)

I promise you the Chinese will not fall for the hooking of their population on opium again.

devildog2067
12-05-2012, 06:42
In other words you are saying Government employees are actually getting paid a lot less than advertised.

That's not at all what I said. Nowhere in the post I quoted did I say anything at all about government employees' "advertised" salaries.

They must not be the parasites that many believe them to be.

In the other post I made in this thread, I specifically stated that many do, in fact, perform important--even critical--functions.

They get paid then give some back. Sounds, looks, smells, and feels like a tax.

Doesn't matter what it "sounds, looks, smells, and feels" like--what matters is objective reality.

Mathematically, it is impossible for someone who gets paid from tax revenues to pay net taxes.

When I was in the car business, when someone traded in a car that they were upside down on, we'd add the same amount to the selling price of our car and the trade-in allowance of their car in order to not show negative equity on the bill of sale. So if you traded in a $5k car you owed $7500 on, we'd add $3k to the price of both our car and your car. That way on paper you're getting $8k for your car and you owe $7500 so you have a positive trade in amount of $500.

Did the reality change? Are you now magically not upside down? No, of course not.

The same is true of government employees paying taxes. No matter how you "feel" about it, government employees fundamentally cannot pay a net tax.

devildog2067
12-05-2012, 06:46
Actually translating his post acurately,

"I like to make others feel bad about themselves so I crap all over them every chance I get. It makes me feel better about myself."


No idea why you think this is what you're supposed to get out of my post.

I've been a government employee more than once in my life. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. As a cop, you perform one of the government functions that pretty much everyone can agree the government should be doing. When I was a scientist paid by the government, I knew that my work was helping both to drive economic growth and to build the security of our nation.

Your service is something you can be proud of. I was and am proud of mine, especially my service in the military.

That doesn't change the fact that when I was a Marine, every dollar I was paid came from taxes. Just because the IRS withheld a number from my check doesn't magically change the reality that I didn't effectively pay net taxes.

Nothing to "feel bad" about. It is what it is. Government costs money, and there are some things that it should be doing, and you're doing one of those things.

ray9898
12-05-2012, 07:04
In other words you are saying Government employees are actually getting paid a lot less than advertised. They must not be the parasites that many believe them to be.

They get paid then give some back. Sounds, looks, smells, and feels like a tax.

You just need to look at it through GT colored glasses. That allows you to view every government worker on the same level as a welfare leech and you can completely discount any service they provide in exchange for that tax money. Well, unless it is military and then you can consider it, unless the soldier is also a cop and then the line blurs and they can't decide whether to love them or hate them.

devildog2067
12-05-2012, 07:07
no different than any other member of the service economy. The US hasn't had a manufacturing-based economy in decades.

This is not accurate. Or at least, it's only true in the sense that the global economy is shifting towards a different mix of services vs. manufacturing.

http://s17.postimage.org/bha27d6xb/worldmfg.jpg

Manufacturing share of GDP in the US has always been lower than the world average, and it's trending down at the same rate as the rest of the world.

Flying-Dutchman
12-05-2012, 08:13
This is not accurate. Or at least, it's only true in the sense that the global economy is shifting towards a different mix of services vs. manufacturing.

http://s17.postimage.org/bha27d6xb/worldmfg.jpg

Manufacturing share of GDP in the US has always been lower than the world average, and it's trending down at the same rate as the rest of the world.
And this is due to increased productivity. By now we should all be enjoying a 20 hour work week with the same standard of living.

But no, the .gov needs to take more plus its cut so many enjoy a 0 hour work week.

Instead of manufacturing useful material goods, we are producing paperwork and BS.

railfancwb
12-05-2012, 08:15
Obama's proposed $1.6 billion tax increase sounds like it might attack the deficit spending and even begin to pay down the national debt until you realize the deficit is $1.2 billion per year while the $1.6 billion is over ten years. So by itself his proposed tax increase still leaves an annual deficit of over $1.0 billion.

So what spending reductions - not budget "cuts" - has Obama proposed?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 08:19
Obama's proposed $1.6 billion tax increase sounds like it might attack the deficit spending and even begin to pay down the national debt until you realize the deficit is $1.2 billion per year while the $1.6 billion is over ten years. So by itself his proposed tax increase still leaves an annual deficit of over $1.0 billion.

So what spending reductions - not budget "cuts" - has Obama proposed?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Trillion

But yeah, both sides are playing this game when they throw around 10 year numbers. The majority of voters only have a passing interest in this stuff and when they hear matching numbers (1 yr deficit/10year taxes/10yr cuts) they check that box in their head that the politicians are actually working on the problem. Of course, they aren't. They're simply practicing politics.

Flying-Dutchman
12-05-2012, 08:19
It is what it is. Government costs money, and there are some things that it should be doing, and you're doing one of those things.
But most .gov is unnecessary; you could cut it and no one would notice except at tax time.

We survived and prospered well at 1960 government levels.

We would balance the budget if we could only get back to the Clinton Administration level of government. Somehow we managed.

Cmacc
12-05-2012, 12:15
"The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the money paid into the federal (and state) governments just stays there. It doesn't. It gets spent, and that spending fuels the economy, just as private spending does. It's all part of the same whole."


Read slowly and carefully what you wrote and if you think about it you will realize that it is circular reasoning writ large.

The private citizenry existed first and THEN we decided we required government in order to live ordered lives. So we established government and agreed to share the COST of some things; roads, water, sewer, police, fire, courts, defense. ALL government is overhead. It is a cost of existence. Yes, it requires some persons to work in government but they are net overhead to the PRE-existing private economy. Yes, it is a NECESSARY cost of living but still a COST. And just as every family or private business naturally tries to reduce their overhead costs in order to survive and hopefully prosper. So to we need to reduce and maintain our cost of government to the bare minimum in order to survive and hopefully prosper.

At the point above when you say "paid into federal and state government" you have to realize that it is coming OUT of the pot you are about to dump it back into. You claim this is a net INCREASE when it is actually a net DECREASE.

hotpig
12-05-2012, 12:26
That's not at all what I said. Nowhere in the post I quoted did I say anything at all about government employees' "advertised" salaries.



In the other post I made in this thread, I specifically stated that many do, in fact, perform important--even critical--functions.



Doesn't matter what it "sounds, looks, smells, and feels" like--what matters is objective reality.

Mathematically, it is impossible for someone who gets paid from tax revenues to pay net taxes.

When I was in the car business, when someone traded in a car that they were upside down on, we'd add the same amount to the selling price of our car and the trade-in allowance of their car in order to not show negative equity on the bill of sale. So if you traded in a $5k car you owed $7500 on, we'd add $3k to the price of both our car and your car. That way on paper you're getting $8k for your car and you owe $7500 so you have a positive trade in amount of $500.

Did the reality change? Are you now magically not upside down? No, of course not.

The same is true of government employees paying taxes. No matter how you "feel" about it, government employees fundamentally cannot pay a net tax.

Your opinion on it does not really matter any more than mine. The US Government says it is a tax. The only thing that I do not pay is Social Security.

devildog2067
12-05-2012, 12:28
Your opinion on it does not really matter any more than mine.

It's not "my opinion." It's simple mathematics. How is it that you cannot understand the difference between a fact and an opinion?

The US Government says it is a tax.
The US government says a lot of things, this isn't the first lie they've told.

Kingarthurhk
12-05-2012, 17:08
Uncle Sugar doesn't have any money but that which it takes from a citizen, who could have spent or invested it himself, better.

I bet you'd be the first one to beat your chest when the things you depend on evaporated.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 17:13
I bet you'd be the first one to beat your chest when the things you depend on evaporated.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. Are you saying you disagree with me? Does uncle sugar have money that he hasn't taken from someone (or printed out of thin air)?

Kingarthurhk
12-05-2012, 17:18
The real problem we have in this country are the number of people being supported by the productive class. That includes:

Federal Employees: Yup, you don't need the mail, roads, people to kidnapping, bank robbing, keeping the hoardes of illegals from desimating the country, the military, or the folks that give you your social security check every month.

Federal Pensioners: Yeah, after 30 years of making vastly less than the private sector and being spit on every step of the way, who the hell are they to actually get to stop and retire like normal people.

Military: Yeah, who needs a force to keep us from being China?

State Employees: Damn state troopers and state investigators keeping child molestors like you off the street.:supergrin:

State Pensioners: Yeah, who the hell are they to retire like normal people. After all, they really aren't "people" after all, right?

Local gov employees: Yes, heaven forbid you need to dial 911.


Local gov pensioners: Yes, the sub-people again, trying to go into old age like normal people again.


Welfare Recipients: "Traditional" welfare + social security/medicare recipients: That would be the private secotor folks.:rofl:

I added the bold for your assistance.

SGT278ACR
12-05-2012, 22:13
This is a false way of looking at things.

Federal employees' salaries originate from tax dollars. It's not possible for federal employees to pay net federal taxes.

Yes, the IRS takes taxes out of your check, for the purposes of (essentially) controlling your behavior--by withholding, they can make you dance to the tune of the tax code just like everyone else.

But in reality, every dollar that a federal employee gets paid originally was a dollar taken from a private organization or citizen that paid it in taxes to the government. The government gives it to the federal employee and the IRS takes some of it back.

It's insane to say that means "federal employees pay taxes." They don't. Not really.


Well... I guess in your opinion I'm looking at all of this falsely through rose colored glasses and I must certainly be insane. :crazy::upeyes:



I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that government employees pay tax. The point is government employees are paid FROM tax. Your $40K is taken from people whether they want (or believe in) your service or not. If people don’t want to consume my service, they don’t have to.

Most of us also agree that government is necessary, but I think reasonable people see the current level of governmental spending is too high. So the answer to “how much government should we have?” at present “less”.

Government by definition works for the private sector, not vice-versa. Of course there will be disagreement with respect to the absolute necessity of each individual government service and position. But because government services are funded with recourses taken BY FORCE, determination of the necessity of a government service should be held to a higher standard than in the private sector. I am free to start a private-sector business you may not agree with, and you are free not to patronize it. I don’t have that say with respect to your 40 grand.
Government employees do not pay taxes. They produce nothing to be taxed. Saying that government employees contribute to the tax base is equatable to saying that dipping water from one end of a pool and dumping it in the other end raises the water level.


Actually... only approximately $32 - $34 grand of that is actually mine. We, as Federal employees, don't get that say about having to pay our taxes either. Just like those employed in the private sector. Sure, fed employees pay comes from govt funds obtained from taxes, including our own, but at the end of the tax year we're citizens who have to put $$$ back in the pot just like anyone else. We're just people trying to work and make a living for us & our families, just like any other tax payer. Where you really don't have a say is when the govt takes your money and gives it to the majority of lazy @$$ d-bags on welfare that don't work for it. I work to make my living like any other hard-working American citizen and pi$$e$ me off too when my hard earned money goes to people just looking for a free lunch or hand out. But I won't ever apologize for being a hard working citizen who happens to be employed for the govt.


It would be better to cut their pay by 50% - most will still be overpaid for what they contribute - so you would also make them 100% responsible for their own health care & retirement.

If someone quits - don't replace them.

Eventually you would get the number down and the pay would be close to fair (with no pay increases for 10 years)


OK... let's come back from Disneyland to reality. Could you and your dependent family (if you have them) make it if your employer cut your pay by 50%? :dunno:Probably not. Who are you to say that most of them are overpaid? That would be like me saying that you & most of your co-workers or colleagues are mostly overpaid. Fact of the matter is, there are both overpaid & underpaid people in all sectors of the American workforce. Private, corporate, government or wherever. And to say that all fed employees should be 100% responsible for their own healthcare... guess what... we are. It's our choice to take up our employer's health insurance or not... just like the private sector. Let's talk about where the real government spending problem is... stop government welfare handouts to the lazy @$$e$ that really don't need it. Complain about the $$$ that our government has been giving to other countries for years. Hell... both Democrat & Republican administrations are guilty of that. That's where the real $$$ issues are, not the pay going to fed employees. For the record, I said it before & I'll say it again... I'm against programs like Obama care... and like most here... I hate that a very large portion of my hard earned income goes to d-bag recipients. Just sayin'. :wavey:

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 22:26
I added the bold for your assistance.

Thank you for the bold. The quote function makes it clearer though and easier to respond to.

Even if I were to accept your points at face value it still doesn't change the fact that we have too many people being supported by the taxpayers. We have much more government than we can afford. That should be evident to you by now.

So lets look at where the money is spent. The fedgov takes in about $2.3T per year in tax revenue from all sources. Do you know where it goes? I do. Welfare babymamas aren't the problem, from a math standpoint.

SGT278ACR
12-05-2012, 22:29
The real problem we have in this country are the number of people being supported by the productive class. That includes:

Federal Employees: Yup, you don't need the mail, roads, people to kidnapping, bank robbing, keeping the hoardes of illegals from desimating the country, the military, or the folks that give you your social security check every month.

Federal Pensioners: Yeah, after 30 years of making vastly less than the private sector and being spit on every step of the way, who the hell are they to actually get to stop and retire like normal people.

Military: Yeah, who needs a force to keep us from being China?

State Employees: Damn state troopers and state investigators keeping child molestors like you off the street.file:///C:\Windows\TEMP\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif

State Pensioners: Yeah, who the hell are they to retire like normal people. After all, they really aren't "people" after all, right?

Local gov employees: Yes, heaven forbid you need to dial 911.

Local gov pensioners: Yes, the sub-people again, trying to go into old age like normal people again.

Welfare Recipients: "Traditional" welfare + social security/medicare recipients: That would be the private secotor folks. :rofl:


I added the bold for your assistance.

Kingarthurhk,
I love what did there. How dare you speak the truth here on GT! :rofl:

G29Reload
12-05-2012, 22:31
Start with a 50% cut in government employees. Then go from there.

75%. Easy. No one will notice.

Turn deac nukes over to the navy and disband Energy.

Reduce the DOEducation to a room with a banquet table and half a dozen analysts with notebooks and an internet connection.

Cut HUD in half.

Cut the State dept in half.

Mandate by law that NSA engages in data collection only on foreign sources.

Disband the ATF and hand the explosives unit over to the FBI.

Disband DHS and return to Coast Guard / FEMA / Border Patrol and Airport Screeners. Forbid by law any union membership by the latter. Enough is enough.

Release from federal prison anyone with only marijuana convictions under half a pound.

Put the White house on a diet…enforced budgets for EVERYTHING and new limits in place on vacations. Only the President can order up a plane and he must be on it to go anywhere. Staff limits. Food budget limits. Limits on AF1.

Immediate end to EITC. All refunds STRICTLY LIMITED to what you put in.

Return funds stolen from the medicare fund.

5 year freeze on SS increases. No more age 62 early retirement. 65 for partial, 68 for full funding.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 22:34
Well... I guess in your opinion I'm looking at all of this falsely through rose colored glasses and I must certainly be insane. :crazy::upeyes:







Actually... only approximately $32 - $34 grand of that is actually mine. We, as Federal employees, don't get that say about having to pay our taxes either. Just like those employed in the private sector. Sure, fed employees pay comes from govt funds obtained from taxes, including our own, but at the end of the tax year we're citizens who have to put $$$ back in the pot just like anyone else. We're just people trying to work and make a living for us & our families, just like any other tax payer. Where you really don't have a say is when the govt takes your money and gives it to the majority of lazy @$$ d-bags on welfare that don't work for it. I work to make my living like any other hard-working American citizen and pi$$e$ me off too when my hard earned money goes to people just looking for a free lunch or hand out. But I won't ever apologize for being a hard working citizen who happens to be employed for the govt.





OK... let's come back from Disneyland to reality. Could you and your dependent family (if you have them) make it if your employer cut your pay by 50%? :dunno:Probably not. Who are you to say that most of them are overpaid? That would be like me saying that you & most of your co-workers or colleagues are mostly overpaid. Fact of the matter is, there are both overpaid & underpaid people in all sectors of the American workforce. Private, corporate, government or wherever. And to say that all fed employees should be 100% responsible for their own healthcare... guess what... we are. It's our choice to take up our employer's health insurance or not... just like the private sector. Let's talk about where the real government spending problem is... stop government welfare handouts to the lazy @$$e$ that really don't need it. Complain about the $$$ that our government has been giving to other countries for years. Hell... both Democrat & Republican administrations are guilty of that. That's where the real $$$ issues are, not the pay going to fed employees. For the record, I said it before & I'll say it again... I'm against programs like Obama care... and like most here... I hate that a very large portion of my hard earned income goes to d-bag recipients. Just sayin'. :wavey:

Government employees don't pay net taxes no matter how you feel about it. If I give you $1 and you give me back $0.10, I'm still out 90 cents. Just because it is taken from you doesn't mean you're contributing anything. Besides, at $40,000 per year you aren't paying federal income taxes if you have a couple kids and a mortgage.

The government employees always seem to take offense when people point this out. It isn't an insult but a simple statement of fact.

That said, we have way more government than we can afford. Cutting federal pay and benefits by 50% would be a good start to flush out unnecessary employees and get them in the productive sector where they can contribute to the pie, and reduce the number of people eating the pie.

SGT278ACR
12-05-2012, 22:37
75%. Easy. No one will notice.

Turn deac nukes over to the navy and disband Energy.

Reduce the DOEducation to a room with a banquet table and half a dozen analysts with notebooks and an internet connection.

Cut HUD in half.

Cut the State dept in half.

Mandate by law that NSA engages in data collection only on foreign sources.

Disband the ATF and hand the explosives unit over to the FBI.

Disband DHS and return to Coast Guard / FEMA / Border Patrol and Airport Screeners. Forbid by law any union membership by the latter. Enough is enough.

Release from federal prison anyone with only marijuana convictions under half a pound.

Put the White house on a diet…enforced budgets for EVERYTHING and new limits in place on vacations. Only the President can order up a plane and he must be on it to go anywhere. Staff limits. Food budget limits. Limits on AF1.

Don't really agree with the 75% pay cut or even a 50% one, but I agree with the rest of what you say. It wouldn't hurt, economically, to consolidate some government entities and trim a little fat off of the political amenities of the White House that you mentioned. :thumbsup:

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 22:38
We need government employees waking up every day trying to get out of government employment and into the productive sector like their lives depend on it. Get out and start small businesses. Find productive employment. Help grow the economy instead of helping to shrink it.

hotpig
12-05-2012, 22:50
Why does this thread even exist? The majority of the Country voted in November for larger Government. That is the direction for the next four years. Probably longer since the death of the Republican Party.

SGT278ACR
12-05-2012, 22:57
Government employees don't pay net taxes no matter how you feel about it. If I give you $1 and you give me back $0.10, I'm still out 90 cents. Just because it is taken from you doesn't mean you're contributing anything. Besides, at $40,000 per year you aren't paying federal income taxes if you have a couple kids and a mortgage.

The government employees always seem to take offense when people point this out. It isn't an insult but a simple statement of fact.

That said, we have way more government than we can afford. Cutting federal pay and benefits by 50% would be a good start to flush out unnecessary employees and get them in the productive sector where they can contribute to the pie, and reduce the number of people eating the pie.


We need government employees waking up every day trying to get out of government employment and into the productive sector like their lives depend on it. Get out and start small businesses. Find productive employment. Help grow the economy instead of helping to shrink it.

I see many of your points, even if I don't agree with ALL of it. I DO agree with you that unnecessary fed employees need to be flushed out, but unfortunately if an attempt to do that would ever come to happen... it would take a while. As a fed employee I can only speak for myself, and most of my colleagues where I work. As retired military myself, I chose to continue civilian employment with the Department of Defense in the field of law enforcement and force protection. No, not a profession that produces material or tangible products & consumables or even boosts the economy, but one that does help the section of government that protects the rights of free US citizens to work in free enterprise and start small businesses, as well as ensure the right to free speech & opinion. Of course... as I stated earlier... I can't say that about ALL fed employees. Unfortunately, there is fraud, waste & abuse in government as well as the productive sector. I really don't take offense to what is said here, but this is just a damn good subject for conversation.:cool:

CAcop
12-05-2012, 22:58
Why does this thread even exist? The majority of the Country voted in November for larger Government. That is the direction for the next four years. Probably longer since the death of the Republican Party.

Yup. Despite how horrible people here thought Obama was 52% of the people who cared enough to vote want more government. They won't stop until we are on the verge of Greece.

SGT278ACR
12-05-2012, 23:02
Why does this thread even exist? The majority of the Country voted in November for larger Government. That is the direction for the next four years. Probably longer since the death of the Republican Party.

Damn good point. As for the Republican Party... maybe it can rise from the ashes and triumph 4 years from now. There seems to be a cycle in the Presidency. We had several years of a Republican regime with Reagan and Bush I, then 8 years of Clinton, then another 8 of Bush II, now 8 of Obama. The tide seems to turn pretty regularly.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 23:06
I see many of your points, even if I don't agree with ALL of it. I DO agree with you that unnecessary fed employees need to be flushed out, but unfortunately if an attempt to do that would ever come to happen... it would take a while. As a fed employee I can only speak for myself, and most of my colleagues where I work. As retired military myself, I chose to continue civilian employment with the Department of Defense in the field of law enforcement and force protection. No, not a profession that produces material or tangible products & consumables or even boosts the economy, but one that does help the section of government that protects the rights of free US citizens to work in free enterprise and start small businesses, as well as ensure the right to free speech & opinion. Of course... as I stated earlier... I can't say that about ALL fed employees. Unfortunately, there is fraud, waste & abuse in government as well as the productive sector. I really don't take offense to what is said here, but this is just a damn good subject for conversation.:cool:

Fraud, waste and abuse in the productive sector affects the shareholders. Shareholders tend to watch such things like hawks.

I tend to reject the private sector vs productive sector labels because it suggests that each is a different side of the same coin, which they aren't. They're very different. One side produces and one side consumes. Some of that consumption is necessary so that isn't to say that some federal employees don't do jobs that are of vital importance. They do. I think we can agree that this probably isn't true of the majority of them. An awful lot of people are employed by bureaus that support roles the federal government shouldn't even be engaging in.

The thread was about the ratio of producers to consumers. No matter how vital the role of the consumer, that person is still a consumer. There is no changing that. However, the ratio is too high. Then, couple that with the people who aren't employed by the taxpayers but are still supported by the taxpayers and the problem is staggering.

Currently social welfare programs consume right about 100% of federal tax revenue from all sources. Frankly, we have a DOD, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid problem. Those 4 budgets alone exceed federal revenue.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 23:07
Damn good point. As for the Republican Party... maybe it can rise from the ashes and triumph 4 years from now. There seems to be a cycle in the Presidency. We had several years of a Republican regime with Reagan and Bush I, then 8 years of Clinton, then another 8 of Bush II, now 8 of Obama. The tide seems to turn pretty regularly.

All while moving further left.

SGT278ACR
12-05-2012, 23:09
Well, as much as I would like to stay up & chat some more about this... it's midnight here and I have to get up early and go to my FEDERAL GOVERNMENT job in the morning. :rofl:
Good night folks. :wavey:

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 23:10
Well, as much as I would like to stay up & chat some more about this... it's midnight here and I have to get up early and go to my FEDERAL GOVERNMENT job in the morning. :rofl:
Good night folks. :wavey:

Don't work too hard. :supergrin:

Ruble Noon
12-06-2012, 04:49
I see many of your points, even if I don't agree with ALL of it. I DO agree with you that unnecessary fed employees need to be flushed out, but unfortunately if an attempt to do that would ever come to happen... it would take a while. As a fed employee I can only speak for myself, and most of my colleagues where I work. As retired military myself, I chose to continue civilian employment with the Department of Defense in the field of law enforcement and force protection. No, not a profession that produces material or tangible products & consumables or even boosts the economy, but one that does help the section of government that protects the rights of free US citizens to work in free enterprise and start small businesses, as well as ensure the right to free speech & opinion. Of course... as I stated earlier... I can't say that about ALL fed employees. Unfortunately, there is fraud, waste & abuse in government as well as the productive sector. I really don't take offense to what is said here, but this is just a damn good subject for conversation.:cool:

You're not doing a very good job. Can we get a refund?

camelotkid
12-06-2012, 07:41
Oh, it's opinion. Federal employees are a net drain on the system. To pay them money must be confiscated from the productive sector and/or borrowed. They don't contribute to GDP or the tax base. Everyone would be much better off if as much of that money as possible stayed in the hands of the productive sector or was not borrowed against the labor of future generations.

If federal employees bolstered the economy we should just make everyone a federal employee and enjoy the economic benefits.

GDP=C+I+G+(Ex-Im)

Take a guess at what the G stands for.

certifiedfunds
12-06-2012, 07:49
GDP=C+I+G+(Ex-Im)

Take a guess at what the G stands for.

Yeah I know. Funny huh? Moving money from one persons pocket to the government, skimming, and then putting it in someone else's pocket is considered production.

If you think of it this way: because the government took the money from the pockets of the productive sector it has to be accounted for. IOW, government spending it in lieu of the citizen from whom it was confiscated from.

series1811
12-06-2012, 08:17
It is a big country with a bloated federal government employing people to do a whole lot of stuff it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do and shouldn't be doing. I dare say we could cut federal employees 50% and no one would notice except welfare recipients and the terminated federal employees.

I used to work for the federal government and I can't argue with this statement.

DanaT
12-06-2012, 08:37
Yup. Despite how horrible people here thought Obama was 52% of the people who cared enough to vote want more government. They won't stop until we are on the verge of Greece.

We are closer the being Greece than you think. Start looking at Govt spending, pension obligations, Social Security, etc as a percent of GDP of the USA and Greece.

skinny99
12-06-2012, 08:43
Cutting the pay of the Gov't workers is the wrong approach. Cut the number of employee's by 15%. You want qualified, competent people working in these jobs and massive pay cuts won't do that. Plus between benefits,SS,unemployment and resources needed to support each employee a 15% reduction in would result in savings close to 30%. Now what it would require that from the top down everyone would actually have to put a full days work in everyday. Just like most people have to do in the private sector. Vacation/personal/sickdays would have to be regulated as there would not be multiple employee's to cover each job.

Even the Gov't employees will have a hard time arguing that they could not eliminate 15% of their co-workers. They know who actually is productive and who isn't.

In most businesses 20% of the employees are responsible for about 80% of the work. I would be willing to bet that ratio is even worse at some Gov't jobs.

Now cutting employee's creates more problems. We are already at extremely high unemployment rates. That can't be ignored. So what is the fix? Immigration. There are too many people in the US as it is. Reform legal immigration and stop illegal immigration. Start deporting the illegals that are already here. That will open up jobs and increase our tax base.
This will be very unpopular, but being popular is why we are in this mess.

None of this can be done in one week,month or even one year. But you could easily cut 15% in three years and greatly reduce illegal immigration. I would also suspend legal immigration for 4 years. By then we could have a new plan and process in place.

Remember legal immigration is not a right! It is a privilege that we offer to easily.

Peace Warrior
12-06-2012, 12:22
... The private citizenry existed first and THEN we decided we required government in order to live ordered lives. So we established government and agreed to share the COST of some things; roads, water, sewer, police, fire, courts, defense. ...
State governments existed first, then due in part to the goings on prior to the Revolutionary War, the individual State governments saw the both the benefit and utility of a united, centralized form of government held between all the States (existing at that time); however, each State and each person drafting the united States' Constitution were careful to always allow the States, and most importantly 'We the People,' the upper hand as far as this newly created, united centralized form of government was concerned.

Yeah... we've come a LONG LONG way and are so distant now from our Constitutional Republic of the late 1700's.

edcrosbys
12-06-2012, 15:49
I work for the Government, and I'd say that 1 of every 7.75 people in my office actually work.

I work in a gov facility as well. I think this number is exaggerated!


I can't imagine what life would be like if 1 in 8(ish) people actually did work (real, productive tasks). I bet in my office, 1 in 12 is actually working at any one point in time. And about 25% of the time, they are actually working against someone else! :supergrin:

I'd love to see the proxy server logs to see how much the web is being utilized!

SGT278ACR
12-06-2012, 19:15
Don't work too hard. :supergrin:

:rofl: Good one. I'll try not to. :cool:

SGT278ACR
12-06-2012, 19:43
You're not doing a very good job. Can we get a refund?

:rofl:We must be doing something right... you obviously still have your right to free speech, 2nd amendment rights, and even the right to be wrong and several others. :whistling:
If you feel you could do a better job at it... go for it. If not, sit back and enjoy your freedom.

As far as your refund... you'll have to contact the US Department of Treasury... not the Department of Defense. They handle the money... we merely stand ready to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign & domestic". Yep, I'm quite certain I've heard that some where before... oh yes, now I remember... it was when my thousands of colleagues and I raised a right hand and swore an oath to protect your free rights and way of life.

Durden
12-06-2012, 20:50
Why does this thread even exist? The majority of the Country voted in November for larger Government. That is the direction for the next four years. Probably longer since the death of the Republican Party.

This. Is. Why.

The opposition to unsustainable, bloated & injurious government creep is being methodically wiped out.

It's odd to see so many alleged conservatives in this thread that not only work for government, which may or may not be injurious to the taxpayer (it depends on their job function, dedication to their job, purity of intent & productivity, on a case by case basis), but who literally defend government bloat with empty rhetoric & sloganeering ("think of the children!") in wholesale, broadcloth fashion.

Think about it. We are a society that has officially has 1 out of 7.75 people out of those employed working government jobs (and the real figure is likely significantly greater), and there are people who can't see or won't admit that this, in and of itself, is problematic.

certifiedfunds
12-06-2012, 21:18
This. Is. Why.

The opposition to unsustainable, bloated & injurious government creep is being methodically wiped out.

It's odd to see so many alleged conservatives in this thread that not only work for government, which may or may not be injurious to the taxpayer (it depends on their job function, dedication to their job, purity of intent & productivity, on a case by case basis), but who literally defend government bloat with empty rhetoric & sloganeering ("think of the children!") in wholesale, broadcloth fashion.

Think about it. We are a society that has officially has 1 out of 7.75 people out of those employed working government jobs (and the real figure is likely significantly greater), and there are people who can't see or won't admit that this, in and of itself, is problematic.

Excellent post

engineer151515
12-07-2012, 00:40
I work in a gov facility as well. I think this number is exaggerated!


I can't imagine what life would be like if 1 in 8(ish) people actually did work (real, productive tasks). I bet in my office, 1 in 12 is actually working at any one point in time. And about 25% of the time, they are actually working against someone else! :supergrin:

I'd love to see the proxy server logs to see how much the web is being utilized!


Obama stated the .gov generated 70 Million checks per month. It is based on Treasury Department data that includes Social Security (56 million checks), veterans benefits (4.5 million checks), and spending on non-defense contractors and vendors (1.8 million checks).

Now add Medicare reimbursements to providers and vendors (100 million claims), and electronic transfers to the households receiving food stamps (21 million). Add spending by the Defense Department (payroll of 6.4 million active and retired employees and, on average, pays nearly 1 million invoices and 660,000 travel expense claims per month).

It doesn't surprise me at all that 1 in almost 8 people rely on Uncle Sam, who spends money like a drunken sailor. I personally don't trust my paycheck nor my retirement to drunken sailors and can't understand why so many of my fellow GT'ers do.

Baba Louie
12-07-2012, 04:14
On O'Reilly last night (Dec 6) w/ Lou Dobbs on, he had figures of (approx) 66 million on some type of govt welfare + 21 million govt employees with a whopping 108 million private sector employed to support the first two groups. (IIRC)

So 87ish to 108, call it a 4 to 5 ratio.

If true (and I'd love to know where the numbers actually come from)... well, you being to wonder. Is it time to invade Canada? Or Mexico? :supergrin:

Even tho govt employees and those on welfare pay their taxes, are not their wages and deductions derived from either the private sector payroll deductions and/or borrowing from the Fed Reserve/China?

While I admit, I'm simple & stupid about these things, I enjoy trying to learn something from reading everyones POV and take on the economy and govt here and elsewhere around the world. Tho I will also admit, at times my head spins trying to figure out Who's On first, What's on second and I don't know is on third.

Ya know? :dunno:

CAcop
12-07-2012, 06:52
On O'Reilly last night (Dec 6) w/ Lou Dobbs on, he had figures of (approx) 66 million on some type of govt welfare + 21 million govt employees with a whopping 108 million private sector employed to support the first two groups. (IIRC)

So 87ish to 108, call it a 4 to 5 ratio.

If true (and I'd love to know where the numbers actually come from)... well, you being to wonder. Is it time to invade Canada? Or Mexico? :supergrin:

Even tho govt employees and those on welfare pay their taxes, are not their wages and deductions derived from either the private sector payroll deductions and/or borrowing from the Fed Reserve/China?

While I admit, I'm simple & stupid about these things, I enjoy trying to learn something from reading everyones POV and take on the economy and govt here and elsewhere around the world. Tho I will also admit, at times my head spins trying to figure out Who's On first, What's on second and I don't know is on third.

Ya know? :dunno:

Keep in mind when you talk about people on "some form of welfare" you can have people who are working hard, just not making enough to cover child care or some other expense that keeps them employed.

I dated a woman who worked as a waitress while going to school to be a mechanic. She never would have become independent if the governement had not helped her out with tuition and child care. Same thing with a guy I knew who was getting grants to go through college and once he graduated he began paying it back essenitally with taxes. Had he not gotten through college he would not.

Always ask, "Why are they phrasing the question a certain way?"

Kind of like this thread. Would the article in the OP be as dramatic if they said 13% of worers work for the government? Would it be as dramatic if they said 87% of workers are in the private sector? What if they had given pre-crash data? I know all the local governments around here are running with fewer people. Was the ratio higher or lower pre-crash?

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 07:01
Keep in mind when you talk about people on "some form of welfare" you can have people who are working hard, just not making enough to cover child care or some other expense that keeps them employed.

I dated a woman who worked as a waitress while going to school to be a mechanic. She never would have become independent if the governement had not helped her out with tuition and child care. Same thing with a guy I knew who was getting grants to go through college and once he graduated he began paying it back essenitally with taxes. Had he not gotten through college he would not.



Not the proper role for government.

Always ask, "Why are they phrasing the question a certain way?"

Kind of like this thread. Would the article in the OP be as dramatic if they said 13% of worers work for the government? Would it be as dramatic if they said 87% of workers are in the private sector? What if they had given pre-crash data? I know all the local governments around here are running with fewer people. Was the ratio higher or lower pre-crash?

Yes, 13% is too high of a percentage. We have too many government employees, fed, state and local. And, 13% only represents a small portion of the number of people who are being carried by the taxpayers.

So it really doesn't matter how you spin the number, the number is too high.

Durden
12-07-2012, 07:11
Always ask, "Why are they phrasing the question a certain way?"

Kind of like this thread. Would the article in the OP be as dramatic if they said 13% of worers work for the government? Would it be as dramatic if they said 87% of workers are in the private sector? What if they had given pre-crash data? I know all the local governments around here are running with fewer people. Was the ratio higher or lower pre-crash?

Yes, it would be as dramatic, because whether it's 13% or 1 in 7.75, it's the same.

It sounds as if you'd like to do exactly what you implied I did, however, and intentionally make the numbers seem less ridiculous than they factually are.

I stated the number as a ratio, because it's literally the first method of expressing the point that I thought of, not to "make the numbers seem more dramatic."

1 in 7.75 = 13%, so either way would have worked for me (I actually think 13% would seem to be the more "dramatic number," for the average person).

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 07:24
I wonder what that number looks like when you add in government pensioners.

DanaT
12-07-2012, 07:44
Keep in mind when you talk about people on "some form of welfare" you can have people who are working hard, just not making enough to cover child care or some other expense that keeps them employed.

I dated a woman who worked as a waitress while going to school to be a mechanic. She never would have become independent if the governement had not helped her out with tuition and child care. Same thing with a guy I knew who was getting grants to go through college and once he graduated he began paying it back essenitally with taxes. Had he not gotten through college he would not.


I cannot disagree with some of the reasoning that goes into your line of thought. I think many people rely more on govt services than they think. Roads. Schools. Airports. Parks. The list is long.

Society has an interest in investing in "society". As an example, schooling children is expensive, not schooling them is even more expensive.

That said, there are many areas that is questionable if govt should be involved. One example TSA. At the local county court whne I had to go for Jury Duty, security screening was done by private security even though the county had sheriff deputies. And yes the deputies were around for other tasks, just not doing the screening. If a court can have private people screening, why cant an airport?

Now, you comment about govt assistance. I believe there are two types of people who use it. Those that dont like being on it and use it to get off of it and then those that live on it for life and know how to scam the system. I am not sure how to do it, but I think govt assistance should be given only to those that demonstrate, with objective evidence, that they are working to get off it.

Now the hard part is stupid, lazy parents. Can we as a society punish children (by not feeding them, etc) based upon having stupid, lazy parents? The children did nothing wrong but get the effects. In fact, the system is set up to encourage lazy people to have more kids to get more govt money. The kids actually get less.

The 1:7.75 number is absurd. I dont think many would argue that govt is needed and workers need paid. But think about this. 13% of the population is not needed to make sure the 87% are doing as they should. Govt workers should be around 3-5% of the workers.

The Fist Of Goodness
12-07-2012, 07:59
....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

The Fist Of Goodness
12-07-2012, 08:02
I wonder what that number looks like when you add in government pensioners.

Or private sector businesses that derive a good chunk of their income from some type of government program (Medicare, for example).

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

skinny99
12-07-2012, 08:29
I cannot disagree with some of the reasoning that goes into your line of thought. I think many people rely more on govt services than they think. Roads. Schools. Airports. Parks. The list is long.

Society has an interest in investing in "society". As an example, schooling children is expensive, not schooling them is even more expensive.

That said, there are many areas that is questionable if govt should be involved. One example TSA. At the local county court whne I had to go for Jury Duty, security screening was done by private security even though the county had sheriff deputies. And yes the deputies were around for other tasks, just not doing the screening. If a court can have private people screening, why cant an airport?

Now, you comment about govt assistance. I believe there are two types of people who use it. Those that dont like being on it and use it to get off of it and then those that live on it for life and know how to scam the system. I am not sure how to do it, but I think govt assistance should be given only to those that demonstrate, with objective evidence, that they are working to get off it.

Now the hard part is stupid, lazy parents. Can we as a society punish children (by not feeding them, etc) based upon having stupid, lazy parents? The children did nothing wrong but get the effects. In fact, the system is set up to encourage lazy people to have more kids to get more govt money. The kids actually get less.

The 1:7.75 number is absurd. I dont think many would argue that govt is needed and workers need paid. But think about this. 13% of the population is not needed to make sure the 87% are doing as they should. Govt workers should be around 3-5% of the workers.

You typed a mouthful there. I believe our country is too big as well as our gov't. I of course don't believe the gov't place any rules or laws about how many children we can have, however we should stop rewarding people for having more children.

Tax deductions for children should max out at 2. If you choose to have more then you get no tax break on additional children.

Second is the really important one. If you are on any form of welfare, food stamps, WIC or unemployment and decide to have a child you immediately forfeit all rights to future support. If you can afford more kids then you don't need public assistance.

I think it is a simple concept. :wow:

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 08:46
Or private sector businesses that derive a good chunk of their income from some type of government program (Medicare, for example).

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Ha-Haaaah!

In all of these discussions and pissing matches I've never seen anyone bring this up. Well done!

This describes basically anyone involved in healthcare, including myself. I work for a medical device company. A good portion of my income is a pass through from Medicare.

Now, y'all have fun with that one.:supergrin:

DanaT
12-07-2012, 08:55
Ha-Haaaah!

In all of these discussions and pissing matches I've never seen anyone bring this up. Well done!

This describes basically anyone involved in healthcare, including myself. I work for a medical device company. A good portion of my income is a pass through from Medicare.

Now, y'all have fun with that one.:supergrin:

I had this argument with my father yesterday. I just went on Medicare and was *****ing that he is paying $100/month and he has Fed Govt retirement health care. I told him, that I was paying for his health care and quit *****ing about it.

It then got into the new excise tax on medical devices. I told him that we have raised prices to cover that.

He then said, yes, but what percent of pacemakers do I think medicare pays for.

He then said, that I am paying that 3% as a tax payer whether I like it or not.

professorpinki
12-07-2012, 09:24
It is a big country with a bloated federal government employing people to do a whole lot of stuff it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do and shouldn't be doing. I dare say we could cut federal employees 50% and no one would notice except welfare recipients and the terminated federal employees.
And only white landholding males should be able to vote.

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 10:33
And only white landholding males should be able to vote.

You must be considered brilliant amongst your peers.

CAcop
12-07-2012, 14:19
Or private sector businesses that derive a good chunk of their income from some type of government program (Medicare, for example).

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

A lot of major road construction in CA is done by private companies. Paid for by tax dollars. Caltrans just maintains or designs the roads.

Just about every government building was built by private companies.

Smaller counties will contract coroners services to doctors with the proper credentials in the private sector.

Jail health care is contracted out more an more. Which is interesting because if one of their employees screws up the county is still on the hook.

Oh, and SJC has private security instead of TSA. If you think TSA is a bunch of mouth breathing morons you ain't seen nothing. Imagine minimum wage, mostly immigrant, workers trying to operate x-ray machines. On the plus side you get through line fast because they are just faking it.

Ruble Noon
12-07-2012, 15:03
:rofl:We must be doing something right... you obviously still have your right to free speech, 2nd amendment rights, and even the right to be wrong and several others. :whistling:
If you feel you could do a better job at it... go for it. If not, sit back and enjoy your freedom.

As far as your refund... you'll have to contact the US Department of Treasury... not the Department of Defense. They handle the money... we merely stand ready to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign & domestic". Yep, I'm quite certain I've heard that some where before... oh yes, now I remember... it was when my thousands of colleagues and I raised a right hand and swore an oath to protect your free rights and way of life.

You mean I have a right to be right, right? It's really just a matter of math. You may choose to argue against it but, you just look foolish.
I really think you should stop what you are doing and study economics from a reputable source. While you are at it you might also want to study the Constitution that you took an oath to defend because we are so far extra-constitutional that it is laughable.

And yeah, I still want my refund.

SGT278ACR
12-08-2012, 19:00
You mean I have a right to be right, right? It's really just a matter of math. You may choose to argue against it but, you just look foolish.
I really think you should stop what you are doing and study economics from a reputable source. While you are at it you might also want to study the Constitution that you took an oath to defend because we are so far extra-constitutional that it is laughable.

And yeah, I still want my refund.

Whatever you say, partner... whatever you say... :upeyes: I'd ask what your idea of a reputable source of economics would be, but it's just a matter of opinion what is reputable and what is not. As for looking foolish... just another matter of opinion. Again, contact the Department of Treasury for your refund. Good luck with that by the way. Hope that works out for ya'.