Wait, what century are we living in…?

[rct]

How does money become available to pay government employees? Remember, the balance starts at zero. Where does the revenue stream start? Where does the money to pay the benefits for the employees of the largest single employer on earth come from? Please don't respond with something like your pay comes from other gubment employees taxes ...

 

If you look at effective tax rate demographics, you'll see the truth in recipient numbers vs contributor numbers.

 

Pretending you don't know how to read data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist.

 

No offense bro, but you answer information and experience in exactly the way you say you won't tolerate from others.

 

rct

[zigzag]

Nice work Bluesman. And as Rodney Dangerfield said, "While you're looking out for number one, make sure you don't step in number two!"

[BobF_]

Roadside beautification is no doubt unnecessary, but I said most government jobs are necessary, IMO. I'll bet you could find a few more unnecessary government jobs. Nice work, Bob.

 

The way CB framed his point, he basically said that you are a recipient (read "taker") if you don't work in the private sector... an inane comment and one that rct has done a great job in addressing, IMO.

 

And I already stated in a previous post that government employees pay income tax, too.

 

Yes, I realize government employees pay tax. That still doesn't address the source problem. The government has to get money from somewhere to pay the government employees in the first place. This doesn't make them slackers or recipients. The point about percentage of workforce employed by governments is a different one, although related. Surely you realize that employees can't be taxed to pay for their own benefits, right? The best they can do is to offset the cost to the private sector workers by the amount of their effective tax rate, which can be seen as a discount.

 

I realize you said 'most' rather than all. I seriously doubt 'most'. Unfortunately, that leads us down a path to determine what makes sense for the government to do and what doesn't. Too subjective as a typewritten exercise. :)

 

There are obviously some really great, noble and necessary government positions.

[milod]

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities?

 

I just checked and by local definition, they would be considered a "left-leaning" organization with sufficient funding and horsepower to sound credible stating that a ham sandwich is harmful to low-income populations in the U.S.

 

Yeah, that's something of an overstatement.

 

But note it's not atypical of the baby boom generation, of which I'm NOT one because I'm too old, to strongly question "authority," although they do tend to do so if it agrees with their prior perceptions.

 

I think the problem with this sort of discussion on fiscal matters is that most of us simply aren't talking about analysis of various figures which can easily yield opposite conclusions, but rather our perceptions of culture and how "our" culture should work.

 

For example, in my state I've written professionally the past 50 years about the pols claiming to do this or that to improve the state's economy and bring in business - and yet in terms of comparative numbers, I'd say that basically stuff is holding steady except for a few entrepreneurs such as the guy who owns Premier Bank, individuals and groups that are paid employees of the federal government, with state and various school employees coming in second place.

 

And yeah, I know school teachers and city, state and county snowplow drivers ain't gettin' rich. But in this state, they statistically are paid at much higher rates than currently available in the private sector. In fact, at the federal level due to various federal laws, I could point to about 700 regional blue collar jobs lost within a 5-8 year time period due to federal regulation - and further economic losses caused by that while the folks to pushed the regs built dream homes in the same area.

 

Bottom line is that there are rich and there are poor who have in common "gaming the system" at their own level of ability and training, while at the other pole we have those rich and poor who have in common "working for what they get" within their traditions, and at their own level of ability and training.

 

So... we end up all wanting to be compassionate, all to be honest, and all to be economically comfortable but with the opportunity to benefit from extra work or talent or even just luck.

 

What we disagree on, and this is the current political polarity, is everything above from defining the terms to deciding how best to achieve the questionably defined goals.

 

Meanwhile, IMHO, we're mostly ignoring stuff that makes such national politics almost silly in comparison, such as immediate geopolitical circumstances. Another is whether environmental protection is best served by knee-jerk feel-goods, or by a longer-term rational cost-benefit analysis. For example, nobody likes eagles more than I, but suing a wind farm operation some millions and hitting 'em with federal penalties because an eagle got hit by a windmill propeller, seems stupid. I don't believe in killing squirrels either, except for food if one likes to eat them, but I've run over more than a few in town when they jumped in front of my wheels.

 

There are tradeoffs. Going back to a neolithic existence won't work, either - although if we keep going this way, the great grandchildren of some folks here might wish that were their lot compared to what they have. Or... a bread and circuses economy that worked at least several hundred years in Rome. But read Petronius' "Satyricon" and see if that's your desire.

 

Government is necessary to provide defense and "infrastructure" not supported by business - and to prevent anarchy in such things as weights and measures, broadcast spectrum, etc., etc.

 

Government may or may not be necessary in various other roles, such as "feeding the hungry."

 

The point of Appalachia as has been mentioned really is that once a subculture is content with a given lifestyle, paid all or in part by money contributed by others through taxes or private organizations, there's little to do to change that subculture.

 

The other side of the coin, however, is that once a subculture is NOT content with a given lifestyle, paid all in party by money contributed through taxes or private organizations, there's also little to do to change that subculture.

 

So the question here really comes down to how much government control, taxation and spending, and on what priorities, will be accepted by the majority of the population and majority culture. That's where we enter "politics" to sort out priorities and vision.

 

I sometimes think the best thing for governments - and government employees - to do would be to put its workers on the line to justify their positions individually even as folks in the private sector have to justify their jobs. Do we want our roads and sewers operating or not? Do we want schools to educate children to certain standards?

 

Do we want firefighters to protect us - but do we want clerks who consistently watch porn and ebay to get better pay than in the private sector?

 

Interesting indeed. Consider too I've seen great "government" employees whose jobs most agree are necessary get dumped because their bosses were bureaucratic jerks more interested in protecting their own positions and paychecks than the folks who repaired the roads (real and in metaphor) and the taxpayers who used them.

 

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

 

m

[zigzag]

I realize you said 'most' rather than all. I seriously doubt 'most'. Unfortunately, that leads us down a path to determine what makes sense for the government to do and what doesn't. Too subjective as a typewritten exercise. :)

 

I'm not here to defend the government. I think that many agencies are unnecessary, self perpetuating, and inefficient. And I believe in too many cases, they can create dependency and invite fraud. The entire reason I jumped into this discussion was to address the assertion, "facts," and mentality behind CB's post. I don't know any politician who is (publicly) against social security or medicaid/medicare in principle. The differences in opinion are primarily how it is administered. If you privatize it, then corporations make money on it, and it, too, becomes inefficient. If you keep it in government, then you have what we have.

 

Edit: Any entity, public or private, becomes more inefficient the larger it grows, and any position of power has the potential to be corrupted.

[BobF_]

I'm not here to defend the government. I think that many agencies are unnecessary, self perpetuating, and inefficient. And I believe in too many cases, they can create dependency and invite fraud. The entire reason I jumped into this discussion was to address the assertion, "facts," and mentality behind CB's post. I don't know any politician who is (publicly) against social security or medicaid/medicare in principle. The differences in opinion are primarily how it is administered. If you privatize it, then corporations make money on it, and it, too, becomes inefficient. If you keep it in government, then you have what we have.

 

Thanks zz for the thoughtful reply. I wasn't picking on you and I didn't get the idea that you are a Government Defender :)

 

Your post just happened to provide an opportunity to go a little deeper in one aspect of some of the current discussion.

 

Corps are people. Governments are people. Either way a buncha people get overcompensated for administering the program B)

[milod]

I'd say Ziggy's last comment nails it pretty well without getting into other cultural artifacts.

 

m

[BobF_]

I'd say Ziggy's last comment nails it pretty well without getting into other cultural artifacts.

 

m

 

I mostly agree with the sentiment. Most of the people I talk to are more concerned with 'how' and 'how much' rather than 'what'.

 

 

I do think it's ridiculous that rural, non minority Americans starve while we spend spend money managing wildflower planting on roadsides.

 

Or turtle bridges. Or a defense budget that is soooooo wasteful it's beyond shame. Yet any talk about defense spending cuts results in threats to soldier pay instead of cutting fat and overall wasteful processes. Yes, I spent 12+ years in uniform. I could speak directly to waste within DoD.

[Karloff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNSNRJv1m0

[L8_4thesh0w]

The ones getting the most out of the Roadside Beautification initiative are the congressmen who wrangled it.

 

As far as the Refundable Tax Credits go...the only ones getting wealthy are those with wealth to begin with, and they don't use the same ones RCT listed.

Have fun finding the data though because I doubt there is a heading titled Loopholes.

 

Along that same line and more specifically: Supply Side Economics

The biggest problem with the Trickle Down Theory is the word trickle.

The more I get trickled on the less I have to show for it.

 

Still, very democratic as usual, they don't care what you have as long as they get 80% when you die.

 

And lastly, even though I am referred to as a Boomer I protest that designation...it would mean that my dad was SIX when he fought in the war!?

[IanHenry]

Speaking as an outsider (I'm English) when I visited the U.S in May (the first time I'd been there for nearly 20 years) I was amazed at how many state employees there were doing bits of jobs. Don't get me wrong, it's very nice to have people running around guiding you and cleaning every little thing up, but I was wondering at the time how the U.S was going to sustain that sort of expenditure.

I should add that those people weren't doing jobs like Teachers etc, but miniscule pointless jobs. I did wonder if they were being employed by the government to keep unemployment levels down.

 

Ian

[daveinspain]

Speaking as an outsider (I'm English) when I visited the U.S in May (the first time I'd been there for nearly 20 years) I was amazed at how many state employees there were doing bits of jobs. Don't get me wrong, it's very nice to have people running around guiding you and cleaning every little thing up, but I was wondering at the time how the U.S was going to sustain that sort of expenditure.

I should add that those people weren't doing jobs like Teachers etc, but miniscule pointless jobs. I did wonder if they were being employed by the government to keep unemployment levels down.

 

Ian

 

 

Interesting thought… So hire as many people as you can, print up plenty of money to pay them and their votes keep you in power...

[btoth76]

Speaking as an outsider (I'm English) when I visited the U.S in May (the first time I'd been there for nearly 20 years) I was amazed at how many state employees there were doing bits of jobs. Don't get me wrong, it's very nice to have people running around guiding you and cleaning every little thing up, but I was wondering at the time how the U.S was going to sustain that sort of expenditure.

I should add that those people weren't doing jobs like Teachers etc, but miniscule pointless jobs. I did wonder if they were being employed by the government to keep unemployment levels down.

 

Ian

 

Hello Ian.

 

The other aspect of this, is what Mr. Aldous Huxley called, the over-controlling (as a side-effect to over-population).

 

Here in my little country with the population slightly below 10 million people, we have 800.000 state employees... (and still nothing can be solved).

 

In my little village, we have the following full-time state employees working for the local self-government: the Mayor, the Notary, two Tax administrators, two Registrators. Part-time/honorated employees: the Vice-mayor, 5 delegates!!! Not mentioning the teachers/postmen and other state employees who are not directly paid from the village budget.

 

This personell is for 1795 people!

 

Obviously, this is happening due to lack of other jobs in the region. But it is insane, anyways.

 

Best wishes... Bence

[cookieman15061]

Interesting thought… So hire as many people as you can, print up plenty of money to pay them and their votes keep you in power...

Yeah trickle up economics!

[BobF_]

No offense bro, but you answer information and experience in exactly the way you say you won't tolerate from others.

 

rct

 

Where does the gubment get money to pay gubment employee salaries?

 

Do you really need snopes to answer this one for you? No offense intended ...

[rct]

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities?

 

I just checked and by local definition, they would be considered a "left-leaning" organization with sufficient funding and horsepower to sound credible stating that a ham sandwich is harmful to low-income populations in the U.S.

 

Yeah, that's something of an overstatement.

 

When you start your novels with "left-leaning" or "conservative think tank" you remove all credibility from what you are about to say, and most people that would care to have a thoughtful discussion about it just roll their eyes and go check their ebay bids.

 

IT ISN'T 1968 ANYMORE. People need to get off the Us versus Them bulls hit and think about what is wrong and what EVERYONE can do to fix it.

 

Left Versus Right. We have that because you can't use the n word anymore and women won't take yers hit either. Hate is hate and it doesn't get us anywhere.

 

rct

[rct]

Where does the gubment get money to pay gubment employee salaries?

 

Do you really need snopes to answer this one for you? No offense intended ...

 

Taxes. What's your point?

 

rct