Cutting government salaries to slay deficits

[msj]

Now we're on to discussing issues beyond the original point of the thread. You believe there is value in having a large number of government officials sitting around figuring out how to properly tax us. I do not believe there is value in this. My opinion is that we would be better served by cutting taxes and reducing or eliminating many government programs. Perhaps it would take a few people who would figure out how best to cut these programs, but the net effect would be less government employees not more.

I never said that I want a large number of government officials sitting around figuring out how to properly tax us (although, to some extent that happens at the Department of Finance).

Take it to another thread if you like but I'm not wasting my time discussion phantom issues with you.

Edited April 11, 2010 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, entitlements go beyond government pension plans - it includes a cold hard look at the sustainability of things like pharmacare, social security etc.... but that may mean hiring more actuaries at inflated salaries so we better not do that.

No....entitlements are insidious things that, unlike defense spending, become permanent non-discretionary spending that will eat budgets like a growing cancer. Ross Perot got 18% of the vote in 1992 because of this single issue.

But, once again, we need to look at a bigger picture than merely "if I cut 10% from the civilian workforce" it will lead us out of deficit type of mentality.

We cannot divorce the political dynamics from fiscal reality. 1990's "Welfare Reform" in the USA really only struck at a drop in the budget bucket, but it enjoyed wide political support and helped to define Bill Clinton's moderate legacy.

The math simply does not support that argument.

The math cannot provide a logical framework with which to battle the huge resulting political wars.

[Shady]

Government salaries should be cut because they shouldn't be out-pacing the private sector salaries that support them. The fact that it'll save a bit of money is just a bonus.

[Sir Bandelot]

Exactly, the problem is much more entrenched than one mere issue. Even if you cut 10%, blah blah, we know already. But as I already said, there are so many of these apparently insignificant areas of waste, widespread across the whole spectrum of the government budget. That all adds up to a big sh*t sandwich. So yes, it won't matter too much if we cut 5% from the payroll of executives. Maybe we should just cut out the executives, outright, But that alone won't do it.

In the end, if you want social programs that let you live in some security and comfortable health, it costs money, and is opened up to abuses. That's why social programs need constant oversight and refinement, and a vast amount of effort, and money goes into that alone.

If the alternative is not to have them at all, and you get to save your money, then a proportion of society will still suffer. Who can say which one is better?

Actually in a way the premise of the whole debate is non sequitur.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If the alternative is not to have them at all, and you get to save your money, then a proportion of society will still suffer. Who can say which one is better?

OK...define "suffer". The very level of social safety net programs has come to represent a lifestyle that many older folks like me would recognize as lower "middle class". The real danger is that swelling roles on government programs will become the norm as it has in some Euro "utopias".

Being on the "dole" is an old stigma that is fading because of the cynicism and perceived penalty for working in the private sector.

[Sir Bandelot]

OK...define "suffer". The very level of social safety net programs has come to represent a lifestyle that many older folks like me would recognize as lower "middle class". The real danger is that swelling roles on government programs will become the norm as it has in some Euro "utopias".

Each system is open to abuses, whether socialist or capitalist. People who pay their fair share still get screwed. Like the fallout from what Bernie Madoff did, life savings, gone, house, gone. That kind of suffer.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

Each system is open to abuses, whether socialist or capitalist. People who pay their fair share still get screwed. Like the fallout from what Bernie Madoff did, life savings, gone, house, gone. That kind of suffer.

Madoff's victims made choices and very few will "suffer" in the same context. Many people who play it straight and pay the freight will not do so willingly in the face of a growing "under" class propped up by their taxes.

In the USA, it is becoming clear that about 50% do not pay income taxes at all because of a patchwork of credits, marginal rates, and other programs. This revenue cannot be made up by just sticking it to the "rich".

Edited April 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Each system is open to abuses, whether socialist or capitalist. People who pay their fair share still get screwed. Like the fallout from what Bernie Madoff did, life savings, gone, house, gone. That kind of suffer.

You mean people silly enough to entrust all their wealth to a single individual or organization?

[Sir Bandelot]

You mean people silly enough to entrust all their wealth to a single individual or organization?

When the US economy went for a shit, the whole shithouse went down in one go. From what I read, lots of people lost their jobs too. The ones who invested in Madoff may have deserved it, I dunno. When you plant shit seeds, little shit trees grow. But regardless of the system they make for us the proletariat, the elite shitters make their profits. The system itself is just a numbers racket, the game is played a bit different in each, but the point is to make the money flow up, shit rains down.

[bush_cheney2004]

When the US economy went for a shit, the whole shithouse went down in one go. From what I read, lots of people lost their jobs too. The ones who invested in Madoff may have deserved it, I dunno. When you plant shit seeds, little shit trees grow. But regardless of the system they make for us the proletariat, the elite shitters make their profits. The system itself is just a numbers racket, the game is played a bit different in each, but the point is to make the money flow up, shit rains down.

Then why didn't everybody take a "shit" bath? Why did my portfolio actually increase more than it ever has? Enron employees didn't bitch when their 401Ks rocketed to millions of dollars.

Edited April 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

Then why didn't everybody take a "shit" bath? Why did my portfolio actually increase more than it ever has? Enron employees didn't bitch when their 401Ks rocketed to millions of dollars.

I dunno, but it sounds nice. Why then did your President need to make the biggest bailout in history? And who's money was it, that they took it from. Not Enron

Edited April 11, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

I dunno, but it sounds nice. Why then did your President need to make the biggest bailout in history? And who's money was it, that they took it from. Not Enron

Because he wanted to...he was the president, not me. Hell, you live in Canada, it wasn't your money.

[Sir Bandelot]

Because he wanted to...he was the president, not me. Hell, you live in Canada, it wasn't your money.

True. Funny thing though, I remember at first our PM says about the bank bailout, "No, we don't have those problems here." Then finance minister Joe Flatulence whispers something in his ear, and Harper turns to the microphone and said "Yes we do."

Next thing you know, away we go.

[bush_cheney2004]

True. Funny thing though, I remember at first our PM says about the bank bailout, "No, we don't have those problems here." Then finance minister Joe Flatulence whispers something in his ear, and Harper turns to the microphone and said "Yes we do."

Next thing you know, away we go.

Fine...but I don't care either way...do whatever the hell you please in Canada. What the Americans do is their business...first.

[Smallc]

True. Funny thing though, I remember at first our PM says about the bank bailout, "No, we don't have those problems here." Then finance minister Joe Flatulence whispers something in his ear, and Harper turns to the microphone and said "Yes we do."

What?

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, I agree.

But then, I'm not the one arguing for more micromanagement of our civilian government workforce.

Micromanagement usually refers to looking over the shoulders of workers, and not letting them do their jobs.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't care either way.

We know that. I don't care either, but caring is not necessary for a conversation.

I only do it... for the little people

[bush_cheney2004]

We know that. I don't care either, but caring is not necessary for a conversation.

I only do it... for the little people

It was the "little people" who drank the Flavor-Aid and sub prime mortagages. The gubmint' helped them to do it.

Edited April 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

It was the "little people" who drank the Flavor-Aid and sub prime mortagages. The gubmint' helped them to do it.

It exemplifies how a million small mistakes makes one big gigantic mistake.

[bush_cheney2004]

It exemplifies how a million small mistakes makes one big gigantic mistake.

They weren't mistakes as much as risky wagers and bets. They lost.

Frankly, I am ambivalent about their plight, as false wealth never existed in the first place.

[Sir Bandelot]

They weren't mistakes as much as risky wagers and bets. They lost.

Frankly, I am ambivalent about their plight, as false wealth never existed in the first place.

Whether you consider it a mistake or not, the end result speaks for itself. A collosal failure that nearly brought the whole system down, ala soviette.

Nyet, comrade, nyet

[bush_cheney2004]

Whether you consider it a mistake or not, the end result speaks for itself. A collosal failure that nearly brought the whole system down, ala soviette.

Nyet, comrade, nyet

Almost doesn't count...except for horshoes, grenades and nuclear weapons. Still, the Russians did collapse, and survived just fine. I think observations like yours are always made in the context of a false economy, not the reality of true valuations.

What goes up must come down.

[Sir Bandelot]

What goes up must come down.

That's true, the market goes up and down in a cycle. But are you forgetting the bailout to fix this problem was unprecedented? It did cost the tax payers nearly 1 trillion dollars, and from what I can tell the "problem" was not solved, the risk remains. If the collapse was even real (which one could argue, maybe it wasn't) such plundering of public coffers cannot go on indefinitely. But, good thing they had all that tax money to draw from in this case, eh

[Bonam]

What goes up must come down.

Not really. When it comes to the markets, there has been an inexorable upward trend for over a hundred years. Recessions and depressions are only minor blips in the big picture.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's true, the market goes up and down in a cycle. But are you forgetting the bailout to fix this problem was unprecedented? It did cost the tax payers nearly 1 trillion dollars, and from what I can tell the "problem" was not solved, the risk remains. If the collapse was even real (which one could argue, maybe it wasn't) such plundering of public coffers cannot go on indefinitely. But, good thing they had all that tax money to draw from in this case, eh

Not really....bailouts are not new. Hell, it was Chrysler's second bailout (first in 1979). Much of the TARP funding remains unused, and banks are repaying the loans with interest. Bush let Lehman fail and Wall Street pitched a fit, so Congress held their noses and passed a large scale bailout.

There is no guarantee even in good times, or with regulation. Canada's banking system may be very sound, but so is the lack of capital, necessitating foreign investment.