JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum The US Bounced A Check

This may cheer you up Ray:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 29 Apr 2011 at 01:17:50 AM GMT is: $14,299,771,681,090.03.

The estimated population of the United States is 310,472,110
so each citizen's share of this debt is $46,058.02.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$4.05 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

So if each of us pays our $46,058.02 share, the USA will no longer be deadbeats. What do you think the chances of that happening are?

John

Oops, just went to $14,299,783,480,478.32. The sooner we pay our debt, the less it will be.

Now at $14,299,842,149,658.96. An ever increasing out-of-control debt. Not a politician on Earth can fix that.

Wow, John:

I can't even imagine those kind of numbers. You're right, a politician can't fix anything... but a King can... and I volunteer... LOL! (Look out Pelosi and Harry Reid!)

No Ray, I won't loan you any money... but you may borrow my yacht in the Meditteranean when you go to the next film festival to collect your reward for best score in a Country and Western.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

I once wrote a song (Tax payers blues) making fun of all the taxes we have in Canada. I only touched on the major taxes,I could have written two more songs if I had to include the minor taxes.LOL I believe we have to work for the first six months of each year just to pay the taxes.

John,
You really know how to hurt a guy don't you. I see in today's paper all the Car Dealers have raised their prices. We need to buy a new car. Our daughter is using our 96 Honda Accord but it is time to update. My number 2 grandson needed tires for his car. We, Grandpa and Grandma got him a new set of tires. Another 400 dollars shot. Well he is working at least. You would think you could get ahead a dollar or two. I think I'm gonna need that hand basket. Most of the states are broke. The County here is triming it's Budget. What else is new.

Everett you could post your song over on the Challenge Forum, Jean has a challenge up titled "Taxes"

I haven't found detailed data for other countries, but in the US, the average commute each way ranges between 26 minutes and 46 minutes, almost entirely (as a %) by car. In most places, public transportation of ANY kind is simply not available.

As for Big Jim's remarks, after I finished laughing because surely he was joking, if he thinks the US is poorly traveled he's never driven across it on vacation. From ICY arctic tundra in Alaska, to death valley deserts in the Southwest, to tropical rainforests in Hawaii and mountainous regions across America north and south, east and west as well as giant grasslands, lush farmland, swamps and tropical areas in the southeast and some of the most amazing natural beauty in the world and diversity in cities, cultures (music, art, sculptures, architecture etc.) and people that rival if not surpass any other country in the world. We're also the only country to openly (i.e. everyone gets a vote) elect a minority as our country's leader. Our diversity in all things has been our strength as the world's melting pot and all those cultures have left their mark on all things. By comparison nearly all other countries are racially segregationalists in that places like Scotland are over 90% caucasian and 96% Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish. For folks in your country to find significant diversity of anything, you HAVE to leave your small island (you're barely in the Top 10 in Island sizes coming in at #9 in between 2 different Canadian Islands with a third, Victoria Island, coming in at number 3).
The UK has less than 80,000 miles compared the the USA's 3,717,813 square miles. We have 18 of 50 USA States as large or larger than the entire UK. Here, we can drive across town and find nearly all races, religions, ethnicities and even languages, especially in our larger citiesd. Geographically we have to be among the most diverse (perhaps Russia is on par due to size but without enough city and infrastructure development for even the citizens there to get to most of the country for a visit) of anywhere in the world. We have a single national park in the USA that has more square kilometers than all of the UK in size. If you take Russia out, all of Europe is far smaller than the USA. Even with a large portion of Russia, the worlds largest country, tossed in, it's only about 10-20% larger. So big deal that you have a passport. I bet you are far less traveled geographically, on average, than people in the USA are. I visited people in both Ireland and Scotland that hadn't been out of their county in their entire life (especially Ireland). I had visited many people in both the UK and Ireland who hadn't been to the other Island. They also had never been to France and you're connected by a tunnel to them!

So get off your Scottish high horse my friend. You guys are among the least diverse people's of the world. And your country of Scotland, which I love (and from where some of my ancestors came) isn't a fraction as diverse as the USA or on many counts Australia either for that matter.

More interesting facts:

Ethnic groups
UK ethnic groups list
92.1% White
4.0% South Asian
2.0% Black
1.2% Mixed
0.4% Chinese
0.4% Other

By comparison, the USA is:

White alone 63.7% or 196.8 million
Black or African American alone 38.9 million 12.6%
White Hispanic and Latino Americans: 26.7 million 8.7%
Some other race alone
(Mestizo, Mulatto...) 19,107,368 6.2%
Asian alone 14,674,252 4.8%
Two or more races 9,009,073 2.9%*
American Indian or Alaska Native alone 2,932,248 0.9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone 540,013 0.2%

*As a side note: That means our President comes from a minority that is only 2.9% of our population. (For all those who view the USA negatively when it comes to race)

Stats above are from Wikipedia.

Sorry.. but passport stats mean nothing in terms of travel or multicultural experiences. I've visited 20 Countries in Europe alone. How many have you visited? How many US States? I've been to all the largest cities in Scotland. (Liked them too, though Glasgow was my least favorite). I am also not sure of why getting kicked out of a country means you're better traveled than someone else? What was the relevence? Were you working as a Spy for Scotland or something?

The USA Rocks, and so does Scotland, but I doubt the average Scot is better traveled than the average American, nor as experienced in multi-cultural activities, interaction or living in proximity. You might see some folks on business or vacation, we see a diverse array of folks every single day and when we do travel, we see more geographic diversity in our own country than most people see in a lifetime of travel elsewhere. Next question?

Brian

I don't see replies that are to the point of a thread, but, seems, lazy only doesn't discuss it worldwide.
Several years ago after I've read this book :

James Turk and John Rubino

THE COMING COLLAPSE OF THE DOLLAR AND HOW TO PROFIT FROM IT

I've transformed all I had into the hard actives cuz no currency is safe and dollar isn't exception.
But if those things described in a book will happen really, then all the countries will go
financial collapse and crisis that never been before.

I'm not getting into this, but that's a ton of facts Brian I copied and pasted it into Save for reference
Wy

I don't think it's a question "if", it's a question of "when" the big collapse will come Alek.

The theory is that the people holding the gold (and precious metals) will be the next millionaires in the New World. However, I wouldn't bank on it. I'd sooner believe (from past history) a pack of wolves will take charge. And they'll take the gold off your hands.

I feel sad for the young people starting their adult lives. Not a very promising future for them. It makes me chuckle when I hear senior citizens complain about their fixed income (Social Security). Their fixed income rests on the backs of these young people, that haven't a snowball's chance in Hell of ever having such a "fixed income" in their Golden Years.

John

Morning John:

I also feel sad for young people. They are gonna reap the whirlwind being sown in Washington these days. Social Security will probably disappear. I'm one of those old codgers and I too, complain constantly about my fixed income. (I did earn it, ya know, by working 40 years all over this once great nation.)

Growing old is not for sissies... and the Golden Years are not as golden as they were for past generations... from my limited perspective. There are worse alternatives though!

Best,

Dave

Yes, I understand Dave. I'm in my Golden Years as well (and collecting SS). As far as Social Security; The amount of money paid into SS by the individual (through the years) will only cover a few years of his/her retirement. After that, it's a modified government hand-out supported on the backs of the young.

Add to that, the Social Security Fund is largely nothing more than promissory notes. Our SS payments rely on current taxes. That this fund has been abused for other purposes is despicable.

John

Like Brian, I, too've read that the "average distance an item of food has travelled to our supermarkets is 1500 miles"...which translates to immense raises in basic food costs as oil goes up in price.

I admire the Amish for their Self-Sufficiency (& ability to successfully "live off the land".) I just don't picture the Average American wantin' to park a Horse in their garage & shed the Bigscreen & Internet..to help balance the Budget.

Things We COULD Do:
1) Shed maybe HALF the 1000 Military Bases the US funds...& cut WAY back on Manpower-Deployed. (Costs a Mil-a-Year to send & equip a single US Marine in a FWD Base in Afghanistan.) Maybe MORE Predator Aircraft-Bought + a Hiring Freeze?

2) DEA costs us $3 Billion a year AND meanwhile California's getting serious Tax Money IN from their bit-by-bit legalizing Marijuana Cultivation/Use. It isn't THAT hard to get illegal drugs in ANY city in the country anymore..so why not just Legitimize it ALL...& sell it (with Major Taxes applied) from State or US-run Liquor Stores. (High-Enough markup to "warehouse" the addicts...& at least get 'em off the streets.)

3) Why Not a National Lottery? States sure do well-enough with 'em. It'd MORE than pay for itself..& give us non-participants a bitta Tax Relief. Maybe US Casinos, too...(Why should the Seminoles make ALL the spare loot?)

4) While we're busy taxing all this "Sin", let's make a Federal Tax high-enough on "Guzzlers" so that 60MPG Car-of-the-Future gets here SOONER.

5) Mandatory Cloth Shopping BAGS...to replace all that costly-in-the-Long-Haul "Paper or Plastic" we just toss away.

6) Penny-a-Plastic-Bottle Bottled-Water Tax...just THINK of the Fed Loot THAT'd Generate, while conserving the amount of Plasic wasted-annually IF it impacts sales...(prolly won't).

Yep..things CAN slowly Turn-Around...IF we only face The Problems and TRY to do something to Change The Way Things Are Going. (& Soon..heh!)

All JMO...Gotta get off to work..so I can eventually pay ALL my Back Taxes!

Best Wishes/Big Hugs,
Stan

Dave, Okay.. time for a rant.... if you are bothered by strong opinions you may disagree with, please read no further...

The sad thing is that there seems to be an entitlement movement among the young that will likely push politicians, who are all getting rich in a variety of ways as long as they can get re-elected, to just keep giving them what they want NOW, no matter what it causes to happen in the future after they have already gotten enough for themselves, their kids and their grandkids so they don't care what happens to the masses. So this push push push to the left and with 47% not paying Federal Taxes already and over 20% of US income coming from the Government already, the hole is going to get deeper and deeper. These politicians will be dead and gone, leaving wealth of all types (land, gold, commodities, businesses etc.) to their kids to protect them, but some strong armed communist or uber socialist/marxist will promise more and more until everything is forceably taken from everyone, people lose the will to work hard because there's no benefit and we'll see mass misery on par with early communism in China and Russia where 10's of millions of people were murdered, starved and imprisoned by the communist leaders or sent to "re-education" camps while their possessions are taken for the "common good." The ruling class (as bad as the monarchy at it's worst) will be rich as ever but no one will rise up to success based only on their hard work. Minorities will suffer the most in the end even though they are being tricked by entitlement promises that will never be sustained, even though right now they are thinking pushing us towards more government control is the answer so they vote for those who would keep them in entitlement bondage.

In my opinion, soon the only thing of real value (if you can actually hold on to it and not have the government take it away) is land with clean drinking water on it because that is what we're going to find lacking more than anything. You think oil shortages will cause problems, clean water shortages will dwarf that. Russia has the most clean drinking water followed by Canada. The USA is up there as well thanks to the Great Lakes (which we partially share with Canada). A really dark view of the world will have wars break out over that clean drinking water and those countries that have it (The Amazon will be a key as well as the Nile and Mississippi) will have the power over most of the middle east, Africa, Southeast Asia etc. If societies collapse, the clean water systems may also go and everyone is going to suffer on a level we never imagined around the world. No water for mass farming. Rationing of water. No water for bathing or clothes washing... this is a dark future that could be waiting if economies and jobs collapse with the collapse of the dollar and nearly every other economy in the world. Even China, who is set to overtake the US as the biggest economy in a matter of another Presidential term or less, will collapse because the US buys most of what they make and without us buying, they'll all starve as well (plus their population control policy has created a massive lack of women which already threatens great unrest and a threat to the government). Those shiny new cities will become sites of violent revolution and the military there will mow down millions. In the US it could be uglier because we're all armed to the teeth and the government will find it much harder here to get the military to follow any leader who wants to use them to oppress fellow Americans meaning we could find a military coup in the USA shortly after any collapse of the dollar if serious unrest develops. I can see neighbors fighting together against hoardes of fellow citizens of differing opinions/views and the world's most violent civil war in history. And that's if the nukes don't start flying.

For those hoping for the collapse of the dollar like many on the far left and our enemies around the world are hoping, they may not like what happens if a military run USA gets backed into a corner with more guns than people spread around the population. Most families I know in Indiana have 5+ rifles and pistols and thousands of rounds of ammo for each weapon. I imagine some of you might know folks like that as well.

Then again, the economy could bounce back and we could kick the can down the road another 20-30 years... I figure by then I'll be long gone and it will be other people's problem... = )

And I am not suggesting that the average left leaning moderate in the USA is going to turn Communist. But there are lots of marxists coming out openly in our current government and those folks DO believe in communism. And the anarchists are working with them along with terrorist groups. Watch out for a massive conflict to break out against Israel in the next year. If Egypt rattles the sabres or Iran demonstrates they are nearing having nukes, it might get real ugly real fast. And I don't believe Obama will support any of our old allies in trouble as we should or have in the past. We've already repeatedly snubbed some of our best allies the UK, Israel, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Egypt etc. and we've selectively started a third war in Libya while ignoring a much worse slaughter of Syrian PEACEFUL protestors (remember, in Libya it was an armed uprising, in Syria, unarmed, non-violent protestors are being slaughtered, but we do nothing, proving we have zero credibility being in Libya). We've already lost Afghanistan to the Taliban while Al-Qaeda runs rampant with support by the Pakistan government and secret service. Meanwhile we give them billions of dollars we don't have and keep losing lives fighting against those who are supposed to be on our side. And we've partnered with Pakistan while not supporting our real friends in India who have been more than patient with Pakistan after their massive terrorist attack. US Policy was a disaster under Bush, but by comparison he looks like a genius compared to how we're handling things now. If you're harboring or creating terrorists and killing your own innocent peaceful citizens, the USA will at most freeze a couple bank accounts, but if you are or were an allie we're not going to help you, or if other countries want someone's oil (France and the UK in Libya) you'll pick sides, but not go in to win, just sort of hang out while real innocents are killed on BOTH sides (i.e. the rebels are slaughtering civilians as well as the government). Meanwhile our "friends" France and the UK and others are going to a big OIL summit in Tehran. So much for sanctions while they continue to slaughter their own innocent peaceful protestors. And don't get me started on the Sudan and Darfur where Muslims are mass murdering the Christians into extinction with machete's and weapons sold by the Chinese and Russians and who poison the wells so if anyone escapes and trys to come back they die when they drink the water.

And how many people have been killed in Libya? 1000. We're there with 2 other countries supposedly protecting the innocents. But do any of you know that since 2006, 35,000 Mexican innocents have been slaughtered by drug cartels along the US/Mexican border? Mass graves continue turning up raising the numbers. Whole cities have been taken over (actually entire Mexican states) where they keep people silent by mass murdering fellow citizens. One example: The set up a roadblock and stopped busses (which are used by poor people to get around commonly) and pulled 1 person off at a time, took all their identification, laid them down on the ground, and in full view of all the other traffic and people around including the others on the bus, murdered them with a sledgehammer to the head. They did this methodically to each and every person, including children and women, on the bus and then dumped them all in a mass grave and left the bloody sledgehammer in plain site to remind everyone in town that if they spoke or resisted, they'd be next. So no one reported what they saw until the mass grave was found and finally some people stepped up to tell the story. This is going on but is barely reported on because they kill police, politicians, reporters or anyone else exposing their actions with no fear. The worst offenders are the Zetas which are trained military special forces members trained in the US at Fort Bragg (where I was born actually) for the purpose of fighting the drug cartels. They went back to Mexico and BECAME the most powerful drug cartel. But still, the US does NOTHING. We should pull our military out of Libya and place those assets (air force and carriers and marines and CIA) onto our border along with any additional army, marine or airforce personnel and shut it all down. But it won't happen. Phoenix, AZ is the #2 Kidnapping city in the world behind Bogata, Columbia. And STILL we do nothing. NOTHING. This Libyan war is a lie. It's about helping the UK and France secure their oil source. But the USA hasn't taken a drop of oil from Iraq. All the accussations that the USA was going to war to steal oil was BS. The USA is the only country who doesn't take assets. Instead we rebuild everyone at our cost (we'll probably help rebuild Libya too) and we pay the bill and the people we help STILL hate us for it. Why bother? But our Mexican border is the site not only of massive illegal and dangerous drug trade (Meth.. anyone have a friend or family member who uses meth? It's a death sentence eventually for the users and likely crime sprees and even murder as they spiral out of control) but also mass death and mass illegal immigration. But our politicians are bribed with votes and donations so they won't clean it up or save those poor people. Instead, let's go to Libya! The French need oil!

Remember the Jews said to "Never Forget" the holocaust? Heck, we never stopped having them out in the open pretty much non stop since WWII in country after country including nearby Kosovo. And why is it we never see Russia or China, both with giant military forces, going in to stop slaughters (rather than arming the people doing the killing?) or rescue people or help anyone? Why do they ALWAYS get a pass? And why is it that the rest of the world attacks the US for our actions or inactions (ofter rightfully) but gives Russia and China 100% passes on being 100% evil and they (and WE) still do business with them? Why not send all our business to actual friends (people who were friends with us BEFORE we sent them money) like India or Egypt or perhaps renew our alliance with Turkey who has turned their backs on us lately or Ireland and Spain and Portugal and Greece and Japan and Taiwan where they need jobs? Why buy anything from China? At least can't we cut the amount of our trade imbalance and send that business elsewhere? How about taxing the US companies doing business there enough to make up for the shortfall? Or give them tax benefits for moving back to the USA or at least a list of countries that don't want to see our demise?

There's a story on the news as I type this Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, Somalia, The killers in Sudan, Libya, NORTH KOREA!!!! where we send billions of dollars are also in bed with China, Russia and terrorist groups or are attacking us themselves. We've been fighting a proxy war against Iran for a decade or more now in Iraq and Iraq is essentially under control of Iran the moment we withdraw. Maybe Donald Trump is right, we should help ourselves to their oil before we go. They'll be part of Iran soon enough anyway and since we are treated like we steal oil anyway, why not just do it and at least pay off the 1.8 trillion we've spent there.

Do you folks know we were sending economic aid to RUSSIA up until 2007? Insanity. We had another post where I said YOU CAN'T BUY FRIENDS. It applies here too. The more we give, the more they hate us.

There.. I feel better... got that off my chest. The USA has done a lot of good over the years, but our days of being the good guys coming in to save the day is over whether we like it or not. We should offer defensive military aid to our ACTUAL friends whenever they need it and natural disaster aid to anyone who needs it, friend or foe. But the rest is over. Our military should focus on DEFENSE (or offensive responses to attacks that are severe and decisive), not OFFENSE. I'd also like a change in US policy where we do not kill leaders of countries on purpose. In Iraq, had we simply gone straight after Saddam and his sons and killed them, imagine the difference in result? If we had gone in to Afghanistan and Pakistan immediately and with 100% overwhelming force until we had the people we wanted and then left immediately afterward, imagine where'd we be? Certainly no worse off and certainly without trillions of dollars of debt and thousands of dead soldiers. If we'd use our tracking abilities to take out the Libyan crazy man when he was out joyriding in open cars (something our own leaders could NEVER do) we'd already be done there as well. This whole concept of massive invasion to get rid of one regime or one mad man is ridiculous. If we kill the bad guys, the guys who replace them are less likely to act bad because they know we'll send the drones in, follow them, find them (heck Apple or Google probably know where they are, they follow all of us), kill them and their heirs over and over if we have to until they stop being evil. That way we don't destroy their infrastructure or kill their civilians (or at least far less of them). We should do the same to the leaders in these countries committing genocide. Take out the leaders, let the rest stop the madness.. if they don't, we take out more leaders with overwhelming force without mercy until they STOP it. That would be a far better policy than what we have now. And we should also expect all the other UN countries with large militaries to step up and do the same in agreement. Genocide? Death to the leaders using the entire world's power. If Russia and China try to veto it, they need to be removed from the UN. If you won't vote to stop Genocide in ANY country, then you're as evil as those doing the killing. And if we're fighting a "proxy" war against Iran, we should take out their leaders now. I assure you if they could get to ours, they'd be dead already. If we take out their evil leaders, their young educated population will likely create a far less evil government. I mean it can't really be worse.

Brian

Well,
No doubt it is a crazy mixed up world out there. Former President Jimmy Carter, your friend and mine, was in North Korea just a few days ago. He may still be there. He blasted the U.S. because we, supposedly was holding back food aid to North Korea.

Don't that just frost your *ss. You would think North Korea would make peace with the south and end those divisions. It was unfortunuate that Truman fired McArther. Maybe the problem would be fixed.

We are probably also paying Cuba for Gitmo Bay. You don't hear about it but it is probably true.

And of course our Fearless Leader could care less about the National Debt. He assumes the rich are going to pay for it. And you would think we have grownup's in Congress that see the problem and will do the right thing, no They are going to ride this horse right into the ground.

Hey Brian:

Nope... not bothered by strong opinions. I have a few myself... LOL! Glad you got that off your chest. (You sound alot like me to be honest!)

Ray, my man... right on!

Hope you guys will take the time to drift over to the MP3 boards and listen to Dottie's new Demo. (No I'm not a cotton-pickin' street teamer!) I just listened and really liked what I heard. It's called, "He Ain't the Keepin' Kind." (First time anyone ever wrote a song about me! LOL!)

Have a great one, boys and girls... I'm off to the golf course!

Dave

Stan, all your ideas essentially are simply tax raises. Since only 47% pay fed tax now, adding those taxes will further bury the small number trying to carry the country already.

Legalize all drugs? Really? Have you met Meth addicts? Ever seen what Meth, Crack and Heroin does to a person? Do you really want genocide and crime waves by tweaked out Meth and Crack heads? Do you want young kids to have even easier access to drugs that will ruin or kill them and if they live will turn them into prostitutes and violent criminals? Pot heads are not safe drivers. We already have 2 legal drugs.. Cigarettes and Alchohol.. how has that worked out for us all? And if you think for one second that the black market wouldn't supply nearly all the drugs to avoid high cost and taxes you're already high. Kids already get most their "cool" stuff illegally and black market, music, movies, drugs, etc.

The national lottery would strip the states of all that income, most of which either go directly into schools or toward lowering property taxes to prevent foreclosures. If those dollars went federal instead, the fed would waste it like it does most of our taxes now, and would kill the local benefit. Why take money AWAY from the locals to give it to someone else to them redistribute it based on corrupt political favors? Sorry, it's a terrible idea.

Casinos? Let's prey even more on the poorest people who are the ones who in desperation often spend what little they have hoping for a big win that only comes for the casino owners. Plus, there's already too may casinos such as riverboats and all the indian casinos and non indian casinos not to mention on line gambling from all over the world where they pay no taxes and escape US laws and regulation. Degenerate gamblers add crime as well. Ack.

We already use cloth shopping bags. But you have to BUY them. It would save the retailers some money, cost consumers some money. Make minimal difference except on pollution, so at least of all your ideas, it has merit.

Most gas guzzlers are older cars which belong.. drum roll please... to POOR PEOPLE. So let's make it worse for them. They can barely afford an old broken down car which already kills them on mileage... so lets tax them more? They already pay a sin tax when they buy extra gas with taxes on it. If you only want to charge it on new cars, that's fine, it simply means that salesman and car companies will sell fewer cars and more deaths of children will result in being carted around in far less safe vehicles because to get 60MPH (which no US cars get, including hybrids) the cars have to be so light and unsafe that thousand if not 10's of thousands of deaths would result directly due to smaller less safe vehicles, not to mention the fact that people would hang on longer to their older gas guzzlers, or buy pick up trucks, already some of the most affordable vehicles, but with terrible mileage, so you'll have pick up trucks crushing little babies in tiny unsafe cars. Yee ha! Unintended consequences of liberal policies is classic case of more damage than good resulting. Plus, those car companies would go broke trying to do what they haven't been able to do to date which is build a safe car that gets that much mileage and can move a family safely with children. The most promising technology for both mileage and pollution control were hydrogen cars. Guess what the first thing the government did when taking over GM? They killed off the nearly ready to sell Hydrogen car program in favor of the Chevy Volt which was going to be the hottest selling car ever. Last month they sold 282 Chevy Volts total. Liberal policies never work, but that was one of the most painful examples ever. Government Motors.. I mean General Motors killed perhaps the greatest technology ever in favor of Obama's pet project, electric cars (which still require mostly coal fired electricity to charge but I digress). The Chevy Volt was compared and called the US Yugo, another government built car from Yugoslavia considered the worst ever made. Now the Volt holds that title.

Your solutions are certainly left wing crowd pleasers, but in my opinion, though certainly good intentioned, they would cause far more damage and new problems than they'd ever solve. Solutions are mostly common sense. They'll be painful, especially to those living off the state or working directly for the government and/or in a union where they can't be fired for poor work performance (such as teachers who suck or workers who sleep on the job every day or come to work drunk but can't be fired) or for those who due to government union contracts make twice as much as their private sector folks who have to pay their salaries and who get benefits worth 4 times as much. Some retire with 80% of their salary for life. Insane liberal policies run amok. Lots of political bribes paid which can't ever be paid back because everyone will be bankrupt and those big pensions will disappear completely. When you're obnoxiously greedy, sometimes it catches up with you. Now those folks may get nothing at all instead of their insane and unfair salaries and benefits compared to all the hard working people in the private sector who must work hard and perform well (as opposed to teachers who have students who can't read and are uneducated at graduation time if they haven't dropped out already) or they get fired. Even Democrats are now breaking the unions hold. MA last night did it and they were Democrats. Of course the news barely covered it, even though there were screaming protestors, but we all know that's because the media is in the bag for the left and they don't want folks to know that what happened in Wisconsin is going to have to happen everywhere including Democrat controlled statehouses, but covering that wouldn't make the Republicans look bad so they ignored it. Shhhh.. don't tell anyone... just vilify the Republicans who had the courage to act first when they all know they have no choice.

Communism, socialism, marxism are all failed ideas. They sound great in theory, but in real life they don't work often because of unintended consequences caused by a well intentioned idea. Eventually it all falls apart it's just a matter of how fast or slow. Obama did it in record time. I will say that McCain would have done it too.. just a bit more slowly. Progressives progress towards disaster. The US Constitution is the oldest of it's kind and it works. Our officials swear an oath to protect and follow it, but it seemsd progressives don't want to and Obama doesn't even want to use the legislative branch and has made them almost irrelevent in the US in 2 years.

Still love ya Stan, but you should stick to what your are awesome at: Prolifically writing lyrics, and building, fixing and restoring clocks and antique fans. By the way, if anyone wants an awesome gift for someone special, buy an antique fan from Stan. They're amazing! We got them for our entire family and all of them already treasure them!

Brian

I'm a state employee and my wife is a federal employee. Allow me to offer a different perspective.

We make a good living, no doubt.

But it is about 1/2 of what we could make in the private sector. We know this because most of our friends went that route.

Am I complaining? Well, I wasn't.... Because we factored a number of things into our decision to work for governments - and a big one was the pension. Of course, it's nowhere near 80% but its good enough to live on. Essentially, we chose to defer compensation....

So we work hard for 25 years holding up our part of the bargain, and now they want to start messing around with our pensions.

You might call it necessary - I call it something else

My perspective is a little different - All this time, I thought the greedy folks were those who went for the big salaries and trusted Wall Street with their money. They sure weren't complaining when they were getting 10-15% rate of return. Now, though, their 401k's have tanked and suddenly folks like me didn't seem so stupid.

But maybe we were - because misery seems to love company so, hey, let's go after the pensions of those greedy government workers. We don't get a pension, why should they? Never mind that the private sector folks had more wealth accumulated than me - they just fell victim to greed or arrogance and now a lot of it is gone. Now they want mine to be gone too

And, in Florida anyway, there is a good chance they will get a good part of it.

Well, it's Saturday and I'd like to write more but I really have to get back to work.

Just Another Lazy Government Worker

Scott,

Are you suggesting that all government union workers are hard working just like you and none are harder working or lesser working than you? If so you're all robots. If not, then the unions are falsely protecting the weak and under performing workers from being treated fairly for effort and output they give for the money they make. I have no idea what your specific situation is, but the average salaries for all government workers are on average significantly HIGHER than their private workforce counterparts. USA Today (A left wing publication) published a study which is referenced in this (I think)right wing article:
------------------------------------
(NewsMax) - Buoyed by the efforts of reform-minded GOP governors in states like Wisconsin and New Jersey, free-market advocates are blasting the cushy pay packages of unionized public workers who in some states earn as much as $18,000 more than their private counterparts — with ironclad protections from being fired or laid off.

That outrage was stoked further Tuesday by a report showing that that public-sector employees in labor-battleground Wisconsin and 40 other states receive much higher total compensation than do people working in the private sector.

Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative organization airing radio and television ads supporting Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s bid to rein in union power there, tells Newsmax that unions and the politicians whose campaigns they finance have created “a privileged class in many respects.”

“Twenty years ago, the deal was, ‘Hey, in the public sector, you may get maybe a little bit less salary, but we’re going to take care of you on the pension-benefit side very generously, and you’ll get job security,’” Phillips tells Newsmax.

“These days, over the last 10 or 12 years, they get job security, pay, and pensions and benefits. They get all three, and it’s driven their salaries far beyond what the private sector gets.”

Walker is scheduled to unveil a major budget proposal at 4 p.m. Eastern time today. Republicans are bracing for a Democratic and media backlash, because Walker’s budget takes steps to close a $3.6 billion deficit.

Walker had hoped that his “budget-repair bill” would be enacted before the budget roll-out, so that state and local officials would have flexible tools at their disposal to minimize layoffs. But Wisconsin Democratic senators fled to Illinois to block an effort to vote on the legislation.

Union leaders say they’re willing to make concessions in order to preserve their collective-bargaining privilege. Walker’s proposals would limit public-worker negotiations to base salary, but pension benefits and health insurance contributions would be excluded.

The USAToday analysis published Tuesday, which is based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, shows that public-employees in Wisconsin earn about $2,000 more in salary and benefits than their private-sector counterparts.

The largest pay gap in the 50 states occurs in Nevada, where government workers earn nearly $18,000 more a year than private-sector employees. The biggest increase is in cash-strapped California, where public-employee compensation soared a whopping 28 percent above the rate of inflation from 2000 to 2009.

Other major state disparities underwritten by taxpayers: Rhode Island (public workers earn an average of $69,284, which is $17,603 more than the private-sector average); Vermont (average salary of $51,503, and $5,811 more than the private sector); Hawaii ($59,595, or $12,243 more than the private sector); Florida ($58,749, which is $9,099 more than the private sector; South Carolina ($52,591, a difference of $7,590); and Michigan ($58,801, a pay gap compared with the private sector of $6,436).

American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew G. Biggs has written that the actual disparity is much greater, however, because Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that a public-sector worker only has about a 6 percent chance of losing their job in any given year.

That contrasts to a private-sector job loss rate of 20 percent per annum. So the cost of finding new employment is much higher for private sector workers, on a per-capita basis.

On Monday, President Barack Obama warned the nation’s governors not to “vilify” or “denigrate” public-union workers — a remark that drew tough retorts from Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

And Phillips says, “This isn’t about denigrating anyone, it’s not about harming anyone. It’s about trying to protect the fiscal sanity and the economic prosperity of our nation and our states. And it is about fairness.

“Taxpayers in the private sector should not have to pay for benefits and wages that are way beyond what they get in the private sector,” says Phillips, whose organization is planning a series of bus excursions into the districts of Wisconsin Democratic senators who fled the state rather than vote on Walker’s budget reform bill. “So that’s why I think you’re seeing this push for change.”

Manhattan Institute senior fellow and author Steven Malanga tells Newsmax that the wages given to public-sector employees in recent years often are higher than the marketplace requires in order to attract competent employees.

For example, he maintains there are 72 applicants for every job opening in the New York City Sanitation Department.

“Walker’s recognition is that public employees are already well compensated, and we have to slow the growth if we are to achieve balance in the long term in this new fiscal reality,” Malanga tells Newsmax. “And the way to do that is to have the same flexibility in Wisconsin government that the federal government has — because the president doesn’t operate under collective bargaining rules in the federal government — and the same flexibility that CEOs have.”

Union leaders maintain that Republicans are trying to exploit the fiscal crises many states face in order to hurt the unions, which provide massive contributions to the coffers of Democratic candidates. But Republicans and some conservative economists say unbridled public-sector unions create an inherent conflict of interest that works to the taxpayers’ detriment.

“The reason collective bargaining does not work in the public sector is because, as the unions themselves admit, they have the opportunity to elect their own bosses . . . in the public sector, increasingly, you have people sitting on the same side of the table,” Malanga says.

Malanga adds that public-sector unions are the No. 1 sources of funds advocating for higher taxes around the country. Those taxes are used to defray the higher cost of the public-sector salaries revealed in the USAToday analysis.

“It’s worse that it even seems,” Malanga says, “when you just look at salary increases over the past decade . . . New Jersey hasn’t made adequate contributions to cover its pension obligations in 17 straight years. Illinois has not collected enough tax revenue to finance all of its bills, including its pensions, in more than a decade. We’re just not paying for that stuff.”

Phillips adds that much of the increased compensation comes in pensions and other benefits, because these are not as immediately obvious to the public.

“That’s why you see this explosion over the last decade or decade and a half,” he said. “The bill comes due later, right? . . . It’s hard to spot for the public, and the bill often comes due years down the road when you’re out of office and your political career is over.”

Tuesday, 01 Mar 2011 02:03 PM By David A. Patten Source: www.newsmax.com/Headline/wisconsin-public-unions-earnings/2011/03/01/id/387909
------------------------------------------------
Now, the double average pay number is ALL public union and non union workers compared to the Wisconsin Teachers Union members which was the argument that was raging at the time I read the article. My apologies that I misapplied the figures to all union government workers. A pulitzer prize winning watchdog (who is based in Florida and is left wing) had to admit that the claim of nearly double pay and quadruple benefits was true, though they said "barely true" which is quite an admission for an entity set out to tear the argument apart. I didn't know something could be "barely" true. That sounds like TRUE to me, not FALSE. But I wanted a left wing respected source to give their best shot at the claim and see where it falls:

Here's a link to their analysis of the specific claim: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/

I found tons of articles with wide ranging opinions and statistics and lots of manipulations. I liked the above article because it was the rights claim and then verified by a respected watch dog group on the left. That seemed fair to me.

I have no idea how you know how much someone would be making had they worked the same hours, same number of days, done the same quantity of work under the same conditions. As I understand it, Private workers in same jobs as union workers work more hours per week, more days per year with less paid days off. They also have to pay far more for their benefits which are far less valuable than the government unions. So it seems difficult to compare apples to apples with your career and someone in the private sector. But it seems quite odd that states would be wanting to get rid of less expensive employees? The claims in the articles are that initially people started making less with the promise of having a great retirement as you suggested, but over they years their pay and other benefits grew and grew until they were superior across the board. Perhaps that doesn't apply to you. I don't expect you to share any info on your earnings and benefits so it's impossible to really research it.

I do know it seems odd that they'd want to get rid of cheaper labor? In most cases they haven't cut benefits as much as ask for an increase in paying for the benefits which in Wisconsin wasn't much at all and was much better than even other unions as well as private sector. If there isn't a huge and unreasonable amount of benefits coming to you, then it seems unlikely they'd bother to come after them since it would be hard to make the case for doing so.

Your comment about people making tons more money and risking it all on the stock market and losing it and having sour grapes rings hollow to me. The market is bouncing back and over long term private 401K's rarely lose money. Unless Obama crashes our entire system (he sure seems to be trying) things should be okay long term. We invest in the market and I personally use the money I have made to supplement JPF costs rather than saving it for retirement that may well never come for me. JPF itself would be my retirement plan if it has value at that time. The difference between you and me is that I risked my own money and if I fail or succeed either way, I am not taking your tax dollars. You gambled with a corrupt union and corrupt politicians who lied to you and promised things 25 years ago they knew they wouldn't be around to have to deliver on. It was a scam just like Wall Street scammed people. You chose to take the risk of high reward payoff at the end just like I am. We may both fail or both succeed. If the union goes bust along with the state of Florida, sue your union for their part in the fraud. The dollars are unsustainable. State after state will have to take the same action, whether they are right like in Wisconsin, or left like in MA. Reality is unavoidable. It was a bit of a ponzi scheme. I doubt you'll get totally screwed, but perhaps like the rest of the population, you guys in the union will feel the same pain everyone else is.

Not all workers of any kind are lazy. But every company or union has lazy workers. In a non union company, they are fired. In the union, they are protected and we taxpayers are forced to keep paying them. We're the boss supposedly, but we can't get rid of bad performers? Horrible teachers can't be fired because of the unions. Kids suffer as do tax payers. No company hire 100% hard working people. If unions allowed bad performers to be fired like everyone else, you'd find far less opposition. Why should they have a guaranteed job? Also, why should anyone be forced to join a union to get a job? Why shouldn't they be allowed to negotiate their own conditions and salaries and benefits? If the unions are so great, people will still join. But it won't force people to pay the salaries of political lobbyists and campaign money to people they despise. That seems fair as well. Plus, Government unions are by nature corrupt. They hire their own bosses and then get whatever they want because they bought and paid for the politicians with campaign contributions. The government is a monopoly and doesn't have to compete in the open market and thus can make unrealistic deals and answer to no one because the politicians are kept in power by the unions so often.

Now we have the government stopping Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina because they don't have a union there. How is that legal let alone fair to all those folks who will lose those jobs? Obviously without a union to deal with they can still get plenty of quality employees, so why should people be FORCED to join a union they don't want? And why is the government choosing sides? Oh that's right, because they helped Obama win last time and he wants to raise a Billion dollars this time so he can buy another election.

If I have to choose between bring down a whole state or making unions restructure to be more like the private sector even a little bit, I think it's obvious what has to be done. If the state goes down, you lose it all. What choice exactly do they have?

Brian

Brian, You have given a lot of thought to the world's situation.

Can you summarize any practical strategies that will take us from where we are to where we need to go? I think one of our major problems will be solved- the energy crisis. As for the political crisis, I can only hope.

I have been a television engineer for the past 35 years. I have watched the transition of television from Standard definition to High definition develop for 25 of those 35 years. Yet most people will say that the transition has taken place in only in the last 5 years. I think this is what is happening with electric transportation. In 1990, I attended the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas and everybody from Sony to RCA to JVC were displaying the latest HD cameras and monitors, but no one was buying because it was too expensive. And every television station manager in the nation was terrified that they would have to pay for all new equipment; and broadcast to a nation who could not afford to buy the monitors to watch. They were right and that is why it took so long. I bought a 40" HD monitor for the college I work for in 2001 for $7000.00, ten times what they go for today. Electric cars will be here soon and when the tipping price point is reached, the transition will be fast and dramatic. It will happen with electric cars as dramatically as it happened with HD.

If I drive out 100 miles to Sweetwater, Texas, I see gigantic windmills as far as the eye can see. My house sits on top of the Barnett Shale. I get a check for about $700 a month* from the gas under my house. It represents 23% of what ever is pumped out of my 1 acre. It is estimated that the natural gas will be pumped from the Barnett shale for the next 80 years. The energy from the natural gas will run electric plants which will charge up my electric car. 10 years from now, we will be buying electric cars like we are now buying HD monitors. I am not being optimist. I've seen it before.

Last night on CNN, one of the regular commentators had it right, the remedy for weaning ourselves off oil is built into the system- higher prices. If gas hits 6 dollars a gallon, we will look, and find, an alternative. America is blessed because we have abundant natural resources. So as bad as it can get world wide, we are still a very fortunate society.

I think energy consumption, which is driving so much conflict in the world will not be as big an issue in a few years. But politics is forever.

* distribution of the revenue for the natural gas in Texas is one of the fairest distribution of wealth I have seen- because virtually every homeowner in Fort Worth and the surrounding areas own the natural gas right under their property.


PS: It isn't very encouraging to think that collectively we are so interested in the Royal Wedding that virtually every network and PBS station carried the whole ordeal for hours live. You would have thought we were watching mankind land on Mars for the first time.

Brian I think you missed my whole point again. I agree that there is no country in the world as diverse as USA. It has many time zones and huge geographical diversity and climates. It also contains a population made up of ethnic groups from every part of the planet. As I said in an earlier thread it is a truly beautiful and great country...if it was not for all those Americans living there. LOL.
My point is simply that although very large and diverse it is quite insular and ignorant to many things happening outside its boundaries. Most Americans have not ventured outside their own back yard.....so they only see the world from the narrow propoganda filled viewpoint produced by pundits and politicians with a biased and ill informed judgement based on ignorant political views. You hear what they want you to hear.
Now you said that unions are the downfall of your society and that left to their own devices people would be more efficient and have a better production level without unions.....nonesense. Having worked in both the private and public sector there is no difference in the lazy person's performance. Lazy people are employed in BOTH. In fact some of the worst wastes and inefficiency I have ever witnessed has been in the private sector.....and some of the worst exploitation I have ever seen has been in non union workplaces. Some of the best and most productive workplaces have been in the public sector with closed shop union practices. Some of the worst health and safety issues are in the private sector and some of the worst cases of lazy people holding onto jobs are in private enterprise. As an example there was a potato crisp factory about a mile from where I live that was about to close because it was running at a loss. The staff were made redundant. They all got together and pulled together, bought out the company and ran it as a cooperative enterprise. It is now very succesful and making more profit than the old company ever did or could.

Dang,
This post reminds me of a sign I saw one time in the Personnel Office of a Navy Squadron I was in. the sign said: THE ENEMY WILL NEVER BOMB THIS PLACE AND END ALL THIS CONFUSION. Nuff said.

Hey Brian:

Given that my post was a "rant", your response was very measured. Thanks for cutting me some slack.

Before I get into your comments let me make one thing clear. I have a great job and am well compensated for it. I am not griping about being an underpaid worker. My rant was addressed to people who think the ranks of government workers are filled with overpaid and under-performing leeches.



No, I'm not suggesting that. I don't know what most state employees are like - I only interact with a couple hundred within my immediate vicinity and am speaking only from my own experience. I know what a lazy person looks like and there isn't a single one in this group. Is this typical? Probably not - the nature of my line of work is that it draws people who tend to push themselves from within harder than others are likely to push them. We are also highly competitive with each other - which pushes everyone to up their game.



I haven't seen the union protect anyone. Before a faculty receives tenure, they work for a six year period in which they can be dismissed "without cause". Meaning dismissed for no reason. I have seen this happen and it's never been because a person wasn't performing. Usually it happened to folks who were hired to work in one direction and then a new administration came along and decided they didn't like that direction. The union can't help these people.

If a person does receive tenure, it really doesn't offer the protections that people think. It's certainly no guarantee of permanent employment. For instance, it doesn't protect you against lay-offs. And if you break the rules of the organization or don't perform your duties, you can be dismissed. Even tenured faculty are subject to annual evaluations and there is a post tenure review process that can result in the dismissal of tenured faculty for weak performance.

So what does tenure do? Pretty much, it means they have to have a reason to fire you. Practically speaking, this really isn't much different from the private sector where theoretically a person can be fired for no reason. Practically though, it doesn't work that way because of lawyers.



I snipped a lot of your stuff - people can read it in your original post. Actually, the stuff you posted was very enlightening to me. I was going to admit that my comparison between me and my cohorts was comparing apples to oranges. But I'm finding that my comparison is actually much more fair than the comparisons that people in your sources are making.

For instance, in the fact checking link that you gave, it is suggested that these comparisons are done simply by comparing the average salary and benefits of a state worker to the average salary and benefits of a private sector employee. But they apparently are not correcting for education level! For a state to use information like this to argue that state workers (who on the average must have more education to even get a state job) are overpaid is ludicrous. It's like saying doctors are overpaid because they make more than garbage collectors.

My comparison between me and my friends is not exact because, while we are all engineers, they work in industry and I am an educator. Different job functions. But at least I am comparing us on the basis of equal education level.

According to one link you shared, public sector employees are actually less compensated than private sector employees with the same education level.



I agree with the first part of what he says. Yes, 25 years ago I elected for deferred compensation. A lower salary in exchange for longer term benefits such as a pension. His last part may or may not be true but it doesn't apply to me. If I correct for inflation, I'm making about the same in my rank as someone in the same rank did 25 years ago. The way I did better was to start in a lower rank and move up to higher ranks based on my achievements. That's what all of the people in my line do - it's the way the system is supposed to work.

Again, no complaints on my part - other than a rant against anyone that thinks my compensation has increased much faster than folks in the private sector.



Again, I can't speak to the average state employee - only to my own experience. I work many more hours per week than my private sector friends. On paper, we might work the same - but not in practice. It's not a totally fair comparison - I have much more autonomy in my work than they do. For a large chunk of my time I am able to do what I want - as long as there is a benefit to the state. For instance, I can work in any area I wish and attack any research problem I like. But I have to secure funding to do it and the state gets 49% of that. No complaints though - I get to do what I want. And that means even though I am working harder, it's harder to consider it work

Days off? We get the major holidays off. Hard to believe that we get more vacation than the private sector though - unless they get zero days of paid vacation. Yeah, you read that right - zero days of paid vacation. People think that we get summers off - LOL. We get summers off only if we don't want to be paid.



This is a whole separate issue - that of privatization. Many conservative governors want to get rid of ALL state employees - not just cheap ones. Their argument is that people will pay less in taxes. I don't buy it - people will still need those services. They may spend less in taxes but they won't spend less money. They'll probably spend more because they will be paying companies operating at a profit instead of government. Yes, I know, the theory is that competition between private corporations will lower costs. In practice, I don't buy it - because there isn't real competition - companies will be selected for privatization for political reasons.



Yeah, that may have been some hyperbole on my part - it was a rant after all.



I'm not taking anyone's tax dollars either. I'm earning them. If they don't think they are getting their money's worth, they can fire me. They would be stupid for doing so because they are getting their money's worth - but it's their choice.

However, if they wish to go after money that I've already earned, that is a different issue.



I don't belong to the union. Florida does not require its employees to belong. However, I think unions, even in the private sector, are important. Have there been abuses? Sure. But what would the country have looked like if they didn't exist? A scary place....

I don't belong to the union because what they offer me is not something I have needed. My line of work is such that I can find employment elsewhere if my situation becomes intolerable. I agree with you that it should be a choice to join and I made mine.



No, I probably won't. The state is requiring us to start contributing to our own pensions - as you point out, it's a small amount. It's a small pay cut but given the suffering that others have gone through, it's very minor.

My concern is in other directions. For instance, last year there was discussion in the Florida Legislature about changing the pension calculations. Right now, our pensions are based on some percent of the last five years we work. The percent is based on how many total years you have in. Last year there was a discussion to keep the percent the same but base it on the average of ALL years of service. Seriously? You want to recalculate my pension based on what I made 30 years before? Before accumulated inflation of 100%? When I have been working for 25 years based on a different set of rules?

You are correct that this got shut down - for the reasons you state. But if people are thinking about it, it can come up again, particularly under the governor we have now.



I agree with you - as long as it is not a false choice. Modifying a pension plan to make it sustainable is the only realistic choice. Modifying a plan so that you can free up money to give tax breaks to corporations is a little less honest.

Thanks again - you would have been justified in ranting right back at me. Instead, you provided a thought-provoking response.

Scott