Tax Cuts May Prove Better for Politicians Than for Economy

[Toro]

Among our options the best is to cut government employee pay, pension & benefits in half. Then peg their pay to the private sectors pay. There would be no deficit after that. Then the surplus would pay down the debt. Unless they do this don't even think about raising taxes. I was not born a slave to elitist government workers & I will not die a slave to those corrupt assholes.

I'm sorry. This is just flat out wrong.

The operations of the entire federal government cost about a day and a half's worth of the year's expenditure. Doing what you are suggesting wouldn't make an iota's worth of difference to reduce the deficit. It's a rounding error.

If you want to cut the deficit back into balance, the only way you can do it is to slash social security, medicare and medicaid and defense, since those account for about three quarters of total federal spending. Everything else is just talk.

You are WRONG!

Government employs 18% of the workforce or 23,000,000 employees with an average compensation of $122,000 that cost us $2,806,000,000,000 annually. Cutting their pay in half to equal the private sector would save $1,403,000,000,000 annually. The deficit is only $1,361,291,000,000. That would leave a $41,709,000,000 annual surplus to pay down the debt with every year.

Where do you get your numbers from?

You realize that the entire US budget is $3.7 trillion. If what you said were true, then employee costs would be three quarters of the entire US budget.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf

Do you really believe this?

Total federal government employment, excluding military personnel, was 2.8 million. That includes part-time employees. There are about 2.3 million non-military employees of the US federal government.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Compensation to federal employees is about $300 billion a year.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/wypc/2005/2005wypc.pdf

So I was wrong. I said it was a day and a half of budget expenditures. I had previously read a line item on the budget wrong.

Having said that, it still represents 8% of the entire budget. You could eliminate every single government employee and you'd still have a trillion dollar budget deficit.

As you can see, what dominates the federal budget is medicare and medicaid, social security and defense. "Everything else," including government employees, is a quarter of the budget.

So, clearly, you can't balance the budget solely on government employees.

 

[KissMy]

I took the BLS total workforce of 130 million minus the BLS total civilian workforce of 107 million that left 23 million government workers.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm sorry. This is just flat out wrong.

The operations of the entire federal government cost about a day and a half's worth of the year's expenditure. Doing what you are suggesting wouldn't make an iota's worth of difference to reduce the deficit. It's a rounding error.

If you want to cut the deficit back into balance, the only way you can do it is to slash social security, medicare and medicaid and defense, since those account for about three quarters of total federal spending. Everything else is just talk.

You are WRONG!

Government employs 18% of the workforce or 23,000,000 employees with an average compensation of $122,000 that cost us $2,806,000,000,000 annually. Cutting their pay in half to equal the private sector would save $1,403,000,000,000 annually. The deficit is only $1,361,291,000,000. That would leave a $41,709,000,000 annual surplus to pay down the debt with every year.

Where do you get your numbers from?

You realize that the entire US budget is $3.7 trillion. If what you said were true, then employee costs would be three quarters of the entire US budget.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf

Do you really believe this?

Total federal government employment, excluding military personnel, was 2.8 million. That includes part-time employees. There are about 2.3 million non-military employees of the US federal government.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Compensation to federal employees is about $300 billion a year.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/wypc/2005/2005wypc.pdf

So I was wrong. I said it was a day and a half of budget expenditures. I had previously read a line item on the budget wrong.

Having said that, it still represents 8% of the entire budget. You could eliminate every single government employee and you'd still have a trillion dollar budget deficit.

As you can see, what dominates the federal budget is medicare and medicaid, social security and defense. "Everything else," including government employees, is a quarter of the budget.

So, clearly, you can't balance the budget solely on government employees.

Even with that shitass chart it shows over 40% of the federal government is unconstitutional expenditures (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security). Probably closer to 60%.

How about we start trimming there. Kick back those responsibilities to the states where it IS constitutional and let the chips fall where they may. I'm sure that the states would LOVE a boost in their revenue of the taxes collected for federal use to their budgets.

 

[loosecannon]

If you want to cut the deficit back into balance, the only way you can do it is to slash social security, medicare and medicaid and defense, since those account for about three quarters of total federal spending. Everything else is just talk.

Even that would only rein in the deficit while doing little to address the debt itself. And within a very few short years SS is gonna start relying on those fabled "trust fund revenues". All told we have at least $60 trillion in debt + unfunded liabilities.

Or roughly $1.7 trillion annual shortfalls as far as the eye can see.

 

[Toro]

I took the BLS total workforce of 130 million minus the BLS total civilian workforce of 107 million that left 23 million government workers.

That's incorrect.

 

[loosecannon]

Wow, you really think you get to make the rules for this? Talk about stupid.

Maybe we should talk about what you libs aren't allowed to bitch about too.

LMAO! I wasn't making rules and I am not a lib. Are you gay?

Now tax cuts ARE a good idea. Always are till you hit the Laffer Curve's equilibrium point. We're far from that.

The Laugher curve is appropriately named. It is like a laugh track to accompany the skewed logic that it supports.

But what we need to do MORE and fast is spending cuts.

Well no shit! But even the new contract with America won't promise to reduce spending. It pays lip service to that idea while stopping short of a balanced budget amendment or eliminating earmarks.

Neither of the two dominant parties is going to significantly reduce spending.

They care only about their own careers, their campaign contributors and their re elections.

We are just their dupes, our concerns are irrelevant the day after each election.

 

[loosecannon]

Even with that shitass chart it shows over 40% of the federal government is unconstitutional expenditures (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security). Probably closer to 60%.

Prove it

How about we start trimming there. Kick back those responsibilities to the states where it IS constitutional and let the chips fall where they may. I'm sure that the states would LOVE a boost in their revenue of the taxes collected for federal use to their budgets.

Sorry dickhead but SS has been payed for in advance by two generations of Americans.

So keep your sleazy hands off other people's prepaid social security!

 

[Big Fitz]

The Laugher curve is appropriately named. It is like a laugh track to accompany the skewed logic that it supports.

Spoken like a Keynsian moron not bored yet with flipping switches on that 'finely tuned economy'. The Laffer Curve is simply the economic version of buoyancy. You find the ideal point between sinking and floating that generates the most stability and functionality. Set the tax level there and don't fuck with it. Live within your means, and the only reason you move it is if economic circumstances change enough that you need to keep the equilibrium. Just like a ship taking on or shedding ballast. This also means you have to do the hard things are politically unpopular. That's the problem at this point.

Neither of the two dominant parties is going to significantly reduce spending.

Go to CBS news and check out the new "Pledge To America" that's going to be released tomorrow. The highlights have hit the news. If it happens, spending will be cut by 1.7 trillion. I'd call that a damn fine start.

They care only about their own careers, their campaign contributors and their re elections.

I would call that true for 90% of all politicians in the federal government currently in power. The Remaining 10% should be removed from office after 2 terms or 25 years total time in government.

We are just their dupes, our concerns are irrelevant the day after each election.

Well then let's just stick a gun in our mouth cause there's no way out. Are you this stupid? You've made a blanket statement about a hopeless state and then expect what? For people to rally to your POV when it's only solution is to just give up cause nothing can be done to stop it or do the right thing?

pfft! need to do some philosophical and observational re-evaluation.

 

[loosecannon]

Spoken like a Keynsian moron not bored yet with flipping switches on that 'finely tuned economy'. The Laffer Curve is simply

a joke

Go to CBS news and check out the new "Pledge To America" that's going to be released tomorrow. The highlights have hit the news. If it happens, spending will be cut by 1.7 trillion. I'd call that a damn fine start.

I already started a thread on the new pledge and it won't cut spending despite it's allusions. No mention of a balanced budget amendment or a repeal of even house or senate rules regarding earmarks.

They care only about their own careers, their campaign contributors and their re elections.

I would call that true for 90% of all politicians in the federal government currently in power. The Remaining 10% should be removed from office after 2 terms or 25 years total time in government.

We are just their dupes, our concerns are irrelevant the day after each election.

Well then let's just stick a gun in our mouth cause there's no way out. Are you this stupid? You've made a blanket statement about a hopeless state and then expect what? For people to rally to your POV when it's only solution is to just give up cause nothing can be done to stop it or do the right thing?

pfft! need to do some philosophical and observational re-evaluation.

OK, so you are psycho. Nobody can teach you anything, convince you of anything, and you don't do rational, reasonable or smart.

No problem. Whatever keeps the monsters from crawling thru your brain while you hope to sleep, sucking the marrow from your bones and depositing their eggs in your fertile cranium.....

 

[Dick Tuck]

I took the BLS total workforce of 130 million minus the BLS total civilian workforce of 107 million that left 23 million government workers.

That would be state, local, and federal.

 

[Big Fitz]

OK, so you are psycho.

I would agree with your projected self diagnosis.

a joke

Yes, your familiarity with economics is.

No problem. Whatever keeps the monsters from crawling thru your brain while you hope to sleep, sucking the marrow from your bones and depositing their eggs in your fertile cranium.....

I'm not the one screaming "MONSTERS!" when Conservative solutions are mentioned.

I already started a thread on the new pledge and it won't cut spending despite it's allusions. No mention of a balanced budget amendment or a repeal of even house or senate rules regarding earmarks.

Now that the whole thing is out, I am very disappointed in how weak it is. It needs to go a lot farther. But guess what? If they won't pull the trigger after being handed the reigns, the conservatives won't back them a second time.

But the rest of your beliefs are that.... your own fictions. We don't know if they'll pull it off or even try to or not. I know that if I vote for someone who signs on to this pledge and they don't succeed in at least half of it and push for all of it I'm not voting for them again.

 

[Toro]

I took the BLS total workforce of 130 million minus the BLS total civilian workforce of 107 million that left 23 million government workers.

That would be state, local, and federal.

There are roughly 20 million state and local government workers.

And they certainly don't make $100k a year on average.

You don't see right-wing think tanks targeting them simply because they can't, other than pensions at the state level, which are a disaster waiting to happen and must be reformed.

 

[loosecannon]

I took the BLS total workforce of 130 million minus the BLS total civilian workforce of 107 million that left 23 million government workers.

That would be state, local, and federal.

There are roughly 20 million state and local government workers.

And they certainly don't make $100k a year on average.

teachers and prison guards.

Still, when you think about it, 23 million in the public sector vs 107 million in the private is a lotta overhead.

 

[loosecannon]

We don't know if they'll pull it off or even try to or not. I know that if I vote for someone who signs on to this pledge and they don't succeed in at least half of it and push for all of it I'm not voting for them again.

yes you will.

 

[Big Fitz]

We don't know if they'll pull it off or even try to or not. I know that if I vote for someone who signs on to this pledge and they don't succeed in at least half of it and push for all of it I'm not voting for them again.

yes you will.

Riiiight. You know jack shit and jack left town with shit on his heels.