Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,224
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh
I agree that we have to cut spending, but a 40%, across the board cut would be devastating to the economy. Do you cut pensions 40% to all ex government employees? 40% on the Defense budget? Paying down the debt will take years, requiring a prosperous economic environment in the private sector. Drastically cutting government spending will do the opposite.

Already stated.  No defense cuts.  No growth in defense spending either.  

Non government employees pensions were cut in 2008.  We all took huge cuts in our pensions.  Government did not take a cut at that time.

__________________
 So suck it, even though in your case it taste  like plastic. 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,644
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist

Already stated.  No defense cuts.  No growth in defense spending either.  

Non government employees pensions were cut in 2008.  We all took huge cuts in our pensions.  Government did not take a cut at that time.


Mine was cut in 2012 or so, luckily I have enough years in that it didn't cripple me like it did some of my younger coworkers. Hire on today at the same company there is no pension. I'm all for cutting ALL government pensions the same way. Grandfather current workers, cut the pensions of new hires 100% and tell them to contribute to their own retirement via 401k contributions

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,073
Reply with quote  #33 
Many government employees I know only have had about a 3% raise in 10 yrs.  Private sector salaries are generally much higher.  In effect, they take retirement benefits over income.

I agree with cutting the number of gov't employees, but I don't agree with trimming the benefits of those that are there.  If we can't afford them, get rid of some.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,073
Reply with quote  #34 
I don't think we'll see anything anyways.  trump is now playing footsies with he new buddies Pelosi and schumer.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,224
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Many government employees I know only have had about a 3% raise in 10 yrs.  Private sector salaries are generally much higher.  In effect, they take retirement benefits over income.

I agree with cutting the number of gov't employees, but I don't agree with trimming the benefits of those that are there.  If we can't afford them, get rid of some.

In 2008 most in the private sector took a 30-40% cut in pay.  Government got their 3% raise.  

Those pension numbers and overspending on government employees is a major reason our debt is so high.  That needs to be cut back. Servicing the debt on 20T at 8% interest will kill our budgets for 10 years.  

__________________
 So suck it, even though in your case it taste  like plastic. 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #36 
From 1960-1980 Government revenue increased annually by 7.5%.  From 1980-2000, Government revenue increased just under 7% annually.  From 2000-2017, Government revenue increased 2.1% annually thanks to the great recession, 9/11, tax cuts, etc.  If these last 17 years would have seen 6.5% annual growth, we would have gained $22 trillion more, $64 trillion versus $42 trillion, and the debt would me much less.

Fortunately, since 2012 we see annual growth over 7% again.  It is unnecessary to overreact to the debt just because the last 17 years were difficult times.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,224
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn
From 1960-1980 Government revenue increased annually by 7.5%.  From 1980-2000, Government revenue increased just under 7% annually.  From 2000-2017, Government revenue increased 2.1% annually thanks to the great recession, 9/11, tax cuts, etc.  If these last 17 years would have seen 6.5% annual growth, we would have gained $22 trillion more, $64 trillion versus $42 trillion, and the debt would me much less.

Fortunately, since 2012 we see annual growth over 7% again.  It is unnecessary to overreact to the debt just because the last 17 years were difficult times.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

No debt vs deficit angle?  

Definitely does not feel like 7% since 2012.  Simple gut check on that says no way. Might have been a good growth clip last year of Obama, and has been good since start of Trump.  But before that was lackluster at best.

__________________
 So suck it, even though in your case it taste  like plastic. 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,192
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist

No debt vs deficit angle?  

Definitely does not feel like 7% since 2012.  Simple gut check on that says no way. Might have been a good growth clip last year of Obama, and has been good since start of Trump.  But before that was lackluster at best.


Revenues may have gone up 7% since 2012 but GDP isn't even half of that.

If, if, if . . .

Dewey, errr - Will I Winn - please tell us how much tax revenue we lost because of tax cuts.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,224
Reply with quote  #39 
I suspect even the debt vs deficit hair splitter even knows that all of that 7% and more were ate up by the inflation of the dollar.  QE baby.  It prints the cash, and gives everyone a massive pay cut.  Big part of the reason Government employees were getting 4 and 5% Cost of Living raises that entire time.
__________________
 So suck it, even though in your case it taste  like plastic. 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,073
Reply with quote  #40 
No government employee I know was getting that.  Then again, most of the ones I know are state and local, and I've never asked the Feds that question.
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #41 
The Bannon interview made it quite clear how the casino mentality of bankers led to our economic collapse.  Barney Frank not even mentioned.  He was also right to blame both Obama and Bush Administrations for nobody being held accountable.  While an individual politician may be able to stop policy, as Sen McCain recently did, one or two individuals in Congress cannot make policy.  Too many checks and balances for these type representatives to run the show.
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 3,252
Reply with quote  #42 
Dewey working on the weekend - we see you.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,919
Reply with quote  #43 
Eric Holder's "too big to jail" memo in 1999 discouraged criminal prosecution of corp execs and consequently led to reckless behavior by them. Libs prefer monetary settlements which are channeled to support unrelated causes.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,811
Reply with quote  #44 
Obama is getting $400,000 to give speeches to bankers.

He has former Goldman people managing his money and investments.

Still wondering why he didn't prosecute them?
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,224
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_I_Wynn
The Bannon interview made it quite clear how the casino mentality of bankers led to our economic collapse.  Barney Frank not even mentioned.  He was also right to blame both Obama and Bush Administrations for nobody being held accountable.  While an individual politician may be able to stop policy, as Sen McCain recently did, one or two individuals in Congress cannot make policy.  Too many checks and balances for these type representatives to run the show.

I must have missed this interview, which one was it?

__________________
 So suck it, even though in your case it taste  like plastic. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.