What would you cut (is a question the libs like to ask)

[billvon 2,394]

>Ldid you read the article? reb's want to freeze fed emp pay for 2011 and
>that would save over 2 billion.

OK, so sounds like you have changed your mind. You now want to freeze all federal pay for 2011. (I assume that includes government and military.) Yes, that would indeed save a few billion at first and would rise as average salaries increased and government/military salaries did not.

What would you do to keep soldiers and critical employees, like ATC controllers and CDC doctors? How will you answer critics that claim you hate the military and want to cut their pay relative to their cost of living?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Ldid you read the article? reb's want to freeze fed emp pay for 2011 and
>that would save over 2 billion.

OK, so sounds like you have changed your mind. You now want to freeze all federal pay for 2011. (I assume that includes government and military.) Yes, that would indeed save a few billion at first and would rise as average salaries increased and government/military salaries did not.

What would you do to keep soldiers and critical employees, like ATC controllers and CDC doctors? How will you answer critics that claim you hate the military and want to cut their pay relative to their cost of living?

all fed employees need to be on social security and have pay adjusted to meet private sector averages. they can have the same insurance that we do. this would save 120 billion plus, just like I said.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

since we are talking about fed gov jobs we should look up fed gov jobs

Done.

http://www.fedjobs.com/pay/pay.html

According to the scale, above 60k does not come in until grade 11, step 7.
From the page: Note: The following is a BASE pay scale. All U.S. locations (including Hawaii and Alaska) receive additional pay adjustments above the base pay ranging from 14.16% to 35.15%

The few people whom I know who do work for the Feds do not make anywhere near 60k, being they are in low level jobs.

you and bilvon seem to not have good infohttp://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

That chart is not representative of all Federal employees and only goes to show the ignorance of the writer who penned the article. Show me something that covers all Federal pay grades and levels per regions with side by side comparison to comparable jobs with benefits and then I may be swayed. Also, let's consider up level management. I would bet the farm that private sector upper level executives earn for more than their Federal counterparts. Compare what the President makes next to what most CEO's make. The real shame lies in the upper ranks of the private sector.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[usedtajump 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Get the money from the wanker bankers

Ok, so take more instead of spending less is your answer

No my suggestion is to go after the bastards that caused the problems that we're all facing and paying for (through no fault of our own) .. Whilst they sit on their smug backsides and continue to receive greed bonuses.

We are taking care of those bastards

But they are not in banks (for the most part) the bastards that need taken care of are in the halls of our congress

Tuesday will be a good start. And then we will have to keep a close eye on the news ones going there

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

This thread was started to mock liberals who want to cut spending. To 'prove' this conservatives have listed how they would cut spending:

Cut $9 million in cosmetic surgery (which has already been cut)
Change government retirement programs to private programs (would cost us $28 billion)
End the president's travel budget (about $10 million in military spending)
Fire the president and his advisers ($9.7 million)

By my calculations, if we implemented all these, our spending would increase by approximately $28 billion.

I don't think we can afford conservative's "spending cuts."

Nice job of throwing numbers out of the clear blue...damn near made you sound like you knew what you were talking about, (Well, Maybe to a Lib)

[billvon 2,394]

>all fed employees need to be on social security

They are. From moneycentral.com:

==================
Myth No. 2: Congress doesn't pay into Social Security, so it doesn't care about fixing the crisis.

The idea that U.S. lawmakers don't pay into Social Security is 25 years out of date. Before 1984, U.S. representatives and senators -- like all other federal employees -- weren't covered by Social Security and didn't pay into the system. Congress passed a law in 1983, which took effect the next year, requiring all of its members (and all federal employees hired after that year) to participate in the system.
===================

>and have pay adjusted to meet private sector averages.

OK, so previously you were talking about freezing pay - now you're talking about cutting pay. Both will save money. Freezing pay might be a better way to accomplish that since you are not actually cutting salaries and military pay - that's a harder sell. That will save a few billion the first year, and it will increase every year after that as their pay drops relative to the private sector.

So now we have a plan that will actually cut some money. Costs will be loss of federal employees and soldiers, but with the end of the TARP program and the reduction in troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan we should be able to deal with that.

Now we're making progress! Anyone else?

[billvon 2,394]

>Nice job of throwing numbers out of the clear blue...

Hmm. Most of them came from conservative posters here. Does that mean that they made them up?

[lawrocket 3]

80% of the 2010 budget was
(1) Social Security (19.63%)
(2) Defense (18.74%)
(3) Unemployment/Welfare/other mandatory spending (16.13%)
(4) Medicare (12.79%)
(5) Medicaid/SCHIP (8.19%); and
(6) Interest on Nat'l Debt (4.63%)

Cutting earmarks, conressional pay, etc., won't do much. You have to eat into those items to do anything.

(1) Social Security - grandfather in all persons in the program at this time. Start with a 6% cut in benefits paid. Raise the age to draw SS by one year every five years and drop the benefit by 6% every five years until I reach the age of 65. Decrease by 1% the payroll deduction for SSI.

Immediate cut of $34 billion from mandatory spending. This will create also the inducement for our workers to keep themselves busy and to save some of their own money.

(2) Defense - 663.7 billion. Eliminate overseas contingency operations - $120 billion in savings right there. Cut procurement by $40 billion and provide extra $10 billion for maintenance. Go 90's on standing military by offering incentive buyouts for voluntary separation - savings in salary and in retirement. Net no savings next year, net savings later. Goal to reduce military forces by 25%. There's $150 billion saved.

(3) Unemployment/Welfare/Other Mandatory - This program is easy enough to simply provide a 20% across-the-board slashing. Welfare. Food stamps. Savings - $114 billion

(4) Medicare - $453 billion budget. Grandfather it out. Use the same system as provided for social security. The government must pay providers what is deserved but will have a lien system as in Medicaid to recover payments in excess of defined benefit.

Medicare treatment for lifestyle-related diseases will not be provided. Smokers, obese, alcoholics, etc., will cope with and pay for their own bills related to these issues for all persons under the age of 75. Protections for health care providers will be added so that they may refuse treatment for those who cannot afford to pay for it.

Immediate savings unknown. Long term savings likely to be trillions as those who have diseases of lifestyle and opulence (the money spent on ciggies and alcohol could have made a nice nest egg) quickly die off. Also, any person who requests life-saving measures will be required to sign documentation accepting liability for medical payments. This way, when little Joey and Jimmy - who haven't seen grandpa since leaving him in the nursing home three years ago - come to the hospital when gramps comes in with acute-on-chronic renal failure say, "Do whatever is necessary to keep Grampsie alive" will understand that someone's gotta pay for it.

IT sounds cruel and mean. Taking responsibility usually is a bitter pill to swallow. Grampsie's life isn't worth it if you pay for it - only if everybody else does, too.

(5) Interest on national debt - take the $500 billion in savings and pay down the principal, thus lowering every year's payments.

(6) TARP - bye bye. $700 billion saved.

Now, I understand that the economy will likely suffer as people go through collective DT's from the government gravy train. Therefore, assume a savings of roughly $1 trillion as decreased revenue comes in, balancing the budget and putting all budget surplus towards debt repayment. Continue with debt repayment for all surplus until it is paid down to 5% of GDP.

A marginal lowering of taxes will also be necessary, since somebody will have to employ all the people that are laid off of government jobs.

But - the budget will be more than balanced. The economy will likely suck for a year or two until national rehab is complete.

Long term, Medicare withers away, as does Social Security, saving in excess of $2 trillion in mandatory spending per year by 2030.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

Some good ideas overall. One note:

>(6) TARP - bye bye. $700 billion saved.

Already done. Zeroed out from here forwards, so no savings from that.

[grimmie 173]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bottom line is 30-40 million people (most likely alot more) make less and have to work 12 months.

So what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

So tens of millions get paid less than teachers: they ain't teachers. Millions get paid a lot more than teachers: they ain't teachers either.

Why should teachers get paid according to the value of jobs other people do?

I am just saying they get great benifits, work only 9 months and get an above average salary and in the currant economy they should be happy and do the job well

And they only get paid for 9 months**, so what are you beefing about?

** If school teachers are paid like university faculty, the 9 months salary is spread over 12 monthly payments, meaning that they are paid 3 months in arrears for the last month in the school year that they work.

but they still only worked 9 months leaving more time to work part time in summer school programs or temp work wich would bring the pay up more but either way they are still payed very well compared to millins in the work force

How is that ANY different from an hourly paid worker getting overtime pay for extra hours worked?

I would actually hope that the people who educate my children WOULD get paid well - my kids' futures depend on them.

I wish the lazy worthless teachers that I have delt with over the past 4 years would just do a good job and then maybe they would be worth what they are getting paid.

The way you spell and structure a sentence is proof they must have been very lazy.

I have had my children attend private and public schools over the past nine years. The public school teachers have been wonderful. The private, not so much.

It's not always the teacher's fault. Parents must step up and take charge of their children's education.

But most of you already knew that.

Back to the Obama is bad thread...

[freethefly 6]

I post this link from federalbudget.com first as I think it tells a good story in simple terms. Watch the video.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The site does not endorse any parties, but provides information for you to consider.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Click on your State to view the the budget for your State. Should these cost be cut?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[champu 1]

Agreed. And you're biting into the income security (not to be confused with social security!) category which is a $570B chunk of the budget that billvon initially shied away from.

There are $70B worth of tax credits (not deductions... credits) associated with having children provided every year.

/edited to remove $20B from the above number as the "Making work Pay" tax credit, while being just a goofy way of implementing a focused tax cut, doesn't have anything to do with having children. My mistake.

[Casurf1978 0]

Where did you get these numbers? I know a few teachers back east that have Masters and make less than 42K a year.

[marks2065 0]

congress is not on social security

[juanesky 0]

Yes 80 bill a year supporting a good tangible cause, or 800 billion giving people work. According to your on line of thinking is all good right?

So how come with only 300 million habitants (do the math genius) 800 billion was not sufficient for everyone to become employed.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Let me repeat:

....where the hell did you find any "hatred for ....... " in Jakees post?

Juane, I'm not Aryan.

Same place, here in speakers corners, is that too much to look into? Same as you, when you spout that better than thou reponses on any comment John Rich says about any elitist Euro country.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Let me repeat:

....where the hell did you find any "hatred for ....... " in Jakees post?
....

Quote

Same place, here in speakers corners, is that too much to look into?

Do I hear the noise of backpedaling?

Quote

Same as you, when you spout that better than thou reponses on any comment John Rich says about any elitist Euro country.

Oh look! The vanguard of Mr. Rich.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Man, come on. Do you realize that every force is in the ground right now? We may have our disagreements, and our playful rivalry, and our fight here and there, but I have no issues when they have saved our assess, by requesting aviation back up, or when they fly drones, or when they have been with us in the battlefield. Will post pics later, maybe.

I disagree with you on this one.

Sorry but I've watched missions suffer too many times due to the inability of the Air force to complete even the simplest tasks. They are the masters of getting everything for doing little to nothing. I've had to work in joint units along side of them and the people that populate their ranks are a joke with the exception of the select few who belong in a better unit. They have MOSs that guarantee you'll never have to do anything combat related and they somehow manage to pay over inflated bonuses to people who contribute nothing to our efforts while those of us who get paid to shed blood get table scraps. I'll fly with a Marine or Naval aviator any day, but if I were CinC the Air Force would be facing some pretty damned rough times right now.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

congress is not on social security

Try again.

Quote

Under a law enacted in 1983, all members of Congress both contribute to and receive benefits from the Social Security system.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp






________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[skipbelt 0]

who pooted ?

[billvon 2,394]

>congress is not on social security

Yes, they are. I think you might be watching FOX News a bit too much.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

(1) Social Security - grandfather in all persons in the program at this time. Start with a 6% cut in benefits paid. Raise the age to draw SS by one year every five years and drop the benefit by 6% every five years until I reach the age of 65. Decrease by 1% the payroll deduction for SSI.

For those who don't think that top policy wonks monitor my posts on this forum, evidence suggests otherwise...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deficit-targets-Social-apf-3631076174.html?x=0

Personally, I don't think they go far enough wiht entitlement cuts, but it's a start...

My wife is hotter than your wife.