View Full Version : Sequester.....bad news or good medicine?
gimmethesimplelife
2-21-13, 11:48pm
I'm just wondering how folks here feel about the sequester....Bad news or good medicine?
I have been reading that if these across the board cuts do indeed take place, there are communities in Virginia, California, North and South Carolina and Texas that will be especially hard hit due to defense spending cutbacks. This one is a double edged sword for me personally as I am against the size of the US military but feel for the affected communities if the cuts do take place. What will emerge to take defense spending's place?
I also have been reading about cuts to the National Parks. This one hits close to home for me as I have worked several seasons as a waiter on both the North and South Rims of the Grand Canyon. I am in touch with some folks from those days and the consensus seems to be that this time it's for real and the cuts are going to hurt. I seem to be moving away from the seasonal life personally but feel for those still in it and also don't like hearing about cuts in the National Parks as they bring in money and are an incredible national resource.
How do others here feel about potential cuts and which would you find most worrisome if enacted? Rob
'
The sequester is like a physician, unable to determine what's wrong with the patient or what treatment might remedy the patient's condition, doing nothing and calling it medicine.
The cuts are still too small. This year, despite all the wailing, they are cutting about 40 billion on a budget of 3.5 trillion. The deficit for the year is about 850 billion. In personal terms, say you were spending 35,000 a year when you only made 26,000 and ran up the extra on your credit card. Oh no, better take a closer look at the family budget and make some cuts! This 2013 sequester is equivalent to cutting spending by 400 dollars. You still owe 165,000 on the credit card, with a rising balance. 400 in cuts is better than nothing, but a total fail by SLN standards.
Cutting back will be painful no matter how you slice it.
But like the fiscal cliff, any of it can be undone or changed with a couple of votes and a signature. And I expect it will, trading smaller defense cuts for smaller cuts in other areas.
Well, if the budget is to be cut, across the board cuts are probably the only way to get it done because no matter what particular area you go to cut, there will be a lobby for that area screaming that their area is absolutely essential for the safety and well-being of the nation or that cutting their little area is so small that it will make no difference in the overall budget so you may sa well just leave it alone. IMHO
A step in the right direction. In a sense both the sequestration and tax debates are distractions from the need to reform entitlements. Even if taxes were to rise to the point congenial to the most ardent redistributionist and we were to gut most other federal spending, the unchecked growth in entitlement spending will of itself be enough to keep us on the path of deficits and ultimately inflation.
What I will find most interesting is weaving together the comments of my friends and family on Facebook, Twitter and if I can remember them, over the holiday dinner table, supporting irresponsibly blind cutting of spending with subsequent comments by those folks whining incessantly about how suddenly the things in our society that they rely on are no longer reliable.
My sister works for a big defense contractor in Calif and will probably lose her job with any cut backs. They have already been laying off people at her job site due to lack of contract renewals from the Defense Dept. Fortiunately there are already old multi-billion dollar contracted projects that are alrteady funded and will be around until completion but nothing new for her employer - which is probably the biggest space and defense contractor is the country - as well as thru out the world - with thousands of job sites and hundreds of thousands of employees.
Calif state has already closed a bunch (100??) of our State Parks in it's budget cuts - and raised the annual pass fee, camping fees and day use entrance fees - so I imagine the Feds will do the same. Maybe just have some opened during the summer with reduced services and higher costs.
As I understand it there are very few, if any, actual "cuts", but instead mostly reductions in or elimination of proposed spending increases (over the past year's spending). The cost of living raises would be sequestered, not baseline spending. That only qualifies as a spending cut if you are a politician. About once a year DW takes our daughters out for a full day clothes shopping spree that coincides with some big sale event. Inevitably she will come home at the end of the day and tell me how many hundreds of dollars she "saved". Ah huh.
If I plan to buy a car for $30,000 and find one I like for $20,000 will I actually SAVE (read: cut) $10,000? No, I won't. And neither does Washington. I will SPEND $20,000. That's great if I need a car and have $20,000 in the bank, but if I only have $10,000 in the bank I have to go in debt to buy the car. Not only did I spend more than I had, I now have to pay interest on every dollar I overspent. Anyone here is sensible enough to realize that probably isn't the wisest way to manage money. Apparently no one in Washington does.
ApatheticNoMore
2-22-13, 3:48pm
As I understand it there are very few, if any, actual "cuts", but instead mostly reductions in or elimination of proposed spending increases (over the past year's spending). The cost of living raises would be sequestered, not baseline spending. That only qualifies as a spending cut if you are a politician. About once a year DW takes our daughters out for a full day clothes shopping spree that coincides with some big sale event. Inevitably she will come home at the end of the day and tell me how many hundreds of dollars she "saved". Ah huh.
No if the spending increases were merely inflation adjustments that is a cut by any sensible definition I think. Now over one year not adjusting for inflation isn't going to make much difference, it's like not getting a raise this year, and it is very common not to get such in this economy, so worlds smallest violin ... But it adds up over time, supposed you didn't get a raise for several decades, you can't even pretend you'd have the same purchasing power at the end even if you never had a nominal pay cut ever!
That's great if I need a car and have $20,000 in the bank, but if I only have $10,000 in the bank I have to go in debt to buy the car. Not only did I spend more than I had, I now have to pay interest on every dollar I overspent. Anyone here is sensible enough to realize that probably isn't the wisest way to manage money. Apparently no one in Washington does.
Yes it's definitely a problem if tax revenue is also not keeping up inflation, if tax revenue doesn't keep up with inflation than ultimately neither can spending, but that doesn't mean that spending being reduced despite inflation isn't a cut.
I sometimes picture government debates and how they might go in a corporate private section. In this case I picture a CEO big shot type getting the players together and saying, you guys have wasted enough time on this. Get it fixed or I'll get some one else to fix it. Unfortunately that's not a government option.
My read is to let the sequester happen and hope it causes enough problems that they come up with a long term solution and move on to something important, like say, escalating health care costs.
Get it fixed or I'll get some one else to fix it. Unfortunately that's not a government option.
Actually it kind of is but we just gave current management a 4 year contract extension instead.
As I understand it there are very few, if any, actual "cuts", but instead mostly reductions in or elimination of proposed spending increases (over the past year's spending). The cost of living raises would be sequestered, not baseline spending.
From my understanding there has already been a pay freeze in affect for about 2 years or so re cost of living raises. So basically that would continue to be extended.
As the original poster mentioned it will probably hit those very reliant on the DOD for their livelihood but economically it makes sense. Less war activity means less equipment and personnel needed. Sadly, I'm sure another war will come along at some point and it will need to be built back up. It's the nature of many businesses...everyone suddenly needs/wants product 'x' so that is where energy and resources go and then everyone decides item 'y' is better and those working in product 'x' industry need to adapt or starve.
On a personal note...I like to call all this American Austerity :) And, sadly, we need to make deeper cuts to make ends meet. But it has been a great opportunity for me to make a few suggestions for my husband to reduce his spending. He doesn't watch the news so he just catches the rumors and misinformation spread by friends and co-workers. This has FINALLY prompted him to start bringing his lunch to work!! YES!!! Hopefully it will last :)
Mrs. Hermit
2-22-13, 7:28pm
Gregg said: As I understand it there are very few, if any, actual "cuts", but instead mostly reductions in or elimination of proposed spending increases (over the past year's spending). The cost of living raises would be sequestered, not baseline spending.
I think it is cuts in actual amounts of money that the departments have. At least that is the understanding that the departments that I have dealt with have.
From my understanding there has already been a pay freeze in affect for about 2 years or so re cost of living raises. So basically that would continue to be extended.
Herein lies the problem. A freeze is not a cut. A smaller increase than a department expected is not a cut. Not getting a raise this year is not a cut. If a department was allocated $50B last year and will receive $40B this year that would be a cut. The metric of adjusting for inflation or any other force created by monetary policy only serves to insure we will go deeper in debt. It is guaranteed. This half of the solution is quite simple: we need to spend LESS than we spent last year and need to DECREASE that amount incrementally every year until we have a budget surplus that allows us to pay down our debt. Then, of course, comes that little trick that the extra money will actually have to be used to pay the debt. Or we can just declare Chapter 7.
On the current course that paydown will never happen. The Obama administration has taken this several steps beyond even the last Bush administration. This group does not even bother to get a budget approved by Congress! That is madness. What Congress would be willing to approve is reprehensible, but now the spending goes on with no set parameters at all. What is being done to this country right now by 2 of the 3 branches of government is criminal. The root problem is that our culture is broken, possibly beyond the point of repair. Have a nice day.
Wasn't disagreeing with you, Gregg, just clarifying that the pay freeze wasn't a new thing :)
Wasn't disagreeing with you, Gregg, just clarifying that the pay freeze wasn't a new thing :)
I know Dhiana, it just gave me a chance to jump up on the stump for a minute. We hear it all the time. Any increase that is reduced or eliminated is called a cut. It's an old political trick to be sure, but regardless of how long its been around its still dishonest. And in our current situation we just can't afford any more of that kind of delusional thinking.
Do you consider not renewing contracts as non-cuts? I suppose that would be the case since you aren't technically cutting any current contracts (say to a defense contractor) since they have already been funded, but will not create or renew new contracts when the old ones expire. But either way the lay off and closures to the defense instudtry - and those many community businesses that are hugely dependant on those employees spending money at those businesses - will have a pretty big economic impact on other jobs all around. When my sister's old job site - and it's thousands of employees - closed down last year due to not renewing a contact, not only were those employees laid off but it had a pretty big financial impact to the small community it was located in.
ApatheticNoMore
2-23-13, 3:04pm
The root problem is that our culture is broken, possibly beyond the point of repair. Have a nice day.
Maybe the root problem is the economy never worked period and the cheap hacks are coming unraveled. If Social Security is the only hope for most people not being in poverty in their old age and it's unsustainable, then this economy can't even ensure a half decent old age for people, talk about a failed system. Yea the defense cuts, noone realizes that all that already happened to things like basic science years ago. It's why this country is pretty much dead for scientific research for decades to come. But, no I'm not crying over the defense hits at all.
If Social Security is the only hope for most people not being in poverty in their old age and it's unsustainable, then this economy can't even ensure a half decent old age for people, talk about a failed system.
If Social Security is the only hope for most people not being in poverty, then I'd say the culture is definitely broken, as any culture of dependency is unsustainable.
Do you consider not renewing contracts as non-cuts?
Maybe and maybe not. The problem with looking at line items, individual contracts included, is that it is easy to make dozens of actual cuts, but just as easy to increase spending somewhere else. For my mind if the DOD is allocated $750B this year and $650B next year that is a cut. The DOD brass can then figure out where to actually apply the funds they receive and what to let go of. For the record I fully appreciate the impact such reductions can have all the way down the supply chain. The deficit spending has gone on far too long so there just isn't any way to make this easy or painless.
If Social Security is the only hope for most people not being in poverty, then I'd say the culture is definitely broken, as any culture of dependency is unsustainable.
In precisely the same way that automobile travel is broken because of the "unsustainable" "dependency" on seat belts and airbags.
Uh huh.
In precisely the same way that automobile travel is broken because of the "unsustainable" "dependency" on seat belts and airbags.
Uh huh.
+1
Does anyone remember that SS was started to provide "supplemental" income in retirement? Just sayin...
The original proposal (http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/fdrbill.pdf) stated it was for "old-age assistance" defined as "financial assistance assuring a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health". The word "supplemental" didn't appear in the proposal.
Decency and health... who would have thought that there would be so much forceful opposition to such basic needs?
I do like the idea, in the original proposal, that the estate has to pay back whatever anyone receives in Social Security once the recipient and spouse passes away. If we're going to pick bits of the original proposal to bring up, let's bring that one up.
I do like the idea, in the original proposal, that the estate has to pay back whatever anyone receives in Social Security once the recipient and spouse passes away. If we're going to pick bits of the original proposal to bring up, let's bring that one up.
Minus the amount that was originally contributed to SS, plus a fair rate of return?
I know it is helpful to go back to the original proposition, but times were different then. There was no medicare or medicaid and no 401Ks. I don't know how common fixed pensions were. I think the plan should be how one of the wealthiest countries in the world would like to provide for the elderly and disabled when they get past their reasonable working years.
I am surprized with all the haggling going on that no one has addressed health care costs. Not who receives what benefit, but the spiraling cost of health care that comes back in the form of higher costs for medicare and medicaid as well as taking a huge nick out of everyone's wallet.
Here's an interesting in-depth article from Time called, Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/
I am surprized with all the haggling going on that no one has addressed health care costs. Not who receives what benefit, but the spiraling cost of health care that comes back in the form of higher costs for medicare and medicaid as well as taking a huge nick out of everyone's wallet.
Here's an interesting in-depth article from Time called, Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/
Yes, I read this yesterday. Great article.
I know it is helpful to go back to the original proposition, but times were different then.Indeed. It surely wasn't my idea to go back to the original proposal, in this thread.
The biggest difference is that times were more barbaric back then, and so comparing us to them implicitly lowers ourselves to a level that they worked so hard to rise above.
I am surprized with all the haggling going on that no one has addressed health care costs.
We've been discussing that article in another forum. What I wrote there was this...
The only way I see us getting a handle on prices is developing and sharing the buying power across all consumers. Of course, not everyone would be happy with an arrangement that gets health care costs under control: Health care service providers, medical equipment suppliers, and pharmaceutical companies, and their employees and investors, all would be adversely affected by getting health care costs "under control". It sounds good when expressed as "lowering your prices" but not so good when expressed as "imposing drastic pay cuts on those angels willing to be nurses" and "big brother interfering in business' right to make profit".
From HealthBeat (http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/08/who-is-making-the-biggest-profits-from-us-healthcare-you-might-be-surprised/)...
Billions are squandered because, in recent years, insurers have tended to pay whatever hospitals, the best-paid specialists, drug-makers, device-makers and others choose to charge for their services and products, without asking: “is the patient benefiting?” We know that one-third of our healthcare dollars are wasted on unnecessary tests, ineffective often unproven procedures and cutting edge drugs and devices that, too often, are no better than older safer products.
That all makes perfect sense and probably sounds familiar to anyone who's had a "routine" annual physical recently. Forbes had a rational take (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/01/why-are-profits-in-the-healthcare-sector-so-demonized/) on why healthcare profits are demonized. One interesting thought from that article was...
In healthcare, profit and revenue are such dirty words that we speak instead of “reimbursement”—a term used to cover up the fact that a physician or healthcare facility aims to earn money from productive work. The use of the word “reimbursement” allows the evasion of the fact that healthcare is like any other productive industry and requires profits to sustain its operation. I don’t reimburse the restaurant for the food I consumed at their establishment, I pay them an augmented amount cognizant of the fact that I am paying more than the simple costs required to prepare the meal.
They went on to explain that, "Healthcare is actually not different, but just ahead of the curve in the modern antipathy towards profits." Food for thought.
Additionally, profit margins for different aspects of healthcare and different companies within each sector are all over the map. Here is a short list from HealthBeat:
• Amgen (biotechnology): Profit margin, 30.6 percent
• Gilead Sciences (biotechnology): 37.6 percent
• Celgene Corp. (biotechnology): 11.9 percent
• Johnson & Johnson (drug manufacturer): 20.8 percent
• Pfizer (drug manufacturer): 16.3 percent
• GlaxoSmithKline (drug manufacturer): 17.4 percent
• Unitedhealth Group (healthcare plans): 4.1 percent
• WellPoint (healthcare plans): 4 percent
• Aetna (healthcare plans): 3.9 percent
• MedcoHealth Solutions (healthcare services): 2.1 percent
• Express Scripts (healthcare services): 3.7 percent
• Quest Diagnostics (healthcare services): 8.7 percent
• Medtronic (medical equipment): 14.9 percent
• Baxter International (medical equipment): 17.5 percent
• Covidien (medical equipment): 12.3 percent
It is not necessarily valuable to compare different industries, the wide range of regulation, insurance requirements, liability, baseline costs, employee compensation and benefits, etc. can make it apples and oranges. Still, in the many years I spent in the construction industry our company's target profit margin was typically 17%. Sometimes that goal was raised to as high as 22% or 23% if we were taking on projects with higher risk and higher capital requirements or as low as 10% in recessionary times. One thing I do know about the business of actually providing healthcare is that it is extremely capital intensive. It's curious that HealthBeat did not include many actual providers on the list above, but I can't imagine their numbers overall are above the three listed that are right at 4%. It is interesting that the big winners on the list are two biotech companies and JNJ, who also generates profits from a huge consumer products division.
flowerseverywhere
2-25-13, 11:33am
If Social Security is the only hope for most people not being in poverty, then I'd say the culture is definitely broken, as any culture of dependency is unsustainable.
I don't disagree, and want to add the goverment machine is also in a culture of dependency- but the budget decisions by our elected officials are not necessarily being made in the best interest of the people but the best interest of the pacs and with an eye towards re-election or post government appointments.
here is my budget solution. Have a government agency (or even a small department) post their budget here. There would be lots of useful solutions to the "bridge to nowhere" and redundency type items.
ApatheticNoMore
2-25-13, 2:40pm
I talk about Social Security rather than healthcare because I think SS can be preserved, just a basic old age income guarantee, I really like that program. Whereas I think healthcare in this country is a complete and utter disaster cluster@#$#, with or without Obamacare, and the task of preserving one part of it: Medicare, while the whole system is such a cluster is not an easy one. It gets more and more expensive to fund Medicare, ok, but it gets harder and harder for *anyone* to afford healthcare at this point, employers, individuals, even those younger (and thus on average healthier) than the Medicare recipients.
SS as a supplement, maybe, in the best times it was one leg of a 3 legged stool: pensions, Social Security, and individual savings (haha in the best times you didn't gamble your money in the stockmarket just to keep up with inflation either, but I digress). Now I don't even KNOW ANYONE in my age group who has a pension. So it's down to individual savings and SS and there is no way most people are going to have enough with individual savings alone.
As for profits in the healthcare industry being bad being a new idea. No, I think it's a VERY OLD idea really. Ok profits weren't necessarily "bad", there's really no need to get into the moralistic stuff, but many of the HMOs were actually started as non-profits!!!! Really. Blue cross/blue shield was. A few still legally are, although I question whether they deserve to be (Kaiser cough). The idea did not originally arise as a for profit idea! The for profit status is the new fangled thing, hows that working out?
As for profits in the healthcare industry being bad being a new idea. No, I think it's a VERY OLD idea really.
Yea, I'm pretty sure Hippocrates got paid for his labor.
Yea, I'm pretty sure Hippocrates got paid for his labor.
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure no one is asking health care professionals to work for free. Just like police and firemen don't work for free. They just don't try to make a profit for their 'company'.:~)
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure no one is asking health care professionals to work for free. Just like police and firemen don't work for free. They just don't try to make a profit for their 'company'.:~)
Seriously peggy? You know that police and firemen are public employees and that they are not directly paid by consumers for their services, but instead are paid through taxation. All I can garner from your comment is that you would like the entire healthcare industry to function the same way. Is that true? Would you support "nationalization" of healthcare? It should accomplish all your goals, but we may have to move this discussion over to the loss of freedom thread...
Peggy's point was very clear, and quite well-founded: Like police protect the public from the effects of crime, and like firemen protect the public from the effects of fire, physicians and other health professionals should protect the public from the effects of physiological maladies. The fact that one of these three have been allowed to operate exclusively as a private sector, instead of being divided into a public sector (police, fire departments, basic health care roughly as defined as the minimum coverage in ACA) and a private sector (private security, body guards, etc.; in-home sprinkler systems, private loss prevention measures and professionals, etc.; cosmetic surgery, elective medicine, etc.)
Peggy's point was very clear, and quite well-founded: Like police protect the public from the effects of crime, and like firemen protect the public from the effects of fire, physicians and other health professionals should protect the public from the effects of physiological maladies. The fact that one of these three have been allowed to operate exclusively as a private sector, instead of being divided into a public sector (police, fire departments, basic health care roughly as defined as the minimum coverage in ACA) and a private sector (private security, body guards, etc.; in-home sprinkler systems, private loss prevention measures and professionals, etc.; cosmetic surgery, elective medicine, etc.)
What about other basic essentials such as food, clothing, shelter? Should it all be absorbed by the government and doled out to the citizens to ensure that no one profits?
What about other basic essentials such as food, clothing, shelter? Should it all be absorbed by the government and doled out to the citizens to ensure that no one profits?
Ahh, the 'ol slippery slope.....and if we let women vote, we'll have to let dogs and cats vote next! And if we let gays marry, then adults will want to marry children, or animals! ;)
And, considering how much we subsidise the ag business, isn't it kind of a 'government' program anyway?
Seriously peggy? You know that police and firemen are public employees and that they are not directly paid by consumers for their services, but instead are paid through taxation. All I can garner from your comment is that you would like the entire healthcare industry to function the same way. Is that true? Would you support "nationalization" of healthcare? It should accomplish all your goals, but we may have to move this discussion over to the loss of freedom thread...
Yes Gregg, that's exactly what I want. Nationalized medicine. It works for every other modern country out there. And they all rank higher on all sorts of lists (infant survivability, good population health, etc..) than we do with out 'oh so wonderful' health care system.
Exactly which 'freedom' are we losing by nationalizing health care? The 'freedom' to go bankrupt? The 'freedom' to die from lack of some extremely expensive medicine? Or perhaps the 'freedom' of inequality?
Oh, I know, equality is a dirty word to the right. But we already have equality in fire protection, police protection (at least we can pretend) and even library access (where there are libraries). We are supposed to have equality in representation, and public education. (again, let's just pretend, for the sake of argument)
Do we lose any freedom with those equal access (equality) issues?
Isn't it a fact that those services offered in equal access are what makes this country great! Isn't this what drives people to view the US as the land of opportunity?
Don't these make life better for us all?
Ahh, the 'ol slippery slope.....and if we let women vote, we'll have to let dogs and cats vote next! And if we let gays marry, then adults will want to marry children, or animals! ;)
I'll agree that it's a slippery slope, but wonder what sets health care apart from other basic needs, and why?
I'll agree that it's a slippery slope, but wonder what sets health care apart from other basic needs, and why?
What sets needs like police, fire, roads, schools, military and others apart from other basic needs, and why?
ApatheticNoMore
2-26-13, 5:39pm
What sets needs like police, fire, roads, schools, military and others apart from other basic needs, and why?
Probably whatever makes it necessary to get insurance to cover healthcare and not food, or shelter or clothing. So yes it is fundementally different that way, as I've never seen clothing or rent or food insurance. (Yes, I realize there is some government safety net for these things, but I don't see those minor helps as in any way analagous to a totally insurance based product).
Probably whatever makes it necessary to get insurance to cover healthcare and not food, or shelter or clothing. So yes it is fundementally different that way, as I've never seen clothing or rent or food insurance. (Yes, I realize there is some government safety net for these things, but I don't see those minor helps as in any way analagous to a totally insurance based product).
Once upon a time those who got firefighters to put the fire out in their house or business were only the ones who had bought insurance. Once upon a time many roads and bridges were privately built. Once upon a time people paid to send their K-12 kids to school. It was decided to have these funded through government.
Also nationalized healthcare would not need insurance, although it could be an option (like Medicare).
What about other basic essentials such as food, clothing, shelter? Should it all be absorbed by the government and doled out to the citizens to ensure that no one profits?
Soon enough my friend, soon enough.
Yes Gregg, that's exactly what I want. Nationalized medicine.
See above. Chavez in '16!
gimmethesimplelife
2-27-13, 12:44am
Yes Gregg, that's exactly what I want. Nationalized medicine. It works for every other modern country out there. And they all rank higher on all sorts of lists (infant survivability, good population health, etc..) than we do with out 'oh so wonderful' health care system.
Exactly which 'freedom' are we losing by nationalizing health care? The 'freedom' to go bankrupt? The 'freedom' to die from lack of some extremely expensive medicine? Or perhaps the 'freedom' of inequality?
Oh, I know, equality is a dirty word to the right. But we already have equality in fire protection, police protection (at least we can pretend) and even library access (where there are libraries). We are supposed to have equality in representation, and public education. (again, let's just pretend, for the sake of argument)
Do we lose any freedom with those equal access (equality) issues?
Isn't it a fact that those services offered in equal access are what makes this country great! Isn't this what drives people to view the US as the land of opportunity?
Don't these make life better for us all?Peggy, I couldn't have said this any better myself. A big plus one from me on this one!
gimmethesimplelife
2-27-13, 12:48am
See above. Chavez in '16!I guess this one boils down to social class too like so many other issues. Sigh. Chavez actually has done a great deal of good for the poor in Venezuela - for the upper classes and to some degree what is left of the Venezuelan middle class, not so much. I'll give you that. But for the poor he has been a blessing in many ways. I have to respect him for that as there does not seem to be anything near an equal advocate for the poor in the US.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-27-13, 12:52am
Soon enough my friend, soon enough.Personally I've never felt that housing should be allowed to be done on such a boom and bust profit/loss basis....I'd be much more comfortable with housing being done on a not-for-profit basis. Ditto for food - at least for basic foodstuffs. Extravagant or luxury foods - yes, I'm ok with those being done on a profit basis, to me there is a clear difference between the two types of food. I know there will be those here who disagree with this so I will put it this way - To me it boils down to people being more important than profits. But I also understand that a little bit of profit motive is not always a bad thing....so for housing, maybe luxury housing on a profit basis, standard everyday housing not so much. Rob
What about other basic essentials such as food, clothing, shelter? Should it all be absorbed by the government and doled out to the citizens to ensure that no one profits?I never said that anything should be exclusively "doled out" and that no one profits. I actually said the exact opposite, outlining a difference between what is within the realm of public obligation and what should rightfully be within the realm of private, profit-oriented pursuit. Why did you find it necessary to corrupt what I wrote into something childishly easy to argue against instead of replying to what I actually wrote? I can only conclude that it is because you realize, even though you're unwilling to admit it, that you couldn't refute the point on the merits and instead could only effectively do so by throwing FUD around.
I never said that anything should be exclusively "doled out" and that no one profits. I actually said the exact opposite, outlining a difference between what is within the realm of public obligation and what should rightfully be within the realm of private, profit-oriented pursuit. Why did you find it necessary to corrupt what I wrote into something childishly easy to argue against instead of replying to what I actually wrote? I can only conclude that it is because you realize, even though you're unwilling to admit it, that you couldn't refute the point on the merits and instead could only effectively do so by throwing FUD around.
Or maybe I was just curious about why one particular basic need might trump others in our rush to remove profit from the landscape, and perhaps your conclusion is the result of a desire to bicker rather than have an honest discussion.
I also wonder what role profit plays in innovation and better outcomes for the individual in the present healthcare arena and what effect it's removal would have.
Personally I've never felt that housing should be allowed to be done on such a boom and bust profit/loss basis....I'd be much more comfortable with housing being done on a not-for-profit basis. Ditto for food - at least for basic foodstuffs. Extravagant or luxury foods - yes, I'm ok with those being done on a profit basis, to me there is a clear difference between the two types of food. I know there will be those here who disagree with this so I will put it this way - To me it boils down to people being more important than profits. But I also understand that a little bit of profit motive is not always a bad thing....so for housing, maybe luxury housing on a profit basis, standard everyday housing not so much. Rob
Is it builders of new houses who can't profit in this world you define? Are those who renovate houses allowed a profit? Regardless, you can relax, there are plenty of both in my immediate area who lost their shirts in the last housing bubble, so plenty of greedy capitalists got your justice served to them. I am idly wondering if my DH would be allowed to do the work he does in your utopian world: he does fixes to houses. Probably you would want him to donate his time for "basic" fixes such as plumbing leaks and smoke alarm installation. Perhaps he's be able to make a profit on upgrading someone's bathroom because that would be a "luxury." Hard to know, sounds like a regulating nightmare to me, but think of all of the bureaucrats that would be plumping up the government rolls to carry out your plan.
I guess this one boils down to social class too like so many other issues.
Class warfare. What an original concept. Seriously Rob, that may be a classic talking point, but it does nothing to advance any form of solution whatsoever.
Sigh. Chavez actually has done a great deal of good for the poor in Venezuela - for the upper classes and to some degree what is left of the Venezuelan middle class, not so much. I'll give you that. But for the poor he has been a blessing in many ways. I have to respect him for that as there does not seem to be anything near an equal advocate for the poor in the US.....Rob
I disagree. There is a group of us that heads to Venezuela every few years so we've had a chance to see what is going on. There has been a lot of economic development in Caracas. Heading from the airport into the city you'd think you were in Miami if it wasn't for the mountains. Its all show, built up for the tourists and the wealthy in VZ. Caracas is somewhere around 5 million people. Our guide down there guessed that 3 million of them live in the barrios (slums) on the hills around the city. I can't verify that for sure, but from the air it doesn't look like an outlandish guess. Our group goes south from Caracas, into the country along the Rio Orinoco. Almost everyone we see outside the city is extremely poor. Subsistance farming and fishing in the rivers are about all they have for food. There are very few, if any, schools or highways or any other signs that the Chavez regime is working to improve conditions there. The oil money goes to those few high profile projects in the cities and the rest into the pockets of a small group of very wealthy Chavez supporters.
Chavez thinks he is the modern day El Libertador, but he isn't anything more than a dictator who stops at nothing to silence his critics inside the country. If you want a little more insight into the man watch an episode of his tv show. My Spanish isn't good enough to keep up with all his interviews, but his singing and dancing are entertaining (aka..he's nuts).
Personally I've never felt that housing should be allowed to be done on such a boom and bust profit/loss basis....I'd be much more comfortable with housing being done on a not-for-profit basis. Ditto for food - at least for basic foodstuffs.
Wow. Just wow. I guess clothing is about the only thing left that we would need to provide for ourselves. Or do we all get orange jump suits with a convenient identification number embroidered on the pocket? That would take so much stress out of the daily routine...
catherine
2-27-13, 10:41am
I'll agree that it's a slippery slope, but wonder what sets health care apart from other basic needs, and why?
At the moment, one distinction I can think about is affordability. Not too many go bankrupt and/or die over food bills, and for those who don't have means there are government programs and food banks. If you can't afford a house you can rent. Typically most basic needs are achievable with some kind of reasonable income.
Unfortunately, that's not the case with healthcare. Healthcare costs are absolutely prohibitive these days, insanely inflated, and not having the money to pay for it is a very real threat to quality of life and to life itself. Steven Brill's article this week in Time was brilliant in illustrating the sad truth of why, if you don't have insurance, you are scr*wed.
And, so you get insurance--well, insurance prices are ridiculous, too. I pay, along with my husband, $1400 a month. This is not a Cadillac plan. I have a very high deductible. I would go without it, frankly, because I am very healthy (knock on wood) and I feel like I'm throwing money out the window every month. But I have to be realistic about the possibility of needing it down the road. So I pay just as much for health insurance as I do for my mortgage. The thought of it makes me sick. It doesn't make sense.
iris lily
2-27-13, 11:05am
Wow. Just wow. I guess clothing is about the only thing left that we would need to provide for ourselves. Or do we all get orange jump suits with a convenient identification number embroidered on the pocket? That would take so much stress out of the daily routine...
I am thinking that perhaps when Rob serves basic foods at his restaurant he shouldn't get paid for that. Instead, he should hustle only to get tips on the luxury items. Bread, meat, veg--no tips for you! Creme Brulee and and expresso--there's your profit! I like that. In fact, I don't see why we can't send EVERYONE to the Grand Canyon to experience that majestic American icon of nature! Bus in my neighbor kids from the projects at taxpayer expense, why not? Since they'd be provided basic eats at no cost, why SHOULD they be robbed of this experience when others who have stolen from society are able to enjoy it?
Restaurants preparing food for you is itself a luxury, not "basic food". This matter comes down to basic human decency, and people eating in restaurants simply isn't part of that in anyone's book.
Restaurants preparing food for you is itself a luxury, not "basic food". This matter comes down to basic human decency, and people eating in restaurants simply isn't part of that in anyone's book.
Who gets to set the parameters of “basic human decency”? Is there a BHD benchmark metric we can apply to transfer payments, drone strikes, abortions, NEA grants, etc.? Can we employ a corps of philosopher-technocrats to determine the level of Gross Domestic Decency we should aim for? Would they have the expertise to quantify how much of our lives we can safely be allowed to control ourselves and how much must be allocated to providing support to the collective?
Unfortunately, that's not the case with healthcare. Healthcare costs are absolutely prohibitive these days, insanely inflated, and not having the money to pay for it is a very real threat to quality of life and to life itself. Steven Brill's article this week in Time was brilliant in illustrating the sad truth of why, if you don't have insurance, you are scr*wed.
And, so you get insurance--well, insurance prices are ridiculous, too.... It doesn't make sense.
That was my take away from the Time article. Our health care costs are something like 16% of GNP. Advanced nations like France and Germany have costs closer to 10% of GNP. When there is the mere whisper of minute tax increases there is a huge ruckus, and yet health care costs silently increase sometimes in double digit percentages per year. What do we get? The World Health Organization ranks the US 37th around the world in quality of health.
I don't know the answers, but something is broken. It's important to our economy and national budgets,but no one in politics is talking about it.
What do we get? The World Health Organization ranks the US 37th around the world in quality of health.
One difference between the US and many other places is simply our lifestyles. As a nation we're fat and out of shape. I think the quality of our health CARE is ok, but as you noted Rogar, our actual health is poor. In a culture where a salad is $6 and a cheese burger is $.99 there may not be an easy fix.
Who gets to set the parameters of “basic human decency”? Is there a BHD benchmark metric we can apply to transfer payments, drone strikes, abortions, NEA grants, etc.? Can we employ a corps of philosopher-technocrats to determine the level of Gross Domestic Decency we should aim for? Would they have the expertise to quantify how much of our lives we can safely be allowed to control ourselves and how much must be allocated to providing support to the collective?
+2 (unless it is determined that is indecent in which case +1).
Who gets to set the parameters of “basic human decency”? What I wrote was that restaurants preparing food for you isn't a matter of basic human decency, specifically "in anyone's book". Now, if you disagree with that, i.e., believe that eating in restaurants, specifically, it is "BHD", then please let me know; it would surprise me and I'd be interested in learning more about your perspectives on that.
One difference between the US and many other places is simply our lifestyles. As a nation we're fat and out of shape. I think the quality of our health CARE is ok, but as you noted Rogar, our actual health is poor. In a culture where a salad is $6 and a cheese burger is $.99 there may not be an easy fix.
I don't think it will ever be possible to divorce lifestyle and health care to get a good look at our quality of care. At least one indicator might be infant mortality, where the US is again no where near the top.
At least for most industrialized countries, I would suspect the spread in price between quality protein and low quality carbs is similar to the US. What we do have here is an abundance of highly processed foods with low nutritional value that is heavily promoted. Maybe that is a part of our broken and costly health care than needs a second look.
I don't think it will ever be possible to divorce lifestyle and health care to get a good look at our quality of care.
Did the WHO have us at #37 in terms of health or healthcare? I think you're absolutely right about lifestyle and health being intertwined, but it seems like there are plenty of ways to study the level of care patients receive. Regarding health, a person's diet is a huge factor. A simple walk through any grocery store in the US reveals a pretty obvious starting point for a health study.
The WHO ranking was based on what they call a "health system".
"A health system consists of all organizations, people and actions whose primary intent is to promote, restore or maintain health. This includes efforts to influence determinants of health as well as more direct health-improving activities....".
They discontinued the ranking under criticism due to what I interpreted as what we talked about....it just gets too complex. One example they mention as a complexity is the life expectancy, which is influenced by firearm deaths that have nothing to do with the so called health system. I suppose we may never know objectively how we rank in terms of absolute health care as it is defined by the medical component only. Though I think the fact remains that we are not a hugely healthy nation relative to other industrialized countries and we are still number 1 in cost per capita for our health care.
There are other rankings, such as doctors and hospital beds per capita vs. health care expenditures, where again we are way down the list. But again has complexities that don't allow an over all rating of health care quality.
Interesting Rogar. It seems like the "efforts to influence determinants of health" would be off the charts complex to track, but at the same time it seems like a very obvious shortcoming in the US.
awakenedsoul
2-28-13, 8:09pm
I think spending cuts are needed, on all levels. I'm now able to live on $13,000. a year. When I was living on $20,000. I thought that was bare bones. I've been listening to Dave Ramsey and am actually encouraged when I hear how many of his listeners are debt free, paying for their weddings and honeymoons ahead of time, and saving money. It takes a real shift. I've made severe changes to my life. This is a different world now. Some of the old jobs just aren't there anymore.
As far as health, like Gregg I also think the main problem is that Americans in general are very unhealthy. We have such an obesity epidemic; many people are completely sedentary. Where I live, many of the foreigners who come to this country for "freedom," have lots of problems. We don't have borders like they do in Europe. It's very expensive.
I have some neighbors from India that live around the corner. At Christmastime I dropped off some goat's milk soap, a hand knit dishcloth that I had made, and some treats for their dogs. After that, the woman came to me and said that she wanted me to teach her to drive, drive her to the DMV an hour away to take the test, and find them a new place to live. (because they can't afford their rental house.) She also wanted me to teach her to knit, and on and on...I asked her if she worked in India and she said that she was a teacher. I ran into her husband last week and told him, "I just made this sweater and scarf." I was all excited about being able to make clothes. He got really angry. "You think you're so self reliant with growing your food and making your sweater," he hissed. "People need to help each other." (I had just dropped off some lemons and oranges from my orchard at their house, as well.) He and his wife are diabetic. It seems to me like they really believe that we should take care of them, like they're children. They had a vacation planned in India!!!
I suggested to him that he move someplace like NB that is cheaper than CA. I pointed out that he could probably find work in the Midwest, and find much cheaper housing. He told me he likes the weather here.
After 37 years of teaching dance and yoga, I believe that much of health is self created. Daily routines add up to positive or negative effects. Going to the doctor will not make you healthy. It's our own personal responsibility. For me, hiking, farming, living simply, and listening to my body are inexpensive and effective practices. I researched ehealthinsurance for the cheapest rates. My catastrophic plan as a 48 year old is $120. a month.
They discontinued the ranking under criticism due to what I interpreted as what we talked about....it just gets too complex. One example they mention as a complexity is the life expectancy, which is influenced by firearm deaths that have nothing to do with the so called health system.
Whoo Hoo!
We're #1!
We're # 1!
See, we CAN rank number one..in something!
I was watching Bloomberg news yesterday and the point was made quite well that cutting spending has generally not resulted in economic growth. The prototypical example they gave was Japan, (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHU11hrJQyzM) where even the typical citizen sits on cash and how that depresses the economy. In a way, the sequester is simply a perfect tool for decimating economic growth.
What I wrote was that r[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]estaurants preparing food for you isn't a matter of basic human decency, specifically "in anyone's book". Now, if you disagree with that, i.e., believe that eating in restaurants, specifically, it is "BHD", then please let me know; it would surprise me and I'd be interested in learning more about your perspectives on that.
When you set yourself up as arbiter of what is and isn't "decent", you have to expect questions like that. If you want to exclude one item or another from "anyone's book", it means you claim insight into everyone's book.
I was watching Bloomberg news yesterday and the point was made quite well that cutting spending has generally not resulted in economic growth. The prototypical example they gave was Japan, (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHU11hrJQyzM) where even the typical citizen sits on cash and how that depresses the economy. In a way, the sequester is simply a perfect tool for decimating economic growth.
That has been my impression from the news and articles I've seen. It has made me wonder why the conservatives have been so animate about spending cuts while we're still crawling out of a major recession.
Our new last night featured a national park in the region where visitors centers and camping facilities would be cut back if the sequester went as anticipated. Which would probably mean less seasonal hires.
When you set yourself up as arbiter of what is and isn't "decent", you have to expect questions like that.Good thing I didn't do that.
If you want to exclude one item or another from "anyone's book", it means you claim insight into everyone's book.And if you're unwilling to stand up and say that you feel that restaurant meals are part of basic human decency, you're posting pointlessly vacuous nonsense.
That has been my impression from the news and articles I've seen. It has made me wonder why the conservatives have been so animate about spending cuts while we're still crawling out of a major recession.
Our new last night featured a national park in the region where visitors centers and camping facilities would be cut back if the sequester went as anticipated. Which would probably mean less seasonal hires.That's the real shame of a lot of this stuff... the sequester isn't going to authorize (for example) a permanent shut-down of some national parks, so the government will continue to incur the cost of security and infrastructure, but the public will lose access. Essentially, we'll be paying for a few rangers to be enjoying our nation's natural beauty. And this will apply broadly: The cuts will hit discretionary incremental expenses, but obviously will leave fixed costs behind, making overhead a much more prominent portion of the costs incurred. It is the epitome of penny-wise and pound-foolish.
I was watching Bloomberg news yesterday and the point was made quite well that cutting spending has generally not resulted in economic growth. The prototypical example they gave was Japan, (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHU11hrJQyzM) where even the typical citizen sits on cash and how that depresses the economy. In a way, the sequester is simply a perfect tool for decimating economic growth.
I haven't heard much discussion that describes using cuts to stimulate the economy. Most people know that is not the purpose and understand that significant reductions in federal spending would indeed hamper any economic recovery. But we need cuts simply because our spending is completely out of control and creating an unsustainable economy. In the 4th year under the current administration spending has increased by almost $650 Billion (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/)per year over the previous administration (from factcheck.org) who was already spending like they were on a runaway train. The 5th year, 2013, is projected to be even worse.
Debt, or more appropriately the risks associated with this level of debt, needs to be mitigated. Budget cuts are obviously part of that, but revenues need to come up as well. There are two distinct approaches to that. You can treat the economy as static and raise taxes on what is perceived as a fixed amount of money in that economy so you simply take a bigger bite out of the pie. In the other approach you can treat the economy as being dynamic and create an environment that encourages the creation of wealth and so gives you a chance to take a similar sized bite out of a bigger pie. Either approach will increase revenue. The only problem with the first approach is that you eventually will eat all the pie.
Going to the doctor will not make you healthy. It's our own personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility. What a concept. +1 awakenedsoul!
I haven't heard much discussion that describes using cuts to stimulate the economy.If what the economists were saying last night is true, then the sequester will make things worse. The basic idea of spending cuts is to try to balance things by lowering spending to be closer to revenues, right? However, this manner of spending cuts seems more likely to depress growth and therefore probably won't bring spending closer to revenues, because the damaging impact of the spending is as likely as not to significantly reduce revenues. A better approach would be to find things that the vast majority of people agree that society can do without and eliminate those things, specifically. It seems though that no one is willing to do the work of actually finding what everyone would agree is waste and do the work of gaining the buy-in for eliminating that waste.
In the other approach you can treat the economy as being dynamic and create an environment that encourages the creation of wealth and so gives you a chance to take a similar sized bite out of a bigger pie. Either approach will increase revenue. The only problem with the first approach is that you eventually will eat all the pie.
Agreed on the need for revenue, but the problem with your scenario is that "wealth creation" is more and more a game of money being funneled into a smaller number of hands, who more and more are simply squirreling it away through endless tax loopholes. Trickle down economics doesn't work for the majority of the citizens in the country -- the wealth created ends up in the hands of a very few, who are too nervous to spend it. An example of this is the enormous corporate war chests sitting, waiting, not hiring, not expanding, just waiting for things to settle down (some of those war chests courtesy of the Obama stimulus packages)
Do you have any other ideas, or ideas that will help this "wealth creation" benefit everyone, not just a few? I respect your brain on this.
On the sequester, here's an example of where I feel it won't be as painful as we think: A good friend is a high executive in the National Parks System. She, like many national employees, is feeling the shadow of sequester with restricted travel, expenses, etc. She is worried that there won't be enough people to run the national park systems, for example, because there won't be anyone to plow Glacier/Yellowstone/etc to get it open early.
So....don't. People haven't always had the ability to do the magical things we do, such as being able to visit a snowy national park in March.
There are probably areas like this in every national agency --- ESPECIALLY THE MILITARY --- where we just need to turn the clock back a little and dial back our bloated expectations of what we "should" have. And if we pulled $85 billion away from our military presence in foreign lands, I'd be perfectly delighted.
A better approach would be to find things that the vast majority of people agree that society can do without and eliminate those things, specifically.
I agree with that bUU. Bloomberg, et al, are probably right about cuts slowing growth, at least initially. To a large degree any money pumped into the economy will have a stimulating effect, no matter if it is spent on guns or butter. Take that money away and whoever provided those goods or services will naturally have to adjust. There is no easy way out of where we are, only ways to cushion the blows a little.
ITake that money away and whoever provided those goods or services will naturally have to adjust. And that adjustment will force others to adjust, and so on and so on.
I agree with that bUU. Bloomberg, et al, are probably right about cuts slowing growth, at least initially. To a large degree any money pumped into the economy will have a stimulating effect, no matter if it is spent on guns or butter. Take that money away and whoever provided those goods or services will naturally have to adjust. There is no easy way out of where we are, only ways to cushion the blows a little.
Are we really going anywhere different, though? We're only very incrementally reducing projected new debt. Which means we are still piling up new debt and the total will still keep growing by leaps and bounds. And if growth slows enough to reduce revenues more than the cuts, it starts getting ugly. Do you make even bigger cuts? Or raise revenues? Both of which have the potential of slowing things further.
If you need an example, look at Europe.
Agreed on the need for revenue, but the problem with your scenario is that "wealth creation" is more and more a game of money being funneled into a smaller number of hands, who more and more are simply squirreling it away through endless tax loopholes. Trickle down economics doesn't work for the majority of the citizens in the country -- the wealth created ends up in the hands of a very few, who are too nervous to spend it. An example of this is the enormous corporate war chests sitting, waiting, not hiring, not expanding, just waiting for things to settle down (some of those war chests courtesy of the Obama stimulus packages)
Do you have any other ideas, or ideas that will help this "wealth creation" benefit everyone, not just a few?
Part of the problem is the "loophole" because that term is now applied to just about any deduction that is available. It is natural that less people can take advantage of any itemized deductions than can't. Think about the mortgage interest deduction. There are more renters in this country than homeowners. The renters can't take advantage of that deduction so it becomes a "loophole" because it is out of reach to so many. But does that make it wrong? It's really not part of the sequester per se, but certainly needs to be discussed.
Using the most simple math, even if all the additional wealth created went to a select group that group would pay more in taxes so revenues would increase. The same % of a bigger pie is always going to be more pie. That is obviously far from ideal because an economy based strictly on trickle down economics won't work, but it would still help overall. In the real world wealth creation would be at least somewhat more spread out because the companies that fueled the growth would be owned by more than just the uber-rich. A whole lot of us in the middle class would be shareholders in those companies.
Wealth building itself is a bit of a misnomer in terms of helping raise revenue. If you own stock that you bought at $1 and it goes to $100 you have gained wealth, but unless you sell there isn't going to be any increase in government revenue from that wealth. We need to generate more taxable income. A lot of the middle class has traditionally worked for or owned small businesses. If we can create an environment that encourages growth in that sector it might cure a lot of ills. Trickle down doesn't work because too much stays sequestered (so to speak) at the top. Bottom up would never work because you'd be starting with nothing. Middle out has a fighting chance if for no other reason just because of sheer numbers.
While I agree that the concentration of wealth at the top is a cause for concern we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. If the middle class makes a resounding comeback there will still be winners at the top because the goods and services that middle class purchases will largely be provided by the 1%. I say its still worth doing because of the potential benefit to a couple hundred million people in the middle.
As for how the government nurtures that along, the only way I can think of doing it on a large enough scale is by using the tax system. Its only my opinion, but I do think shifting the tax burden away from companies is the way to go. It meets resistance because people's knee jerk reaction is to think we're handing over the keys to the kingdom to the evil corporations of the world. But that's not how it really works. Almost everyone makes their money from working for or owning a company (as a shareholder or a direct owner). If that company becomes more profitable it benefits all those people. If that is accomplished in part because we lowered the tax rates on businesses it would also be a reason for more foreign based businesses to set up shop in the US and for more domestic start-ups to pull the trigger. We're still the #1 consumer market in almost every respect. The main reason a company would avoid the US or a US entrepreneur would not jump in is just because it is too expensive to operate here. Reduce those costs (taxes) and we should see a pretty dramatic upswing in business start-ups, expansions and in multi-nationals opening US operations. All that means more people making more money and paying more taxes. Everybody wins.
And that adjustment will force others to adjust, and so on and so on.
Exactly. That is why the only option that works is to grow the pie. As other industries grow and prosper they will absorb the workforce that was 'furloughed' by the cuts. It would be a whole lot less painful if we could work this as a transition rather than falling off a cliff, but as you already stated none of our elected leaders seem interested in working that out.
Well the sequester is apparently a complete success - the've been able to implement across the board cuts and not call it austerity.
Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, unemployment insurance, and food stamps will not see any reduction in funding so I don't think it really hits the same notes that the offensive form of austerity, which we've seen attempted elsewhere, hit.
As far as the reduction in Veteran's benefits goes, that is true but there is a delay. We usually get paid on the 1st for hubby's 90% disablity and it's been pushed back 9 days. This completley scares me because we depend on his disablity on the 1st of the month.
Reduce those costs (taxes) and we should see a pretty dramatic upswing in business start-ups, expansions and in multi-nationals opening US operations. All that means more people making more money and paying more taxes. Everybody wins.
Puglogic, I had one more thought on this. The reduction in costs would have to be accomplished by actually changing the tax code. One of the reasons the corporate war chests exist at all is because of uncertainty. There have been slews of temporary measures enacted in recent years, but that does very little to reassure anyone that they have correctly planned for the future. If a change is clear and permanent then businesses can plan accordingly for the long term. In a way its even better to have a clearly outlined negative policy than a foggy positive plan. Anyway, everyone in business knows cash is a lousy investment because it loses value every year. There is almost no company anywhere that benefits from sitting on cash. Anytime you see that it is almost always because the leadership can't predict how future events will affect their investments. No one can predict catastrophic events or natural disasters or future geo-political tensions, but domestic policy (or lack thereof) should not be a road block in decision making as it is now. Remove the uncertainty and a great deal of that cash will flow into the markets in a very short period of time.
As for how the government nurtures that along, the only way I can think of doing it on a large enough scale is by using the tax system. Its only my opinion, but I do think shifting the tax burden away from companies is the way to go. It meets resistance because people's knee jerk reaction is to think we're handing over the keys to the kingdom to the evil corporations of the world. But that's not how it really works.
On that note, I read somewhere this morning (I'll have to go back and remember where) that Google is currently sitting on over $30B cash in other countries, ostensibly awaiting the right acquisition and expansion opportunities to come along, although some theorize that it is held off-shore to escape this country's onerous corporate taxes. The off-shore cash holdings of Apple Inc., may be close to $100B. When you consider all the other companies doing the same, it sort of makes this whole sequester thing look like petty cash.
Just imagine what that kind of investable cash could do for our economy if only our government didn't require such a large portion of it in order to play in our sandlot.
On that note, I read somewhere this morning (I'll have to go back and remember where) that Google is currently sitting on over $30B cash in other countries, ostensibly awaiting the right acquisition and expansion opportunities to come along, although some theorize that it is held off-shore to escape this country's onerous corporate taxes. The off-shore cash holdings of Apple Inc., may be close to $100B. When you consider all the other companies doing the same, it sort of makes this whole sequester thing look like petty cash.
Just imagine what that kind of investable cash could do for our economy if only our government didn't require such a large portion of it in order to play in our sandlot.
Why then aren't busily ramping up in countries that don't have these issues?"
awakenedsoul
3-1-13, 5:47pm
When the economic crisis first hit, I remember watching Suze Orman on Oprah. "Live on HALF," she told everybody. She also stressed that in times like these, cash in king. That advice saved me. She wrote in her book The Money Class, "If you own a business, and you haven't paid yourself a dime in six months, close your business!" I did. Because I acted quickly, I didn't lose any money. My father used to tell me, "Act, or you will be acted upon." Sometimes you have to face the music and let go of what's not working. I'm not surprised so many people are sitting on cash. Both Oprah and Suze Orman said that they had always made it their goal to "keep the money they had." They weren't reckless or trying to make a huge profit in a short time. Suze only invested in the stockmarket what she could afford to lose.
I still believe that if enough people fix their personal finances, and adjust, there will be a quantum shift in consciousness. I look around and see such massive overspending, just in my neighborhood. (And I'm in a working class area.)
Just imagine what that kind of investable cash could do for our economy if only our government didn't require such a large portion of it in order to play in our sandlot.
The part that makes the government's actions border on obscene is the fact that they would net just as large a slice of the pie if they relaxed the chokehold. The only thing that would really change is that the pie itself would grow by a couple trillion dollars or so. In truth I don't completely blame Washington for this because I'm sure it wouldn't be new news on the hill. To take these steps they would have to battle the perception of the voters in this country that was created with decades of demonizing business. You can't turn that around on a dime no matter how sensible it might be. Because of that we shouldn't be surprised that our elected officials are taking the path of least resistance.
Why then aren't busily ramping up in countries that don't have these issues?"
Some are. The reason they all aren't is that the US is still the destination of choice. Those companies want to be here and they will come en masse if we make the option attractive. Right now its kind of like being a store owner with a big crowd of customers, all with fists full of money, pounding on your door and begging you to unlock it so they can spend all that cash with you....but you can't remember where you put the keys.
12% effective corporate tax rate is not "a large portion."
And how many more times do we have to hear the fairy tale that if only corporations didn't have to pay any taxes, then the result would be an economic paradise?
I've said before, I invest cash too. But I also live in a first-world country with an infrastructure that I enjoy, and that is not free. So if 12% of my income goes to pay for that, it's a bargain.
gimmethesimplelife
3-1-13, 9:24pm
When the economic crisis first hit, I remember watching Suze Orman on Oprah. "Live on HALF," she told everybody. She also stressed that in times like these, cash in king. That advice saved me. She wrote in her book The Money Class, "If you own a business, and you haven't paid yourself a dime in six months, close your business!" I did. Because I acted quickly, I didn't lose any money. My father used to tell me, "Act, or you will be acted upon." Sometimes you have to face the music and let go of what's not working. I'm not surprised so many people are sitting on cash. Both Oprah and Suze Orman said that they had always made it their goal to "keep the money they had." They weren't reckless or trying to make a huge profit in a short time. Suze only invested in the stockmarket what she could afford to lose.
I still believe that if enough people fix their personal finances, and adjust, there will be a quantum shift in consciousness. I look around and see such massive overspending, just in my neighborhood. (And I'm in a working class area.)I couldn't agree more with what you have posted here and hey, congrats on not losing any money and getting out when you did! The only thing that concerns me with this thinking is....so much of the US economy seems to me, anyway, to be based on frivilous spending. If more and more people cut back on spending, (which seems like a sane idea to me let me stress), what replaces the jobs lost due to less frivilous spending? I'm not at all criticizing your thinking, it is just that this is a real concern of mine. But the idea of living on half....I like it. Rob
12% effective corporate tax rate is not "a large portion."
LOL, if my company had been able to enjoy a rate that low it wouldn't have re-organized as an Irish plc in order to enjoy Ireland's 12% corporate tax rate.
LOL, if my company had been able to enjoy a rate that low it wouldn't have re-organized as an Irish plc in order to enjoy Ireland's 12% corporate tax rate.
I'm stuck in the middle with most of the other small business owners in this country. If I could make it work to base out of Ireland or the Bahamas or anywhere that has a realistic rate of 12% or less I would in a NY minute. But the logistics won't work for me any more than they would for my mechanic, doctor, grocer, etc. I think the Democratic party's portrayal of the evil corporation is about to come full circle. They've harped on that for so long now that even rational, fairly educated voters no longer even acknowledge what a corporation actually is. They've managed to turn a corporation into the big, bad wolf that the Democratic shepherd will protect the flock from. It's absurd. Double taxation (i.e. taxing the business then taxing the profit distribution from it) continues to drive more money off shore. You don't have to go any farther than the aforementioned Apple, Google, etc. to see that it's true. The economic base, the jobs, the development, etc. obviously follow. That is a trend that won't stop and we're far worse off for it.
12% effective corporate tax rate is not "a large portion."
And how many more times do we have to hear the fairy tale that if only corporations didn't have to pay any taxes, then the result would be an economic paradise?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your saying Lainey. When you talk about corporate taxes who, exactly, do you think it is that is actually paying those taxes?
awakenedsoul
3-2-13, 3:51pm
I couldn't agree more with what you have posted here and hey, congrats on not losing any money and getting out when you did! The only thing that concerns me with this thinking is....so much of the US economy seems to me, anyway, to be based on frivilous spending. If more and more people cut back on spending, (which seems like a sane idea to me let me stress), what replaces the jobs lost due to less frivilous spending? I'm not at all criticizing your thinking, it is just that this is a real concern of mine. But the idea of living on half....I like it. Rob
Thanks Rob. I know that if everyone cuts their spending it hurts the economy. But, I still feel the crux of the problem is spending more than you earn. We see a bloated version of this with the government. It takes a huge change to break this cycle. You're right, jobs would be lost, but if everyone had savings, (including the government,) other avenues would open up. New investments could be made. It's so different, psychologically, when you have the freedom a financial cushion gives you.
I remember when I was on tour with "My One and Only," Charles Honi Coles, (a famous old hoofer,) told us that during the Great Depression he sold shoes. We couldn't imagine that. Selling shoes! Honi Coles, Broadway star...It seems incredulous. But, now here we are. I'm farming and riding a bicycle. I just think we have to adapt and do things that might be not so glamorous, but that are practical and sensible, for the time being.
Debt to me is like a magnet. I'm going to try and imagine a debt free nation. I think people would be able to have a much more balanced, peaceful life. Back to the orchard...I'm weeding.
awakenedsoul
3-2-13, 4:01pm
Where I live, the city government is having trouble attracting small businesses. I can see why, though. When I had my little dance/yoga studio, I made a nice 50% profit. I did everything myself and it worked out well. I had worked for our Parks and Rec for several years before that. I built up the program to ten times what it was when I started. They decided to take the studio away in order to remodel. (Everything was still brand new.) I couldn't teach ballet in a classroom with desks and a cement floor, (which is what they offered me.) I went to another location and rented. They let me take the students since they had no space for us. Later, as the program grew, they double booked my rental and tried to film during my class time. I called the police, showed them my contract and rental receipt, and the City had to give us back our room. I think small business owners get tired of games like this. The "I'm bigger than you" game. If I ever open another business, I probably won't do it here. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe a mail order homemade soap company or something...
I hear the City is now begging people in Santa Monica to commute here and bring their businesses. You can't have a city without businesses. They didn't see that at the height of the economy.
In terms of stimulating the economy, I'm reading The Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein, and I'm learning about a concept that's new to me--but then again, most things about economics are new to me.. It's demurrage: and because I don't know enough about it to define it, I'll let Wikipedia:
In complementary currencies' field, demurrage is a cost associated with owning or holding currency. It is sometimes referred to as a carrying cost of money. The term was used by Silvio Gesell. It is regarded by some as having a number of advantages over interest: while interest on deposits lead to discount the future and to place immediate gains ahead of long-term concerns, demurrage does the opposite, creating an incentive to invest in assets which lead to longer-term sustainable growth. Furthermore, demurrage acts like inflation, stimulating the circulation of the currency, encouraging economic activity, and increasing employment.
Eisenstein proposes that we actually charge people negative interest for hoarding cash. That would stimulate the economy. He says:
Whereas interest tends to concentrate wealth, demurrage promotes its distribution. In any economy with a specialization of labor beyond the family level, human beings need to perform exchanges in order to survive. Both interest and demurrage represent a fee for the use of money, but the key difference is that in the former system, the fee accrues to those who already have money, while in the latter system it is levied upon those who have money. Wealth comes with a high maintenance cost, thereby recreating the dynamics that governed hunter-gatherer attitudes toward accumulations of possessions.
Whereas security in an interest-based system comes from accumulating money, in a demurrage system it comes from having productive channels through which to direct it—that is, to become a nexus of the flow of wealth and not a point for its accumulation. In other words, it puts the focus on relationships, not on "having"
It doesn't solve the debt problem directly, but if we penalize people for sitting on too much cash, cash is allowed to circulate to the benefit of everyone. Because I'm still grinding this concept in my mental hopper, I don't have strong opinions on it, but anyone else have thoughts?
I really love the idea of moving toward a gift economy, which demurrage complements.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-13, 7:56pm
Don't we already in the real world have this right now with zirp and all? Isn't one already charged negative interest for holding cash? Look at the rate you can get for a bank account, on a CD, heck look at the rate on the 10 year, and then look at inflation as per say the CPI. It seems to me that there is defintely a charge being charged on holding money already. But it hasn't led to utopia yet? I don't actually dismiss the idea out of hand either, but I'd have to know how it differs from the status quo, how we don't already have it, or is it just a matter of degree (the charge would be more, a quantitative rather than qualitative difference?) of maybe in whom it would apply to?
Besides the fact that I've never understood how this punishment on savings would actually work out. Why do people save? Why does the tippy top of the 1% need to accumulate even more money? Um, I'm not sure I have any authority to speak on that, I really wouldn't know. :) But why might a person of much more ordinary means save? For retirement, for unemployment, things like that. And how would a punishment on savings not leave them in even worse shape for such? Because a very different society would leave all such things much more affordable and so on anyway, I don't discount that a priori, but I'd actually need to see it worked out, something more concrete, not just assume a unicorn. And of course we have social safety nets for unemployment and retirement, but even assuming NO cuts to social security ever, it's generally believed that in planning for retirement one should supplement social security with savings of their own (and unemployment isn't really much different, unemployment checks aren't particularly generous). If the safety nets were assumed to be the be all and end all, they'd probably need to be much better funded. If that's what he's arguing for, a much more generous safety net, ok, but I've never heard him say so. But it seems necessary to implement what he wants and not drive even more people into poverty because it's either the safety net or our savings (and currently it's both, which isn't a bad model), because if neither we have no protection from the existing economic system (when too old to work etc.) and yea I'd like to assume a unicorn of a much better economic system, but convince me it's likely :). Maybe convince me it's the best path to save the environment, but is there any best path for that? Doesn't almost any path, any serious attempt to deal with the issues, offer some promise if only there was any way to make it happen politically which is where hope usually falters?
I have read Eisenstein (sacred economics), the arguments I have encountered so far were not enough to convince me. I'm no great fan of banks or interest or anything, just practical is all, if I had had my way I don't see why the money that is being given to the banks, directly given to buy thier bad assets, couldn't be given to homeowners to pay their mortgages and we'd be at debt free utopia for the middle class (at least for mortgage debt for homeowners, I'm just a lowly debt free renter).
I really love the idea of moving toward a gift economy, which demurrage complements.
Demurrage does not sound like a good idea in real world applications. When I read the definitions my thoughts went to the Filipino culture of giving and also an example of tithing I came across.
I used to work for a non-profit organization that provided interest free loans to those in need. Over the years as a caseworker I met so many really nice Filipinos who needed things like rent money because they had given their savings to a family member who needed it. I love that they are so open and willing to help each other but now there is no one to help them. It really kind of felt like a Ponzi Scheme...everyone pays in but there were family members who didn't have enough kids or other relatives to cover what they gave out to the other relatives. So that left our organization to provide the loan for rent.
Or the really sweet couple whose taxes I did one year. They gave a much larger portion of their income to their religious organization of choice and were able to itemize their taxes getting a nice fat tax refund. I was happy to give them the good news but was saddened to hear they were happy because, "Now we can pay off our credit card!"
Gifting is good, within reason. Demurrage sounds like it leaves no safety net whatsoever. Not a good idea.
gimmethesimplelife
3-2-13, 9:51pm
Thanks Rob. I know that if everyone cuts their spending it hurts the economy. But, I still feel the crux of the problem is spending more than you earn. We see a bloated version of this with the government. It takes a huge change to break this cycle. You're right, jobs would be lost, but if everyone had savings, (including the government,) other avenues would open up. New investments could be made. It's so different, psychologically, when you have the freedom a financial cushion gives you.
I remember when I was on tour with "My One and Only," Charles Honi Coles, (a famous old hoofer,) told us that during the Great Depression he sold shoes. We couldn't imagine that. Selling shoes! Honi Coles, Broadway star...It seems incredulous. But, now here we are. I'm farming and riding a bicycle. I just think we have to adapt and do things that might be not so glamorous, but that are practical and sensible, for the time being.
Debt to me is like a magnet. I'm going to try and imagine a debt free nation. I think people would be able to have a much more balanced, peaceful life. Back to the orchard...I'm weeding.Hi Awakened Soul!
I think you are on to something here. I like how you mentioned the freedom a financial cushion gives you - it does open up possibilities and I do have some hope that if more people lived without debt, there might be some reorganization of society such that frivilous spending would not be so necessary and encouraged.
I like the idea of growing my own food too. At the moment I own a third of an acre lot in Douglas, Arizona, very close to the border and in my favorite Western climate zone - long warm summers but a definite winter with numerous hard freezes and even a little snow. It is amazing what will grow in this zone - Climate Zone 10 in the Sunset Western Garden Guide.
I don't know what I intend to do with this lot, but if I do end out remaining in the United States, I think I'd like to buy a mobile home (used) on an acre or so of land in Sierra Vista AZ - same climate zone - and grow much of my own food like you do.....Today I went to Starbucks for free coffee grounds for my citrus tree and when I was working them into the soil, it was so peaceful and soothing. I can totally see myself growing my own food somewhere with a good climate and fairly cheap land.
Enjoy your orchard! Rob
Demurrage does not sound like a good idea in real world applications. When I read the definitions my thoughts went to the Filipino culture of giving and also an example of tithing I came across.
...
Gifting is good, within reason. Demurrage sounds like it leaves no safety net whatsoever. Not a good idea.
Dhiana, to your point, demurrage is not the same as cultural mores. Demurrage is just a way to structure parts of the economy. Again, to your point, people would have transition to a different mindset to accept it, perhaps, but I like ideas that force us to challenge our own mindsets and beliefs. Your clients who gave too much--that's not the point. If BOTH the culture and the economy were set up in the right way, I believe a positive economic feedback loop is possible. But your clients are simply over-giving in the framework of a traditional economy.
And with regard to your tithing example: an economic system like the gift economy and/or demurrage (they are not the same thing--just complementary), your clients were just not good managers of their money. Tithing is a perfectly legitimate spiritual practice. Anyone who chooses to tithe can do so without running credit card debt. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater--just because your clients were irresponsible doesn't mean that tithing isn't a good idea. In fact, I think it's a great idea for many spiritual and psychological reasons.
And also, with regard to no safety net. I think if people are freely giving to each other, that's the best safety net there is. Money is an illusion of a safety net, in my opinion.
ANM: I agree that Eisenstein's ideas are a stretch, but that's what I like. I really think that if we could in our own minds deconstruct our belief systems and start from scratch, we have a better chance of properly evaluating the merits of alternative economies. Also, maybe conducting living experiments would help.
EDITED: I really dont know if capitalism is, by its very nature the threat to the environment that I suspect it is. I don't want to demonize capitalism per se--demurrage can still be practiced in a capitalist economy. But I'd love to explore other models.. that's why I'm REALLY inspired by Eisenstein, even though I'm the first to admit I don't fully understand, and I don't have any clue how one would put it in practice.
awakenedsoul
3-3-13, 1:30pm
That's great Rob. If you have a green thumb, I can't think of a better investment in your future than some land and a small, comfortable home. Owning my cottage outright and nurturing my orchard and vegatable gardens has given me great peace of mind. You can't put a price on being grounded.
Before the financial crisis hit, I remember Oprah asking Suze Orman, "What about all of these people driving around in cars that they can't afford, and living in houses that they can't afford?" A lot of this financial stress is self induced.
I can really relate to your story, Dhiana. I see so much of that. Many cultures have a benefactor mentality. It's in their family belief system, and they bring that here. I met a woman who told me that her husband left the Phillipines "where he had servants" to come live here. The thing is, the poorest people in the world have servants who have nothing. It's a different situation than Beverly Hills. She has her son in private school here. She wants to stay home with him, so she doesn't work. She told me, "I want my son to have the same opportunities as everyone else." Her main concern was that they were taking him to Taco Bell for his birthday, (at school, with the class,) and she didn't approve of that budget cut. She wants him to go with the other students to museums, cultural events, etc. I asked her why she didn't just save the money so she could afford to stay home and take him to museums and theater herself. It would be much cheaper. She wouldn't consider it.
EDITED: I really dont know if capitalism is, by its very nature the threat to the environment that I suspect it is. I don't want to demonize capitalism per se--demurrage can still be practiced in a capitalist economy. But I'd love to explore other models.. that's why I'm REALLY inspired by Eisenstein, even though I'm the first to admit I don't fully understand, and I don't have any clue how one would put it in practice.
I don't think capitalism, per se, is a threat to the environment, but I would agree that there are people who abuse the system that are. A true capitalist will realize that money is not the base of the system, resources are. Taking it one step deeper that same person also knows that all resources are interconnected. You can't destroy one without affecting the others. A couple of the problems that have evolved with modern day capitalism are that we've become too specialized in our planning, too narrowly focused to see how the dots are connected and we focus on the wrong goal (money). Don't get me wrong, money is an important benchmark in the system, but it lacks a real purpose when used as a final destination.
As far as the reduction in Veteran's benefits goes, that is true but there is a delay. We usually get paid on the 1st for hubby's 90% disablity and it's been pushed back 9 days. This completley scares me because we depend on his disablity on the 1st of the month. My VA benefits came on the first like always via direct deposit. That may change in the coming months though. But I don't believe any VA benefits will be cut - at least not yet - so you will pobably be OK.
Can't say the same for my sister's job with a defense contractor. They had an all-hands meeting yesterday to annouce lay off's and closures and consolidations effective asap.
My sister-in-law is a career federal employee at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Georgia. She advised us today that, due to sequestration, the lifeguard at the pool was furloughed.
Seriously!
ApatheticNoMore
3-5-13, 10:35pm
Haha. One day per pay check off sounds to me like paradise, I'd take the pay cut for it, oh I'd take a more than proportional paycut and then some for it. Unfortunately I don't and never have worked for the government. Those who have the extra time off for reduced pay don't want it, and those that want it can't get it at any price I guess. What a world ...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your saying Lainey. When you talk about corporate taxes who, exactly, do you think it is that is actually paying those taxes?
Is this the part where you tell me that corporations wouldn't pay, they would only increase their prices so it means customers pay anyway?
My answer is, maybe and maybe not. Yes, they can increase prices and then maybe feel the wrath of the consumer as they go somewhere else. Or, they could look at their labor cost including - OMG, the senior management - and reduce it so as to maintain their prices. Or, they could reduce their cost by reducing employee benefit packages and see if their employees decide to stay or jump ship. Or, they could make their business process more efficient so as to reduce costs that way and maintain their retail pricing. And, the taxes get paid.
LOL, if my company had been able to enjoy a rate that low it wouldn't have re-organized as an Irish plc in order to enjoy Ireland's 12% corporate tax rate.
Interesting. So if, hypothetically speaking, your company had a problem with one of its patents, would the Irish patent office take care of that? or if your company had a dispute with Customs on its imports, would the Irish customs office work it out? or if the company next to yours spills toxic waste onto your property, would the Irish EPA mediate the work to be done?
Or if your state declares eminent domain and decides to take over your company's location for a right-of-way, would the Irish courts be handing the case?
Is this the part where you tell me that corporations wouldn't pay, they would only increase their prices so it means customers pay anyway?
My answer is, maybe and maybe not. Yes, they can increase prices and then maybe feel the wrath of the consumer as they go somewhere else. Or, they could look at their labor cost including - OMG, the senior management - and reduce it so as to maintain their prices. Or, they could reduce their cost by reducing employee benefit packages and see if their employees decide to stay or jump ship. Or, they could make their business process more efficient so as to reduce costs that way and maintain their retail pricing. And, the taxes get paid.
And in each scenario, money is diverted from employees, customers, benefits, etc., in order to fund more government. I say eliminate the middle man.
And in each scenario, money is diverted from employees, customers, benefits, etc., in order to fund more government. I say eliminate the middle man.
My spending is your income; your spending is my income. It's a pass through, as has been said.
And I'm not in favor of funding more government, I'm in favor of better government. As most of us here have said, we could divert money from the war department pretty quickly to domestic needs.
We are still waiting for hubby's check. : (
Interesting. So if, hypothetically speaking, your company had a problem with one of its patents, would the Irish patent office take care of that? or if your company had a dispute with Customs on its imports, would the Irish customs office work it out? or if the company next to yours spills toxic waste onto your property, would the Irish EPA mediate the work to be done?
Or if your state declares eminent domain and decides to take over your company's location for a right-of-way, would the Irish courts be handing the case?
LOL, my company is in one of the most highly regulated industries on the face of the earth, pharma. We're under almost continuous audit from the FDA, MHRA, Health Canada, EMEA, Irish Medicines Board, etc. We pay taxes in every state & country in which we have operations. Would you deny us local representation based upon the location of our corporate headquarters?
rodeosweetheart
3-6-13, 7:37am
What an interesting thread. Thanks, Rob, for starting it. I find I am highlighting a lot of things by AwakenedSoul to quote, like this:
"I know that if everyone cuts their spending it hurts the economy. But, I still feel the crux of the problem is spending more than you earn. We see a bloated version of this with the government. It takes a huge change to break this cycle. You're right, jobs would be lost, but if everyone had savings, (including the government,) other avenues would open up. New investments could be made. It's so different, psychologically, when you have the freedom a financial cushion gives you."
Rob, I live in one of those communities, like Spartana does, that were mentioned in your original post--I am on the other shore from Spartana but have some in's with the Marine culture around here and am the daughter of an old Marine (semper fi!) I have watched with interest how these young Marines, with small children, are using their money and their benefits, which are considerable. It is hard at times not to feel bewildered at the spending that I see and the air of entitlement. I had friends where he just got out after 22 years, I believe, and she was telling me angrily that their share of medical insurance was going up to 475 dollars a year. PErmanently. She was indignant. She works, makes about what I work, but has no worries about getting health care, for her children, for example.
During the same 22 years her husband has been in, I too have been working, but as a teacher. I spend many years as an adjunct. I still gig as such in my off time. For a 16 week course that paid out last week, I earned, in real dollars, 500 dollars less than I earned for the same exact course 30 years ago, when I was pregnant with my son. These jobs do not come with health benefits.
This has made me hang on like the devil to my full time teaching job, which was 30 years in the making. I have done things over the years like teach in the hospital with an oxygen mask on, or my personal favorite, have my son write out my grades because my hands were paralyzed from the medications. So no, I don';t agree that if we all "live healthy" this health care nightmare is going to take care of itself--it won;t, because we all are unhealthy to some extent. I have COPD from heredity and growing up with a chain smoker. I didn't do anything to get this, and I have gone without medicine because i can't afford it, for example. Yet so many young families that I know eat out several times a week, have credit card debt, and will not need to pay for their kids' college education, because it will be paid for. My kid dropped out of college because he did not want to wrack up debt, and saw so many of his friends graduating from college and being grateful to find jobs that they could have gotten without college educatons. My military students live at a much higher level of financial security than I do, but they do not seem to have any plans for the future, although they tell me that they can get these huge contractor jobs for 100,000 a year when they get out--and they are mad that they make half of that for the same job.
So please know I am not dissing the military or dissing things like veterans disability benefits, I am not. But I do not think the current situation is sustainable, and I am tired of being the canary in the mines--I think very tough times are coming, and people are not prepared, and as Awakened says, if more people would save and prepare for a future without much money (because I fear it is coming), we would all be better off.
There is a lot of merit in what you've written, but there are two schools of thought that folks travel coming off of the realizations you outlined: (A) The need to change society so that it comes together to ensure everyone weathers the storm; and (B) The need to "invest" in weapons (I've seen it worded just that way, many times) so that those "investors" will personally be able to weather the storm even at the expense of others. Now there is, of course, middle ground between the two perspectives, but there are people who are already sitting firmly at (B) and others who are heading in that direction at a fast clip, and the reality is that (B) represents far more danger of physical (and other) harm to others than (A) does. If we cannot come up with a middle path, then heavily-loading the system with people heading for the more violent, self-focused path isn't a good answer.
rodeosweetheart
3-6-13, 8:34am
There is a lot of merit in what you've written, but there are two schools of thought that folks travel coming off of the realizations you outlined: (A) The need to change society so that it comes together to ensure everyone weathers the storm; and (B) The need to "invest" in weapons (I've seen it worded just that way, many times) so that those "investors" will personally be able to weather the storm even at the expense of others. Now there is, of course, middle ground between the two perspectives, but there are people who are already sitting firmly at (B) and others who are heading in that direction at a fast clip, and the reality is that (B) represents far more danger of physical (and other) harm to others than (A) does. If we cannot come up with a middle path, then heavily-loading the system with people heading for the more violent, self-focused path isn't a good answer.
A is so clearly the way to go. But I will say that B seems to be a very popular choice among many of the military families. Really sad. I see an "us against them" mentality in so many of the military as they get out and go back into the civilian population--they are already lamenting the loss of security, I guess. I just think that there is a culture of entitlement out there and it shows up in odd places.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your saying Lainey. When you talk about corporate taxes who, exactly, do you think it is that is actually paying those taxes?
Is this the part where you tell me that corporations wouldn't pay, they would only increase their prices so it means customers pay anyway?
My answer is, maybe and maybe not. Yes, they can increase prices and then maybe feel the wrath of the consumer as they go somewhere else. Or, they could look at their labor cost including - OMG, the senior management - and reduce it so as to maintain their prices. Or, they could reduce their cost by reducing employee benefit packages and see if their employees decide to stay or jump ship. Or, they could make their business process more efficient so as to reduce costs that way and maintain their retail pricing. And, the taxes get paid.
No, because that has nothing to do with it. The job description of corporate leaders is to find the most efficient way to conduct business because efficiency lowers cost and thereby increases profit. But, in that sense, it has nothing to do with taxes.
My question was/is, "who do you think pays corporate taxes?" The answer is the shareholders do, not the customers. A corporation is not a faceless machine, it is a conglomeration of shareholders. Individuals who have invested their life energy (YMOYL: money = life energy) into the venture. Whatever gets paid in taxes is money that does not get returned to the shareholders. If prices are raised to cover increased taxes it means prices could have been raised anyway so the net result is still money that is not returned to shareholders. It can't be used to buy their house or a new car, pay tuition for their kids, invest in other ventures, donate to charity, save for retirement or anything else.
If you tax a corporation the government gets their cut before the shareholders get paid. Call that "A". If you eliminate the tax on the corporation who will then pass that money to the shareholders they will pay additional income/capital gains/dividend taxes that should roughly equal the corporate taxes so lets also call that "A". From there you either have the government spending the money or the shareholder spending it. The difference is that the shareholder pays sales tax on purchases "B", and fuel tax on gas "C", and all the assorted taxes on their phone bill "D", and they increase the profit of the general store owner who then pays higher income taxes "E", and they buy a house and pay property taxes "F" and a car so they pay wheel tax and licensing fees "G" and so on. By simply diverting the flow of money from one destination to another we get the choice to generate "A" or "A+B+C+D+E+F+G..." from the same pool of money. That is why reducing corporate taxes in favor of putting more money in the hands of individual taxpayers is so much more efficient at stimulating the economy and raising revenue for the government. I will grant you that more would end up in the coffers of local & state governments and less with the federal government, but is that a bad thing? IMO it is not.
ETA: In case anyone thinks this idea is merely a way to disguise trickle down economics remember that (according to Gallup) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx) 54% of people in the US own stock in corporations. That is the lowest percentage since 1999, but still represents close to 170 million people. No matter how you slice it 54% is a whole lot bigger than 1%.
awakenedsoul
3-6-13, 11:45am
Very interesting thread. I'm enjoying it, too. I was listening to Dave Ramsey's radio show yesterday, and a man called in who works for the federal government. He was very concerned that with these changes he wouldn't be able to make his monthly payments. Dave questioned him and he makes $100,000. a year. Dave told him he would need about an extra $400. a month, if it happens. What was strange to me was how scared this man sounded, initially. (Once Dave did the math, the man relaxed.) He obviously had stretched his budget so tight that even a small change in his expenses was a huge problem. It's made me very relieved that I can continue to live on less by reducing my needs. Looking back, whenever I had a health problem or injury, I see now that it was directly related to toxic work situations. The demands placed on people now seem inhuman to me. Two jobs for the price of one, etc. Television glamorizes urgency, drama, and being behind. It's like you're supposed to be exhausted, emotionally combative, and overworked. Many people heal when they get out of the rat race. Your expenses really drop, too.
I'm also amazed at the military salaries I hear on Dave's show. I had no idea they were paid so well. I don't mean this as a criticism, just an observation. It's really good money...(My perspective is from one who has made do on $20,000. a year because I prefer the trade off for time, quality of life, etc.)
ApatheticNoMore
3-6-13, 1:17pm
There is a lot of merit in what you've written, but there are two schools of thought that folks travel coming off of the realizations you outlined: (A) The need to change society so that it comes together to ensure everyone weathers the storm; and (B) The need to "invest" in weapons (I've seen it worded just that way, many times) so that those "investors" will personally be able to weather the storm even at the expense of others. Now there is, of course, middle ground between the two perspectives, but there are people who are already sitting firmly at (B) and others who are heading in that direction at a fast clip, and the reality is that (B) represents far more danger of physical (and other) harm to others than (A) does. If we cannot come up with a middle path, then heavily-loading the system with people heading for the more violent, self-focused path isn't a good answer.
Change society yea, but most I know try to do this more at the: 1) non-governmental but community and 2) local government levels, not that this doens't sometimes include involvement in state and sometimes even federal issues. Out of some libertarian ideal? No not mostly and not primarily. Out of the fact that well D.C. is a captured system, it's entirely captured (a total coup) and under siege by big money. You'd need ... well not necessarily violent revolution (although there are times I wouldn't mind it at all) but perhaps mass non-violent uprisings or something to really change a system that corrupt. Is much better policy on a very broad level needed, oh considering some of the issues are *global*? Definitely. Where's the national movement for such? Haha, the few decent movements we get meet with both a certain amount of self-disintegration AND the more powerful and heavy hand of government opression (OWS). How, when our political system consists of ridiculous pretenses? When even Keystone XL protests, and those guys are well meaning and at least have a bit of a movement, cheers to any who participate, consist of an Obama logo (um uh, I know it doesn't help to assume the worst, don't assume it's completley hopeless, but also don't assume the dude is automatically on your side as he's likely gonna sign it - he hs in the past governed for big oil, maybe not quite as much as his predecesor, who really took the cake there, but nontheless) - we're screwed. You can try for incrementalism in D.C. but right now it's incrementalism on the losing side, hoping things aren't as bad as they could be. So act locally or try to build up a MASS MOVEMENT against existing policy? Neither are stockpiling guns. Maybe if we act locally it drains energy from the second which is needed, however acting locally has the advantage of ocassionally actually giving you that nice reward (good rat, you get a pellet!) of actually accomplishing something.
I see an "us against them" mentality in so many of the military as they get out and go back into the civilian population--they are already lamenting the loss of security, I guess.I just think that there is a culture of entitlement out there and it shows up in odd places.
My perspective on "a culture of entitlement" is a bit different from yours. When I look at military members, I see people who have served 24/7/365 for years - often decades - away from home, family or any kind of life beyond "working" in hazardous and dangerous conditions to "earn" those benefits. They work for very low pay - especially enlisted - and when you consider they don't work 9 to 5 and get to go home at the end of the day... or the end of the week... or the end of the month... or even the end of the year - then that pay is far far below minimum wage. They don't get holiday pay or time off to spend with their families, or sick pay, or overtime pay, etc.. It doesn't matter if they work 20 hour days 7 day a week (common), live in tents or barracks or aboard ships for months or years at a time, they get the same pay - a flat salary with medical and some extra benefits (like housing allowance) if they are married. Usually, because of the constant moves, their spouse are unable to work anything higher paid then a minimum wage job so you won't often find 2 wage earners in miltary families - at least not professional higher paid wage earners. Try to be a military spouse and have a full time professional job when you are only in one place (and often in foriegn countries with no jobs) for only a year or 2 before the next move. And unlike civilian employment where your 401ks or pensions go with you or be cashed in for a partial amount even if you leave your job, you HAVE to stay in 20 years to get the retirement benefit. You get nothing at all if you get out before 20. No partial retirement benefits or "lump sum" pay outs - nothing. To me they earned every penny of the benefits they get - be that retirement pay, educational benefits (they can't go to college even part time like a 9 to 5 er can with their work schedule), or medical benefits.
On the other hand I see all those healthy, fit, young OWS protesters who choose not to join the military and choose instead to have high student loan debts. They chose not to work while they went to college, and choose not to work after college at a minimum wage job or two to try to support themselves and pay off their debts (debts they voluntarily incurred) until the job market got better, yet expect the governemnt to pay for their education or all their student loan debts as well as provide higher wage jobs for them or longer (uneneding) unemployment benefits, and probably a whole lot more without them having do actually "do" anything to earn those benefits except exist. That is what I call "a culture of entitlement".
I see no correlation whatsoever between military benefits and entitlements. To those who think otherwise I say put in a stint and then tell us how entitled you feel.
rodeosweetheart
3-6-13, 3:42pm
Spartana, I hear you and I respect your point of view. I do not see what OWS has to do with this--I think this is the sort of polarized thinking that is going to lead to tremendous discord in the next few years.
I also think that an able bodied woman in her 30's complaining that her family's share of health benefits are going to be 475 dollars a year, because her husband put in 20 years in the Marine Corps, is a form of entitlement.
ApatheticNoMore
3-6-13, 3:47pm
On the other hand I see all those healthy, fit, young OWS protesters who choose not to join the military and choose instead to have high student loan debts.
They may have chose the student loan debts. If the money was in the military and the *only* alternative flipping burgers forever, I'm sure I'd choose the flipping burgers forever to eke out an existence though, whether or not it was a better life (or if the *only* alternative were cleaning toilets all day long forever etc.). Working for the military violates everything I believe in. I see the U.S. military as a force for ill in the world. I mean not that there might never be justified wars, but you'd have to go back to WWII to find them, so no not in our lifetimes.
They chose not to work while they went to college
I doubt you can generalize, most college students work (and that probably includes OWS protestors too), that they can't necessarily earn enough doing so to pay college tuitions well yea duh (the only way to do so is to somehow get a decent job WITHOUT a college education - not impossible - but kind of not why kids are going to college in the first place!). Of course some do have the bank of mom and dad (and really why not? if you are a parent and are financially able to provide an education for your kids, is it really so horrible), but most college students have some form of employment, not always full time though.
ApathicNoMore and Rodeo sweetheart - I was just using the OWS protesters (mostly young healthy fit people) just a example of anyone. It was a generalization that some people choose to work a very demanding (and often demaning and dangerous) job to earn the benefits to go to college by joining the military - or working elsewhere to save the money or learning a trade.. or whatever, some don't. If they choose to get a loan to go to college, and then can't find a job afterwards in that field, then demanding that the gov re-pay their debts and support them is asking for an entitlement.
I agree with the medical benefits Rodeo but military members and their families aren't suppose to pay anything that was the deal - yet now they must - .
rodeosweetheart
3-6-13, 4:33pm
I guess what worries me, Spartana, with these young families is that after Vietnam, the vets were treated shamefully, and all sorts of promises were broken. I worry that this is going to happen to these folks and they will not have the security net that they were promised.
I also find it weird that the benefits are so much more than they were after WWII, when my dad served and my husband's dad served. Here is a strange example--my husband's father served in WWII, killed three snipers, saved 20 people with him, and was awarded a purple heart and a Distinguished Service cross. He was shot in the face and in hospital for a year, had to relearn how to walk. He and his wife raised 7 kids on a minister's salary and none of the kids got any college money. He then, after he was widowed, married a woman with a young son (wife 25 years younger) and the Army was paying for the stepson to go to college 2 years ago. None of his children got any money for college. All my husband's brothers and sisters worked while in college. None of them received any kind of college aid or disability pay, and their father';s injury was substantial.
On the other hand, I did found out from Ancestry.com that both my great grandfather (Civil War) and great-great-great grandfather (Revolutionary War) received pensions from war service because they were injured. So I hopefully, the nation will honor what it tells its vets.
But everyone in my family, even with fathers who served in WWII, got no money at all for college, and we all worked through college. I think my cousin got money for college but my uncle was shot down over Normandy and is buried in the American cemetary there. There was no one to send her to college, and I sure hope the Army paid. My own two sons who graduated from college worked all through college. One has 60000 in debt. But he should have transferred to a cheaper school, so that one probably could have been avoided with more forethought and better counsel on my part. And I did my share of demeaning jobs, including cleaning bathrooms (where I worked, not just the ones at home, lol), to send them to college. I think he said he will have paid back his debt in 2018. So civilians work hard, too.
But can it sustain this level of benefits, especially with respect to these health and education benefits? Not just the service member, but all of the family members associated?
Speaking of military benefits, as a form of entitlement, here's my story.
I enlisted in the Air Force during the tail end of the Vietnam war and served a 4 year enlistment. I don't remember exactly what I was paid during those years but I'm thinking I initially made something under $300 per month and by the end of my enlistment was bringing in somewhere around $400 per month. Upon discharge, under the GI Bill, I was entitled to 4 years of tuition assistance which was somewhere between $300 & $350 per month as I recall, with any of those benefits unused 10 years after discharge being forfeit. I never considered that particular benefit an entitlement, but rather as deferred compensation for my time in service.
When I add 4 years of pay and 4 years of tuition assistance, I received approximately $33,500 compensation for my entire enlistment.
As a veteran, I was also entitled to a VA loan for my first home which I purchased in 1979. The interest rate was set at 10% and the VA would not let me have the loan unless the seller agreed to fix a hairline crack in the driveway and remove a tree which was, apparently, too close to the house. Neither of these items bothered me but the bureaucrats were adamant. This ended up costing me an additional thousand dollars on what was previously a $34K home. I sold that home 3 years later and never bothered with a government backed loan again. Not worth the bother.
At one time in my career I was interested in working with the federal government in a fairly competitive field. I took several civil service type "exams" where my education and experience were given a rating, with 100 being the highest, for entry level positions. I scored fairly well and close to 100. After some frustration of not progressing past the exam toward employment I was told that the only hires for the jobs had scored over a hundred. The main way to score above a hundred was to get bonus points for being a veteran or a minority. So there is one more veteran benefit...preferred status for federal employment.
rodeosweetheart
3-6-13, 7:50pm
At one time in my career I was interested in working with the federal government in a fairly competitive field. I took several civil service type "exams" where my education and experience were given a rating, with 100 being the highest, for entry level positions. I scored fairly well and close to 100. After some frustration of not progressing past the exam toward employment I was told that the only hires for the jobs had scored over a hundred. The main way to score above a hundred was to get bonus points for being a veteran or a minority. So there is one more veteran benefit...preferred status for federal employment.
Here is a link to information on veterans preference points:
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/vets/vetpref/benefit.htm
I guess what worries me, Spartana, with these young families is that after Vietnam, the vets were treated shamefully, and all sorts of promises were broken. I worry that this is going to happen to these folks and they will not have the security net that they were promised.
I also find it weird that the benefits are so much more than they were after WWII, when my dad served and my husband's dad served. Here is a strange example--my husband's father served in WWII, killed three snipers, saved 20 people with him, and was awarded a purple heart and a Distinguished Service cross. He was shot in the face and in hospital for a year, had to relearn how to walk. He and his wife raised 7 kids on a minister's salary and none of the kids got any college money. He then, after he was widowed, married a woman with a young son (wife 25 years younger) and the Army was paying for the stepson to go to college 2 years ago. None of his children got any money for college. All my husband's brothers and sisters worked while in college. None of them received any kind of college aid or disability pay, and their father';s injury was substantial.
On the other hand, I did found out from Ancestry.com that both my great grandfather (Civil War) and great-great-great grandfather (Revolutionary War) received pensions from war service because they were injured. So I hopefully, the nation will honor what it tells its vets.
But everyone in my family, even with fathers who served in WWII, got no money at all for college, and we all worked through college. I think my cousin got money for college but my uncle was shot down over Normandy and is buried in the American cemetary there. There was no one to send her to college, and I sure hope the Army paid. My own two sons who graduated from college worked all through college. One has 60000 in debt. But he should have transferred to a cheaper school, so that one probably could have been avoided with more forethought and better counsel on my part. And I did my share of demeaning jobs, including cleaning bathrooms (where I worked, not just the ones at home, lol), to send them to college. I think he said he will have paid back his debt in 2018. So civilians work hard, too.
But can it sustain this level of benefits, especially with respect to these health and education benefits? Not just the service member, but all of the family members associated?
Actually the benefits on the old GI bill (WWII and Vietnam era and before that ended in 1975 or '76) were quite a bit better then they are now. And they did include pay for college as my 30 year career AF Dad used them. The problem is that no one - especially the military or VA - is very good about getting the info out to vets back then. And they aren't much better at it now either. I'm a member of DAV (Disabled Vets of America) and a volunteer with them and the VA hospital in my 'hood to try and do just that - get the word out to vets - disabled or otherwise - about available benefits and help them apply for them. Unless you have a very obvious service-connected injury, it's very difficult to get VA disability and medical benefits - even a small benefit. Most people are denied over and over again just as civilians are when applying for SS disability benefits. So whether it's a career pension after 20 years (and I'll look up how much that is for an enlisted person but about 1/2 half of their base pay) or a disability benefit for a service-connected injury, I just don't see those things as entitlements any more than I see social security or medicare benefits as entitlements - you worked for them and put in for them for years and should receive them. And as Alan points out, the pay and benefits package is usually far far below what civilians would receive.
But I agree with you that there seems to be a sense of entitlement from many people now. Military and civilian alike. Like your example of your students who expect to get high paying contractor jobs after college. I see the same thing with civilian students. Most earning a business degree would never agree to start in the mailroom or as a file clerk. They expect to start in a higher level position not an entry level position. Same with a Journalisnm major who would never start off as a page or copy writer or office go-fer. Etc... Everyone expects to start off somewhere in the middle at the very least and seem to demand this. And when that isn't possible, rather then accepting a lower paid entry level job (something that was common for college grads to do 20 or 30 years ago) they demand that the government support them and pay their tutions off rather then take a job they feel beneath them. I think this sense of entitlement comes from age (youth) and is just as common in the military as it is in the civilian populations. They want everything now and think they deserve it without having to do too the hard work to supply those things. Heck if it was me I'd be out picking fruit and veggies as a farm laborer until I could do better. Again, something that eartlier generations seemed to do when times where tough.
From Wikipedia:
"The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346, 58 Stat. 284m), known informally as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business or farm, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend college, high school or vocational education, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to every veteran who had been on active duty during the war years for at least ninety days and had not been dishonorably discharged; combat was not required.[1] By the end of the program in 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 6.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program"
With the current GI benefits you must have served much longer than 90 days to get mnost benefits. Not sure how long it is but I beleive at least 4 years. Most service commitments are for 6 years - 4 active duty and 2 reserve duty. Also the money for dependant for college is can only be used if the service member doesn't use them. I think that is the case back in WWII as it is now but not sure. However there is a program out their for vets as old as 60 to go back to school for 12 months with fully paid tuition (up to $1700/month plus extra money for books and housing) who did not use their GI benefits and let them expire.
Speaking of military benefits, as a form of entitlement, here's my story.
I enlisted in the Air Force during the tail end of the Vietnam war and served a 4 year enlistment. I don't remember exactly what I was paid during those years but I'm thinking I initially made something under $300 per month and by the end of my enlistment was bringing in somewhere around $400 per month. Upon discharge, under the GI Bill, I was entitled to 4 years of tuition assistance which was somewhere between $300 & $350 per month as I recall, with any of those benefits unused 10 years after discharge being forfeit. I never considered that particular benefit an entitlement, but rather as deferred compensation for my time in service.
When I add 4 years of pay and 4 years of tuition assistance, I received approximately $33,500 compensation for my entire enlistment.
As a veteran, I was also entitled to a VA loan for my first home which I purchased in 1979. The interest rate was set at 10% and the VA would not let me have the loan unless the seller agreed to fix a hairline crack in the driveway and remove a tree which was, apparently, too close to the house. Neither of these items bothered me but the bureaucrats were adamant. This ended up costing me an additional thousand dollars on what was previously a $34K home. I sold that home 3 years later and never bothered with a government backed loan again. Not worth the bother.
My experience was pretty much the same. I think I started out at something like $500/month as a boot then once I was an E-5 with a few years in I earned a whooping $800/month!! Of course as a single person I didn't receive a housing allowance so had to live aboard my unit but I got free food and they kept me clothes in the finest designer duds the military could afford - old cover alls :-)! Can't remember what I was paid monthly for college but aound $350 or so a month. I worked full time in a civilian job while I went to school after I got out.
At one time in my career I was interested in working with the federal government in a fairly competitive field. I took several civil service type "exams" where my education and experience were given a rating, with 100 being the highest, for entry level positions. I scored fairly well and close to 100. After some frustration of not progressing past the exam toward employment I was told that the only hires for the jobs had scored over a hundred. The main way to score above a hundred was to get bonus points for being a veteran or a minority. So there is one more veteran benefit...preferred status for federal employment.
That's true. A 5 point vet preference for an honorably discharged vet and a 10 point preference for a disabled vet. I personally don't agree with that anymore than I agree with Affrimative Action (although I'm sure they both greatly helped me jobwise) but that, as well as hirering only vets in many private co's, happens just as does hirering only "current" employees for many govmint jobs.
My first "professional" job out of college in the early 80's paid about $1000./month. No health insurance, no pension benefits, no hiring preference points, no housing provided, required my relocation, etc. I was salaried and routinely worked long hours. Not to mention that it required 5 years of training at my own expense in terms of a college education. Not to diminish the value of those who serve our country, but from a financial standpoint it's no great boon, but not such a bad deal either.
My first "professional" job out of college in the early 80's paid about $1000./month. No health insurance, no pension benefits, no hiring preference points, no housing provided, required my relocation, etc. I was salaried and routinely worked long hours. Not to mention that it required 5 years of training at my own expense in terms of a college education. Not to diminish the value of those who serve our country, but from a financial standpoint it's no great boon, but not such a bad deal either.
Well, if you don't consider that one element of the job description, defend your country with your life during on-going hostilities, there's probably no difference.
I have the ultimate respect for those who put themselves in harms way in the line of duty. So don't get me wrong. I also have friends who spent all their military time celebrating an all year octoberfest in Germany. My first professional job was working with sometimes deadly pathogens in order to improve human health. We all make our choices on how we wish to serve.
An all year octoberfest? I've celebrated Oktoberfest in Munich, although it only lasts 16 days. On our trip there, we also enjoyed a night in Ulm during its Volksfest. I knew those Germans enjoyed a good festival but didn't realize it was a year round thing. For the military serving there, maybe we should not refer to it as a tour of duty, but rather as an extended vacation.
An all year octoberfest? I've celebrated Oktoberfest in Munich, although it only lasts 16 days. On our trip there, we also enjoyed a night in Ulm during its Volksfest. I knew those Germans enjoyed a good festival but didn't realize it was a year round thing. For the military serving there, maybe we should not refer to it as a tour of duty, but rather as an extended vacation.
It all really depends on the person serving doesn't it? We could say that just because it's military the best are the same as the worst - and the worst are the same as the best. But either statement really does a disservice to those who served well.
I was a military brat as a teenager - I knew a number of folks that likely got discharged prior to finishing their term. They partied with us and bought us beer and chased after the high school girls my age. Some had enlisted to avoid going to jail and did treat it as an extended vacation.
My school trip (I was in Vicenza IT), we went to Garmish. Beautiful area. Military there had it pretty rough, though, especially families. The exchange rate (back in the 70's) was awful in Germany - American dollars didn't buy much.
My first "professional" job out of college in the early 80's paid about $1000./month. No health insurance, no pension benefits, no hiring preference points, no housing provided, required my relocation, etc. I was salaried and routinely worked long hours. Not to mention that it required 5 years of training at my own expense in terms of a college education. Not to diminish the value of those who serve our country, but from a financial standpoint it's no great boon, but not such a bad deal either.
Every job, and the education and training to get the job, requires some personal or financial sacrifice - often lots of sacrifice - but my point was that earning a military pension and benefits are not "entitlements". Some people obviously feel they are but I disagree. They are earned just as anyone else who works and gets benefits would be considered earned rather than entitlements. And while it's true that to some people the military benefits may seem extreme, especially when they view many people in the service as doing nothing more than partying their entire time, when you break it down to actual dollars and cents, the average pay/work-time is much much less than minimum wage. And for anyone who's stayed in for 20 years or more to earn those benefits (pension and medical) you can bet that during much of that time they were deployed and worked almost 24/7 with breaks for a few hours sleep, for many many years. Of course we have been known to make up for that lack of free time when we are on shore leave :-)!
For my civilian job when I got out of the service I was paid $21,000/year to start (eventually made $45K - $3000/month after taxes and 457 retirement taken out - when I left plus OT and all sorts of other benefits) - which was more than I got while in the service. Even though it was a tough and often dirty and dangerous job and required crazy hours holiday and weekends on too and lots of OT (environmental compliance officer for a water/waste water district's industrial waste dept) it was unbelievely cruise after the service. Home to the hubby after work. time for sports and hobbies. Time for friends and family. Time for my pets (no kids but would have time for them too). Days off every week and lots of down time compared to the service. there was just no comparision at all between my service job and my civilian job.
Every job, and the education and training to get the job, requires some personal or financial sacrifice - often lots of sacrifice - but my point was that earning a military pension and benefits are not "entitlements". Some people obviously feel they are but I disagree.
No disagreement from me on that. I got the sense that discussion was headed in the direction that the military was under compensated. In some cases that may be, but I think for non-combatant roles military pay and benefits seem fair enough to me.
I think often speaking the military and many service type government and private sector jobs are lower paying by their nature. My brother worked for county social services and part of his career was spent evaluating homes with poor living conditions or domestic disputes to determine if the children should be placed in foster care. He had more than one threat on his life and never earned much through his 30 years of service. Some of the reward comes from knowing you are helping others, whether it's defending the country or helping the community.
For 2013 the base pay for an enlisted E-5 with 20 years of service is a bit over $3,000/month (and about 1/2 of that when they retirement) and an E-6 is around $3600/month with 20 years in. And that pay stays the same for any further time in unless you get promoted. Officers make much higher amounts. Then there are extras for things like combat pay, housing allowance if you are married with dependants, and some other things. Not sure how it would break down to an hourly wage if one was working 16 plus hours a day fro 7 days aweek for months (or years) straight at a time, but it would be much lower than minimum wage I'm sure - even for someone with 20 years in. But then there are lots of civilian jobs that are salaried too and probably work 16 hour days away from home much of the time. hard to compare.
SL discussions send me to do some research quite often. I ran across several articles using these basic figures with a little variation in context. I suppose that is what if fueling some of the national debate. I don't necessarily have an opinion on it either way. Just saying....
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/escalating-military-pay-under-scrutiny/nTKTr/
It all really depends on the person serving doesn't it? We could say that just because it's military the best are the same as the worst - and the worst are the same as the best. But either statement really does a disservice to those who served well.
There are cush assignments in the military. I met a guy who ran a trap shooting range in Okinawa for several years. Another who was the cook for a General & his staff. But those are the exception, not the rule. The rule is that at any time you could be deployed into a situation in which your life and those of your friends could be in jeopardy. That is a risk most of us will never face in our civilian lives and I think we should value that accordingly. Besides, I'm much more content to see a PFC draw benefits after their service than I am most Senators.
There are cush assignments in the military. I met a guy who ran a trap shooting range in Okinawa for several years. Another who was the cook for a General & his staff. But those are the exception, not the rule. The rule is that at any time you could be deployed into a situation in which your life and those of your friends could be in jeopardy. That is a risk most of us will never face in our civilian lives and I think we should value that accordingly. Besides, I'm much more content to see a PFC draw benefits after their service than I am most Senators.
You won't get an argument from me - miltary deserve the benefits they receive. They certainly aren't getting much while they are serving.
As far as Senators, beyond a healthcare plan they can help contribute to and possibly a small 401k match, I don't think they need much more than that. They don't seem to take much of an economic hit for their service so they really don't need all the compensation they receive.
I ran across the figure that for every combat soldier it requires something like 10 support personal. Cooks, laundry, transportation, clerks, medical, mechanics, etc. Far more support for airmen.
I too would rather see the benefits of congressmen up for debate. I could see that as becoming hugely popular.
I too would rather see the benefits of congressmen up for debate. I could see that as becoming hugely popular.
Wouldn't that be fun!
awakenedsoul
3-8-13, 3:05pm
The military couples calling in to the Dave Ramsey show told him they were making around $90,000. I guess they were higher up. It just surprised me that they had so much debt with that kind of income. Again, I don't mean it as a judgement, but I thought, "Wow! That's good money." Most of the people that call in to his show have an excellent income. Well, to me...
2013 base pay for enlisted:
Cumulative Years of Service
2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6 Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16 Over 18 Over 20
E-8 3920.10 4093.50 4200.90 4329.60 4469.10 4720.50 4847.80 5064.79 5184.75 5481.09 5481.09 5591.14
E-7 2725.20 2974.50 3088.20 3239.10 3357.00 3559.20 3673.20 3875.70 4043.70 4158.60 4281.00 4328.58
E-6 2357.10 2593.80 2708.10 2819.40 2935.50 3196.50 3298.50 3495.30 3555.60 3599.70 3650.70 3650.96
E-5 2159.40 2304.30 2415.90 2529.90 2707.50 2893.50 3045.60 3064.20 3064.20 3064.20 3064.20 3064.20
E-4 1979.70 2081.10 2193.90 2304.90 2403.30 2403.30 2403.30 2403.30 2403.30 2403.30 2403.30 2403.30
E-3 1787.40 1899.90 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80 2014.80
E-2 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80 1699.80
E-1 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20 1516.20
Rodeosweetheart and others also mentioned one important thing when it comes to military pay and benefits and that's is it's sustainability in the long run given the number of people in the armed forces. But something to remember is that a large number of those who have served over the past 10 years won't ever get any of those benefits. They either didn't do 20 years to get a pension and medical benefits and may not take advantage of the education benefits they earned. Also at this time the military has far far fewer service members on active duty, compared to both Vietnam and especially WWII, than either of those 2 times. I believe something llike 16 million US people were in the service during the (comparatively brief) war years of WWII. Even Vietnam had a far greater number of people serving (approx. 8,700,000) than currently (approx. 1,500,000 currently and only a small percent of those in combat). So statisticly there will be far fewer people using military benefits then in the past - or even currently because many WWII, Korea and Vietnam Vets are still alive and earning those benefits. Once they pass away (fairly soon for those 80 plus year old WWII vets) those pensions and medical benefits will no longer be paying out to them - reducing the financial burden. Then the Vietnam Vets will be next! Even the at the VA hospital where I go there are predomanatly old Vets - late 70's plus - and young Vets 60 plus Vietnam Vets using the VA hospitals and very few younger vets.
Wouldn't that be fun!
I'd like to start with all of their benefits :-) Actually I'd like to see it cut to 0 - and each congressman get their pay, benefits and budget decided upon and paid by their state, instead. Might not work, but I'd like to see them try it out. At least they would no longer be voting on it themselves.
I'd like to start with all of their benefits :-) Actually I'd like to see it cut to 0 - and each congressman get their pay, benefits and budget decided upon and paid by their state, instead. Might not work, but I'd like to see them try it out. At least they would no longer be voting on it themselves.
now that sounds like a good idea! +1
The military couples calling in to the Dave Ramsey show told him they were making around $90,000. I guess they were higher up. It just surprised me that they had so much debt with that kind of income. Again, I don't mean it as a judgement, but I thought, "Wow! That's good money." Most of the people that call in to his show have an excellent income. Well, to me...
"Active-duty service members earn base pay, and are entitled to additional money to compensate for housing and food expenses.
For example, an Army corporal would earn regular military compensation of $50,860 after four to six years of service. That total includes $27,200 in basic pay, a nationwide average housing allowance of $14,280, although the actual amount paid varies depending on where the solider lives, and tax-free allowances or benefits that amount to $4,660. A higher-ranking Army captain who is married would earn $92,200 after about six years on active duty, according to the CBO."
Taken from the article I linked to a page or two back. The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office.
Official DOD Pay Charts from 1949 to present. Although for some reason the 2013 chart didn't work for me, the 2012 did work.
http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/militarypaytables.html
Servicemembers do make quite a bit of money. Some additional entitlements are not taxed and 100% of their pay is Fed Inc Tax Free when they are in combat zones. Their yearly bonuses will also be tax free in these combat zones. Commissaries have groceries that are about 20% or more cheaper than out in town grocers & the Exchanges are also less expensive and offer tax free merchandise.
It's usually the youngest servicemembers that get into the most financial trouble, many join due to few other options. They are already from a poor family so they may have not learned good money skills. Or they are young servicemembers with spouse and children. Therefore they may also qualify for WIC/foodstamp programs also.
Unfortunately, places like the Exchange aren't always very helpful if you are on a budget. Too much brand name stuff, doesn't matter if that Coach bag is 20% cheaper than out in town. It's still a ridiculously expensive bag!
That's the rub. We found the BX completely useless for practical stuff. Sure, they have good prices...but only if you shopped the top name brands, which still were priced out of our budget, or really more than we were willing to pay. In Japan, we relied more on the 100 yen stores for everyday stuff, cooking utensils, plain dishes, stuff like that. Restaurants were outrageous, unless you wanted local fare, yaki soba and such, then a treat-dinner out was reasonable. Our best treat in Japan was to just ride the trains on the weekend and go where they took us!
Where in Japan are you, Dhiana? We so miss it!
The military is like any other job, except you can get shot at at some point. But otherwise, what do you expect after giving 20 or 30 years to the 'corporation'? If you stay in a private sector job for 20 or 30 years, unless it's a totally soul sucking corporation, you will get some compensation, as well as respect in the form of benefits/deference. Sometimes, when people speak of public sector jobs, they almost act as if we should do it for FREE, or otherwise be GREATFUL that we are ALLOWED to do the job. That somehow, because we volunteered for it, that's reason to pay less, in money/benefits/respect.
Or the worst insult/injury is when someone dies in service, and all some will say is...well, they volunteered for it...as if that makes it OK.
Military service isn't easy, and it got considerably harder after 9/11.
12-16 hour days became the norm, for everybody.
Yes, we lived overseas, and we counted that as our best perk. Just being in the other cultures, and living them everyday was a huge plus for us, and kept us going through the BS the 9/11 brought. Being in Japan when 9/11 happened was a blessing as the Japanese were so caring, and protective of us in the weeks and months following. They were really there, watching our backs, in so many ways, large and small. It has endeared the Japanese people to my heart forever.
Then we moved to Germany, and even there, three years out, they were so helpful, as far as their constitution would let them. I know, here in the states, if you only watched Fox you got a skewed impression of Europe's response to 9/11, but I can tell you, first hand, they were 100% for us. Their hands were tied, in so many ways, but where they could, they helped.
OK, sorry, I'm way off topic. But kind of sort of on when we see what Europe is going through, and considering applying that to ourselves....
"Active-duty service members earn base pay, and are entitled to additional money to compensate for housing and food expenses.
For example, an Army corporal would earn regular military compensation of $50,860 after four to six years of service. That total includes $27,200 in basic pay, a nationwide average housing allowance of $14,280, although the actual amount paid varies depending on where the solider lives, and tax-free allowances or benefits that amount to $4,660. A higher-ranking Army captain who is married would earn $92,200 after about six years on active duty, according to the CBO."
Taken from the article I linked to a page or two back. The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office.
You also have to remember that not every service member gets a housing allowance. I didn't while I served aboard ships or at stations or schooling/training that had barracks type housing available. Housing allowance is generally for those single people who don't have the option of living at their unit, and also for married people and those who have dependants. Married people with kids get paid more than married people with no kids. Single people who can't live at their units and with no dependants get even less. Single people with no dependants who can live at their units get nothing. So it just depends on your personal situation. And the rates vary based on location. A single housing allowance (if you can even get one) may be around $500 - $600/month in some areas (and higher in other areas) where a married housing allowance with kids can be double or even triple that. It all depends on your location and rental prices in your area. Alaska and Calif pays more, Alabama and Doakota pay less.
The same is true for food allowance - if you are single with no dependants and can eat at your unit then you don't get a food allowance. And unless you live on or near a large base, then you can't use things like the commisary or PX. I didn't get housing or food allowances during my time in at any of my units I was at because I was expected to live and eat there. Same with most of the single enlisted people I knew. We just got our base pay. So again, it just depends opn your situation and no one size fits all. Also if you are married and/or have dependants, and you are somewhere that has on-base housing available, then your family can live there in lieu of getting a housing allowance.
In any case, I agree that military pay and benefits can be good but I still don't consider it an entitlement. And for most people in the armed forces, the work load is double or triple that of almost all civilian jobs in many cases.
awakenedsoul
3-9-13, 2:20pm
Yeah, I didn't mean what I said as an argument. The people calling in were married couples with three kids. I just found it interesting. As I listened to the radio show I was thinking, "That's a good job with good pay." (In his situation.)
Yeah, I didn't mean what I said as an argument. The people calling in were married couples with three kids. I just found it interesting. As I listened to the radio show I was thinking, "That's a good job with good pay." (In his situation.) Oh no argument. Lots of people in the armed forces - especially officers - get some damn good pay. heck the higher ranking officers can make well over $150K a year and then some. Plus their spouses, if married, may work too or be in the service makinmg the same amount of money. So there's no argument from my side. I was just relaying my personal experiences - pay and benefits vs. hours on the job - and trying to explain why I don't consider military benefits the same as entitlements (welfare, food stamps, etc...). That while many in the service work a 9 to 5 ish kind of schedule, many other's don't. In my case I didn't have a 9 to 5 kind of gig and my normal work day was underway at sea for 9 months or more a year (and still working about 12 - 16 hour days and standing 24 hour duty a couple of times a week when inport), year after year after year. This IS the norm for most in the services IMHO - at least for a large amount of their time in. In comparision my civilian job was a breeze!
awakenedsoul
3-9-13, 4:54pm
Yeah. I totally get what you're saying. You were really disciplined and able to retire early afterward. It's paid off. Now you have lots of free time!
rodeosweetheart
3-9-13, 6:49pm
Yeah. I totally get what you're saying. You were really disciplined and able to retire early afterward. It's paid off. Now you have lots of free time!
Yes, it must be nice to be retired young enough to enjoy it!
I turn 57 this month and would retire but I can't because I need the health insurance; another catastrophic hospital bill would ruin me.
I never pursued social security disability when I was paralyzed because I did not want to take any form of hand out.
Oh well, I've been lucky, I can walk again. So every day is a blessing, and I'll keep working until I can't anymore.
I was just relaying my personal experiences - pay and benefits vs. hours on the job - and trying to explain why I don't consider military benefits the same as entitlements (welfare, food stamps, etc...). That while many in the service work a 9 to 5 ish kind of schedule, many other's don't. In my case I didn't have a 9 to 5 kind of gig and my normal work day was underway at sea for 9 months or more a year (and still working about 12 - 16 hour days and standing 24 hour duty a couple of times a week when inport), year after year after year.....
I would probably not do well closed up on a ship surrounded by water and the pay would never be enough. It does sound like it would be an excellent way to save up money with all the basic expenses covered and few places to spend it. The ex-military folks I worked with in the private sector generally had some hiring preference and did well with promotions because they were mature, able to handle some responsibility, and knew about hard work. There were a few exceptions.
That's the rub. We found the BX completely useless for practical stuff. Sure, they have good prices...but only if you shopped the top name brands, which still were priced out of our budget, or really more than we were willing to pay. In Japan, we relied more on the 100 yen stores for everyday stuff, cooking utensils, plain dishes, stuff like that. Restaurants were outrageous, unless you wanted local fare, yaki soba and such, then a treat-dinner out was reasonable. Our best treat in Japan was to just ride the trains on the weekend and go where they took us!
Where in Japan are you, Dhiana? We so miss it!
We're in the Tokyo Bay area and really love it here. It's not perfect of course but it works for us. It helps that I live right across the street from a Y100 store and a grocery store :) Of course, the Japanese are wonderful people and we have a lot of friends to enrich our lives. We've taken the time to learn the language a bit and are happy here.
It really is possible to live well here if we keep it simple. Too many servicemembers come here and want to live the same lifestyle they lived in the states and that's just not reasonable. The fresh fruits & vegets are amazing. Wicked expensive but catching them on sale makes them very reasonable.
When my husband was in the military it was creepy to me how much peer pressure there was to have a certain sized house, SUVs, big entertainment systems, etc. So very High School and I refused to play.
Yeah. I totally get what you're saying. You were really disciplined and able to retire early afterward. It's paid off. Now you have lots of free time!Unfortunately I didn't do 20 years in the armed forces so i didn't get any of the pension or medical benefits - although I did get a small stipend each month (around $350 - $400) for the 3 years or so I was in college (and also worked full time) once I got out so that was nice. And with a base pay of under $1000/month or less for all of my 10ish years in (and I never got a housing or food allowance while I was single or even when I married another service member - he didn't either), I didn't save a lot. Most of my financial strides I made towards early retirement were once I was out of the service. I got a higher paying civilian job (which was only $21K/year but still almost double my military pay plus I got paid for O.T. and had nights, weekends and holidays off so was able to work a second job). Also choosing to live a very simple lifestyle (buying a very modest fixer house and not fixing it until it was paid off, getting 2 roommates to help with the payments, no spending on anything until it was paid off, and NEVER getting in debt) went much further towards early retirement then did my time in the service. So from a strictly financial point of view I would have been better off never going into the service but working a civilian job - even a lower paying one. But I didn't join for the pay or benefits in any case but loved the job and really regreted getting out after only 10 years. Cest la vie!
I would probably not do well closed up on a ship surrounded by water and the pay would never be enough. It does sound like it would be an excellent way to save up money with all the basic expenses covered and few places to spend it. The ex-military folks I worked with in the private sector generally had some hiring preference and did well with promotions because they were mature, able to handle some responsibility, and knew about hard work. There were a few exceptions.Yeah it could be a great way to save money but that one night of shore leave in some sleazy Port O' Call... well, it can wipe out your modest pay pretty quick :-)! Plus, as Rodeo and other's pointed out, military people are no different then anyone else and most want a more lavious lifestyle and try to keep up with the Jones with all the fancy do-dads - bought on credit of course - so they are just as likely to be in as deep of debt as civilians. There is a guy on the Mr Money Moustashe boards (Nords) who wrote a book about early retirment for military members and often bemoans the fact the people who retire from the service with a pension and low cost medical SHOULD be able to retire but rarely can. Why? The same reason as any other 40 year old - they have a lot of debt, car payments, a high mortgage (probably from a house that is beyond their means that they didn't buy until they were near retirement), several kids - and their current expenses and future college expenses - etc... The mid-level enlisted pension rarely is enough to cover much and they really didn't earn enough to save much during their 20 years in.
awakenedsoul
3-19-13, 2:38pm
Unfortunately I didn't do 20 years in the armed forces so i didn't get any of the pension or medical benefits - although I did get a small stipend each month (around $350 - $400) for the 3 years or so I was in college (and also worked full time) once I got out so that was nice. And with a base pay of under $1000/month or less for all of my 10ish years in (and I never got a housing or food allowance while I was single or even when I married another service member - he didn't either), I didn't save a lot. Most of my financial strides I made towards early retirement were once I was out of the service. I got a higher paying civilian job (which was only $21K/year but still almost double my military pay plus I got paid for O.T. and had nights, weekends and holidays off so was able to work a second job). Also choosing to live a very simple lifestyle (buying a very modest fixer house and not fixing it until it was paid off, getting 2 roommates to help with the payments, no spending on anything until it was paid off, and NEVER getting in debt) went much further towards early retirement then did my time in the service. So from a strictly financial point of view I would have been better off never going into the service but working a civilian job - even a lower paying one. But I didn't join for the pay or benefits in any case but loved the job and really regreted getting out after only 10 years. Cest la vie!
Oh...that's even more impressive. It seems like it all boils down to good habits and self discipline. I didn't make that much money when I was dancing, either, but it was totally worth it. It really helped me to not follow the crowd and get sucked into overspending. I think as you said in another post, those were the ones calling in to Dave Ramsey.
Oh...that's even more impressive. It seems like it all boils down to good habits and self discipline. I didn't make that much money when I was dancing, either, but it was totally worth it. It really helped me to not follow the crowd and get sucked into overspending. I think as you said in another post, those were the ones calling in to Dave Ramsey.
Well not really impressive - just a cheapskate at heart :-)! I have had a lot of advantages too that allowed me to quit work early - even thought I left work at age 42 I would get a small pension once age 50 (but I will not get Social Security), childless, downsized my house and moved somewhere cheaper, and am able to use low cost medical at the VA hospital because I have a military service-connected disability. I would be in the same position more or less without those but they do make life lots easier - especially the medical - although I am never sure that the VA will be there as they could have cut backs at anytime (like during this sequester) so have a back up medical plan (low cost and very high deductible) just in case.
So far I haven't seen anything cut anywhere in the Government sector with the sequester that I can see, but sis is getting laid off (defense contractor who is closing some job sites) and will just go part time on-call with no benefits. Anyone else seen or heard of any cuts yet?
I sometimes picture government debates and how they might go in a corporate private section. In this case I picture a CEO big shot type getting the players together and saying, you guys have wasted enough time on this. Get it fixed or I'll get some one else to fix it. Unfortunately that's not a government option.
My read is to let the sequester happen and hope it causes enough problems that they come up with a long term solution and move on to something important, like say, escalating health care costs.
The Congress has already contributed much to our fiscal instability and escalating health costs by passing "Obamacare". The true extent of this will begin to become evident in 2014... ;)
Best,
Rodger
Congress has contributed much to fiscal stability and the controlling of health care costs by passing the ACA. ACA is the first step in a long process. It was essential to sure-up the safety net, so that in later steps those less fortunate wouldn't fall through the cracks. It is so easy for the callous and careless proponents of avarice in Congress to pass legislation and budget for programs fully ignorant and inured to the impact of their actions on those least fortunate. The ACA ensures that those folks will not be able to commit such callousness and carelessness with impunity, as their doing so would spike the costs of the subsidies. With the matter of cost definitively highlighted in a manner Congress cannot overlook, perhaps they can finally take real action toward reducing costs without scurrilously shifting impracticable financial burden onto the least fortune. The unfortunate reality is that many Americans care only about money, so the only way to foster positive action is to ensure that the burden of failing to do so is widely shared. So what will become evident in 2014 is whether conscientiousness or avarice prevails.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.