Comments on: One Trillion, Four Hundred Twenty Billion Dollars

By: jayburd

jayburd — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:06:20 +0000

Is bribery and extortion.

By: jayburd

jayburd — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:02:05 +0000

The size and budget of State Dept. quadrupled. He did come up with a great idea – The Grace Commission, But promptly abandoned it when he encountered some resistance from Congress. I voted for Ed Clark. I live in Alaska where until recently we’ve had two Republican thieves (Stevens and Young) in office who bragged about how much ‘bacon’ they could bring home. Lisa Murkowski is a do nothing appeaser. There just ain’t a dimes worth of difference in this two-party dog and pony show. Where is the resistance to this budget Armageddon? It ain’t comin’ from any politician.

By: edintexas

edintexas — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:35:01 +0000

We all know that “figures lie, and liars figure”. It is an “apples and oranges” (OK, enough of the cliches) comparison to compare the “average” salary of federal employees to private sector employees. How many burger flippers and french fry friers does the federal government employ? None, any working on federal property are employees of contractors. Same for janitorial services. And lots of other, relatively low paying, jobs. I depend on the Cato Institute for lots of things, but (as with all things) we have to make sure any comparisons are accurate. How about a comparison of the average of all jobs for which a college degree, or equivalent work experience, was required? That would be informative, and would exclude other jobs on both the private sector and government payrolls. Then another comparison could be made for jobs which have only a HS diploma as a requirement. And yet another where no educational achievement is required (though I’m not sure that many such jobs exist in the federal government).

By: edintexas

edintexas — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:24:53 +0000

There is no doubt our military should be paid more. That being said, and my being retired USA, a person entering the military out of HS, at age 18, can retire from a military career with 50% of his last year’s salary at 38 (20 years of service), or 75% at 48 (30 years). No civil service employee can retire that young, not even those under the law enforcement and firefighter’s pension system. AND, how much of his military salary did your husband pay into the military retirement system? Exactly – nothing beyond FICA taxes. But those under the civilian system pay into retirement and FICA, They may also pay into the Thrift Savings Program, but understand that the FERS retirement system was intended to REDUCE the government’s costs for retirement from the costs of the Civil Service Retirement System. And finally the retired military person could then enter civil service (as many do) after 20 years and retire at 63 with an additional civil service retirement based on 25 years of service plus age. But he wouldn’t be getting even 50% of the average of his highest 3 years of salary from his civil service time (not counting any amount put into the TSP).

By: StandardCandle

StandardCandle — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:04:25 +0000

Thank you for understanding that the fight here is spending… spending/taxing/spending…

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…

Repent and change your ways…

P.S. I am moving to your district this next month… prove to me you’re worth keeping.

By: reason60

reason60 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:20:41 +0000

If monstrous deficits can be considered part of an “improved fiscal standing” then Obama is the Messiah.
The chief example of Reagan’s fiscal liberalism is cutting taxes and increasing defense spending. When he took office, the national debt as a percentage of the GDP was about 30%; when he left, it was nearly 70%.
No, the President does not make spending bills, Congress does. But not once did Reagan threaten a veto, not once did he submit a budget to be followed.

Look, I am not doing this to bash Reagan- My point is that by abandoning the idea of a balanced budget- even for good things like winning a war- conservatives lose all credibility to speak the words “fiscal discipline”.

No one since 1979 version of Reagan has spoken seriously about a balanced budget; even now we have pundits and party leaders glibly using the terms “fiscal discipline” without the slightest intention of getting serious about it.
What we have in the conservative movement is a bunch of drunks speaking about getting sober….tomorrow.

Its not because they are bad people, or that they hold liberal views. Its that they aren’t willing to confront the painful choices that a balanced budget would require. All the low hanging fruit, the easy waste, is not nearly enough to even scratch the surface.
In order to balance the budget, we have to seriously re-evaluate what we want government to do- and that is highly unpopular, even in the reddest of states.

By: gonzo55

gonzo55 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:58:39 +0000

Sure, you can point to isolated examples where President Reagan spent money on things that you personally would have preferred he not, but the overarching theme of his presidency is a return to responsibility, including at the government level. Unfortunately, Reagan didn’t control Congress while president, and so deficits did increase, but by cutting taxes aggressively and thus paving the way for the record growth of the 90′s, he greatly improved America’s fiscal standing. Imagine where we’d be now if we still had 91% marginal income tax rates!

I really couldn’t disagree more with Reagan not being a fiscal conservative. Deficits aside, what examples do you have to support this claim, reason60?

By: jlynnr

jlynnr — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:56:57 +0000

Nothing irritates me more than to hear about the pay hikes the shlubs in congress give themselves. Well, that’s not entirely true. Also high on my peeve meter is all the federal employees trolling around the military bases my husband has SERVED on. The government matches their TSP savings (retirement savings), but they don’t do this for active duty. Maybe it’s just me, but if anyone should get this perk (and that is questionable) it should be the guys getting shot at.

Please know, I am very aware that my husband’s salary comes directly from the tax payer. But the tax payer would do well to know just how much of the Defense Budget goes toward paying over-paid civil service/federal employees. I don’t know much about how this whole thing works, but twenty years living on and around military bases has had me suspecting some palms are being greased. We could afford to have a more than adequate military force if we weeded out some of the higher-paid federal employees trolling around the military and give those jobs back to the (underpaid) active duty members.

Forgive my digression.

Bottom line: I agree.

By: janis

janis — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:54:11 +0000

As for the CFO gig, are you in a business that is surviving and thriving? Not asking for particulars, just interested in what types of businesses are doing well to okay right now. From the sound of it, you’ve got a full plate! It will be great to see you whenever you can be here.

And I thank you in return for your lovely compliments. It makes my day.

By: eburke

eburke — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:45:26 +0000

Coming from one of my fav posters…well, let’s say I’m in full-blown ‘aw-shucks’ blushing mode.

We’re in audit season and since I’m the CFO of this here entity I’ve been a bit busy. Between that…being chairman of the Board of a local Christian high school, and the D-coordinator at a small college whose head coach is a life-long friend….well, let’s just say that just ‘lurking’ has been a challenge

(But I *have* managed to find the time to let the moths out of my wallet for Messrs. Toomey, Rubio, Hoffman & Devore