No Orphans, just Left and Right all over again

It was supposedly banned without the approval of Parliament, who in 1689 might understandably be cagey about the need for a standing army after 40 years of religious strife.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

That's where I consider them to be. Just a bit further from center than Libertarians.

I don't consider it useless but do think at least one more dimension needs to be added.

Strongly agree on this. The multinational corporations for instance are stronger than some governments and certainly aren't motivated to protect our individual freedoms. Governments are the only thing that can balance things in that regard. Of course in many cases they are "in cahoots".

 

Without the government "in cahoots" the multinationals would have no power. Washington is already sold out to these people and you would argue that we should give politicians more power?

I think most of us here are vets, or have otherwise been associated with government. With that, you should also have learned that most government functionaries don't have jobs. They must create work (mostly by obstructing something), to justify there very existence. We could easily cut 50% of government workers without any loss of productivity whatsoever. We could cut 50% of entire agencies and departments without any loss of services. Those that do perform some actual need, could be picked up by the states.

I'll step back to the simple arithmetic I mentioned earlier. We don't have any money! We're borrowing and printing money to support this waste. It will end one of two ways - either we'll have a complete collapse through failure to manage the debt, or we start cutting back spending to some sane level. It's really that simple.

 

Of course they would. There wealth would give them incredible power.

That certainly hasn't been my experiance. My father worked for the Soil Conservation Service most of his working life and I've worked for the government as well. That doesn't fit what I saw in his office or in mine. Nor does it fit the experiances of other friends who work or worked for other agencies.

I very much doubt that.

We definitly are over spending although there is a third possiblity. Not likely I'll admit but the budget could be balanced and indeed debt reduced if the economy improved enough. In reality we need both the economy to improve and scaling back some aspects of government. The meat axe approach you seem to suggest could do more damage than good though IMO.

 

I would argue against the statement of cutting 50% without loss of productivity...ive been involved in two revues meant to scale down, one was defence. The result is overworked PSs who usually leave due to unfair work loads and services ALWAYS drop...however, many public services do grow (then ebb) with new government and the cycle continues - Worth remembering that public servants pay tax and spend (usually all) there income in the community...its false to say they are simply a drain...

 

So many are so quick to quote the constitution as they interpret, so many have such large fields of criticisms for the Federal levels of our government........but if you are a strict constitutionalist it gets very hard for you because like it or not in our system we cannot blame others for what we have chosen by deed or lack of deeds for ourselves because according to this same constitution it starts with a "We the people" so in effect "We" are the government........there is no one else to blame, there is no they, them, or that, as is always quoted as being the "fault" of our system. If you choose to find so many faults with the Government, perhaps in reality you are not a very strong constitutionalist but one who only quotes it at times of "personal interests only". The American system of government remains the envy of the world, may take two steps backwards at times but is poised to improve if its adherents stick to their convictions.....if not, it shall perish along with man's best dreams in time. It remains dependant on its people as it was founded. Look within and don't try blaming others.....I am a perfect example of many faults and am no better than anyone else at this collossal task.

 

Economically, it is entirely a drain since the wages come entirely from the pockets of taxpayers. It is only a plus if the services they provide are worth the wage, and here in the US most of those services are not worth the wage. In the last few years we've created a Department of Homeland Security. What do they do? Well, most of them are employed to feel up your groin and confiscate your toothpaste at the airport. Do we need these people? I'd say no. Let the airlines provide security and let the flyers pay for it when they buy their ticket - let the private sector do it through user fees. It can't be any worse than the current system.

The simple truth is that most government employees would be out of a job if they worked in the private sector. There would be a mechanism in place to work efficiently and some jobs would be mechanized or combined so that people did an actual 8 hours work for 8 hours pay. As it is now, the incentive is to work as inefficiently as possible so they can claim a need for more employees, a bigger budget and so on. This is how bureaucracy operates.

 

If it stimulates the economy this is hardly correct. Of course government employees are tax payers as well.

From everything I've seen that is not the case.

That combines at least a couple of logical fallacies. For one you are over generalizing for another it is not reallly true in the first place. Only a fraction of Homeland security personel work on airport security. Then there's the fact that airline passengers are indeed charged a security fee that goes to offset at least some of the costs of airport security.

Not a "truth" but simple speculation on your part. Indeed looking at where the majority of government employees work and my experiance with them I strongly suspect that just the opposite is the case.

Or not.

 

Taking money out of the private sector does not stimulate the economy. Taxes depress the economy.

And the rest provide other unneeded jobs, at taxpayer expense. I could write a book here just listing unnecessary jobs done by government workers, but when all is said and done WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. We are borrowing 40% of our budget from China. If you raise taxes to cover that loss, you'll just drive more business to China. That is likely one of the reasons they are lending us that money.

You can't tax your way out of such a shortfall. You have to cut spending.

An analogy would be a family spending 40% over their budget, then demanding the boss give them more money to cover their wild spending. The boss would laugh and tell them to cut spending.

 

But government spending puts money into the private sector as well. So just because a tax is collected it doesn't mean that the entire sum is taken out of the private sector. Indeed some government spending probably provides far more economic stimulous than it removes.

Or not. It very much depends on what they are spent on.

Really? Frankly from previous conversations I thought you considered the Coast Guard for iinstance to be a worthwhile institution.

Possibly. But what percentage of the governement jobs are those? Any large organization will have some waste associated with it for whatever reason. Certainly it makes sense to keep an eye out for such and trim them when possible. However that doesn't mean that the organization as a whole is a waste.

The last time we had a positive budge from what I recall it was achieved due to the economy improving not through either spending cuts or increased taxes.

A rather flawed analogy though isn't it. Especially since the "boss" is in this case asking for even more spending.

 

How can government spending put money into the private sector? ALL government money comes from the private sector! The best you can say is that a fraction of that money (the wages) eventually returns to the private sector.

You could cut Coast Guard spending in half by eliminating nearly all the civilian jobs and most of the shoreside active duty jobs without losing a single cutter or aircraft, or affecting their readiness. The same situation exists in every other government agency, no matter the job.

I suppose that attitude illustrates the problem. I'm the boss. You're the boss. Those people in Washington are our employees. When did we stop becoming citizens and become subjects?

 

Alternatelly all money comes from the government (that's who prints it) and they introduce it into the private sector. It's not just wages thought. If the governement buys something it goes back into the private sector same if they contract with someone to build something. Then there are things like the Interstate Highway system that have had significant positive impacts on the economy.

I suspect you are as correct in this opinion as you were in your previous one. I.e. not at all. Certainly at this point I'm looking for some reasonable proof. Rants don't qualify.

Exactly we are the boss but some of us, and it's at least a large minority, see the governement as a source of handouts rather than an institution whose primary purpose is to protect us.

 

That's called "easing" and introduces nothing into the private sector since it merely devalues the money in circulation.

Been there, done that, lived it.

I live on the side of the mountain and looking NE I can see the Kodiak USCG base. There are four cutters, half a dozen aircraft and about 1200 active duty members. About half of them have no real association with the cutters or aircraft, they're just drones who have never and will never be part of a cutter or aircraft crew, or maintain said cutters or aircraft. There are about 400 civilian employees. A varying number of contractors.

Back in 1979 when I joined the Coast Guard, people on shore rotation (and the inevitable non-rates waiting for a school) shoveled the snow and cut the grass and painted the buildings, while trained personnel (rotated ashore) and did the electrical, plumbing, mechanical work, etc, because that's what we trained them for. Now, we have Davis-Bacon employees at $40 an hour cutting the grass and emptying the trash bins and various union guys doing the maintenance at incredible cost.

Then, there's a golf course. A bowling alley. A ski chalet. A gym. A pizza parlor. A pool. A movie theater. A small boat harbor with rental recreational boats for deep sea fishing. A commissary. An exchange. A gas station. And all of those things are run and maintained by civilian employees.

This is one little base, hardly worth counting against the size of Army, Air Force or Navy bases. Now, one could argue that our service members deserve a few perks and I'd agree (being one of them, though now retired). However, almost all of these perks are available in town, at the same prices. I don't even shop at the commissary or exchange because most items are more expensive than in town.

In 1979, when I joined the Coast Guard, somebody would be appointed "Morale Officer" and that guy would get discount tickets to the local theaters, bowling alleys, whatever on the simple economic basis of "we'll send all our guys to your bowling alley" (or whatever). We didn't have any less perks, we just had our perks without draining the taxpayers.

 

As we have moved way off topic and into political areas this is my last post on this line.

All the money that is currently in circulation came from the government. Check those coins and bills.

Instead of government employees working one of the lower wg rates. All thanks to the movement to cut Federal Employees without first looking at needs and requirements.

 

You actually believe that because government prints the money, its budget isn't taken from taxpayers? That government spending and deficits are akin to magic? This level of economics isn't complicated, and it's really appalling that people can't grasp this.

So, increasing the number of government employees is due to cutting the number of government employees? That's a very interesting concept. It's ridiculous, but very interesting.

No. Actually, a few years ago Electricians Mates, Engineers, Bosuns Mates, Radiomen, etc, had a chance to rotate ashore and do the specialty jobs that civilian employees do now. So now, those guys in seagoing rates just stay at sea and rotate from cutter to cutter while much higher paid civilians suck up the shore jobs.
That's OK, because all those nice morale perks can be used by the highly paid civilian workers since less active duty people duty are ashore to use them because they're out in the Bering Sea 250 days a year barfing off the fantail.

 

Threads split.

 

I don't think there is an actual "tea party" just a bunch of local groups that want to return fiscal sanity to our government. And I fully support that as well, so put me over in the crazy category.

 

Do not be concerned Kodiak, you have been filed, indexed and cataloged!