PDA

View Full Version : more goverment employees than privet sector?



seafox
01-30-2010, 02:09 AM
Hi
Obama in his state of the union and even more so in earlyer speeches when claiming how many jobs saved or created harps on " teacher policement fire men ect" any on at least one and more likely more than one radio talk shows I have heard their are more goverment employees than privet ones

is this true?

also his student loan plans where the people getting them will not pay back more than 10% per year and any left over forgiven after 20 years( but even more so ) forgiven for people who "go into public service" whats public service? dog catcher, street sweeper run for mayor? congrees staff person? go into the military? what about running a job corp school? what about a nasa contractor who only sells to the goverment? what about the welfare queens are they goverment employees? even with welfare reform 10 to 20 percent of the people on the dolecan excede the three year life time cap depending on what state and its over all unemployment?iirc

where does it stop?

government does not create wealth it can only take. in the plant world thats either symbiotic or parasitic. as I have asked a local democrat party how do you justifie taking from the productive and giving to the parasites

The Bigfella
01-30-2010, 02:14 AM
Why don't you ask him to cut the ridiculous defence budget too?

seafox
01-30-2010, 02:26 AM
national defence is one of the few areas the federal goverment is susposed to be doing . individual welfare is not

but then again I would not mind If america cut back on its military budget but i wonder if that would not meen other countrys around the world would have to increase theirs to fight the evil america has been the mainstay since the 1940s.

or would you say we should just pull back with in our borders because we have no intrests over seas? I keep thinking of the poem about the german cathlic who did not speak out when the Nazis came for the jews and the trade unionests. if america does not stand up for austraila and brition and isreal. as you fall with the other dominos will their be any one to stand up with us as expansionest forces be they comunism or Islam finaly get around to us. should america have stayed out of WW2? all we would have had to do was not cut off japans oil to try and curb their war with china and we would never have got into the fight.

btw what do you think about america selling Formosa military equipment?
what do you think of america's standing behind our Nato and Seato treaties?

ljb5
01-30-2010, 05:39 AM
A lot of decent folk are employed as teachers, firemen and police officers.

The government also builds roads, cures diseases, keeps airplanes from crashing and delivers the mail on time.

I don't share your disdain.

Duncan Gibbs
01-30-2010, 06:03 AM
I dunno about other places but privet sector is a real environmental weed in the South East Queensland/Northern NSW region. The only other decent hedging plant, Murraya paniculata, is also a declared weed; but not as bad as privet. We use glyphosate on privet!

Paul Pless
01-30-2010, 06:31 AM
A lot of decent folk are employed as teachers, firemen and police officers.

The government also builds roads, cures diseases, keeps airplanes from crashing and delivers the mail on time.

I don't share your disdain.Neither do I. Does that make me a liberal?:D:eek:

seafox
01-30-2010, 06:56 AM
Disdain. intresting word and I didn't say they were not decent people. but I was talking productive vrs symbiotic or paracitic. their was a cop in california who said he would sit at a light with a very short yellow and write 32,000$ worth of tickits a day.

as for building roads not to sure about that here I belive most of the building is done by contractors. and I do know if the roads were not public a lot of the engineers who design them would have been fired long ago for not solving the congestion. in fact the system we have where the state had to ask permission of the EPA to add lanes and is denyed intntionally causes congestion and traphic jams because a road system that works is considered to encourage more people to drive.

btw where does it say one of the duties of the government is to cure disease? of wait your favorite " general welfare" means it can do anything and every thing.

infact most everything goverment can do could be done cheaper by the non public sector.

to give a clearer example--- I worked for a film finishing company as a driver. their were people in the lab that manufactured the product their were people in the stores that sold the product be it cameras or pictures these were the productive people. then their was the sybiotic people like me that transported the product from the warehouse to the stores and other people who built the stores. as needed as we symbotic people were the fact remains we did not produce income.

government at best does not produce anything though infact I think it should. for example it could produce energy and sell it to distributers and if that was how the goverment funded its self ---- selling to willing buyers on an open market not as a monopally forcing people to take its sevices quote unquote---- then i would be more willing to " not disdain" them.

it would be a an intresting thing to know how much time the adverage policemen spend on stoping things intrensically wrong ( you know murder rape stealing fraud) and how much time they spend raising money like writing tickets to people who park on the street in the winter on a night with 0 chance of snow)

sorry to mention a liberterian principle. the purpose of government is to prevent force and fraud from being comitted on its citizans by either citizans or by the goverment its self.

The Bigfella
01-30-2010, 07:23 AM
it would be a an intresting thing to know how much time the adverage policemen spend on stoping things intrensically wrong ( you know murder rape stealing fraud) and how much time they spend raising money like writing tickets to people who park on the street in the winter on a night with 0 chance of snow)

They spend (roughly... I'm going by memory from the mid 90's here).. 80% of their time in support activities. ... community support, victim support... etc.

seafox
01-30-2010, 07:35 AM
"community support" what is that I have looked back over all the times I have had things stolen from me, including on the day my father and on the day my uncle jesse was buryed and not once have the police ever found the stuff. in fact the only time I got anything back was when the parrents of some kids noticed they had things that had not been bought and the parrents turned the kids in.

and when you see the logo " protect and serve" ask your self who is being protected? the people or the government? when the government decides to take the peoples previously registered guns like has happened in new york and california Have you ever heard of the police officeers telling the govermen " Not no but hell no we will not go out and infringe on peoples rights" no they just go and follow their orders.

btw the basic difference is felonies are things that are intresically wrong and mistimeaners are things outlawed because some one in power decided to outlaw it. at least that was the origional meaning of the two catigories

elf
01-30-2010, 08:41 AM
Privet is illegal here in MA, too. But the landscaping industry was permitted to continue to plant it until the stock was gone. So they multiply it by grafting and the stock will never be gone.

It's a terrible pest, similarly to ill informed, illiterate Fox News drinkers on this list.

Paul Pless
01-30-2010, 08:45 AM
It's a terrible pest, similarly to ill informed, illiterate Fox News drinkers on this list.Wow... shouldn't liberals have a more accepting and sympathetic view of the great unwashed masses; seeing as how society has clearly failed in its responsibilty to properly educate and assimilate them? :confused:

elf
01-30-2010, 08:58 AM
Anyone on this forum is not part of the great unwashed masses, sorry.

Paul Pless
01-30-2010, 09:01 AM
I dunno, this definition seems to fit your attitude pretty well. . .
The collective group of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, godless, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker's elite circles.

;)

High C
01-30-2010, 09:16 AM
Wow... shouldn't liberals have a more accepting and sympathetic view of the great unwashed masses; seeing as how society has clearly failed in its responsibilty to properly educate and assimilate them? :confused:

Indeed they should. But there are few true liberals on this forum. There are, instead, a great many who are altogether something different.....ugly, insecure little people who seem to require a constant diet of abusing people they wrongly see as inferior to themselves. It's a hunger I fail to understand, but have come to expect here on a daily basis.

Childishly demeaning others says far more about the persons doing so than it does their imagined victims.

stevebaby
01-30-2010, 09:18 AM
They spend (roughly... I'm going by memory from the mid 90's here).. 80% of their time in support activities. ... community support, victim support... etc.And typing statements, driving, filling in paperwork, waiting around courthouses to give evidence, training.Mostly a pretty boring job at the lower levels.
...driving the Sergeant home after he's spent the day in the pub...:D

LeeG
01-30-2010, 09:20 AM
speaking of private industry I read that the Afghanistan war has the largest percentage of contracted business employees of any war to date.

john l
01-30-2010, 09:27 AM
for all the republican rethoric against unions, against libs, against social programs,
etc , i find it hard to believe them. they support the strongest unions in america: the police and firemen who game the system at great cost to the taxpayers (mind you we all support the services these heroic folks provide);
the military industrial complex which provides the goods and services for that
great defense budget which is no small part of the gdp and for which many americans and foreigners are heavily invested in. These industries are simply a defacto gov business disguised as a separate corp but most would not survive with out the tax payer or the gov contracts ; gov workers everywhere have a great deal - salary and retirement benefits; insurance companies ; stockmarket and banks; utility companies, god; etc.
with all these constituents/unions in their pocket they have complain about the auto workers union. why choose one union and not others? from where i', sitting the repubs are not representing the general public, they are representing
investment return interest. while i agree with them on more efficient gov spending, smaller gov, i can't believe them. to me they represent institutionalized greed. they vote in blocks - like unions rather than how they
feel. at least liberals don't exclusively agree with each other on many issues.
the most effective thing the repubs have is a consistant message

Saltiguy
01-30-2010, 09:39 AM
The next big economic "bubble" that will burst in this country is "public service" It started in the Northeast and in California - a constant increase in the numbers of public employees, unionization, astonishing pay increases and a retirement debt obligation that CANNOT be sustained.
There are NEVER any cutbacks, always more hires, always increasing wages, benefits and retirement packages.
Here's an example. Do 20 years as a lifeguard in Orange County Ca and retire at age 40 at 90K per year. Same (or better for cops, fire, correction officers. Others have to wait a bit longer, but walk out with huge packages. Same situation in Connecticut where I lived. The new upper middle class person in this country is the public "service" worker.

High C
01-30-2010, 09:45 AM
Jeffrey, to take a crack at answering your question, there are far more private sector employees than there are government, otherwise the whole thing would've come crumbling down already. I don't know the state and local numbers, but at the Federal level there approximately 2 million employees. State and local must be several times that, but nowhere near the private sector numbers.

The greater problem is that government employees are grossly overpaid in comparison to the private sector employees who fund them. Average pay, benefits, days off, incredible retirement plans, all of it, government employees enjoy far more generous compensation.

We have become slaves to our own servants.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/30/myth_of_the_underpaid_public_employee/

elf
01-30-2010, 10:11 AM
Jeff Jacoby? Gimme a break.

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 10:11 AM
Hi
Obama in his state of the union and even more so in earlyer speeches when claiming how many jobs saved or created harps on " teacher policement fire men ect" any on at least one and more likely more than one radio talk shows I have heard their are more goverment employees than privet ones

is this true?

No, but the trend toward an ever higher percentage of public sector employees is certainly disturbing.

Let's take some numbers I'm familiar with from the April 2009 Department of Labor employment report indicating that we lost a net 539,000 jobs in the month of April. Out of these job losses, the manufacturing sector was down 149,000, business services lost 122,000 jobs and construction declined 110,000 jobs. Added together the private sector lost 611,000 jobs. So how was the total job loss only 539,000? Because one sector of the economy is increasing in spite of the economic downturn. Government actually added 72,000 jobs and growing!

As you sense seafox, this is very bad news over the long run......



also his student loan plans where the people getting them will not pay back more than 10% per year and any left over forgiven after 20 years( but even more so ) forgiven for people who "go into public service" whats public service? dog catcher, street sweeper run for mayor? congrees staff person? go into the military? what about running a job corp school? what about a nasa contractor who only sells to the goverment? what about the welfare queens are they goverment employees? even with welfare reform 10 to 20 percent of the people on the dolecan excede the three year life time cap depending on what state and its over all unemployment?iirc

where does it stop?

It doesn't, this is the government controlled, socialist/Marxist plan Obama and the liberals have for America. They openly stated they want fundamental change and they meant it!!!


government does not create wealth it can only take. in the plant world thats either symbiotic or parasitic. as I have asked a local democrat party how do you justifie taking from the productive and giving to the parasites

Herein lies the problem. The source of economic wealth comes from the private sector which for all practical purposes can be considered the host. As you point out, government employees are parasitic in nature, living and being dependent on the producers in society. When the parasites reach a critical number and the host can no longer support the drain, both sides find themselves in deep trouble.

As you allude seafox, this is where we are headed in America and it is sad to witness our decline from the model of free enterprise and individual liberty into a state of ever expanding big government controlling more and more of our lives. Notice that most of the trained seals don't even recognize what is going on when it is explained to them.

SMARTINSEN
01-30-2010, 10:56 AM
Rick could you give a cite, please. The BLS has data to the end of 2009 that contradicts your statement.

From about 20,000,000 employees for all of government in 1999 to about 22,000,000 in 2009 this works out to a relatively small incremental growth--about 1%/yr--that does not seem at all out of line with the growth of the entire population.

http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment

I am not arguing that the expansion of government is a good thing, mind you, but rather that data should be accurate and viewed in context.

You will have to go into the tables, which are formatted, and, unfortunately, hard to C&P without a lot of work.

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 11:05 AM
[QUOTE=SMARTINSEN;2473251]Rick could you give a cite, please. The BLS has data to the end of 2009 that contradicts your statement.

From about 20,000,000 employees for all of government in 1999 to about 22,000,000 in 2009 this works out to a relatively small incremental growth--about 1%/yr--that does not seem at all out of line with the growth of the entire population.

http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment

FWIW, that's about 15% of the total work force. I don't think it includes the active military.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2010, 11:06 AM
it is sad to witness our decline from the model of free enterprise and individual liberty into a state of ever expanding big government controlling more and more of our lives. This is utter and complete nonsense. Oooooh, the boogeyman!!! We're being invaded by witches!!! A plague of deadly green and orange basilisks!!! Get a grip, gentlemen.

As a percentage of GDP, the federal government has been roughly the same size since the early 1950s. There have been ups and downs, but the trend line is roughly flat. Over the long term, the percentage of people employed by the federal government has actually been falling. As a percentage of GDP, all government expenditures; federal state and local, have been roughly flat since the late 1970s. Yes, there's been a spike over the past year; there's been a drop in overall GDP and a Keynesian stimulis intended to get the economoy going again, but it's a short-term phenomenon. One can certainly argue that the government should be smaller, but it's been roughly the same size for thirty-five years. The idea of "ever-expanding government" is a myth.

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20 To%20GDP.GIF

This shows that that the increase in the size of the federal government happened in the 1930s, and the increase in state and local governments happened in the 1950s and '60s. Overall size of government as a percent of GDP has been roughly constant for 35 years. The following graphs show that the composition of spending and revenue has changed, but not the overall size.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/20/business/economy/revenues.jpg

http://politicsandprosperity.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/government-spending-as-percent-gdp_21.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~markthoma/Graphics/GDPpercent.9.12.05.a.jpg

This last is a graph showing the composition of the whole economy; the small "net imports" bit at the top is a bit confusing, since it's really negative, actually net imports - that's why the total is more than 100% at some points. But again, the idea that over the past 30 years the government has been an ever-expanding fraction of the economy is simply false, a factual error, like claiming the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor. You can have what opinions you like, but no one is entitled to make up their own facts.

SMARTINSEN
01-30-2010, 11:07 AM
Jeff Jacoby? Gimme a break.

It appears that he is factually correct.
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=201&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2008

john l
01-30-2010, 11:13 AM
the college loan issue is a crime. the gov gives/loans? the money to the banks
to loan to the students, then charges a great deal of interest. i might be off on my numbers but from what i've personally seen with my own kids is $40k of loans
equaling about $140K payback. not sure but it think the bailout loans to banks
form gov didn't have the same equation - i recognize that they payback was quicker. but eduactional loans should be subject to excessive profiteering by banks, especially when the gov is providing the funds. all this makes me wonder - what percentage of my salary am i paying in realestate, fed, state and sales tax, plus health insurance and tuition and how does that compare to
the devil countries like sweden. i bet it makes their income tax look like a bargain compared to the US. and i bet the difference is military budget. surely
we can do better here in the US. "is the enemy me?"

SMARTINSEN
01-30-2010, 11:28 AM
- what percentage of my salary am i paying in realestate, fed, state and sales tax, plus health insurance and tuition and how does that compare to
the devil countries like sweden. i bet it makes their income tax look like a bargain compared to the US. and i bet the difference is military budget. surely
we can do better here in the US. "is the enemy me?"


In the U.S. the tax burden is about 28 percent of GDP, compared to somewhere around 40-50 percent for most of Western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_ GDP

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-30-2010, 11:29 AM
Most of the low population states have a high rate of return on the taxes they pay to the US Treasury. I think we should find out the monetary value of the federal goodies Orrin Hatch brings home to the Beehive State to see if all the beehive folks, including seafox, are industrious enough to not be feeding themselves from someone elses plate.

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 11:30 AM
Jeffrey, to take a crack at answering your question, there are far more private sector employees than there are government, otherwise the whole thing would've come crumbling down already. I don't know the state and local numbers, but at the Federal level there approximately 2 million employees. State and local must be several times that, but nowhere near the private sector numbers.

The greater problem is that government employees are grossly overpaid in comparison to the private sector employees who fund them. Average pay, benefits, days off, incredible retirement plans, all of it, government employees enjoy far more generous compensation.



We have become slaves to our own servants.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/30/myth_of_the_underpaid_public_employee/

The citation compares federal employes to a national average. Obviously there are relatively few burger-flipping jobs on the federal payroll, which badly distorts this picture. A comparison of pay for comparable job classifications would be more useful. Do you really think a national manager for a major US corporation is paid less than, say $100,000 a year?

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 11:33 AM
This is utter and complete nonsense. Oooooh, the boogeyman!!! We're being invaded by witches!!! A plague of deadly green and orange basilisks!!! Get a grip, gentlemen.

As a percentage of GDP, the federal government has been roughly the same size since the early 1950s. There have been ups and downs, but the trend line is roughly flat. Over the long term, the percentage of people employed by the federal government has actually been falling. As a percentage of GDP, all government expenditures; federal state and local, have been roughly flat since the late 1970s. Yes, there's been a spike over the past year; there's been a drop in overall GDP and a Keynesian stimulis intended to get the economoy going again, but it's a short-term phenomenon. One can certainly argue that the government should be smaller, but it's been roughly the same size for thirty-five years. The idea of "ever-expanding government" is a myth.

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20 To%20GDP.GIF

This shows that that the increase in the size of the federal government happened in the 1930s, and the increase in state and local governments happened in the 1950s and '60s. Overall size of government as a percent of GDP has been roughly constant for 35 years. The following graphs show that the composition of spending and revenue has changed, but not the overall size.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/20/business/economy/revenues.jpg

http://politicsandprosperity.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/government-spending-as-percent-gdp_21.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~markthoma/Graphics/GDPpercent.9.12.05.a.jpg

This last is a graph showing the composition of the whole economy; the small "net imports" bit at the top is a bit confusing, since it's really negative, actually net imports - that's why the total is more than 100% at some points. But again, the idea that over the past 30 years the government has been an ever-expanding fraction of the economy is simply false, a factual error, like claiming the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor. You can have what opinions you like, but no one is entitled to make up their own facts.

Government "spending" is not the payroll of government employes. The dominant factor in the US federal budget is the distribution of social security and medicare--what is paid in and paid out.

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 11:35 AM
Rick could you give a cite, please. The BLS has data to the end of 2009 that contradicts your statement.

I am not arguing that the expansion of government is a good thing, mind you, but rather that data should be accurate and viewed in context.


SMARTINSEN as clearly stated, my example was taken from the net job loss numbers reported for the month of April 2009 in which public sector jobs clearly reduced the net number of jobs lost for the month. I don't believe anyone disputes that fact.

I just happened to have those statistics on hand from a previous discussion. Still, without bothering to dig up the numbers for the year, I'm of the opinion that public sector jobs increased in 2009 while at the same time the total number of private sector jobs decreased. It's that trend which is a major concern and highly negative indicator of where our economy is headed.

SMARTINSEN
01-30-2010, 11:35 AM
Government "spending" is not the payroll of government employes. The dominant factor in the US federal budget is the distribution of social security and medicare--what is paid in and paid out.

That, and war.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2010, 11:39 AM
I'm of the opinion that public sector jobs increased in 2009 while at the same time the total number of private sector jobs decreased.2009? Sure private sector jobs decrease,; it was the worst economy since the 1930s. Do not try to tell time by watching the second hand on the clock.

JimD
01-30-2010, 11:40 AM
I'd like to take this moment and show my support for the troops

http://fanyard.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/jessica-simpson-on-gq-cover-in-american-flag-bikini-dbu-pants-and-soldier-dog-tags.jpg

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 11:53 AM
That, and war.

Defense is about the same as SS--both are smaller than Medicare.

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 11:59 AM
From the far right New York Times, August 2009:

While the private sector has shed 6.9 million jobs since the beginning of the recession, state and local governments have expanded their payolls and added 110,000 jobs, according to a report issued Thursday by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.


Would someone please explain to me how to post this graph directly onto the forum instead of a link?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/08/20/us/20states_graphic.ready.html



.

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 12:02 PM
2009? Sure private sector jobs decrease,; it was the worst economy since the 1930s. Do not try to tell time by watching the second hand on the clock.

This current trend in public vs private employment IS what we are talking about here Keith! :rolleyes:

Ian McColgin
01-30-2010, 12:12 PM
The current trend public v private sectors employment is public down, but I'm not sure it's statistically significant. It seems to run from a high of about 17% of the work force to 15%.

When mathematics has changed enough that these numbers show "their [sic] are more goverment employees than privet [sic] ones" [#1], perhaps we might debate the matter.

TimH
01-30-2010, 12:15 PM
Americans insisted on purchasing cheap foreign products and foresake American goods even when we all had decent jobs and could afford better.

How long did we think it would take until the American products and comanies were mostly gone and the remainder sending their jobs overseas?

Soon it will be public sector jobs or none.

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 12:18 PM
In truth, the lousy statistics for public sector job growth did not just begin. As indicated by this excellent commentary on the lost decade by Michael Mandel.

"Over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.

But even that gives the private sector too much credit. Remember that the private sector includes health care, social assistance, and education, all areas which receive a lot of government support. "

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 12:20 PM
The dramatic drop in property tax revenues due to the collapse of the housing bubble is having a big effect on local services. Layoffs so far, with a growing debate over pay cuts. The time lag from dropping prices affecting assessments, to that affecting tax revenues and budgets, appears to have run out.

SMARTINSEN
01-30-2010, 12:23 PM
From the far right New York Times, August 2009:


Would someone please explain to me how to post this graph directly onto the forum instead of a link?

.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/20/us/20states_graphic.jpg

Right click and choose "copy image location" and then paste it into the insert imagehttp://woodenboat.com/forum/images/editor/insertimage.gif icon.

At least on Firefox, IE might be a tad differnt, but you should be able to get the idea. It is the same as posting a photo.

Tom Montgomery
01-30-2010, 12:25 PM
Power to the People!

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/anarchy_flag.jpg

Just say "No" to government.

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 12:38 PM
FWIW: About half the US federal employes are military.

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 12:39 PM
Americans insisted on purchasing cheap foreign products and foresake American goods even when we all had decent jobs and could afford better.

How long did we think it would take until the American products and comanies were mostly gone and the remainder sending their jobs overseas?

Soon it will be public sector jobs or none.


It's a sad state of affairs Tim, but Americans have had plenty of warning. Remember the little guy with big ears showing charts and talking about that "sucking sound"? Unfortunately, the me, me, me generation(s) were too busy entertaining themselves, taking their prosperity for granted and thinking the party would go on forever....

David G
01-30-2010, 12:58 PM
Rick-Mi,

Now that we all have the chart in front of us... what point(s) are you trying to make?

At first glance, I see several things going on --

In the current recession, public sector job growth is, indeed, growing (ever so slightly), while private sectors jobs are going away rapidly.

The current recession has lasted longer, and dived deeper than any since the 1930's. (I think we all knew that).

Public sector job growth typically exceeds private sector during a recession (no big surprise there, either, since it IS a recession).

Except for local govt. during the 80's, public sector employment is flatter during this recession than during any recession shown.

A common way to analyze sets of data like this is to first look at the aggregate and answer the question: what's the overall picture here. Then, start comparing the individual components across time. Then, look for bits that both support and conflict with your initial thinking.

I won't attempt to do that process for you. I don't want to color your response. I'll just ask for your impressions: what's the overall picture; what was your initial thinking, and what bits support it; conflict with it.

Ian McColgin
01-30-2010, 01:26 PM
Another aspect of the analysis is to remember that there are about 80 private sector jobs for every 7 school teachers and soldiers and postal workers and all other government workers.

Boom and bust cycles affect private sector employees more, just as in good times pirvate salaries are far higher than public while in bad times many private salaries may simply not exist. That's why employment counselors are always showing their clients that the competition for private sector jobs is less, the potential renumeration greater, but the security less than public sector.

htom
01-30-2010, 02:21 PM
A lot of decent folk are employed as teachers, firemen and police officers.

The government also builds roads, cures diseases, keeps airplanes from crashing and delivers the mail on time.

I don't share your disdain.

The government mostly hires private companies to build the roads.

The government mostly allows private research to cure disease, then taxes the drugs if they allow them onto the market.

Pilots (private) and mechanics (private) keep airplanes from crashing. Government hassles you if you want to board one.

Delivers the mail ... no, they did that long ago. USPS is private now.

At least on this planet; yours may be different!

Rick-Mi
01-30-2010, 02:44 PM
Rick-Mi,

Now that we all have the chart in front of us... what point(s) are you trying to make?

At first glance, I see several things going on --

In the current recession, public sector job growth is, indeed, growing (ever so slightly), while private sectors jobs are going away rapidly.

The current recession has lasted longer, and dived deeper than any since the 1930's. (I think we all knew that).

Public sector job growth typically exceeds private sector during a recession (no big surprise there, either, since it IS a recession).

Except for local govt. during the 80's, public sector employment is flatter during this recession than during any recession shown.

A common way to analyze sets of data like this is to first look at the aggregate and answer the question: what's the overall picture here. Then, start comparing the individual components across time. Then, look for bits that both support and conflict with your initial thinking.

I won't attempt to do that process for you. I don't want to color your response. I'll just ask for your impressions: what's the overall picture; what was your initial thinking, and what bits support it; conflict with it.

David,
The point I'm trying to make is agreeing with the general premise of seafox's OP that we are experiencing a dangerous trend in job statistics between the public and private sector. It's a strong statement, but government employees are largely parasitic and dependent on extracting the fruits of labor away from the productive. This is by no means a wholesale condemnation of government employees because some play a vital role in our society. My contention that every time a machine tool or other highly productive manufacturing job is replaced with a bureaucrat shining a seat with his ass or worse, hindering the producers with excessive regulation we are one step closer to flirting with economic disaster.

As pointed out in the Lost Decade article I posted:


Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.

Itís impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.

Over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.

Every time we replace a private sector job with a government worker it creates a negative two edged sword. Not only do we lose the tax revenue from the private sector worker, we have now added the entire cost of wages and benefits to a payroll that must somehow be paid for by the private sector.....but the private sector has less workers and is less economically able to survive tax increases. It's a viscous cycle that is spelling disaster for many state budgets and is rearing it's ugly head on the national scale as well.

The nasty cycle explained above is made worse with the embedded nature of government workers. Unlike the private sector, it's very difficult to shed government employees and due to the union type influence their benefits are expensive and loaded with built in increases. In my state of Michigan we are headed for the biggest fiscal train wreck you've ever seen much of it caused because politicians are unwilling to get rid of government workers. If government employees in my state were able to be dealt with like the private sector many jobs would be slashed as would gold plated benefit packages. Yet, with plenty of warning from years of budget problems our politicians led by Jennifer Granholm have been unable to make needed cuts and in fact increased overall spending, even in the midst of crisis. Federal stimulus money has temporarily averted disaster but look out for the cliff below when that bail out money runs out in 2011!

So let's conclude this with the contention that not all jobs are equal in their benefit to society and the trend toward government employees replacing private sector workers is a very disconcerting leading indicator.

JBreeze
01-30-2010, 03:14 PM
Regarding the federal budget, this seems to be a problem:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Figure1-2.gif

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml

I imagine state and local will be as bad, if not worse.

Couple of things to think about:

1)Since January, however, the condition of the two entities has turned out to be worse than expected; as a result, CBO has increased its estimate of the present value of future losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by $52 billion for 2009—most of which stems from loans and guarantees inherited at the time of the conservatorship—and by $28 billion for their activities between 2010 and 2019.9

If the fanny and freddie losses turn out to be less than $400 billion through 2019, I'll buy everyone a round at the 2019 WB Show:D

2) Are the assumptions about interest rates rational? Again, I'm willing to bet that the US won't be able to aquire inexpensive international financing through 2019.

SMARTINSEN
01-30-2010, 03:21 PM
The discussion of the size of the federal workforce is dwarfed by the size of the problem of the spiraling and seemingly endless deficits and debt.

We are in big trouble and no one wants to address it.

David G
01-30-2010, 03:35 PM
J,

Yes, the proposed budget seems to have changed things. That's reflected, if I understand it right, by the dotted lines. And to make it more complex, the administration seems to be changin its approach again... but, hopefully, in a way that will make the picture less bleak.

I know very little about international financial markets, so anything I say could be way off base. Reading an article in the Economist the other day about the perceived dangers of huge Chinese foreign reserves. I had two thoughts. First - given that fact, it will hardly be in China's interests to damage the US economy. Second - they're gonna want to put that money to work... just as they currently are. Some will be spent/invested in infrastructure, but they'll be looking to lend the rest to someone. Unless we really step on our ----'s, that'll oftentimes be us.

And one more thought from the dept. of Pollyanna: the deficit, if viewed another way, isn't projected to be a dramatically larger item - as a percentage of GDP, than it has historically. Another chart from the same CBO document:


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Figure1-1.gif


Thoughts?

JBreeze
01-30-2010, 03:49 PM
I don't want to takeover Tyler Durden's role...I'm just trying to be realistic about the near-term future (retirement decision awaits me in the next couple of months):)

The line from the CBO report that bothered me was this:

The cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 projection period would equal $9.3 trillion and would average 5.3 percent of GDP. Debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP in 2019.

In addition, I don't feel we will see the dramatic rebound by 2012 as predicted by the CBO.

I hope I'm wrong!

nw_noob
01-30-2010, 04:39 PM
In the U.S. the tax burden is about 28 percent of GDP, compared to somewhere around 40-50 percent for most of Western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_ GDP


Are you sure that's not just federal tax revenue? That's what the link looked like to me. The figure I heard this year was 61%... it came from some conservative group that added all federal revenue, including social security, capital gains, federal fees collected, federal and state fuel taxes, sin taxes, as well as all 50 states income tax revenue, sales taxes, local property taxes and fees... you get the point. The total collected was far higher than the 28% that is the federal slice. I'll look for the link, it was a newscast that aired in July or August.

Ian McColgin
01-30-2010, 04:48 PM
The table and the Heritage Foundation original make clear that it's all federal, state, and local taxes in the USA and whatever combinations of nation wide and regional taxes obtain in the other countries. Were I prejudiced about the data, I'd suspect the Heritage Foundation, given their bias, to overstate US taxes.

seafox
01-30-2010, 04:49 PM
please note that while "baseline" sounds like a flat meassurement it is IIRC infact an udward trajectory that doubles the size of government every 18 years

Dan McCosh
01-30-2010, 05:19 PM
Couple of issues: Local taxes do exceed federal taxes in the US, and the burden falls disproportionately on middle incomes. European government figures usually include public utilities--i.e., rail, electric production, etc., and of course, health care. We still pay more for less.

nw_noob
01-30-2010, 05:19 PM
The table and the Heritage Foundation original make clear that it's all federal, state, and local taxes in the USA and whatever combinations of nation wide and regional taxes obtain in the other countries. Were I prejudiced about the data, I'd suspect the Heritage Foundation, given their bias, to overstate US taxes.

Thanks, I looked at their stuff, it seems the number I saw must have added deficit spending or acrued interest or something.

Still, it's interesting to note that things we pay service fees for (trash service, drivers licences, new sewer lines, higher ed., health care, etc.) are expected to be things the government just provides in those socialist countrys we're comparing to. That to me makes such a difference because we consider them priveleges to be paid for by the user, as such the tax rates aren't realy comperable. Consider that adding the estimated 10-14% of GDP we spend on health care puts us right smack in the middle of the europeans at around 40% according to that Wiki chart.

Gonzalo
01-30-2010, 05:57 PM
It's a strong statement, but government employees are largely parasitic and dependent on extracting the fruits of labor away from the productive.It is a strong statement, and it is mostly false. Most of what the government does is provide services to the populace that private industry does not do, and which generally have a value to the country as a whole.

The reason government pays private contractors to build roads is that private industry has not financed those projects. How many privately financed roads are there in this country? Very few. There weren't very many before the government took over road building in the early 20th century, either. The public wanted those roads, private industry didn't provide them, so the government did. Private industry profited by using those roads, and so did the nation as a whole. To say the government is a parasite is just thoughtless.

Now, a significant difference between government services and private services is that government services are often involuntary. I pay for part of US Route 212 through South Dakota whether I use it or not, but the South Dakotans pay for my use of I-40, so the exchange is not unfair. Likewise, I pay into the fund for my Social Security pension whether I want it or not. But chances are, when the time comes, I won't turn it down. Whether I make or lose money in the long run is an matter of actuarial statistics, like any other annuity.

Likewise, htom credits private pilots and mechanics with preventing aircraft crashes. That is partly true--but only partly. The government runs the air control system and enforces standards for builders, pilots, and mechanics of aircraft to improve their safety. Just today I read of a slipshod outfit being shut down after a crash when the mechanics failed to inspect an aircraft exhaust system as required.

Now, private industry, through trade groups, could have provided those services, but because they didn't, the government stepped in to regulate that industry. The result, through private and public partnership, is that U.S. aviation is remarkably safe. Government action in aviation clearly increased the utility and profitability of the entire industry. Oh, and by the way, have you ever landed at a private airport? For most people the answer is "no." Private industry could have built those airports, but because they didn't, far-sighted government agencies did so. Damned parasites!

Disease prevention? Much basic research is funded by government, though some is not. When government funds basic research, industry profits, and so does the public. Besides which, through regulation, ineffective, dangerous drugs and devices are limited, though not eliminated. Damned parasites!

I remember when restaurants regularly had outbreaks of food poisoning, but now state government agencies inspect restaurants, publish the results in the newspaper, and force restaurants to post results where customers can see them. I can't remember when the last time I read of a food poisoning epidemic at a restaurant. Damned parasites!

Of course, the government used to regularly inspect food processing plants, but now that the inspection budgets have been cut, we regularly hear of e. coli outbreaks from such products as peanut butter, spinach, meat, and carrots. If private industry had been doing its job, government inspections wouldn't be necessary. Damned parasites!

One can cite examples of silly government expenditures, but so can anyone who has worked in private industry. It is human nature. No human enterprise is without error, waste, or fraud. Not government, not the church, and not private industry.

The fact is, there are things private industry does well, and some things government does well. In a perfect world there wouldn't be any overlap, but since when do we live in a perfect world?

Some government programs are stupid. We all know that, but it isn't an indictment of government as a whole. What of it? You are welcome to identify and work to change those programs you don't like. But simple, thoughtless statements like "government is largely parasitic" don't further your cause. They only show how you think in slogans, not in reality.

seafox
01-31-2010, 12:25 AM
yesterday I paid the "water bill" I have just moved from a home with a septic system to one on sewer. and the bill went up over 20$ now I'll agree with natural monopalies. and the city pays the sewer district and that fine except for two things first all new construction is forced to use sewer dispite the fact that living a deseret a logical person might want to keep all the water he buys and not pay to have the government take it from you. and the second problem is that the city doubles the price it gets charged for your service from the sewer plant. since the city built a huge new city hall the water bill is twice as high as it was before ( and I have taken inflation into acount)
you say private industry did provide these services but they did its just government has forces its way into a great many areas and forced the businesses out. fire companys used to put out fires. they operated like insurance people paid fees based on service and compeditive pricing and if your building caught fire the private companys put out the fire for free if you didn't pay the premium and a company put out the fire then it would charge you for the services.

but you know something I don't think you read the definition of symbiotic and parasitic. whike maybe some services are very nice they are still services and that does not create wealth. you've seen the bumper sticker that says if it isn't grown its mined. well the goverment does not do either of those. and no country ever got rich selling its self insurance

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-31-2010, 01:30 AM
Rick-Mi, we are going thru' a monumental downturn. Trying to draw some dicta from current statistics is a useless proposition. No matter what your situation is our economy is in a perilous state and requires remedies that may be unwarranted in more normal times.
In short, you are beating a dead horse. What the government is doing now is akin to plugging holes in the dikes. It's messy, it's reactionary, it's whatever perjorative you want to apply but, it's necessary. Doing nothing in the face of economic collapse is not an option.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-31-2010, 01:58 AM
yesterday I paid the "water bill" I have just moved from a home with a septic system to one on sewer. and the bill went up over 20$ now I'll agree with natural monopalies. and the city pays the sewer district and that fine except for two things first all new construction is forced to use sewer dispite the fact that living a deseret a logical person might want to keep all the water he buys and not pay to have the government take it from you. and the second problem is that the city doubles the price it gets charged for your service from the sewer plant. since the city built a huge new city hall the water bill is twice as high as it was before ( and I have taken inflation into acount)
you say private industry did provide these services but they did its just government has forces its way into a great many areas and forced the businesses out. fire companys used to put out fires. they operated like insurance people paid fees based on service and compeditive pricing and if your building caught fire the private companys put out the fire for free if you didn't pay the premium and a company put out the fire then it would charge you for the services.

but you know something I don't think you read the definition of symbiotic and parasitic. whike maybe some services are very nice they are still services and that does not create wealth. you've seen the bumper sticker that says if it isn't grown its mined. well the goverment does not do either of those. and no country ever got rich selling its self insurance

When you write stuff don't hit the "enter" key right away. Walk away for an hour then come back a read what you wrote. You will be surprised at the nonsense you have written. Punctuation, spelling, gender, number and case need touching up too. Mu sixth grade nun told me, "when in doubt diagram the sentence". Good stuff ,eh?
This last batch of paragraphs has a heading "Re: more goverment employees than privet sector?". The first sentence of this currant barrage starts "yesterday I paid the "water bill". I want you to have your fun but ya' gotta' make sense! What ,exactly does your charge that government is hiring too many people have to do with the fact you moved and now have city water?
And what is the following about?
"whike (sic)maybe some services are very nice they are still services and that does not create wealth."
Are you recomending that our cities go back to supplying their residents with untreated water? If you are you are a lunatic. Large population concentrations need clean, treated water. If not people can get sick and die in large numbers.

Gonzalo
01-31-2010, 02:39 AM
Look, seafox, you said in the first post of this thread, "government does not create wealth, it only takes." Economists define wealth in terms of goods and services. Government provides both, although in the case of goods it more often it provides funding and management for private companies to construct the goods. That's how most of the country's highways, sewage treatment plants, and school buildings came in to being, not to mention space boosters and other esoteric technology that private industry hasn't yet figured out how to build profitably.

Now, maybe we can agree that providing goods or services is creating wealth. That's what I was taught in my economics classes, any way. If you provide a good or a service that someone pays for, that is creating wealth. In this way of looking at things, truckers create wealth just as surely as film processors do, since the delivery is part of what the consumer pays for. The product is pretty useless if it isn't delivered.

Whether a private company or a public agency provides goods or services, wealth is created. Otherwise, you have to get into silliness like saying that a contractor paid by investors to build a private school is creating wealth while the same contractor paid by taxpayers to do much the same thing is not.

One pretty significant example of government action creating wealth: Private industry has profited greatly from the use of communications satellites. Those private companies pay handsomely to use government-owned boosters and infrastructure that private industry cannot provide. Nobody makes them build satellites and pay NASA or Arianespace to shoot them into orbit; they do it because it is immensely profitable. It seems pretty clear that by providing launch vehicles at a price, the government is creating wealth that private companies cannot do on their own.

Some services provided by the government are done very badly. I don't claim otherwise. Others are not. Many government services are involuntary, at least for somebody, and that makes it irksome for some people. You don't like it that some water/sewer authority pipes away your sewage, but me, I'd be mad if they didn't. Restaurant owners don't like the city inspecting their kitchens, but me, I'd be mad if they didn't.

I wouldn't care much if a private company hauled away my sewage instead of the water/sewer authority. In most places private companies didn't step up to do those things, so the local people decided to form a branch of the government to do it, and by the way, force themselves to pay for it. It's all part of the deal.


but you know something I don't think you read the definition of symbiotic and parasitic. Defining government as parasitic or symbiotic doesn't seem very helpful to me. I've known what the terms mean for nearly 50 years, but I just looked 'em up again in the dictionary to be sure.

I'll be glad to read the specific definitions you are referring to if you'll point me to them. I scanned through this thread and couldn't find them.

seafox
01-31-2010, 02:48 AM
Chuck
pardon my failure to comunicate. the water bill change was in the sewage part. not only am I forced into a system to suport a sanitary sewer system I belive is a waste ( unintended pun) the city uses it as an excuse to fund its self. it is dishonest.

as I tried to say I agree their are natural monopolies. and it is logical the city acts as a pay station but the point I tried to make was ( to pick numbers out of the air) if the sewer plant charges 4 dollers its wrong for the city to charge 16$ and then throw 5 dollers franchise tax on top of it. then the city turns around and uses the extra money it has extracted to hire more and more people whos main purpose is to abridge the freedom we were led to belive was our inaleanable right.

do you disagree with locke that the three escetials of freedom are life liberty and property?.. their are active movements here to force more and more people into smaller areas other places are worse Oregon has practly haulted the subdivision of property.

Btw diagramming sentances is something I ocasionaly do for fun.

I can even agree with you that the government is a logical one to run such things as a water system. your from Ohio arn't you I could imagion a system there where private companys produce treat and deliver water. and compete with each other. infact with a central billing office and a joint distribution system the customers could chose based on price and quality which compay it wished to suport. and I bet very strongly that I could treat my own waste for a lot less that the $11,000 I'll pay in a lifetime
on the other hand the smaller town my family comes from not only gets its water from a spring the infrastructure was privately built by my family decades ago. but the town until quite recently did not hire employees. the town councle and mayor did what needed to be done. one councle person reads the meters. another anounced he was retiring and they told him he couldn"t ( grin ) because the new water pipe project would take 6 months longer than his current turn in office and he was the one who ran the backhoe. I worry about the town; they recently built a city hall at least it isn't huge like most of the other citys around here, ( one funny note when the architect's plans for a neighboring citys hall were being built some one pointed out it was 8 feet taller than the code allowed, so they just passed a law saying they did not have to follow their own law. )

Chuck do you disagree with the principle the bigger and stronger the government the less free the citizan?

BTW what do you think of a proposed law in utah that would allow a property owner to actually collect, store, and use on his own property 2500 gallons?.

and believe it or not I am trying to write with fewer typos and misspellings. at least one thing I've gained in the last 24 hours is knowleige of how to spell "private".

Glen Longino
01-31-2010, 03:24 AM
"Btw diagramming sentances is something I ocasionaly do for fun." seafox

My nomination for the "sentance" of the month!:)
No offense, Jeff!
You tickle the hell out of me!

seafox
01-31-2010, 03:24 AM
Gonzalo
hope you do not mind a side questian but I noted your north carolina adress and wondered if you have visited either of the ironclad replicas of the CSS Albermarle at plymoth or the full size Css Nucess at Kinston? the half size former is a floating and powered modle 63 foot long but it doesn't say what the beam or the draft is. the Lattor is a 158 foot long static display clearly visable on google maps

This is not a personal attack but I think you have it backwards when you say that people get together to have government do things not being done by private sector. I am saying that the people in power want more power and they act in ways the force private out of business. FDRs rural electrification? and TVA forced the existing private company serving tennesse and alabama out of busness. forgiveme I can't remember the names right now they private company tried to compremise and act as the distributing network. it wasn't competing that drove that private company out but direct intentional acts of the government.

I belive the word used in my economics class for the function of suport people like drivers is utility? but when I speak of creating wealth unlike some economists who credits any activity with that name please let me show the difference.. say I gather stone and build a house and it is worth 10 dollers the value created = 10$. now I'm getting old and a worry wort and I decide to pay an insurance company a buck to cover my home in case of earth quake some economist say hey now we have 11$ of wealth but that doller of wealth wasn't created when I paid the insurance company for protection however much i value their service. it was transfered just as it was when say I got that doller as a birth day present. then an earth quake hits and the insurace company pays fred to rebuild it. your economist might say that great now we have had 21$ of gross domestic product but the wealth of the country is still only 10 $.

got to get to sleep and my brain is not as sharp as I wish it were tonight I hope you guys are doing well. looks like tomarrow is snow removal insteed of cutting firewood
jeff

seafox
01-31-2010, 03:32 AM
Mr Longino
absolutely no offence taken I am well aware of my many shortcommings and enjoy laughting at them. sometimes causing laughter I believe is my Porpose in in a dolfinish sort of way. whatis your part of north texas like? are you in the panhandle west of Oklahoma? is the boating good? we have a river called the Weber here I once took my dog kayaking- she took me swimming and while its not much of a river maybe 800 cubic feet per second adverage with a record of 8700. I can testifie when she stood on my head to try and climb back on the boat that that part of the river was at least a dozen feet deep. yet down in the delta another time with a friend in a 15 foot canoe it was a case of bumping from one sand bar to another.

Glen Longino
01-31-2010, 04:30 AM
I'm in North-Central Texas, a hundred miles south of Dallas and Fort Worth.
Three hundred miles south of Amarillo in the panhandle which is more like Denver than it's like the rest of Texas.
I paddle sea kayaks in big lakes. Texas has 250+ lakes.
I stay away from rough and rocky water in these delicate kayaks of mine.
I'm a lazy kayaker!
If I could figure out a way to hang a hammock on a kayak, I'd do it and hire three Mexican girls to paddle and mix Margaritas.:)

Keith Wilson
01-31-2010, 10:30 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/20/us/20states_graphic.jpg

OK, this is an interesting graph. Mainly, it shows that the increase in government employment in this recession, the worst in the series, is much less than that in previous recessions. Second, increasing government employment in a recession is precisely what should be done. It's one aspect of a Keynesian stimulus, and a very important one. A recession (or, God forbid, a depression) is due to lack of demand. The stock market collapse and the mess in the housing market have drained an astounding amount of money out of the economy, and people aren't buying things. The point of a stimulus is to generate demand. These people have decent jobs. They can make their house payments, they can go out to eat, they can replace their worn out car, they can maybe even go on vacation, and all of these things in the short term tend to pull the economy out of recession. In the long term deficits aren't sustainable, but that's OK if we manage to get the economy growing again - and if we don't, that's the least of our troubles.

Now running deficits to pay for tax cuts in good times, that's insane.

ccmanuals
01-31-2010, 03:00 PM
infact most everything goverment can do could be done cheaper by the non public sector.


Now there's a myth if I every heard one.

leikec
01-31-2010, 04:40 PM
Jeff,

First, thank you for the PM. I'm hoping to do more research on my family ancestry in the coming year.

Do you really think you would be better off in a deregulated society? If not, then please tell me what level of government intervention is necessary.

Also, from the previous thread on driving, should women be allowed to drive?

Jeff C

pefjr
01-31-2010, 05:17 PM
Prime example? Health care. The USA vrs the rest of the civilized world. The US has the most expensive health care per capita IN THE WORLD, and millions of Americans aren't even covered. That means the cost per person covered is even more expensive.Thank you for your concern for Americans. We need all the advice and help we can get:D Long time no see.

pefjr
01-31-2010, 05:19 PM
[QUOTE=oznabrag;2474443

it is the basic lie of Fascism. QUOTE]I heard that before somewhere:rolleyes:

High C
01-31-2010, 11:56 PM
When you write stuff don't hit the "enter" key right away. Walk away for an hour then come back a read what you wrote. You will be surprised at the nonsense you have written. Punctuation, spelling, gender, number and case need touching up too. Mu sixth grade nun told me, "when in doubt diagram the sentence". Good stuff ,eh?
This last batch of paragraphs has a heading "Re: more goverment employees than privet sector?". The first sentence of this currant barrage starts "yesterday I paid the "water bill". I want you to have your fun but ya' gotta' make sense! What ,exactly does your charge that government is hiring too many people have to do with the fact you moved and now have city water?
And what is the following about?
"whike (sic)maybe some services are very nice they are still services and that does not create wealth."
Are you recomending that our cities go back to supplying their residents with untreated water? If you are you are a lunatic. Large population concentrations need clean, treated water. If not people can get sick and die in large numbers.

....speaking of spelling and punctuation errors. :D Maybe you should follow your own advice. :rolleyes:

Chip-skiff
02-01-2010, 01:29 AM
I'd like to make more sense of the detailed and reasoned arguments on this thread, but having to re-process "goverment" and "privet sector" before each one reduces me to lime jello.

Privet sector is really funny. My first thought was hedge funds.

seafox
02-01-2010, 02:03 AM
I for one must say I did not notice any mistakes of english in Cayuhoga Chucks comments though I would say that his logic is full of them

since fascisim is complete control of the corperations by the state while maintaining a lie that their really is still private property. fascisim like socialism and comunism is based on lack of freedom of the means of production. in either case the goverment tells the people what to do but then charging something is at the core of a good term like captalism doesn't quite have the impack of associating freedomlovers with an evil system.

yes I do belive the country is much better off with less regulation. I would gladly see a law system that only regulated things that are truely wrong.
to give an example in a slightly different context if we had purely random jurys not ones who are instructed you can only judge what is brought into court and alowed by the judge you can not judge the law only the facts as we present them.
do you really think the income tax system would last a year if we still had such free jurys. that is why you don't get a jury trial in tax matters. that is why the goverment fights so hard to keep any one who has ever smoked a joint off drug cases. and it is why when the federal goverment was waging its war aginst the morman church and its then practice of polygamy refused to allow Mormans in the jury.

BTW Chipskiff i was wondering where in wyoming you are? is it close enough to utah for you to understand if U ask if your lime jello has carrote peelings in it?

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 01:57 AM
Seafox, I visited the remains of the C.S.S Neuse years ago when the bottom of the hull, all that was left of the original, was on display in a sort of glorified open shed in a park in Kinston. I didn't know until I read your post that a large-scale replica had been built. I looked up the pictures on the internet after I read your post. I've never seen the Albermarle.

I think we are going to have to disagree about the nature of governments. The government is not some outside entity, like Grendel, that lies in waiting to prey on the people it serves. Governments are started by people because working together under appropriate legal structures they can do things that can't be accomplished by private individuals working singly. An example: a few weeks ago, here in North Carolina, a crossroads community, growing too fast for its needs to be handled by the county and state, petitioned the state to incorporate as a town. Bingo, a new government was created by a community to serve the unmet needs of the community. From now until kingdom come, the people of that community will be arguing about the role of that government, what services it should provide, and at what cost.

The first thing the new town government needed to do was to levy taxes to pay for the services the people wanted it to provide. Some will want the town to provide more services and some will want fewer, but that doesn't change the fact that it was formed by the people who live there, or a significant majority of them at any rate, to fulfill their need for some services or others.

Robert Penn Warren, writing in All the King's Men described the law, and by extension regulations and the governments that wield them, as a blanket that is too small to cover a family sleeping in one bed together. Because the blanket won't cover everyone, the people pull and tug at it to make it cover them as they need it to. Sometimes it covers one person's needs and sometimes it covers others. In the end, no one is completely happy.

Now, about your $10 house. Wealth is created when goods and services are provided that satisfy needs. You need shelter, so you build a $10 house, but, let's add a complication: let's say you want a $10 house, but you only have $4. You find a bank to lend you $6 at a cost of $1 interest. That's a service you need in order to get your $10 house, and one you are willing to pay for. Does the bank create wealth? Of course it does, because without it, the $10 house won't get built. A further complication: the bank owes it to its depositors not to take too big a risk on the $6 it lent you, so it sets a condition that you pay an insurance company $1 to insure the house. That service satisfies the bank's need to limit its risk, and you are willing to pay for it. Does the insurance company create wealth? Of course, because once again, without that service, the house won't get built. Now you are in $12 for your $10 house, but that is OK because the house fulfills your need for shelter. The $2 you pay for the loan and insurance goes to pay the employees and investors of the bank and insurance company so they can also buy houses, take out loans, and buy insurance--so the wealth of the country is increased by $12, not just the $10 the house cost to build. Notice that nobody held a gun to your head to take the $2 away from you; you paid it willingly because that was the cost to satisfy your need for shelter.

When the earthquake knocks your house down, the insurance pays $7 to rebuild it. It doesn't pay $10 because you don't have to replace the land, only the dwelling, and maybe you have a deductible. In the end, your need for shelter is still met, so the insurance fulfills your need. The bank still has its collateral in the form of the rebuilt house, so its need to reduce risk is met, and the insurance company, well it is out $7, but that is the cost to it of the service it sold you that you were willing to pay for. All of those costs go to meeting your need for shelter, so all of them create wealth. Without them, no house would be built, so your need for shelter would be unmet.

Notice that the accumulated wealth doesn't stop with your $10 house. The unseen people in this example are Fred the builder, his employees, investors, and suppliers, not to mention the employees, investors, and depositors of the bank, insurance companies, and Fred's suppliers. Your house only gets built when all of those people pitch in to provide you with services that satisfy your need for shelter, but it doesn't work if you are the only one building a house. If Fred builds only your $10 house, he goes broke. Same with the bank; if it collects $1 interest only from you, it goes broke, and so does the insurance company if it gets a $1 premium only from you. By providing services to satisfy the need for shelter for lots of people, lots of houses get built, and lots more people have the income to satisfy other needs, like nourishment, transportation, and entertainment. Lots of wealth gets created because of those services provided to you and others at a cost you are all willing to pay. Looking in isolation at the value of your $10 structure as wealth is a distorted view; it is all part of a bigger picture.

Same with you, the trucker for the photo processor. The photographer needs pictures in his hand. Pictures at the processing plant don't meet that need, and he isn't willing to pay for them. So the processor pays you--the trucker--to deliver the product to a convenient place, maybe a local drug store, and charges the photographer enough to cover the cost. That is how the trucker's service creates wealth: by moving a product that is worthless in one location to another place where it has value the photographer is willing to pay for. You, the trucker, didn't develop the picture any more than the banker built your house, but without your service, needs aren't met and wealth isn't created.

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 02:07 AM
I would gladly see a law system that only regulated things that are truely wrong.There's the rub: what is truly wrong? Let's take polultion; is it truly wrong? If you run a factory dumping waste into the river, of course it isn't wrong--you get rid of your waste for free so you can sell your product for less and better compete in the marketplace. You sell more product, hire more workers, and attract more investors. But to the fisherman earning his living fishing the river, or the developer selling scenic river front lots, pollution is clearly wrong. Regulations against pollution are like the blanket that won't quite cover the family in the bed. Everybody pulls this way and that, and nobody gets everything he wants.

seafox
02-02-2010, 02:50 AM
Gonzalo
Thankyou for the information on your experience with the Replicas

actually they do hold a gun to your head because at least in this town ( using the example above) you would not have to barrow the $6 from the bank because as my ancesters did they built their home as they could aford it. ( example time limits) (example outlawing basement houses) ( example outlawing non government aproved building materials)

today because of city regulations homes are vastly more expensive. infact it is a goal of the government her to make it more expensive. ( keeps out poor people you know) they had set a minium size of 1200 square feet and a two car garage.

when you say you do not know what is truely wrong. and use polution as an example. the error in your example is they are dumping the polution on anothers property. now imagion they process and contain the polution on their own property so it does not damage the property of others. that is not wrong. and were you to bring up love canal. please note the history. the canel was cut through impervious clay and hooker chemical company using the best techniques of the day put its waste there and sealed the land fill. then in a act of generosity the owners still curse to this day they sold to the school distric and city of buffalo the land for a token doller and wrote it was only to be used for parkland and that the cap was not to be disturbed. the school distric decited it needed money and sold the land to a developer. hooker chemical sued pointing out that the contract it and the school distric had both voleenterally agreed to said if the cap were endangered by anyone trying to use the land in anyway but as park land. the land reverted to hooker chemical. the court said yup thats what the contract says but we figure the school distric needs the money and we aprove the sale.

I belive in complete transparancy and total honesty.

the school distric and the developer were not honest and did not tell the people about the waste under the ground they were selling them and a whole bunch of people get sick, a ton of houses get paid for by the government who in turn charges hooker chemical under laws that did not exist at the time they legally buried the waste bankrupted them.

seafox
02-02-2010, 02:53 AM
the 6 parts of the 10 comandments that do not deal with god pretty well cover what is right and wrong. don't lie. don't steal, don't murder... pretty well cover it ( grin funny I can't name the 10 comandments and I worry about all the people who get to vote and can not name the 10 parts of the bill of rights)

Keith Wilson
02-02-2010, 09:47 AM
The error in your example is they are dumping the pollution on another's property.The atmosphere and the oceans are no one's property. Controlling environmental damage is essentially impossible under a libertarian model; property rights will not do it.

Keith Wilson
02-02-2010, 10:39 AM
Interesting how many countries claim and honor airspace and 200 mile limits in the oceans. Indeed. But they are still no one's private property. My point is that private property rights, the only kind that a strict Libertarian would recognize, are not adequate to control environmental damage. That requires a government, or some equivalent sort of collective enforcement.

Rick-Mi
02-02-2010, 11:16 AM
Second, increasing government employment in a recession is precisely what should be done. It's one aspect of a Keynesian stimulus, and a very important one.

Adding additional embedded payroll and benefit costs to the already crushing burden of federal and state budget deficit woes to stimulate the economy vs creating jobs and increasing tax revenue through the private sector is complete and utter foolishness. Of course to a Fabian socialist economist and modern Americans with a deeply ingrained socialist mindset, adding to the reach and scope of government is always the proper course of action! :rolleyes:


.

elf
02-02-2010, 11:32 AM
I don't feel crushed by federal debt. Why do you?

Keith Wilson
02-02-2010, 12:02 PM
Crushing burden? Really? US taxes are significantly lower than just about every other wealthy country, and it's a "crushing burden"? You sure are easily crushed.

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 01:04 PM
US taxes are significantly lower than just about every other wealthy country....And nearly all of those countries are, by most measures, just as prosperous as is the U.S. The argument that higher taxes and higher levels of regulation are incompatible with prosperity is simply refuted by all evidence.

People might say they don't like taxes or greater regulation, and that is their right. But arguments that those things are inherently harmful don't hold water.

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 01:46 PM
oznabrag, I was trying scrupulously to avoid hyperbole, which is why I used phrases like "nearly all" and "by most measures" and ignored distinctions between broader vs. narrower prosperity.

High C
02-02-2010, 01:54 PM
This just in...number of Federal employees to grow by some 153,000 this year.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

TomF
02-02-2010, 02:02 PM
This just in...number of Federal employees to grow by some 153,000 this year.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/ The article doesn't go into it ... but what is the projected employment growth in the full US economy, and how do the rates of increase compare?

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 02:20 PM
when you say you do not know what is truely wrong. and use polution as an example. the error in your example is they are dumping the polution on anothers property.No error, because in my example the dumping does not occur on another's property. As Keith pointed out, the river is no one's property; it is a shared resource used by various people each of whom sees his interests as equally valid.

Who is right? The factory owner rightly argues that his use of the river creates wealth because he sells products and hires workers. The fisherman makes much the same argument, since he sells the fish to feed his family, and the fish processing plant sells the fish and hires workers. The developer says his use creates wealth because he sells developed, riverfront lots, and jobs are created for the builders who build the houses.

This is a real-world example. The rights of polluters vs. other users of waterways have been debated for years, and will not likely ever be completely resolved. For years, the arguments went to the factories, but now the pendulum has swung the other way, and governments at many levels restrict pollution to one extent or another. Those regulations didn't come about because some power-hungry bureaucrat woke up thinking, "How can I hassle factory owners today by burdening their businesses with regulations?" They came about because of arguments by others who perceived their rights to be threatened and petitioned the government for protection.

The problem is that often people have competing rights in which no one's actions are "truly wrong," at least by their own lights and in the minds of those sympathetic to their arguments. This problem is as old as humankind and will never go away. There are time-honored aphorisms expressing this problem, such as "Where you stand depends on where you sit," and "It depends on whose ox is being gored."

Arguments about whether it is "truly wrong" for someone to dump on their own or someone's else's property are entirely different, and for clarity of thought should not be mixed with the example I gave. Not surprisingly, there will be differences of opinion in those cases, too, about what is "truly wrong," or about what the remedies should be, based on who perceives their rights as being threatened.

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 03:11 PM
today because of city regulations homes are vastly more expensive.seafox, I engaged in your discussion of your $10 house in order to demonstrate that services such as loans and insurance do create wealth, not only the construction of tangible assets such as houses. Whether or not regulations increase the cost of your house (I'm sure they do) is irrelevant to the argument I was making, and for clarity of thought, it is best not to mix the two discussions.

Dan McCosh
02-02-2010, 04:12 PM
This just in...number of Federal employees to grow by some 153,000 this year.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

Any idea how much is in the military? The story notes that much of this is hiring part-time census workers.

Gonzalo
02-02-2010, 04:19 PM
today because of city regulations homes are vastly more expensive.But to engage on that argument: building codes are primarily meant to protect current and future owners of homes from shoddy building practices by unscrupulous or ignorant builders. Protection of homeowners is a service most people in my community and, I suspect yours, want and are willing to pay for, even though you might not. I am by no means certain that all such regulations are intelligent or warranted, but for the most part they raise my level of protection, and I am willing to pay for that.

Those regulations didn't come about because a power-hungry bureaucrat wanted to harass hapless home builders. They came about because some people in the community saw a need for government protection and petitioned the government to take action to increase their protection. You are welcome to petition the government to remove those regulations, but I would expect substantial opposition from other people who see them as important.

I can't comment except hypothetically about the other regulations you mentioned, such as time limits and minimum sizes, but I'll bet you a dime that they came about because somebody petitioned the government for those restrictions in order to protect some real or perceived interest. Those regulations might be selfish or ill-advised, but I'll bet you another dime that they came about because a significant voice in your community wanted them, and not because "the government" just needed something to do to hassle you.

Just a guess: time limits are to protect the interests of neighbors from half-finished houses in their neighborhoods, which they perceive as inconvenient and harmful to property values. (People are overly protective of property values in my opinion, but it is their right to seek government protection if they see those values threatened.) You are entitled to argue that your right to take forever to finish your house supercedes your neighbors' perceived rights.

Minimum size limits might be to protect neighbors from perceived threats to their property values from having cracker box houses next to their McMansions. You and I probably think this is stupid and selfish, but it is their right to seek protection from the city government of their perceived interests, and it is your right to oppose those restrictions.

Dunno about the no basement rule. Maybe the soil in your area holds water, making basements problematic from a flooding standpoint. Maybe it is just a stupid rule; I don't know. In my area, clay soil retains water and makes basements a problem, so most houses don't have them. My house does, and I'm glad to have it. In any event, I doubt that "the government" just decided out of the blue to forbid basements. Somebody thought is was the solution to a problem, and it is your right, should you choose, to ask for variances or whatever other remedies are appropriate.
my ancesters did they built their home as they could aford it.Gosh, it would be great if we still lived in a country where anyone who wanted to could push on to the frontier and build a house without restrictions. Some people still do that, and you could too, if you wanted to. But since you choose to live in a town with other people, you voluntarily limit your right to do things without restrictions that respect the perceived rights of other people, whether they be building codes, minimum size limitations, or no basement rules. When we live with other people, it is difficult if not impossible to move without stepping on the toes of others. Those people might petition the government to restrict your movements to spare their toes, and rightly so. Regulations, alas, tend to be "one size fits all." Some regulations are stupid or incorrectly applied, but most municipalities allow for variances, and it is your right to apply for them if the regulation doesn't fit your case. When we live with other people, it is the best we can do.

Thinking that "the government" just exists to harass you is an incorrect perception of the problem. If you understand that other people have the right to petition the government to protect their perceived rights from your actions, and that you have an identical right to do the same, it is much more productive. Complaining about "the government" in general terms accomplishes nothing except to vent your spleen. Trying to understand why certain regulations came into being and then seeking variances as necessary is a lot more productive.

High C
02-02-2010, 07:21 PM
Any idea how much is in the military?

From the article: "Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010."

Paul Denison
02-02-2010, 07:50 PM
Crushing burden? Really? US taxes are significantly lower than just about every other wealthy country, and it's a "crushing burden"? You sure are easily crushed.

:eek::eek::eek: Have you looked at the national debt projected over the next ten years?

The crushing will commence shortly.:(

ccmanuals
02-02-2010, 08:55 PM
From the article: "Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010."

The federal gov't has finally figured out after all this time that not every job is more cost effective if it's contracted out. Keep in mind that you are only seeing the increase in civil service numbers. The contractor positions you never see and are buried in the budge. I supervise both civil service and contractors and believe me, the cost for contractors is almost triple what we pay for civil service. It's about time we converted these back to civil service. Want to save you taxpayers as much as we can and get more bang for the buck!

Paul Denison
02-03-2010, 05:40 PM
Yep. We spent eight years stuffing the pockets of Halliburton et al, and now we gotta pay.

Still and all, if the top tier wealth-holders will quit whining and pony up their fair share, the debt will be retired quickly.

Fair share? Yes. Fair share. These are the people who have been made rich or richer by Bushco's tax and spend, and war with no accountability, so they should pay their fair share, and quit whining about a 4% increase on the top marginal tax rate.

I think the math has been done here before. You'll be surprised how little money will be generated by taking "all" the $ from the top earners.

Keith Wilson
02-03-2010, 05:45 PM
I think the math has been done here before. You'll be surprised how little money will be generated by taking "all" the $ from the top earners. Show us. Any rational discussion of tax policy depends on accurate numbers. BTW, nobody is contemplating taking all of anybody's dollars in taxes.

Paul Denison
02-03-2010, 05:49 PM
I'm not talking about taking 'all' the money from the top 'earners'. I'm talking about raising the top marginal tax rate back to 39%. They're already whining. If'n I'uz tha Kang I'd have it back where it was in 1955. What a deafening, soul-satisfying howl they'd kick up then!

Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhh. :D


It may be satisfying, but it won't pay the bills. For instance look at this article on Minnesota state and local taxes.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2009/12/fact_check_mark.shtml

Keith Wilson
02-03-2010, 06:03 PM
OK, thanks very much. Good article. There was also a link to an excellent study by the Minnesota Department of Revenue which essentially confirms the figures (from MN, anyway) in the study I referenced earlier. Go here, look on page #45 (http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/legal_policy/other_supporting_content/2009_tax_incidence_study_links.pdf)- the figures are more detailed, but correspond pretty closely to the ones in the national study. Minnesota taxes overall are slightly progressive up to about the 70th percentile, then the rate drops off, quite significantly for the top 1%

Taxing the rich - well that's where the money is. In Minnesota the upper 10% of earners have 43% of the total income. The top 5% have 32%, and the top 1% have 17% - and the income distribution here is flatter than in most states.

purri
02-04-2010, 12:44 AM
FWIW I hate privet, especially hedges.

seafox
02-04-2010, 02:47 PM
Keith
right now I understand the top 10% of the people are paying 60% of the income taxes. (it would be good if we just had one tax bill) i wonder what the top pay total. but why is it fair that 40% of the people do not pay any icome taxes? a liberal like michael medvid thinks 30 percent of income is a fair rate but i as a cosevite think if god gets by on 10 percent it should be good enough for goverment. BTW I fully suport your right to give more if you want but it should not be taken by your neighbors by force. btw the religions ( taking out devine insperation ) are social constructs showing thousands of years of experience. at 10 percent its not worth much effort to avoid taxes. at 91 % why would a rich person bother to be productive.

on the news this morning their are now more union members who are government workers than are private employies

seafox
02-04-2010, 03:14 PM
Gonzalo
the basement houses I mentioned were a popular post WW2 method of making a home. the basement was built and roofed over and the people lived there untill they could aford to built the main floor. one ocasionally sees places that have yet to be built ( grin)

the idea that I can apply for variences or petion the goverment to allow more freedom is about the same as having the government say that all books or newspaper stories must get a permit after reveiw by the " writing code officer" and any writings that are denied may aply for a varience.

the idea it was citizans demanding the building code system is flat out wrong. most people are to busy trying to earn a living and the busybodies who want more restrictions should not be forcing their views on others.
the forces driving the system are the building officals union. these national orginizations of beaurocrats write "model" codes and then work to get them adopted by the goverment. they were started in a major way by insurance company intrests, abitted by bankers. also driving the system are those companys already supplying building materials who want to use government to stop new ideas new products and more compitition. durring the first part of WW2 rosevelt talked to the lumber intrests and told them we need a whole lot of lumber for the war effort. and they said sure we can do it but don't yu think its unfair your housing department is teaching people how to build homes with out our lumber ? why it just might not be in our intrest to invest in more mills if after the war the government is working to lessen demand.

have you heard of the " Forgotten man" he is the future worker the future home owner who is never consulted never considered as those who have the power now meet and set up the system to benifit themselves.

and when you say its the people who demand this. I will tell you the story of al popelli. he was not only code inforcement officer. but he was on the comittie that wrote the rules. and he one time went door to do and handed out notices telling people they could not have horses if they did have horses that very day. so he was your citizans group the legislature the cop and the prociquter all in one. and since the judge and his co workers get paid by the fines they levy how much fairness do you think your going to get there?

another town has a future planing group this committie is made up of mayor councle and department heads. these are people whos decisions benifit themselves and gt paid for making them. the people fighting for freedom have to take time away from their livs to fight for that freedom.
and sometimes they are honest. they have said we do not want more working class people we want yuppies so we are not allowing any more starter homes. we have to many renters we want richer people so they have been working for years to cancle dupleses and triplexes

TomF
02-04-2010, 03:24 PM
Gonzalo
the basement houses I mentioned were a popular post WW2 method of making a home. the basement was built and roofed over and the people lived there untill they could aford to built the main floor. one ocasionally sees places that have yet to be built ( grin) ...My dad lived in a "house" like that one winter, sometime in the 40s. His family took out a membership at the local YMCA so they could take showers.

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 03:42 PM
but i as a cosevite think if god gets by on 10 percent it should be good enough for goverment.I tried hard to figure this out, even Googled on it, and I found this: "Cosevite is a daily vitamin and mineral supplement for dogs." (http://www.nutramaxlabs.com/Vet/Products/Cosevite.aspx) While you may indeed be a cosevite, I suspect that's may not be what you meant. :confused:

seafox
02-04-2010, 03:52 PM
Keith
a "Co- serve- it- tee" might also be a "Con-serve-i -tee" if he were not mad and typing so fast. when I get to the next world I'll see if I can find old webster and beat the" ****e" out of him

High C
02-04-2010, 03:54 PM
I tried hard to figure this out, even Googled on it, and I found this: "Cosevite is a daily vitamin and mineral supplement for dogs." (http://www.nutramaxlabs.com/Vet/Products/Cosevite.aspx) While you may indeed be a cosevite, I suspect that's may not be what you meant. :confused:

E tu, Keith? :rolleyes:

seafox
02-04-2010, 03:55 PM
further would add that dispite your un-understandable. ( and I chose that term weather or not it is a "proper" word) liberal leanings I credit you with the inteligence to unerstand if not agree with what I write.

Keith Wilson
02-04-2010, 04:21 PM
Did you mean "conservative"? Jeffery, you may be many things, good or bad, right or wrong, but conservative you are not.

seafox
02-08-2010, 09:38 AM
Keith
I wonder why you say I am not a conservative?

do you picture political spectrum as a bar with left being liberal more government less freedom over to the right with conservative, smaller government and more freedom?

is it a curcle where if you go so far right you get nazis ( socialests we in academia and the news media don't like) while if you go far left you get to communists ( socialest we do like)

is it some kind of 3 d figure where one place you have big government more freedom (though how that could be I don't know) while in another you have no government no freedom (also impossible because at least some people can look out for them selves)

Glen Longino
02-09-2010, 12:31 AM
further would add that dispite your un-understandable. ( and I chose that term weather or not it is a "proper" word) liberal leanings I credit you with the inteligence to unerstand if not agree with what I write.

You're no damn good, seafox!:)