What is driving America off the cliff

[Genx87]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...t.questions/index.html

Please dont bother responding if all you are going to do is attack the author or me.

I like how he lays it on the line about people wanting smaller govt, less taxes, provided the govt doesnt yank the programs people want.

I also found the 4 questions he brings to the table valid and ones I have asked in the past.

1. My friend, his wife, and I were talking about this last weekend. They heard there is a possibility we may start seeing avg ages pushing into the 80,90s, and maybe even triple digits in the next 100 years. How can our social programs survive when people spend over half their life not producing?

2. The numbers I have heard claim 80-85% of your medical costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Does it make sense to spend so much to prolong life for a few months? I understand the moral ramifications from possibly rationing to people on their death bed. But at some point it will need to be addressed when we run out of money.

3. I asked this question running up to the election. We are moving to a system where a smaller portion of people pay income taxes? It is possible under Obama half the workforce will essentially pay no federal income taxes. Though my questions were centered around, is it good for the nation to have such a large portion of the population not feel the financial effects of the programs they vote to enact? Would it make for a better govt if even the poor invested some of their income into the govt? And will we have a govt paid for by the rich for the rich????

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

 

[Sacrilege]

There are taxes other than income taxes which the poor pay: sales tax, sin tax on cigarettes and alcohol, property tax. The poor indirectly pay business taxes through higher prices.

If America wants to balance the budget without raising taxes, it needs to make cuts in Medicare, Social Security, the military, or all three. All other discretionary spending is absolute peanuts compared to those three. Fighting over millions of dollars in volcano monitors when there are billions and trillions spent on defense and entitlements is pointless.

Edit: and by historical standards, the military isn't even that much. So Medicare/social security it is: which do you want to get rid of?

 

[StageLeft]

1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...t.questions/index.html

Please dont bother responding if all you are going to do is attack the author or me.

I like how he lays it on the line about people wanting smaller govt, less taxes, provided the govt doesnt yank the programs people want.

I also found the 4 questions he brings to the table valid and ones I have asked in the past.

1. My friend, his wife, and I were talking about this last weekend. They heard there is a possibility we may start seeing avg ages pushing into the 80,90s, and maybe even triple digits in the next 100 years. How can our social programs survive when people spend over half their life not producing?

2. The numbers I have heard claim 80-85% of your medical costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Does it make sense to spend so much to prolong life for a few months? I understand the moral ramifications from possibly rationing to people on their death bed. But at some point it will need to be addressed when we run out of money.

3. I asked this question running up to the election. We are moving to a system where a smaller portion of people pay income taxes? It is possible under Obama half the workforce will essentially pay no federal income taxes. Though my questions were centered around, is it good for the nation to have such a large portion of the population not feel the financial effects of the programs they vote to enact? Would it make for a better govt if even the poor invested some of their income into the govt? And will we have a govt paid for by the rich for the rich????

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

I'm a state-government worker, and I've often felt I am overpaid. I work for UNO. I was talking to a co-worker who thought the same thing. That's a tricky situation.

I agree with the retirement thing. You should read Robert Kiyosaki and Donald Trump's book about why the want you to get rich. Retire on your own income, not the government's handouts, because the government can't handle it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

So where is this money going to come from??? You do realize that is has to come from somewhere, don't you???

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Define "treat them as human". What's the minimum level of food/shelter/clothing/healthcare everyone should get, even if they're not able or not willing to contribute to society?

It's easy enough to say what you've said when you're not personally bearing the burden (say, working as a doctor for patients who can't afford to pay you), but if you personally or we as a society actually had to pay for our preferred levels of compassion, instead of immorally dumping it off on future generations in the form of debt, I wonder how compassionate society would really be. I can be as charitable as the day is long with other people's money, but with my own, there has to be limits. That's true for almost all of us.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

So where is this money going to come from??? You do realize that is has to come from somewhere, don't you???

Of course I do. I'm not saying it's an easy situation. I'm saying that a human's life is more important than money.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Well, probably you are willing you just don't want to admit it. From the single to the government level, economics continually play an influence in health. Why do I drive a mid size sedan when I know that statistically a full size or H2 is a safer vehicle? There are endless examples of how we save money to slightly or substantially increase risk. Money is a representation of a finite resource, afterall.

 

[StageLeft]

I'm saying that a human's life is more important than money.

And yet if you took some of your admittedly high salary and funneled it to another country you could literally save another life with it. Economics can be an ugly thing, but it is undeniable.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I'm saying that a human's life is more important than money.

And yet if you took some of your admittedly high salary and funneled it to another country you could literally save another life with it. Economics can be an ugly thing, but it is undeniable.

Exactly. What he probably meant to say was, a human's life is more important than other people's money.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Of course I do. I'm not saying it's an easy situation. I'm saying that a human's life is more important than money.

Are you saying that there is no limit to how much we should spend on a single human?

If not, then there is a dollar value to human life.

 

[JS80]

Ironically democracy is what got America to where it is, and it will be the driver of it falling off the cliff. When democracy is used to get your hands in your neighbors' pockets, it will be it's demise.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...t.questions/index.html

Please dont bother responding if all you are going to do is attack the author or me.

I like how he lays it on the line about people wanting smaller govt, less taxes, provided the govt doesnt yank the programs people want.

I also found the 4 questions he brings to the table valid and ones I have asked in the past.

1. My friend, his wife, and I were talking about this last weekend. They heard there is a possibility we may start seeing avg ages pushing into the 80,90s, and maybe even triple digits in the next 100 years. How can our social programs survive when people spend over half their life not producing?

2. The numbers I have heard claim 80-85% of your medical costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Does it make sense to spend so much to prolong life for a few months? I understand the moral ramifications from possibly rationing to people on their death bed. But at some point it will need to be addressed when we run out of money.

3. I asked this question running up to the election. We are moving to a system where a smaller portion of people pay income taxes? It is possible under Obama half the workforce will essentially pay no federal income taxes. Though my questions were centered around, is it good for the nation to have such a large portion of the population not feel the financial effects of the programs they vote to enact? Would it make for a better govt if even the poor invested some of their income into the govt? And will we have a govt paid for by the rich for the rich????

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

1. It is difficult to pay for this. Undeniably, people are living longer who aren't aware of their situation and are often unaware of their environment. When I was in high school, I worked at a rest home and I've seen this situation (dementia, etc). However, I don't want to work longer if my useful life hasn't changed much. Yes, I might live to be 90 but I can really only be physically capable of doing what I want to do until 70. Do I want to base the number of years I work on how long I'm going to live or how long I'm going to be healthy enough to do the things I want to do? It's a very difficult question to answer. And although it's easy for me to say now, when I'm young, I don't really want to be kept alive in a rest home. I've seen what those conditions are like.

However, I'm saying this as someone who likes to apply logic when solving these problems and has some radical ideas that are probably best left never implemented. For instance, I believe that society should sterilize individuals until they can prove their ability and willingness to bear children. This idea is ripe for abuse and reeks of eugenics, but implemented correctly, it might really benefit society in the long run by reducing the population and, specifically, the number of unwanted or untenable pregnancies.

2. This will have to be addressed and will likely require rethinking how we feel about human rights, etc. For example, should a 60 year old receive a heart transplant over a 20 year old? How do we start to decide what's worth it and what's not? A consensus will never be reached even though we all agree that something has to change. The problem becomes that we want that change to affect someone else and their family, not me and mine.

3. A smaller group of people pay income taxes because wealth is being concentrated. If the top 10% of income earners earn 90% of all income, it stands to reason that they pay 90% of all income taxes. However, I do believe that everyone should pay. I believe it's Sweden, correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone is punished by taxes. This creates at least some form of solidarity. This is one reason why I like the idea of universal health care. If we pay for it through income taxes, then we can at least extract some money from everyone as opposed to the current system where if people can't pay, they just visit the emergency room and pay nothing. Better to get something. Such a system would still be progressive (more than now), as it should be, but might create less feeling of resentment. We should all feel the burden.

In relation to this, government needs massive reform. The government should represent the interest of the people and not just the elite or the large corporations. Our current system of lobbying and contributions simply creates a situation where even obvious and rampant corruption goes unpunished. I'm not afraid of large government, I'm afraid of bad government.

4. I would need some evidence to show me this is true. I was recently in the private sector and took a massive pay cut to come to the public sector working for a university. I did this because of other benefits I receive and because I like being in a university environment. The secretary in our unit makes 20k/yr, which I understand is about average. One of my coworkers has many years experience with ASP/.net and several large websites under his belt, including the online store for our department. He makes about 60k/yr. At least in IT, I'd say we're below average in terms of pay. Now, this isn't federal government and I'm sure it isn't true for every government agency, I'm just pointing out that it isn't fair to say that every public worker is overpaid. I wish I made as much as my contemporary in the private sector. Just like them, I don't always get lunch hours (get zero this week) and have to work nights/weekends (I'm working tonight, in fact). My salary is frozen this year and I have to pay my own salary by selling my service to outside institutions. Based on past experience, there are people in both sectors that have the mentality that they can sit around and collect a paycheck, and the public sector doesn't pay that much.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

I work in the public sector. My retirement is a 401k plan. My health insurance plan is a PPO which I pay extra for every month. My unit is taking a 20% budget cut starting in July and we are losing 1 to 2 full time people (we have 11 people in the unit). My college is losing over 100 people with some people estimating as high as 150. We have slightly fewer than 1000 employees. Maybe you don't hear of it because most state agencies have July-June fiscal years so the layoffs haven't been steep yet. Or maybe you just actually know nothing about the public sector and like to make generalizations.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Please dont bother responding if all you are going to do is attack the author or me.

Well, that pretty much rules out all the fun...

But seriously, those are good points you brought up. I wish I had the answer.... I wish anyone had the answer.

 

[KB]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Why do you say this? At one time it was well known that government paid less, but you had higher job security; however this tide has turned.

Did you read the article?

"According to one study, public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, while private-sector workers got benefits worth $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour, $11.90 more than in the private sector."



I agree with all of this guys points. My generation will sadly be the generation that has to work till 80/90 because Social Security won't kick in until then for us. Plus we will be the ones still paying for the generation before us who got to retire at 70 and live till 110.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

In what ways? Are you disputing the difference in benefits? Have you worked a govt job? I have done contracting work for the feds and it was amazing how much more they paid above what I would in the private sector. The few people I know who work for govt, though on a city and state level, make a little bit more than the private sector salary wise, but their benefits are through the effing roof compared to anything I have seen in the private sector.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Why do you say this? At one time it was well known that government paid less, but you had higher job security; however this tide has turned.

Did you read the article?

"According to one study, public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, while private-sector workers got benefits worth $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour, $11.90 more than in the private sector."

In addition, from first hand experience, the slumping economy has greatly affected the pay raises of the private sector because they have reduced incoming profits. In government there is no such thing as profits, just increasing budgets so they can continue to give raises. In fact in government they always try to spend their entire budget so they get get a higher budget next year.





I agree with all of this guys points. My generation will sadly be the generation that has to work till 80/90 because Social Security won't kick in until then for us. Plus we will be the ones still paying for the generation before us who got to retire at 70 and live till 110.

I the article, he simply states, "according to one study." That's worthless. In my experience, the trade-off is still there, although it's lessening. You can read my previous posts, but based on working in both the public and private sector I can tell you that public sector workers don't always have a job and they are not paid more than those in the private sector. My retirement account lost just as much value as anyone else's. I still pay insurance premiums and I still pay a copay at the doctor. The only reason I work for a university is because of the education benefits, which while not that much better than the private sector are certainly easier to exercise with class being a short walk from work. It is certainly not better pay or easier work. And my job is still on the line come July, although I'm likely safe as I bring in roughly ~100k/yr from other institutions. That's right, there are workers in the public sector that also have to generate revenue. In fact, that's the primary criteria being used to determine who gets laid off in the next fiscal year. Maybe 20 years ago you could sit around and collect your government check, but today the administration wants revenue and results. Frankly, considering how much revenue I produce for the university, I'm grossly underpaid. I'm certainly underpaid considering how much I was paid in the private sector compared to how much work I did. I put in more hours now than I did then.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

In what ways? Are you disputing the difference in benefits? Have you worked a govt job? I have done contracting work for the feds and it was amazing how much more they paid above what I would in the private sector. The few people I know who work for govt, though on a city and state level, make a little bit more than the private sector salary wise, but their benefits are through the effing roof compared to anything I have seen in the private sector.

I am disputing the difference in benefits, at least at the state and university level.

Yes, I have worked both in the private and public sectors.

Everyone in my unit makes less now than they would in the private sector. They all have 401k retirement plans. If they want themselves, their wives, and their children covered under the BC/BS PPO plan, they pay $294/mo. For just them and their spouse, it's $263/mo.

Maybe it's different at the federal level or in a different state, but in my experience, it's no cakewalk. We also have to let people go and everyone's salary at my university is frozen.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

So where is this money going to come from??? You do realize that is has to come from somewhere, don't you???

Of course I do. I'm not saying it's an easy situation. I'm saying that a human's life is more important than money.

It is not money you are giving up to keep that person alive, you are giving up everything else that you could do instead of keep that person alive. Try this for an example, keep one elderly person alive, who needs constant care, requiring 3 nurses, and the equivalent of 4 other support personnel just to keep this person breathing, and barely functioning. Or you could put those 7 people to work making mosquito nets for Africa and save somewhere around 200 people from dying from malaria or whatever disease it is mosquitos carry.

The problem with all these things that cost a lot of money is not the money, the money is purely a measure of what else you could do instead of the course of action you choose. When you buy a $10 dollar shirt, you are giving up 10, $1 dollar cheeseburgers, or save a life for $20,000 and you pass up the chance to give 10 poor children $2,000 worth of services each. The entire meaning of money is that it makes it easy to measure what else you could do as alternatives. That is what people need to realize about all this stuff we have the government spend money on.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

Ultimately, this is a complex issue, and really depends on both the job classification (for example, the federal gov't employees hundreds, if not thousands, of MDs. Do you think they earn more or less than private MDs?) and level of gov't (local, state, federal).