What happend to "smaller government" republicans

[jayb2000]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/election_budget/spending_explosion.gif

Remember the "Contract with America"?
Here was the very first bill they wanted to implement:
THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

Instead we have the largest debt ever, the largest deficit ever, the highest deficit to GDP ratio since 1986, the largest increase in federal spending, and the highest number of federal employees.

At least Dean wants a balanced budget.

[jayb2000]

Sorry for 2 posts, wanted to attach picture so it showed up.

[Macmaniac]

So much for small government.... Go ahead Bush try, but its the nature of the beast, it just gets bigger.

[Desertrat]

Why do you think a lot of folks refer to Congress as being made up of Republicrats?

The Republicans finally figured out what wins re-election: Buy those votes! So, nowadays they're out-Deming the Dems. Pardon me while I go off in the corner and throw up!

The Dems created a coalition of special interests whose desires were to be met by the promises of campaign rhetoric: The women's libbers, Danegeld to the ghettos, alms for the poor, the race card...

Now, the Republicans are out-doing Gore's efforts, and buying the Old Farts' votes, among others. Defense spending is jobs, right? Keeps the workforce there highpaid and happy.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Just buying different groups.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Hey, 'Rat, don't tell me you're just figuring this out!

The "Republicrat" stuff doesn't cut it anymore. The federal government is completely run by Republicans now. Nobody else to blame for this debacle but them.

Short of a lively multiparty system, the only way to keep the government from diving off the deepest end is divided government.

[wwworry]

or you could say that any past fiscal irresponsibility by democrats pales in comparison to what the republicans are doing now.

Really we saw huge deficit growth under the first Bush and Reagan (though Bush 1 finally saw the need for some fiscal responsibility at the end of his term).

If you look at that chart you will see that in '93 and '94, the last time the house was under democratic control, spending was under control. Democrats in the house passed the marginal rate increases that gave us surpluses that would have allowed us to pay down our Reagan/Bush era debt. You will also notice that when the senate also came under republican control spending jumped.

And to claim that it's all congresses fault is a bit too convenient for me. I would say the reason we have had deficits and the huge debt in the last 24 years is because of the known-to-be-stupid "supply-side" voodoo economics present in the republican party.

Let me sum it up for you:
1. huge tax cuts for the rich with no spending cuts
2. ????
3. Surplus!

So to try and define deficit spending as "a democrat thing" is all out wrong.

[Dont Hurt Me]

the bottom line is George is giving anything and everything the congress wants, they are like drug addicts with our tax dollars. they want more and more and cant stop. Contract with America has been lost. everything they claimed has been thrown out the window. I think we will see a new president voted in this year and perhaps a democrat majority in congress. We are not going to let either party keep screwing us. we gave the Republicans a chance and they blew it. Democrats turn next. we have to get special interest out of running the country on both sides. No more lobbyist!

[G4scott]

Originally posted by jayb2000
At least Dean wants a balanced budget.

Well, he can start by paying his deli bill (http://whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1617677&nav=5ZinKQq4)...

[Desertrat]

Re the "Reagan deficits": IIRC, Rostenkowski ran the House Appropriations Committee, whence cometh all spending authorization. Tip O'Neill pretty much had the say-so on all domestic programs...

"Balancing" the budget or controlling spending is easy during boom times. Lots of money flowing from business deals and sales, so lots of tax money to all levels of government.

Booms end.

IJ, I sure won't argue against the notion that the present spending mess is solely Republican in impetus. But I believe that replacing their control with Democrats will bring about any notable improvement in what the feds do. We still get shafted, but in different arenas.

Smoking reduces one's ability to smell, which is real helpful in a voting booth. The lesser of two weevils still messes up the cornmeal...

'Rat

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, I sure won't argue against the notion that the present spending mess is solely Republican in impetus. But I believe that replacing their control with Democrats will bring about any notable improvement in what the feds do. We still get shafted, but in different arenas.

Well, we have recent history to guide us and it points to the democrats doing a better job managing the govt. finances.

During Reagan/Bush1 it was GOP mantra that "it was all congresses fault". But then:

with a republican president and a democrat house we had big deficits (1980-1992)

with a Democrat president and a democrat house. The nations finances became sound. (1992-1994)

with a Democrat president and a republican house the nations finances were sound. (1994-2000)

with a republican president and a republican house we have big deficits (2000-????)

Add it up, do some process of elimination and what do you get? You need to start accounting for the president in your equations.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G4scott
Well, he can start by paying his deli bill (http://whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1617677&nav=5ZinKQq4)...

There maybe many reasons not to vote for Howard Dean but someone on his staff forgetting to pay a deli bill isn't one of them.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, I sure won't argue against the notion that the present spending mess is solely Republican in impetus. But I believe that replacing their control with Democrats will bring about any notable improvement in what the feds do. We still get shafted, but in different arenas.

I haven't argued for replacing control, I've argued for divided government. I don't think the Democrats would have much if any better fiscal discipline if they were 100% in control. If recent history tells us anything, it's that one party control leads to an orgy of self interest government spending, and given the present situation, I don't see how that point can be much debated. Right now, we've got a President who doesn't wield the veto pen and a minority party in Congress that can't introduce a single bill or stop bills that come to the floor, no matter how loaded they are with corporate gimmies. It's a prescription for disaster.

As for the Reagan deficits, the Democrats in Congress passed the Reagan budgets, not the other way around. I suppose you and I might agree that the Democrats in Congress at the time should not have allowed Reagan to be so profligate with the taxpayer's money, but that's a long way from blaming them for Reagan's fiscal policies.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Re the "Reagan deficits": IIRC, Rostenkowski ran the House Appropriations Committee, whence cometh all spending authorization. Tip O'Neill pretty much had the say-so on all domestic programs...

So are you saying we should blame the Republican-controlled Congress for the fiscal problems we find ourselves in currently?

[Desertrat]

Okay, IJ, re the Reagan budgets, but for one thing. It was common, each year, for the comment by "Rosty" to be made upon submission of the proposed budget from the White House that it was "Dead on arrival."

mac, I sorta already said that, didn't I? Except that I'll limit it to the federal deficit, not all the other fiscal problems extant.

Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a sidebar comparing deficits: In 1983, the deficit was 6% of GDP; the highest in history at $208 billion. In 2002, it was 3.5%, at $375 billion. In 2003, it was 4.2%, at $477 billion.

The worrisome part of this, to me, is that 3.5% and 4.2% now is harder on the country than 6% then. We just don't have the net savings per household; personal debt is way high, and the average buying power is still in decline. The dollar is likely to resume its fall against many world currencies, and oil is likely to increase in price. (IMO) Anyhow, this seems to me to preclude any sort of tax increase; any improvement in the federal fiscal mess can only come from reducing spending.

And any actual reduction in federal spending will be met by howls of outrage from those feeding from the federal trough...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Okay, IJ, re the Reagan budgets, but for one thing. It was common, each year, for the comment by "Rosty" to be made upon submission of the proposed budget from the White House that it was "Dead on arrival."

Which was just so much showmanship, because after much hemming and hawing, they'd go right ahead and pass those budgets. I can't tell if you're conceding the point I've been making, but I sure hope you aren't clinging to the old canard that Democrats are free-spenders and Republicans are tight with the taxpayer dollar. Nobody could make that argument with a straight face anymore except maybe right-wing talk radio hosts and Republican party operatives.

[Thanatoast]

the "smaller gov't" republicans refer to is less spending on domestic discretionary and even non-discretionary (ss, medicare/medicaid) spending. when they claim to want less spending, they certainly weren't talking about less defense spending.

what concerns me is that once the feds start spending money, it's really hard to cut them back. especially when it comes to defense. so even if there is a new prez come january, cutting back defense spending to more reasonable levels will be incredibly difficult, especially considering the guaranteed outcry from reps. "they're gutting our precious nation's ability to defend itself in this time of terrorist threats!" never mind that having the biggest military in the world didn't stop 9-11 from happening in the first place.

the republicans are fighting for an "every man for himself" world. i'd characterize it more as "dog eat dog" myself, especially with the military focus of the current administration.

[wwworry]

the other thing about deficit as % of the GDP is that it adds up in debt. If we have 10 years of this 5% of GDP ....

[Desertrat]

IJ, at one time the Republicans definitely were for less spending. Obviously that has changed. "It ain't your father's Oldsmobile!" They're now working hard at buying votes with tax dollars, just as have the Democrats since FDR...

About the only folks in Congress who really believe in "less government" are those like Ron Paul. The rest of them are always busy expanding centralized power. That took a great leap forward as LBJ's programs got underway, and hasn't slowed a bit. Pick a subject: Education, medicine, Evil Drugs, Evil Terrorists: Bipartisan, all the way. More federal control, more federal spending.

Sarcasm: Aren't we glad SAT scores have climbed dramatically? Aren't we glad medicine is cheaper and more available? The drug problem is notably lessened? Terrorists are no real problem? Hey, isn't all that what we've been promised? (Mode off.)

wwworry, are you acquainted with the "rule of 72"? That is, divide any percentage into 72, and that gives you the number of years to double. (Investment, or debt, at 6% doubles in 12 years.)

'Rat

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
wwworry, are you acquainted with the "rule of 72"? That is, divide any percentage into 72, and that gives you the number of years to double. (Investment, or debt, at 6% doubles in 12 years.)

'Rat

I am not familiar with that. That's why I put the "..." at the end of my post.

I do know that the GDP grows so that 5% of todays GDP will not be 5% of tomorrows GDP.

I just checked the US National Debt Clock (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

Our Debt is $7,022,784,864,559.24

"The estimated population of the United States is 293,147,992 so each citizen's share of this debt is $23,956.45.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.00 billion per day since September 30, 2003!"

Our GDP in todays dollars is $11,107,000,000,000.00

so the percentage of our dbt to todays GDP is 63%! That seems like a lot to me.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, at one time the Republicans definitely were for less spending. Obviously that has changed. "It ain't your father's Oldsmobile!" They're now working hard at buying votes with tax dollars, just as have the Democrats since FDR...

Maybe it's middle age kicking in, but I'm having a hard time recalling when the Republicans, as a party, were really moving the country towards fiscal sanity. Reagan certainly wasn't, and however many "deficit hawks" lived in Congress during the 1980s, their influence certainly wasn't much felt in the end. In fact the Reagan White House pretty much exiled the fiscal conservatives to the sidelines of their own party.

Remember David Stockman? He resigned over the Reagan administration's besotted affair with looney economic theories like the "Laffer Curve." I'll go one step further, and say that at least the Democrats have been more honest about the need to tax the citizenry to pay for government programs. Over the last 25 years, the Republicans have been trying to tell us we can increase government spending and lower taxes. The results of that theory put into practice are available for all to see and evaluate.

[Desertrat]

By and large, the Republicans were fiscal conservatives through the 50s/60s/70s. Approximately. Since then, there has been a change away from fiscal conservatism, little by little, with this recent drastic acceleration.

(My problem with this sort of discussion is that there are myriad pieces, each having many contributory factors. To keep from writing a book, I feel like we have to oversimplify like mad, and use a lot of "verbal shorthand". The problem with that is that some folks aren't in the same dictionary. :) )

"I'll go one step further, and say that at least the Democrats have been more honest about the need to tax the citizenry to pay for government programs."

Sure, I fully agree. My problem is that (again, IMO) way too many of these programs escalate dramatically in cost, yet are relatively ineffective as to accomplishment. Plus, there are the not-thought-of Unintended Consequences. I don't argue with the goals of many programs; I do argue against much of the methodology of design, implementation and administration. Me, I'd get rid of the Dept of Edu, for instance.

wwworry, it's better to look at federal programs' costs, or total budgets or surpluses or deficits in terms of percent of GDP, rather than the actual dollar values. That gives a better picture about increases or decreases in real terms, automatically factoring in inflation.

Insofar as the $7 trillion in debt, don't forget the "off-the-books" debt--as in Social Insecurity--which is much larger. Estimates of the total run as high as $44 trillion.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Fine, but I didn't think we were debating the efficacy of any given government program. I mean, if you want to go there, we can talk about how effective the billions spend on SDI turned out to be. But that's not what I wanted to talk about here.

The point I've been making is the need to keep our government sufficiently balanced such that no party can use it as their reelection campaign finance machine. No matter what they'll spend the money on, given the free hand, it's pretty clear to me that neither party has a grip on fiscal reality. Let them neutralize each other's agendas, is my solution. Given the history of the matter, I think it's our only hope.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
wwworry, it's better to look at federal programs' costs, or total budgets or surpluses or deficits in terms of percent of GDP, rather than the actual dollar values. That gives a better picture about increases or decreases in real terms, automatically factoring in inflation.

That what I was doing. Our current debt is 63% of our GDP. My problem is that people keep saying "this years deficit is only 5% of the GDP" forgetting that it adds up into debt, forgetting that interest payments are now 10% of the federal budget.

If you want a smaller govt, if you want a tax cut then pay down the debt. That would free up 10% of the budget.

You could probably then do some nice things with social security etc. But now we are faced with more long term deficit. wasted opportunity.

[Desertrat]

Wellllll, it was in 1797 that a feller said that democracy works just fine until people find out they can "vote themselves largesse from the public coffers." How do you keep candidates from buying our votes with our money? We--one special interest or another--keep demanding programs, so the politicos keep promising them to us.

Add up all those special interest groups, whether Halliburton et al or Jesse Jackson et al--or beekeepers or stamp collectors--and you wind up with a bunch of debt. Great Societies don't come cheaply...

The reason I bring up inefficiencies is that we already know they won't deliver what's promised; they're gonna cost a helluva lot more than originally thought. So, if anybody gives a rat's patoot about debt and balanced budgets, why do we keep demanding more programs or more money for existing programs?

'Rat

[wwworry]

that's where responsible politicians concerned about the long term good of the country come in.

obviously, we do not have that now. We just have an administration and congress more concerned with their own power and perks than the future of the country.

[Desertrat]

"that's where responsible politicians concerned about the long term good of the country come in."

In a half-hearted defense of a lot of politicians, I'd venture the real problem is defining "long term good". I'd venture that Congressfolks from both parties believe they're concerned about the long term good.

There are times when I think it's rank arrogance to presume to "Know" the definition of that long term good.

Hitler probably thought he was doing long term good for Nazi Germany.

But I get cynical at times.

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
So, if anybody gives a rat's patoot about debt and balanced budgets, why do we keep demanding more programs or more money for existing programs?

Don't forget the constant cry for tax cuts as well as the calls for expansion of spending. It's not just the spending side that has gotten us to where we are.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Wellllll, it was in 1797 that a feller said that democracy works just fine until people find out they can "vote themselves largesse from the public coffers." How do you keep candidates from buying our votes with our money? We--one special interest or another--keep demanding programs, so the politicos keep promising them to us.

Add up all those special interest groups, whether Halliburton et al or Jesse Jackson et al--or beekeepers or stamp collectors--and you wind up with a bunch of debt. Great Societies don't come cheaply...

The reason I bring up inefficiencies is that we already know they won't deliver what's promised; they're gonna cost a helluva lot more than originally thought. So, if anybody gives a rat's patoot about debt and balanced budgets, why do we keep demanding more programs or more money for existing programs?

Military industrial complexes don't come cheap, either. But again, that's beside the point I've been trying to make all along. Either party, if given all of the levers of government to control, will run it for their own benefit, and what we "demand" is very much a secondary issue. I just don't see how that conclusion can be escaped.

[Desertrat]

"Either party, if given all of the levers of government to control, will run it for their own benefit, and what we "demand" is very much a secondary issue."

That's true, IJ. However, during the time of election campaigns, the candidate give lip service to our demands. One of the sets of promises of more goodies wins out over the other, and then the demands are mostly forgotten by the Chosen--and we're then back to your "their own benefit".

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Well, we have recent history to guide us and it points to the democrats doing a better job managing the govt. finances.


Care to extend this hypothesis to the 1930s and 40s during FDR's reign?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The reason I bring up inefficiencies is that we already know they won't deliver what's promised; they're gonna cost a helluva lot more than originally thought. So, if anybody gives a rat's patoot about debt and balanced budgets, why do we keep demanding more programs or more money for existing programs?

'Rat

Not me. If the Democrat running for office is liberal, I vote Republican. If the Republican running for office is not conservative, I vote Libertarian.

[wwworry]

Well geez, Frohickey, the "conservatives" have been the worst at managing deficits. Did you see Bush wants to give a lot more money to the arts?!! The conservatives in power have had the worst record on fiscal responsibilty. No lie.

I understand you're all mad about Social security, unemployment insurance, welfare and the like but those things are not going to go away. Every modern state has a social safety net. The reason is to preserve itself. Imagine for a moment if social security was not there or look to history for your answer. Old people starve. Old people were starving back in the day even when family structures were much stronger. Now, in todays world, where companies will relocate you in a second and jobs move around like fish there is no way to have the kind of long lasting 3 generations in one place kind of family structures that would mean less dependence on SSI.

Do you want to restrict free trade or do you want to get rid of SSI. That's the choice. No more no less. (sorry, starving old people is the other choice)

Read your history. FDR saved capitalism in America. He didn't destroy it.

[wwworry]

I do recall the history about the 1920s and 1930s. The American communist and socialist parties were actually a force to be considered. Why do you think that is?

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4098618/)
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost a third more than previously estimated and will predict a record deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush’s 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill’s cost at $540 billion, aides said on condition of anonymity. Bush is to submit by Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts Oct. 1.

The budget will also estimate this year’s budget deficit at $520 billion, the sources said. That would greatly surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year, the highest deficit ever in dollar terms.

As recently as Monday, the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan fiscal analyst, projected that this year’s red ink would total $477 billion.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Care to extend this hypothesis to the 1930s and 40s during FDR's reign?

Care to extend the modern conservative hypothesis to 2020?

[wwworry]

I love that part in the medicare bill where the state is not allowed to negotiate lower drug prices. Talk about a give away! Talk about anti freemarket approaches! taking that into consideration whereas today there is about $80 biilion/yr. in govt. subsidies, in 5 years bump that number up to $170 billion/yr.

Conservatives are not conserving anything.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Read your history. FDR saved capitalism in America. He didn't destroy it.

There are a few articles about FDR era policies that say the Depression was prolonged because of the myriad of new programs and govt spending that was being proposed/phased in.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse (http://www.independent.org/tii/news/950201Higgs.html)

How FDR Prolonged the Great Depression (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n4/powell.pdf)

The Great Depression wasn’t written in the stars. After all, the severe depression of 1920 was over in about a year. The president then was Warren G. Harding, who succeeded where FDR failed. Harding cut federal spending, cut taxes, and went back to his card games. Harding’s slogan “less government in business” turns out to have been a vastly better guide than FDR’s disastrous “New Deal.” Everybody, especially the poorest among us, is better served when private property is secure, the currency is stable, markets are open, people are free to make their own bargains, government burdens are lifted, and it’s safe to invest for the future.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Care to extend the modern conservative hypothesis to 2020?

I could, but that would mean rolling back everything thats been done since FDR, when corporations paid the bulk of taxes, instead of the way it is now, where there are lots of financial loopholes that only big businesses can get.

[IJ Reilly]

The President for the first three years of the Great Depression was Herbert Hoover. I wouldn't mention this fact if it wasn't so apparent that some people are in need of a history lesson.

[mactastic]

Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Those were the days...

[wwworry]

I think what he was talking about was that there was a depression in 1920 that lasted a year, though I am not too familiar with this. But it brings up the valid point that there were severe depressions in 1929, 1920, 1890, 1879 etc. Depressions where people did starve and huge swaths of the populace was out of work.

Yes maybe we should go back to those days, starvation, low wages, bad housing, 60 hour work weeks, and great depressions every 25 years or so.

Herbert Hoover did nothing for 3 years and nothing happened.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by wwworry
Herbert Hoover did nothing for 3 years and nothing happened.

Plenty happened. The Depression got a lot worse and the country was brought to the brink of social and economic calamity. All that good stuff and more.

[Sayhey]

It is amazing that the Libertarian Party and Frohickey are still fighting against the New Deal. Modern industrial societies the world over are based on the ideas that Roosevelt advanced during that time. Those policies helped not only save Capitalism, but laid the foundation for a country that emerged as the world's greatest economic and military power after the devastation of World War II. No one outside a small circle of libertarian true believers really wants to go back to the pre New Deal days.

[IJ Reilly]

Newt Gingrich (remember him?) used to pine for the 19th century. Of course, he never had to actually live during this era. That's my biggest problem with libertarians -- they're nostalgic for times they never lived in, probably wouldn't really want to live in if they had a real chance, and never actually existed in the way they think anyway.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jayb2000
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/election_budget/spending_explosion.gif

Remember the "Contract with America"?
Here was the very first bill they wanted to implement:
THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

Instead we have the largest debt ever, the largest deficit ever, the highest deficit to GDP ratio since 1986, the largest increase in federal spending, and the highest number of federal employees.

At least Dean wants a balanced budget.

my family voted republican until reagan became the maddest spender in history and doubled jimmy carter's defecit

i loved nixon and ford because they were true to the word conservative and even though they didn't always succeed, they had the right intentions of staying away from spedning too much

reagan, with his popularity and the people's willingness to forgive him of any sin, came into office and took advantage of his position to overspend and up the defecit, especially in the areas of the military and defense...and since reagan, the gop has been the party more likely to overspend and up our national defecit

now when the gop decides ever to get back to its roots and balance the budget and put business first and america first, then i will gladly switch back, but since 1992 i have been a registered democrat and voted democratic and i don't see myself changing anytime soon and even though the democrats will do things from time to time that irk me, they could never blow it worse than what reagan did by getting into office based on criticizing carter's defecit and then doubling it...in terms of how many people he hurt as well as his own party's philosophy to conservatism, nixon's watergate was a tiny black mark by comparison

...so nixon lied about his knowledge of a break in, but reagan lied with our dollars and cents and used his extremely charismatic personality to hide it...i can think of no travesty against america so grave that a president has bestowed on us

now if W continues to spend more of our money in iraq while our soldiers die for a nebulous cause, then he too will rake up reagan type debt for america...everyday, america loses blood and money over there

[Desertrat]

jef, I follow your reasoning but there are a couple of points to the Reagan-era allocation of spending. You gotta look at it in the context of the Cold War era. (Unless it's thought that the USSR was not an Evil Empire and posed no threat to us.) The military had been drawn down under Carter, just as it was later under Clinton. Reagan's policy, in shorthand, was to force the USSR to play "keep-up", with such things as Star Wars. It took money to build themilitary back to the ability for such things as displays of force in the Med and in the Indian Ocean. Further, he went to a proactive mode with the raid on Libya and the cleanup of Grenada.

Okay, one might disagree that these were Good Things, but they were logical in the context of the times. And, obviously, they worked; the USSR's empire imploded and the Berlin Wall finally came down--during Bush I's watch, sure, but as a result of the Reagan policies.

As far as the overall total spending, Reagan and O'Neill basically cut a deal: O'Neil and Rostenkowski would give Reagan the money and control of the military and foreign policy; O'Neill got the sayso on all domestic issues, programs and funding. I'm now in hindsight guessing that Reagan and his advisors figured that any problems arising from deficits could be dealt with later; the immediate priority was ending the Cold War.

For those of us who served during the Cold War era, or who grew up with the idea of ICBMs in Cuba or to be used against us, the general Reagan-era process made sense. It certainly beat the hell out of what had gone on in the Vietnam era.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

Some "Oh, by the way" stuff on the Depression-era doings:

"Pump-priming" to jump-start the economy was Hoover's idea. Roosevelt's 1932 platform stressed fiscal reponsibility, hooting at Hoover's big-spending efforts to get things back to normal.

In 1964, Norman Thomas held a press conference, announcing he would no longer run as a candidate for president on the Socialist Workers Party platform. When asked why, he responded that the 1932 platform of the SWP had been enacted into law.

Tidbits from history,

'Rat

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Desertrat
jef, I follow your reasoning but there are a couple of points to the Reagan-era allocation of spending. You gotta look at it in the context of the Cold War era. (Unless it's thought that the USSR was not an Evil Empire and posed no threat to us.) The military had been drawn down under Carter, just as it was later under Clinton. Reagan's policy, in shorthand, was to force the USSR to play "keep-up", with such things as Star Wars. It took money to build themilitary back to the ability for such things as displays of force in the Med and in the Indian Ocean. Further, he went to a proactive mode with the raid on Libya and the cleanup of Grenada.

Okay, one might disagree that these were Good Things, but they were logical in the context of the times. And, obviously, they worked; the USSR's empire imploded and the Berlin Wall finally came down--during Bush I's watch, sure, but as a result of the Reagan policies.

As far as the overall total spending, Reagan and O'Neill basically cut a deal: O'Neil and Rostenkowski would give Reagan the money and control of the military and foreign policy; O'Neill got the sayso on all domestic issues, programs and funding. I'm now in hindsight guessing that Reagan and his advisors figured that any problems arising from deficits could be dealt with later; the immediate priority was ending the Cold War.

For those of us who served during the Cold War era, or who grew up with the idea of ICBMs in Cuba or to be used against us, the general Reagan-era process made sense. It certainly beat the hell out of what had gone on in the Vietnam era.

'Rat

i was not even born during cuban missle crisis, so perhaps there was a justification for reagan for spending SOME of the money he did...but doubling jimmy carter's previous record defecit...??...now come on, man ;)

and what is the excuse of bush I and bush II and their spending? and how did clinton/gore end up being more fiscally conservative overall?

the parites did a switcheroo in the early 80s...the dems became the republicans and vice versa...the solid democratic south became the solid republican south and other things happened to show a turnaround but both parties still have huge pull in the southern states as clinton, gore, edwards, etc have shown recently..it was then in 84 or 85 i changed since i am a fiscal conservative and i made the final step by registering democratic in 92

i used to hate carter with a passion, but after reagan and his loose checkbook, carter didn't look so bad ;)

...i don't overspend in my personal life and i don't expect the usa to either

[Frohickey]

If you can print and make money by fiat, you'd overspend too. Actually, it makes sense to overspend if you cand print and make money by fiat, since you spend it now before the value of that money is less later on because you have just increased the money supply.

Kinda makes you think how things would be if the value of money were still tied to some tangible scarce resource like precious metals.

[IJ Reilly]

In that case, how about printing up a bunch of money and providing everyone with health care?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
In that case, how about printing up a bunch of money and providing everyone with health care?

Not gonna work because health care would be an ongoing cost, instead of a one-time expense.

Building aircraft carriers, tanks, missiles, etc, which have fairly long shelflives if you don't use them works along these lines.

To a lesser degree, public works projects like dams, roads, bridges, airports, etc. Since these have maintenance costs.

Health care is almost all maintenance costs.

How about just setting up another govt agency, along the same business model as the US Post office, where people can send their monthly health care premiums and get medical/dental services?

[Desertrat]

jef commented, "...but doubling jimmy carter's previous record defecit...??"

Hokay: First off, the military was drawn down--and I agree with "too much"--during Carter's term. Any notable buildup required additional monies. Next big problem, we had that incredible inflation during Carter's term. Costs of houses, cars and salaries jumped like mad. Any given item in the early 1980s--whether military or civilian--cost a helluva lot more than in the 1970s.

Dubya has faced pretty much the same problem with the military budget, although there is less inflationary effect. It's the domestic spending that has both sides of the political spectrum all bent out of shape...

IJ, if printing money were any rational solution, it would have been done. However, Gresham's Law still applies, although today's monetary value rests upon the "full faith and credit" of the US. If you'll watch the currency markets, there is a lessening of faith. And when our money buys ever less of a product, the whole system gets in a bind--as in, review the Carter era. (Or LBJ's time, particularly 1967/1968.)

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Not gonna work because health care would be an ongoing cost, instead of a one-time expense.

Building aircraft carriers, tanks, missiles, etc, which have fairly long shelflives if you don't use them works along these lines.


i'd be shocked if the maintenance costs on aircraft carriers and tanks were less 10x the purchase price.

any reason why putting additional money into circulation wouldn't merely increase inflation?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'd be shocked if the maintenance costs on aircraft carriers and tanks were less 10x the purchase price.

any reason why putting additional money into circulation wouldn't merely increase inflation?

Putting additional money into circulation would increase inflation.

As you well know, maintenance costs is overwhelmingly labor costs, and parts is a small part of the cost. If you buy a few aircraft carriers, and its on drydock, or like the USS Missouri, its mothballed, only cost you are incurring are storage costs. Of course, bring it back into service incurs additional costs, above what normal maintenance costs are.

Also, when you cut the size of military, and you have to build it back up, the costs associated with that is more than if you had merely kept the size of the military (there is a timeframe where the two costs would coincide, of course).

I think that Reagan's deficits are akin to FDR's deficit. Deficits (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-bowyer021303.asp).
Numbers don't lie, the top 5 deficits as a percentage of GDP were done by :eek: Democrats!!! Well, they did have wars to fight, and fighting wars costs money.

If you think about it though, the deficits that Reagan ran, freeing millions of people in the former Soviet Union, pretty much worth it in my book. Freedom is good.

[IJ Reilly]

If "deficits don't matter," then it can hardly been seen to matter how large they are or for what purpose they are created.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you buy a few aircraft carriers, and its on drydock, or like the USS Missouri, its mothballed, only cost you are incurring are storage costs. Of course, bring it back into service incurs additional costs, above what normal maintenance costs are.

Also, when you cut the size of military, and you have to build it back up, the costs associated with that is more than if you had merely kept the size of the military (there is a timeframe where the two costs would coincide, of course).

So it's a lose-lose-lose situation?

What you've described is this: you spend on the military equipment and you incur one time expenses plus maintenance, but if you mothball it you save on maintenance but it costs more to bring it out when you need it -- so you keep it out and incur the maintenance costs.

So how is spending on the military cheaper than healthcare again?

[Frohickey]

Okay, so Bush43 decides for a 1% discretionary spending increase, and that does not sit well with you folks.

Seems that Congress is not happy with Bush43's budget either, and wants more spending cuts (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040131/D80DF2C80.html).

Shocking!!! :D

Does anyone have a chart of which party was in control of the House/Senate during the various large deficit spending periods? I know that Reagan never had a Republican House or Senate, and Clinton had a Republican House after 1994.

[numediaman]

What's your point? It doesn't matter who is in Congress -- they all want to spend more. That is the way the system works. Congressmen want to send money back home. The President, though, presents the budget request. Civics 101.

What matters is who is in the White House. When Reagan was in the WH, and dems in the Congress -- they spent. When Clinton was in the WH, and repubs in the Congress -- balanced budget. Bush in the WH, repubs in the Congress, they spent.

It is the President that leads. We need a new President.

[Desertrat]

numediaman, we may need a new president, but I'll bet that the spending won't go down with any of Demo candidates...Taxes might go up, reducing the deficits slightly, but spending will keep going up.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Didn't we just go over this? Not only is the deficit soaring in this administration, so is spending. This is what you get with one party rule, and it hardly matters which party is ruling. It's an article of Republican faith that the GOP is more fiscally responsible then the Democrats. This is one thing that must remain an article of faith, because the empirical evidence certainly doesn't support the view.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Does anyone have a chart of which party was in control of the House/Senate during the various large deficit spending periods? I know that Reagan never had a Republican House or Senate, and Clinton had a Republican House after 1994.

Frohickey,

you really ought to look this stuff up before you make such statements. Reagan had a Republican controlled Senate almost his whole time in office. From 1981 to 1987 Republicans were in the majority - Howard Baker was the Majority Leader for most of that time. He was replaced by Bob Dole.

Party Division in the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm)

If you remember during the Reagan Administration’s time in office they routinely sent even larger budget deficits to the Congress in the President's Budget Proposals than what was ultimately passed. The idea of Reagan as a budget hawk just has no basis in reality. The explosion of deficits can actually be tied to the ascendancy during this time of “Supply Side” economic theory as the modus operandi of the Republican Party.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
numediaman, we may need a new president, but I'll bet that the spending won't go down with any of Demo candidates...Taxes might go up, reducing the deficits slightly, but spending will keep going up.

'Rat

Spending might not go down (when was the last time a budget included negative spending levels over the previous year?) but a democrat might 'beat the spread' so to speak and keep spending increases below the 8% that Dubya's been running. Seems to me I saw a chart floating around here not too long ago showing Clinton kept spending increases to 2% a couple times.

[IJ Reilly]

And now, for something completely the same:
White House Brushes Aside Criticism Over Medicare Plan

By Vicki Kemper and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials, facing harsh criticism over a newly disclosed estimate that the Medicare prescription drug law could cost $134 billion more than expected, on Friday defended the law and sought to turn aside accusations that they had misled lawmakers about the potential expense.

"The Medicare reform we did is good reform," President Bush told reporters. "It fulfills a long-standing promise to our seniors."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan downplayed the $534-billion administration estimate that became public Thursday, which is about 33% higher than the bill's original price tag of $400 billion spread over 10 years. McClellan said the higher estimate represented "a difference of about somewhere in the 1% to 2% range" of total Medicare and Medicaid spending.

But with the federal government facing a record budget deficit, analysts and members of Congress said the controversy could prompt conservative Republican lawmakers to reject some of the president's election-year spending plans.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare31jan31,1,2989658.story

[Sayhey]

This was Bush's attempt to imitate Clinton. Take an issue that is of importance to the other side of the aisle (ala Welfare Reform) and cobble together a compromise on your own terms. It looks like Dubya's attempt at triangulation is going to come back and bite him in the ...

If I was the Democratic nominee I'd hammer him with this little gem all the way to November.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think that Reagan's deficits are akin to FDR's deficit. Deficits (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-bowyer021303.asp).
Numbers don't lie, the top 5 deficits as a percentage of GDP were done by :eek: Democrats!!! Well, they did have wars to fight, and fighting wars costs money.


president wilson had world war I
president roosevelt had world war II

but which world war did reagan the mad spender have? ;)

show me which world war he won and i will go back to being a republican again, but being fiscally conservative, i have to stick with the party that handles my tax monies better, and that is the democrats...i really didn't leave the republican party, they left me

but if the libertarians stood a chance, and wanted to work within the realms of reality (same can be said for the green party), then i would go with them

[Desertrat]

jef, Reagan's war was the final years of the Cold War. (Vietnam was a part of that, just as was Afghanistan in the 1980s.) I always figured it was better to force the USSR to spend itself into oblivion than to use ICBMs.

Right now, our government and much of our citizenry seem to be engaged in spending toward oblivion...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I always figured it was better to force the USSR to spend itself into oblivion than to use ICBMs.

That's a common belief that's so oft repeated it's become something of a political urban legend.

The Soviet Union collapsed from within because of internal politics and Gorbachev. It had very little to do with their military spending being too high.

We did not force them to overspend and we did not cause them to collapse. We did not win the Cold War, they let themselves lose it.

[IJ Reilly]

I agree, and this argument is also used to divert attention from the larger question of the Reagan deficits. This often happens when it's established that Reagan was responsible for the 1980s spending spree and all of that federal debt, not the Democrats in Congress.

[Desertrat]

Well, folks talk as though Reagan's deficits "just happened" as a result of some sort of "Wow! Yippeee! I'm gonna go spend like crazy!" on his part.

And, "That's a common belief that's so oft repeated it's become something of a political urban legend." may well be seen as an urban legend, now. It was pretty obvious what was happening to the USSR in the final part of the 1980s as a result of Reagan's policies...

Shifting emphasis completely, what I think is an overlooked factor in the demise of the USSR is the efforts of Lech Walensa and the dockyard strikes at Gdansk. The results in Poland made that country's military forces a politcal risk for the USSR's overall strategy of their methodolgy for the ongoing threat to western Europe. You can't invade if the folks in your rear are untrustworthy.

At any rate, the reshufflings within the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR's efforts to deal with emerging communications technology and the resulting changes in military strategies and tactics pretty much "put paid" to them as a military superpower.

So it was more than just Reagan's policies, but they certainly were contributory.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Well, folks talk as though Reagan's deficits "just happened" as a result of some sort of "Wow! Yippeee! I'm gonna go spend like crazy!" on his part.

And, "That's a common belief that's so oft repeated it's become something of a political urban legend." may well be seen as an urban legend, now. It was pretty obvious what was happening to the USSR in the final part of the 1980s as a result of Reagan's policies...

Shifting emphasis completely, what I think is an overlooked factor in the demise of the USSR is the efforts of Lech Walensa and the dockyard strikes at Gdansk. The results in Poland made that country's military forces a politcal risk for the USSR's overall strategy of their methodolgy for the ongoing threat to western Europe. You can't invade if the folks in your rear are untrustworthy.

At any rate, the reshufflings within the Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR's efforts to deal with emerging communications technology and the resulting changes in military strategies and tactics pretty much "put paid" to them as a military superpower.

So it was more than just Reagan's policies, but they certainly were contributory.

'Rat

'Rat,

If you are going to use the Cold War as the excuse for Reagan's deficits then you have to use the same excuse for every President from Truman through GHW Bush. Given the fact that during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon years there was a real live shooting war in Vietnam and their deficits don't even register on Frohickey's chart, I don't see much excuse for Reagan's deficits except the combination of an explosion of defense spending and voodoo economics.

FDR's spending made possible a victory against the most direct attack against our nation since the self-inflicted wounds of the Civil War. In contrast, it would seem that Reagan and now Bush want to use whatever current scare is available to jump military spending while at the same time rewarding the rich with the biggest tax breaks politically possible. That is the difference and that is why both Reagan's and Bush's policies were and are a danger to the health of the nation.

Lastly, I know you aren't saying Reagan's policies caused the fall of the Soviet Union, but for clarity's sake I would put forward the idea, advanced by many before me, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was mainly because of the inability of their then existing political and economic system to adapt and deal with crises of their own making. Gorbachov tried, but he was too late.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
And, "That's a common belief that's so oft repeated it's become something of a political urban legend." may well be seen as an urban legend, now. It was pretty obvious what was happening to the USSR in the final part of the 1980s as a result of Reagan's policies...

Hindsight shows us quite accurately that Reagan's policies had little impact on the Soviets.

Here's an excerpt I've kept a link to for quite some time:

"American conservatives love to take credit for the 'fall of Communism".

It was all thanks to Ronald Reagan, they will tell you, to his policy of getting tough with the Russkies, of launching SDI, more commonly known as Star Wars" - that was what ended the communist empire! What self-serving stupidity; what a misleading, self-indulging understanding of history.

Just one vote, one single vote from a hand up to a hand held down, would have changed the world. Ronald Reagan and the entire American right wing had ]nothing to do with Grishin's loss to Gorbachev. The men who then made up the Politburo - people like Gromyko and Ustinov- had built their entire careers on not giving a hoot in hell what the rest of the world thought. They were all hard liners in the worst sense of the word. I think that had Grishin been elected, the United States and the Soviet Union would have been at war within two or three years maximum.

Ronald Reagan's ticket to the White House had, among other things, been won on his promise to get tough with the Russians. There are not a few people who attribute the demise of communism (that is how they refer to the events of Perestroika) to President Reagan's military build-up, to his forcing of the Soviets into an arms race they could not match.

What that argument ignores are at least two things. First, that Mr. Reagan had nothing to do with Mr. Gorbachev's becoming General Secretary - that should now be clear to the reader. Second, that by the time Gorbachev was elected General Secretary, Ronald Reagan had been in office for slightly more than one full term. During that period he had more than fulfilled his 'get tough' promise. The net result was that the relationship between the USSR and the United States stood at an all-time low. The danger of military conflict had increased; Soviet defense production was up. Neither Brezhnev, Andropov nor Chernenko had demonstrated the slightest inclination to back down.

Victor Grishin and his supporters were of the same ilk. There is no reason at all to believe they would have been more reasonable. Conversely, there is every reason to think they would have pushed the nuclear button had they been backed into a corner.

We should all thank our lucky stars for Gorbachev's one-vote win. Thank fate, thank whatever deity or superstition we believe in. But the one group we should not thank is the American conservative establishment, which had the stupidity and arrogance to think it could play chicken with its Soviet counterparts and win."

[IJ Reilly]

An interesting analysis, but once again for clarity, this entire "Reagan spent the nation into debt to win the Cold War" argument is little more then a side-show distraction. It really doesn't matter whether it's true or not in the context of the central question, which is whether Republicans are historically more responsible with the taxpayer's dollars then Democrats. Based on the objective evidence, I think it's readily apparent that this is fundamentally a hokum argument. IMO, it's time to drive a stake through the sorry little heart of this theory, and begin to rethink the question in a such a way that the answers actually address the issue at hand, which is how to have a government that lives within its means.

[Desertrat]

A government will only "live within its means" when the people refuse to vote for those who promise more goodies from government. When people quit demanding more governmental services. When people believe that their own independence depends upon their own efforts and not from governmental assistance.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I think this is, at best, only half an argument. Increasing the defense budget by 8% in one year isn't one of the "goodies" I asked for, and neither was a $100 billion-plus adventure in Iraq. I didn't ask for a multi-billion dollar strategic defense initiative that probably won't work. I also didn't ask for a Medicare drug benefit that prohibits the government from negotiating prices with the drug companies, thus diving the cost to taxpayers billions higher. I didn't ask for one single part of the military-industrial complex/corporate welfare state that we live in today.

In fact, I don't know anyone who did -- but that's probably because I don't hang out with any CEOs.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
A government will only "live within its means" when the people refuse to vote for those who promise more goodies from government. When people quit demanding more governmental services. When people believe that their own independence depends upon their own efforts and not from governmental assistance.

'Rat

Or when they quit screaming for tax cuts as the solution to every economic situation. Surplus too high? Tax cuts are the answer. Deficits too high? You guessed it. Tax cuts. Recession? Tax cuts. The spending issi\ue is only half the equation.

[wwworry]

So the president just submitted a $2.4 trillion budget for next year and the expected deficit is $500 billion. If you completely eliminated all spending besides the military, social security and medicare we would still be running a deficit. That's how bad this administration is at fiscal responsibility.

I repeat: If you completely eliminated all spending besides the military, social security and medicare we would still be running a deficit.

They do not care about long term financial health of the country. They just care about being elected and the numbers for 3rd quarter 2004. Insiders talk about boosts from the "supply-side" with no economic data or proof to back it up. It's just crazy ideology and insider greed.

[zimv20]

The budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1 calls for a 7 percent increase in military spending (but does not specifically provide for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan);


link (http://nytimes.com/2004/02/02/politics/02CND-BUDG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=)

so what's that military budget being spent on, if not the current wars?

according to the whitehouse.gov budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html), nearly 60% if the pentagon budget is for R&D. i'm wondering how much of _that_ is for SDI and tactical nukes.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
so what's that military budget being spent on, if not the current wars?


A decent chunk goes here....

Meet the $99,000 soldier. (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-milpay31jan31,1,2848726.story)

I'll post the full text since it requires a subscription.

WASHINGTON — For months now, Pentagon officials have resisted growing political pressure to add more soldiers to the nation's overstretched fighting force. To understand why, meet the $99,000 soldier.

That's how much, on average, each active-duty service member cost in 2002 in pay and benefits, the Congressional Budget Office said this month. And it is what makes defense officials quake at the prospect of putting more men and women in uniform.

For as the costs of paying troops soar, so does the pressure to save money elsewhere — a trend defense officials fear could bleed money from other needs close to their hearts: modernizing weapons systems, maintaining military equipment and conducting costly arms research.

Since the mid-1990s, when defense officials and politicians responded to declines in military recruitment and retention by increasing pay and benefits for war fighters, Pentagon spending on medical care has more than doubled, and Congress has voted to give troops two major pay raises and a host of new retirement, housing, child-care and disability benefits.

Benefits aside, members of the military average $43,000 a year in pay, and most won't stay long enough to reap retirement money. But all the entitlements wreak havoc with the defense budget's bottom line — and raise the stakes of increasing the size of the military.

"There's a whole range of costs related to adding people to the military, and there's talk of adding still more" benefits, said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan defense think tank in Washington. "The end result is that an increasing share of the U.S. defense budget is on automatic pilot, so the amount of money you have left over to use for modernization and research and development becomes smaller and smaller."

Between 1988 and 2002, Pentagon spending on healthcare — adjusted for the overall rate of inflation — tripled, while salary per active-duty service member increased by 39%, the CBO said. That far outstripped the gains by other federal employees.

If Congress approves the Pentagon's budget request for fiscal 2005, the amount being spent to pay the nation's soldiers will increase still more. According to budget documents disclosed Friday, base pay for members of the military would rise by 3.5 %.

No politician is on record as begrudging the surge in pay and benefits for service members, who since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have coped with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — which have meant long, arduous deployments — and the deaths of more than 500 of their fellow troops in Iraq alone.

But the same wars that have increased the hardships on troops, and the public resolve to make sure they are fairly compensated, are adding to the pressure to boost the size of the fighting force.

The Army is so strained that it has pulled up more than 100,000 reservists for long stretches, doubled the length of deployments for regular military and ordered tens of thousands of soldiers to remain in the service involuntarily. With some commanders in Iraq complaining publicly that they are short the soldiers they need, more than two dozen House Democrats have backed a bill to add about 82,000 troops — 40,000 soldiers, 27,000 airmen and 15,000 Marines — to the congressionally approved limit of 482,000.

This week, in an unexpected move that military officials say will relieve some of the stress on the force, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld invoked emergency orders authorizing the Army to grow temporarily by 30,000 troops.

But defense officials insist that the increase, expected to be in effect for about four years, should not be permanent.

"There are real fixed costs here, and I can understand why the tops of the heads blow off the budgeters at the Pentagon when they think of adding people. But you cannot fight the reality that this is a labor-intensive war, and we're in it, and I don't know anybody that has the ability to predict when we'll be out of it," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), one of the bill's sponsors.

Such talk is precisely what worries administration officials. If Congress votes to approve the Pentagon's 2005 budget request for $401.7 billion, a 7% jump, it will be the seventh straight year of Pentagon budget increases — a string unseen since the end of World War II. "There's good reason to think that this ride won't go on indefinitely, and that if we increase end strength, that we might be left with a larger force structure that we don't have money to modernize," a defense official said.

Much is at stake. Current Pentagon projections call for more money for a host of programs between now and 2009, among them the Navy's DDX destroyer and littoral combat ships, the Army's Future Combat System and Joint Unmanned Combat Vehicle, and for the Air Force, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 combat jet.

Under Rumsfeld, the Pentagon has accelerated investment in all those programs — part of his push to "transform" the military with new technologies. There is plenty of political pressure behind such programs, much of it from the weapons producers and their employees in places like California.

But the political pressure to make sure troops are well-compensated is also intense.

Base pay, bonuses, special pay and allowances for things like food and on-base housing — plus the advantage troops receive because some allowances are not subject to federal income tax — typically make up only 43% of a service member's total compensation.

The other 57% is made up of subsidized goods and services that can be used immediately, such as medical care, groceries and child care, along with the accrued cost of retirement pensions, healthcare for retirees and veterans benefits.

In 2002, Congress, flush with a budget surplus and with its eye on elections, voted to extend free medical coverage to 1.5 million military retirees beyond the date they would become eligible for Medicare.

The military's managed healthcare plan, known as Tricare, covers retirees who served at least 20 years in the military and their spouses. It covers most medical expenses without co-payments or a premium and includes a substantial prescription drug benefit. Until the expansion of Tricare, the retirees were dropped from the plan as soon as they became eligible for Medicare, and their only additional coverage was limited access to a shrinking network of military hospitals and clinics.

The military has estimated the program's cost at more than $60 billion over 10 years.

The same year, another law passed restoring military pensions to 50% of base pay after 20 years of service, rather than 40%.

And last year, President Bush signed a bill repealing a 19th century law that barred veterans from collecting full military retirement along with disability pay. The new law will add to the income of a quarter-million disabled veterans to the tune of $22 billion over the next decade.

All that translates into a daunting array of future costs.

But, Tauscher said, "we're in a box here. You can walk around all day saying, 'I am really worried about that problem we'll have when we have too many people in the Army in five years.' I am cognizant of that. But, my God, look at the problems we have today!"

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic

Meet the $99,000 soldier. (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-milpay31jan31,1,2848726.story)


after reading the article, is anyone else reminded of how the USSR spent itself broke feeding its military complex?

oh, the irony

[mactastic]

I don't know if I'd go that far. It does illustrate why Rummy and others are so interested in keeping the numbers from rising since even a modest increrase in soldiers would mean killing off some of the new weapons programs. Adding 10,000 more regular troops would cost around $1 billion a year more.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
but which world war did reagan the mad spender have? ;)

show me which world war he won and i will go back to being a republican again, but being fiscally conservative, i have to stick with the party that handles my tax monies better, and that is the democrats...i really didn't leave the republican party, they left me


Hmm... no... Reagan didn't have a World War to win.

But somehow, something cause the Soviet Union and the other communist countries around Europe to all of a sudden change their governments, and a bunch of people suddenly became more freer than they were. Nah... couldn't have been a war to cause that.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Based on the objective evidence, I think it's readily apparent that this is fundamentally a hokum argument. IMO, it's time to drive a stake through the sorry little heart of this theory, and begin to rethink the question in a such a way that the answers actually address the issue at hand, which is how to have a government that lives within its means.

Hokum, eh? Who are the top 4?

[wwworry]

Frohickey don't be a dope. That 1993 deficit was proposed and inacted in 1992 when Clinton was not even in office. Also the 2.9% figure for 2004 is based on administration best estimates, not reality where this administration has proved itself to be sorely lacking.

Yes the top 4 deficits are took place in WWII and it's aftermath. What's your point? That democrats win real wars and republicans win fake ones?

[wwworry]

So take out that Clinton number which is really a holdover from Bush 1 and what do you get. WWII cost a lot of money and republicans run huge deficits. Besides WWII and 1948 (I have to ask the internet about that one) ALL big deficits are republican deficits.

[IJ Reilly]

And where does that $247 billion figure come from, when the projected deficit for 2004 is already forecasted to be much higher?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
And where does that $247 billion figure come from, when the projected deficit for 2004 is already forecasted to be much higher?

On average, Bill Clinton’s deficits were larger than George W. Bush’s. On average, the Clinton deficits over the first three years of that administration were much larger than Bush’s. The 2004 deficit, adjusted for inflation, is ranked 12th since 1940. The 2004 deficit, as a percent of GDP, is ranked 21st since 1940. The top five deficits run in this country happened while Democrats were in the White House.

Adjusted for inflation...

Sometimes, I wonder what it would be like if there was no such thing as inflation, no fiat money, and currency is tied to the precious metals.

[wwworry]

Frohickey are you blind or just a plain ideologue? That "quote" you came up with plainly contradicts that graphic you came up with and does not address the issue that 1993's budget was signed by Bush v.1
And then it seems you wish we had sat out WWII
or perhaps you are so enamoured of the Bushes you wish that Prescott Bush could have kept up his businesses with Hitler?

Come on, the facts is that for the past 30 years almost all of our debt has come under republican presidents.

[wwworry]

The other curious thing is that the 2004 deficit is listed but not the 2003 deficit. I guess that would be number 13. 2005 will probably be #14 or edge out 2003 for #13.

What I see looking at this deficit graph is a lot of Bush.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Frohickey are you blind or just a plain ideologue? That "quote" you came up with plainly contradicts that graphic you came up with and does not address the issue that 1993's budget was signed by Bush v.1
And then it seems you wish we had sat out WWII
or perhaps you are so enamoured of the Bushes you wish that Prescott Bush could have kept up his businesses with Hitler?

Come on, the facts is that for the past 30 years almost all of our debt has come under republican presidents.

The quote and the graphic came from the same article. Made sense to me when I read it, and it still does. Ideologue? I'm just posting to you what I read.

Nope, we have always had higher spending during times of war. Revolutionary War, War of 1812, etc. Every one was accompanied by additional taxes levied. And sometimes, the tax is still with us even though the war is not.

[IJ Reilly]

The FY 2005 budget projects a deficit of $521 billion, even assuming the White House's rosy economic predictions come true. This also does not include anticipated additional appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, or any part of the $134 billion for the Medicare drug benefit, which is over and above the original $400 billion price tag. So, it seems like only a miracle can prevent the deficit in FY 2005 from totaling in excess of $600 billion -- far and away, a record.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The FY 2005 budget projects a deficit of $521 billion, even assuming the White House's rosy economic predictions come true. This also does not include anticipated additional appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, or any part of the $134 billion for the Medicare drug benefit, which is over and above the original $400 billion price tag. So, it seems like only a miracle can prevent the deficit in FY 2005 from totaling in excess of $600 billion -- far and away, a record.
Which would put W in the top ten, as a percent of GDP. :)

[Desertrat]

Back to the expensive soldier: Does anybody have a URL for the payscales of the military?

Another thing that fries me is the makeup: We have more generals, now, I've read, than during WW II when we had over four million people in the services. The pay and perks for one general would surely pay for quite a few grunts.

Item: During WW II and Korea, base commanders were colonels. Now, they're commonly generals. Why?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say it's a function of an all-volunteer service. People don't stay in any profession for long if they don't have opportunities for advancement, so the services are giving out more opportunities to achieve high rank. Second, the ratio of officers to enlisted service people is unsurprisingly lower during times of a draft.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat Back to the expensive soldier: Does anybody have a URL for the payscales of the military?


2004 Pay table pdf (http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/2004paytable.pdf)

E1 lowest scale: $1,104 a month
O-10 highest scale: $13,303.08 a month

What is really needed is for the US military to return back to the era where every soldier is proficient as an infantry soldier.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What is really needed is for the US military to return back to the era where every soldier is proficient as an infantry soldier.

So adding more training will help lower costs? How do you figure? And why do you want to see more infantry?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So adding more training will help lower costs? How do you figure? And why do you want to see more infantry?

Whats a soldier?

Is a soldier the one that cooks meals for the soldier at the front line?
Is a soldier the one that supplies socks for the soldier at the front line?
Is a soldier the one that repairs equipment for the soldier at the front line?

Too many specialized REMF's (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=REMF).

I wonder how many front line infantry soldiers China threw at us in Korea. We got spanked on that one.

"A Man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently and die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert A. Heinlein

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

"A Man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently and die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert A. Heinlein

heinlein also wrote:

A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers decide what is 'irresponsible'.

Prof. Bernardo de la Paz in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[mactastic]

I can understand learning the job of the person above and below you, maybe even two jobs above and below you, but beyond that you can't really believe that every soldier in our 'army of one' should be an expert in every aspect of the military. Specialization occurs because there aren't enough lifetimes to master every discipline. Why do you think physicysts divide themselves up into areas like solid-state and particle? Why do martial arts instructors only teach one or two styles? Why isn't every writer proficient in technical writing as well as fiction, poetry, history and journalism? Why are there building trades?

[Desertrat]

IJ, the "surplus" of generals has existed since before any all-volunteer system. Again, on a per capita basis, there are apparently several hundred generals serving where colonels and majors used to have the jobs.

mac, our military, generally, has some ten in support for every one who shoots. (Roughly) The exception is the USMC, except that much of their support comes from the Navy. In the Corps, however, every man is considered to be a rifleman first, and a cook or supply-REMF second.

I note that weapons proficiency doesn't of itself make a soldier well-trained insofar as field tactics, but at least there's a more proper mindset.

Complex subject. I have mixed emotions about some of the new major-budget-item "toys". I admit to being more in favor of "train hard, fight easy" for the guys up front. Not sure, sometimes, about the need for some of the new designs. Replace aged stuff, sure, but that's a different matter, I think.

[mactastic]

Yes 'Rat, I've heard that. Actually I heard something on the order of 9 support, 1 shooter. 90% support. Doesn't really support the notion of cross-training everyone that Frohickey wants to see. Do you really want your tank gunners practicing repairing helicopter engines or peeling spuds, or do you want them on the range practicing shooting skills?

[zimv20]

even w/ ratios of 9-1 or 10-1 supply/front line soldiers, i would hesitate to call that wasteful or undesirable.

supply lines and support win wars. and despite my objection to the iraq war/occupation/whatever, i don't want those soldiers lacking for necessities or even some niceties.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, the "surplus" of generals has existed since before any all-volunteer system. Again, on a per capita basis, there are apparently several hundred generals serving where colonels and majors used to have the jobs.


You got me then. I was just guessing.

[Thanatoast]

I want to question Bush's spending priorities (big surprise there). Anyway, I want to know why he wants to increase the military budget by ten percent this year. We spend more on our military than the next twenty nations combined spend on theirs. What exactly is all this money getting us? The 380 billion dollars we spent in 2001 didn't stop 9-11. Why would 400 billion dollars stop terrorism now? There must be a more cost efficient way to end terrorism than bombs. planes and a missle defense to protect Alaska (the only state currently covered) from attack by ICBM's that no one seems to use anymore. Perhaps economic development through building of infrasrtucture (before bombing it, that is) would lessen the poverty gap between the have and have-not states of the world, decreasing animosity.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Perhaps economic development through building of infrasrtucture (before bombing it, that is) would lessen the poverty gap between the have and have-not states of the world, decreasing animosity.

you're clearly not scared enough

[Thanatoast]

I assume you're being facetious? :)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
I assume you're being facetious? :)

oh yeah!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I can understand learning the job of the person above and below you, maybe even two jobs above and below you, but beyond that you can't really believe that every soldier in our 'army of one' should be an expert in every aspect of the military. Specialization occurs because there aren't enough lifetimes to master every discipline. Why do you think physicysts divide themselves up into areas like solid-state and particle? Why do martial arts instructors only teach one or two styles? Why isn't every writer proficient in technical writing as well as fiction, poetry, history and journalism? Why are there building trades?

So, are you saying that soldiers should NOT know how to go on patrols, set up a perimeter, dig a foxfole, and call in for an artillery barrage?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Perhaps economic development through building of infrasrtucture (before bombing it, that is) would lessen the poverty gap between the have and have-not states of the world, decreasing animosity.

Back again to the poverty gap causing animosity and crime, eh?

Could you explain to me how a gap in wealth causes animosity? Isn't that gap in wealth caused by productivity differences between the two groups?

If any type of gap causes animosity, and animosity is to be prevented, shouldn't we just make everyone equal.

No higher grades for excellent schoolwork
No awards for excellent performance.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, are you saying that soldiers should NOT know how to go on patrols, set up a perimeter, dig a foxfole, and call in for an artillery barrage?

Yeah, but that should be part of BT. Beyond that, if you are infantry you should get a ton of practice doing that and very little practice maintaining helicopters or flying them. And the people who do those things should practice them and not spend a whole lot of time trying to qualify for special ops.

There's definetly a level of training that everyone in the military should get, but past a certain point you need to specialize or you'll never be expert at anything because you are trying to learn everything.

Are you saying we should have a larger infantry than we do now? Or that our Army needs less support troops?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Back again to the poverty gap causing animosity and crime, eh?

Could you explain to me how a gap in wealth causes animosity? Isn't that gap in wealth caused by productivity differences between the two groups?


Small gaps cause little animosity. Giant gaps between the haves and the have-nots cause animosity. Call it animosity, call it jealousy, call it whatever you want. Do you deny it exists?

And it's not just the lazy that have nothing, there are many people who work their butts off and don't make it into the ranks of the super-rich. But I suppose that matters little to you.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Isn't that gap in wealth caused by productivity differences between the two groups?

.

You are joking, right?

I came from a blue collar lower middle class family. I was able to go to college by taking out $14,000 in loans and working during the summer time. My wealthier friends spent their summer volunteering or doing non-paying interships during the summer. We we graduated from college my high honors meant nothing. What meant something for my friends was that they had spent 3 summers not working for money so they had 3 summers worth of experience! Guess who had problems getting a job out of college? Those of us who had to work. Then we are saddled with a huge school loan debt that has to paid off and therefore forced to work outside of our field in order to make ends meet. So 10 years after graduation we still aren't making much money, don't own a house, etc. etc. while our uppermiddle class friends not only didn't have school loans to pay off they also got the jobs right out the door!

Wealth creates and perpetuates wealth.


The only rich people who come by their money honestly are those who win the lottery. I think that may be my signature!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Neserk
You are joking, right?

I came from a blue collar lower middle class family. I was able to go to college by taking out $14,000 in loans and working during the summer time. My wealthier friends spent their summer volunteering or doing non-paying interships during the summer. We we graduated from college my high honors meant nothing. What meant something for my friends was that they had spent 3 summers not working for money so they had 3 summers worth of experience! Guess who had problems getting a job out of college? Those of us who had to work. Then we are saddled with a huge school loan debt that has to paid off and therefore forced to work outside of our field in order to make ends meet. So 10 years after graduation we still aren't making much money, don't own a house, etc. etc. while our uppermiddle class friends not only didn't have school loans to pay off they also got the jobs right out the door!

Wealth creates and perpetuates wealth.


The only rich people who come by their money honestly are those who win the lottery. I think that may be my signature!

Since you related your story of working hard, but not getting ahead, let me relate to you my story.

I came from a lower (middle) class family...

[chomp]

Now, I think that I fully earn my pay at this company, but some people here on this forum think that I should be penalized for the wealth my hardwork earned because "The only rich people who come by their money honestly are those who win the lottery".

:mad:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Since you related your story of working hard, but not getting ahead, let me relate to you my story.

[chomp]


congratulations on your success.

i came from a lower middle class family, put myself through college by working fulltime (thanks to reagan, there wasn't much assistance for me), got crap grades, but somehow managed to work hard and now i'm doing well.

i earned what i have, didn't step on anyone to get it, and earned it honestly (i.e. no lottery).

now -- i don't think anyone should have to go through what i did simply to have a comfortable life. as a white male, doors were open to me. i'm intelligent and have always been able to use that to my advantage.

not everyone who started where i did have the same opportunities i did.

though i'm no fan of paying taxes, i believe it's my duty to pay into a society that will improve everyone's odds. i see education as the key to that. certainly, there are people who will blow every opportunity they're given. but there are many who need society to provide that opportunity, and for those of us who do have jobs, that's our responsibility.

/soapbox

[mactastic]

Ah yes... with privilege does come responsibility.

Though some would like to shirk theirs.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Back again to the poverty gap causing animosity and crime, eh?
Yes.

Could you explain to me how a gap in wealth causes animosity?
If I am living in a third world country and can't afford food to eat, and I hear about a person in a rich country that complains about taxes, which are being used to fund food aid to my country, because he's had to put off the purchase of his new suv until next quarter, that would create animosity. The bald-faced greed in this country is astounding sometimes. In other words, we can afford to help, so we should. In the long run everyone will be better off. And our help should come in the form of loans or grants for improving economic infrastructure, not education programs that preach abstinence to third world teens.

Isn't that gap in wealth caused by productivity differences between the two groups?
No. Ask any minimum wage earner who's working to jobs just to pay the bills, much less pay for healthcare and unexpected expenses if they aren't productive.

If any type of gap causes animosity, and animosity is to be prevented, shouldn't we just make everyone equal.
The old stand-by. I don't want to make everyone equal. I want to make sure that there aren't people starving in the world when there are others with 56" plasma tv's and GMC Envoy's in the driveway. That's pure hubris.

No higher grades for excellent schoolwork
No awards for excellent performance.
A load of crap. This argument is so tired. Of course everyone's not equal. That doesn't mean there is any excuse for the amount of inequity we see in the world today. Did you know that the richest 358 people have assets totalling more than the annual revenue of the poorest 2.6 billion? Does that make any sense at all?

[wwworry]

Speaking from experience as one who has had different types of jobs, white and blue, I can tell you there is no correlation between pay and "hard work". It all depends on what type of field you're in.

There are doctors who decide to accept patients who do not have money for treatment who are comfortable but not rich. Then there are bond traders who make a mint with just normal qualifications. A baseball player 40 years ago was paid well and now they are paid beyond belief. Is Cliff Floyd a better player than Mickey Mantel? Did Mickey Mantel save more lives than your average surgeon?

I think we have seen how CEO pay is influenced by the fact that the CEO decides who is on the board of directors deciding CEO pay, the CEO decides who will do the accounting etc.

Now we have a govt. whose primary interest is the interests of the CEO. They contribute, they get tax laws favorable to them.

Frohickey you have this idea that money is the the end-all be-all justification for all human activity and it's not true. We all live here hoping for opportunity and justice where the amount of money one has is not the sole arbitrator of one's worth. We all made this system and if you are lucky enough to beneifit from it you should not be so stingy to not give back to it. "Your money" comes from all the money everyone else makes.

If you keep it all you will end up with nothing. History has proved that.

[Desertrat]

My preference is that all countries have socioeconomic systems which do not institutionalize barriers to the opportunity to improve one's lot or even become wealthy.

Some folks will never get ahead, no matter how smart they are or how hard they work. Such factors as personality, character and decision-making preclude success. Sad, but they gotta live with it.

What I despise is any system which erects barriers based on caste, race, religion or gender...That ain't "fair play", IMO.

Where I have difficulty with "compassion" is the idea that we are somehow obligated to provide financial assistance into countries where the culture and the political controls caused the need for help from outside.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Individual tales of success and anecdotal stories of failure don't mean a hell of a lot when trying to explain what is happening in the economy. The fact is, the middle class in the US has been under assault for the last 30 years, and the economy is bifurcating (a fancy way of saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer). Maybe we're entering a whole new phase where the upward mobility of the working middle class (traditionally, in manufacturing) no longer matters to the economic, social and political stability of the nation. But I for one seriously doubt it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
If I am living in a third world country and can't afford food to eat, and I hear about a person in a rich country that complains about taxes, which are being used to fund food aid to my country, because he's had to put off the purchase of his new suv until next quarter, that would create animosity.

If I am living in a 3rd world country, and I can't afford food to eat because the my country's government officials are corrupt, and the business leaders in the country are in cahoots with the corrupt government, I'd have animus towards the government, and not to the ones that volunteer their time and money to send food and aid to my country.

In fact, I would rather that the country send not only food and aid, but arms and military advisors so that we could get rid of that corrupt government, and not always be looking for handouts.

I'm amazed at the bumper stickers that I see in this country, the ones saying 'Free Tibet'. A better bumper sticker would be 'Arm Tibet'.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Individual tales of success and anecdotal stories of failure don't mean a hell of a lot when trying to explain what is happening in the economy. The fact is, the middle class in the US has been under assault for the last 30 years, and the economy is bifurcating (a fancy way of saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer). Maybe we're entering a whole new phase where the upward mobility of the working middle class (traditionally, in manufacturing) no longer matters to the economic, social and political stability of the nation. But I for one seriously doubt it.

Working middle class... I wonder how many manufacturing jobs has been lost because of mandatory minimum wage laws.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
What I despise is any system which erects barriers based on caste, race, religion or gender...That ain't "fair play", IMO.


You mean stuff like Affirmative Action programs that give 5'2" 120lb minority women a higher score in the qualification test to be a firefighter.

I guess old disabled grandma caught in a burning building would rather be dragged by a woman than carried by a 6'3" 240lb male.

;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Working middle class... I wonder how many manufacturing jobs has been lost because of mandatory minimum wage laws.
versus the number lost due to corporate greed.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Frohickey you have this idea that money is the the end-all be-all justification for all human activity and it's not true. We all live here hoping for opportunity and justice where the amount of money one has is not the sole arbitrator of one's worth. We all made this system and if you are lucky enough to beneifit from it you should not be so stingy to not give back to it. "Your money" comes from all the money everyone else makes.

If you keep it all you will end up with nothing. History has proved that. [/B]

Money is the measure of success or failure in economic activity. Its not the justification for all of human activity. There are things in my life that I will not trade for all of the tea in China, but what is at issue here is that some people feel its right and moral to take from Peter/Frohickey to give to Paul/wwworry.

That is just wrong.

Now, if you say that its right and moral for Peter/Frohickey to give directly to Paul/wwworry, then I would be in agreement with you.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
versus the number lost due to corporate greed.

You mean, fraud... which is a crime punishable under the law, but is somehow not always enforced.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You mean, fraud... which is a crime punishable under the law, but is somehow not always enforced.

No, I mean outsourcing, corporate tax shelters abroad and things like that. All completely legal.

Besides, manufacturing jobs are usually above any minimum wage law. You need to ask how many service jobs have been lost due to minimum wage laws.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry Speaking from experience as one who has had different types of jobs, white and blue, I can tell you there is no correlation between pay and "hard work". It all depends on what type of field you're in.


Everyone has the choice to pursue the type of work they want to pursue. So, if someone decides to go into a field where their hard work is not rewarded monetarilly, that is a choice they have made for themselves.

Some people choose to go into a field they enjoy, but are not rewarded handsomely for their effort.

Some people choose to go into a field they despise, but are rewarded handsomely for their mediocre effort.

So, if everyone has the choice, why are others singled out to provide for the ones that made inappropriate ones?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, if everyone has the choice, why are others singled out to provide for the ones that made inappropriate ones?

Beecause if we didn't there would be no firefighters, teachers, cops, military, social workers, nurses, security guards, etc. If everyone worshipped the dollar with your fervor there would be none of those.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Everyone has the choice to pursue the type of work they want to pursue.

i don't think that's true. for many people, there are socio-economic factors that limit their choices. it takes an extraordinary person to overcome these factors. and while i'm happy for those people, i don't think those efforts should have to be extraordinay simply to live a comfortable life or to enable pursuing an individual's career of choice.

[mactastic]

Sure it's true! :rolleyes: People choose to be poor, just as they choose to be sick and require medical attention, or choose to get into an accident.

[IJ Reilly]

Hey, just so long as we don't actually talk about the point I've raised. You guys are too easily distracted by Frohickey's misdirection. Minimum wages and corporate fraud have nothing whatsoever to do with declining wages in manufacturing. They have nothing to do with the slow but steady destruction of the middle class in the United States.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Hey, just so long as we don't actually talk about the point I've raised. You guys are too easily distracted by Frohickey's misdirection. Minimum wages and corporate fraud have nothing whatsoever to do with declining wages in manufacturing. They have nothing to do with the slow but steady destruction of the middle class in the United States.

Corporate fraud has nothing to do with declining wages... that much is true. Fraud should be prosecuted whenever its found. That not only punishes the guilty, but also discourages the ones that might attempt to commit fraud.

As to minimum wage laws, what it does is it distort the job market, and jobs that require low skill labor are phased out, and moved offshore where there are no minimum wage laws. The jobs that are left are increasingly high skill labor jobs. High skill labor jobs tend to have higher wages, and so that tends to destroy the middle class.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

As to minimum wage laws, what it does is it distort the job market, and jobs that require low skill labor are phased out, and moved offshore where there are no minimum wage laws.

are you saying the solution is to pay american workers pennies per hour so that the jobs can stay here?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to minimum wage laws, what it does is it distort the job market, and jobs that require low skill labor are phased out, and moved offshore where there are no minimum wage laws. The jobs that are left are increasingly high skill labor jobs. High skill labor jobs tend to have higher wages, and so that tends to destroy the middle class.

No, there are high-skill jobs and service jobs. You can't outsource a service job. And you can't live off the pay from one either. Not even if the government took zero taxes from you. $6.75/hour ain't livin.

I suppose you think all the unemployed are that way by choice?

Oh and I said greed, you said fraud. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Corporate fraud has nothing to do with declining wages... that much is true. Fraud should be prosecuted whenever its found. That not only punishes the guilty, but also discourages the ones that might attempt to commit fraud.

As to minimum wage laws, what it does is it distort the job market, and jobs that require low skill labor are phased out, and moved offshore where there are no minimum wage laws. The jobs that are left are increasingly high skill labor jobs. High skill labor jobs tend to have higher wages, and so that tends to destroy the middle class.

This is inverted logic, but I won't bite because it has very little to do with my original statement.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
are you saying the solution is to pay american workers pennies per hour so that the jobs can stay here?

I'm saying that the solution is to let the job market decide for itself how much a job is worth.

This would allow the creation of a whole range of payscale jobs, from no skill jobs, all the way to high skill jobs.

Not everyone can start at a high skill/high pay job, and having the progression of jobs available makes it easier to move up the workforce. Plus, there is valuable experience and work ethic that is developed with this. Schooling can be a substitute, but at times its a poor substitute, as schools usually teach the basics, and not the advanced techniques. Plus, in school, you are not paid to do the work.

[mactastic]

So when the job market decides teachers are worth $25,000 a year, and we have none because of it, then what? What about when cops decide it's not worth risking their lives for what the job market will pay them? Do we phase those jobs out? Outsource them?

I would argue that the job market is a poor way of indicating what jobs are 'the appropriate choice'. Sports and film stars are among the highest paid, and least useful, members of society. But the 'job market' tells them they made 'the appropriate choice'. You value them higher simply because of the money they make. And, by the way, by saying things like that, you are telling all the civil servants out there that they made the wrong decision, and as such have no right to be among the affluent.

"You had your choice. You chose to be a cop. Tough titties."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm saying that the solution is to let the job market decide for itself how much a job is worth.


the market has already decided. some jobs are worth pennies a day. those jobs go overseas.

even if they stayed here, such wages wouldn't mean much given the cost of living in the US.

i don't have any great solution, btw, outside of making education funding -- and learning -- as important as, say, fighter jets.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Corporate fraud has nothing to do with declining wages... that much is true. Fraud should be prosecuted whenever its found. That not only punishes the guilty, but also discourages the ones that might attempt to commit fraud.

As to minimum wage laws, what it does is it distort the job market, and jobs that require low skill labor are phased out, and moved offshore where there are no minimum wage laws. The jobs that are left are increasingly high skill labor jobs. High skill labor jobs tend to have higher wages, and so that tends to destroy the middle class.

I can not make sence of this at all, especially the last part.

Looking at that last paragraph almost every statement in it has been proven to be false.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
the market has already decided. some jobs are worth pennies a day. those jobs go overseas.

even if they stayed here, such wages wouldn't mean much given the cost of living in the US.

i don't have any great solution, btw, outside of making education funding -- and learning -- as important as, say, fighter jets.

If the market has already decided, and those jobs go overseas, why is there a need for minimum wage laws then?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So when the job market decides teachers are worth $25,000 a year, and we have none because of it, then what? What about when cops decide it's not worth risking their lives for what the job market will pay them? Do we phase those jobs out? Outsource them?

I would argue that the job market is a poor way of indicating what jobs are 'the appropriate choice'. Sports and film stars are among the highest paid, and least useful, members of society. But the 'job market' tells them they made 'the appropriate choice'. You value them higher simply because of the money they make. And, by the way, by saying things like that, you are telling all the civil servants out there that they made the wrong decision, and as such have no right to be among the affluent.

"You had your choice. You chose to be a cop. Tough titties."

Actually, its even simpler than the way you describe.

If the job market decides that teachers are worth $25k, then what that means is that the supply of teachers is more than the demand for teachers.

There will come a point when the market will decide that the demand for teachers is higher than the supply of teachers, and this will present itself as a rise in salaries for teachers, so it will find an equilibrium for itself, where the demand and supply of teachers will be equal, and the price paid for teachers will find its natural level.

As for sports and film stars, its apparent that there is a high demand for sports/film stars, and supply of sports/film stars is low. That is why the price paid for them are so high.

How much would the market pay to watch someone that can drive a golf ball as far and consistent as Tiger Woods, if everyone in the world can do the same as Tiger Woods? Answer: zero

How much would the market pay a teacher that consistently churns out outstanding Nobel Prize in science track students? Answer: a lot of money and perks.

How much would the market pay a teacher that churns out students that cannot pass the college entrance exam? Answer: not a lot

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
I can not make sence of this at all, especially the last part.

Looking at that last paragraph almost every statement in it has been proven to be false.

Here is an article (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3307) by an economist about the effect of minimum wage laws.

One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition.

Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity.


Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are heroes to me.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, its even simpler than the way you describe.

If the job market decides that teachers are worth $25k, then what that means is that the supply of teachers is more than the demand for teachers.

There will come a point when the market will decide that the demand for teachers is higher than the supply of teachers, and this will present itself as a rise in salaries for teachers, so it will find an equilibrium for itself, where the demand and supply of teachers will be equal, and the price paid for teachers will find its natural level.

As for sports and film stars, its apparent that there is a high demand for sports/film stars, and supply of sports/film stars is low. That is why the price paid for them are so high.

How much would the market pay to watch someone that can drive a golf ball as far and consistent as Tiger Woods, if everyone in the world can do the same as Tiger Woods? Answer: zero

How much would the market pay a teacher that consistently churns out outstanding Nobel Prize in science track students? Answer: a lot of money and perks.

How much would the market pay a teacher that churns out students that cannot pass the college entrance exam? Answer: not a lot

No, a teacher that churns out Nobel winners gets paid the same amount as one that puts out students that can't pass the exam. The cop who catches more criminals through diligent work gets no more pay than one who sits on his donut-eating ass all day. A soldier who displays great valor gets a medal, but no monetary incentive to repeat the action.

And how about this one... Various reports I have read describe a shortage of nurses. Yet nurses don't get paid squat. You'd think if your theory was correct, that nurses would be commanding very high wages right now, but they aren't.

[zimv20]

frohickey -

a pure capitalist society has no heart. one wouldn't run a family like that, nor do i think a country should be run like that. it's heartless.

my .02

[Sayhey]

The solution to run away jobs are treaties that set wage, work safety, and environmental standards the world over. As long as employers can move certain types of work to areas of the world that have no such standards then they will do so to get more profits. This has long been the position of the Trade Union movement and it is being born out everyday.

It is the minimum wage laws, along with the child labor laws, OSHA, etc. that make life livable for most American workers. To give these laws up because of some phony argument about how they hurt working people is a crock. The nature of capitalism is that competition forces employers to look for increasing profits on a continual basis. If we allow employers to seek those profits from the wages of the most desperate of our society we will have only succeeded in moving ourselves back two or three centuries in terms of the quality of life.

I worked for many years in the TU movement and negotiated contracts, fought employers on health and safety issues, and handled many grievances. In my experience, even the "best" boss faces tremendous pressure to maximize profits and very few of those don't look first to take it out of the average workers paycheck. It has nothing to do with how valuable the work you do is, and everything to do with how vulnerable the worker is.

[pseudobrit]

What ever happened to tariffs?

Reasonable application of tariffs used to protect the American economy. They've been tossed in favor of cheaper consumer commodities and (moreso) higher corporate profits.

If a plasma TV cost 15% more, the job to build it might still be in America. As it is, it's 5% cheaper, the job is in China and a handful of exectuives split the other 10%.

Way to go, free economy.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What ever happened to tariffs?

Reasonable application of tariffs used to protect the American economy. They've been tossed in favor of cheaper consumer commodities and (moreso) higher corporate profits.

If a plasma TV cost 15% more, the job to build it might still be in America. As it is, it's 5% cheaper, the job is in China and a handful of exectuives split the other 10%.

Way to go, free economy.

Tariffs lead to trade wars and seldom help in any long term way to protect jobs. The key is making the standard of living better in developing nations, not putting artificial barriers in the way of trade. What ends up happening in far too many cases is workers in other sectors lose because retaliatory measures from other nations.

[pseudobrit]

Key word there was "reasonable."

Certain sectors lose out? Name one sector of industry that isn't being shipped overseas because of corporate profit concerns.

[wwworry]

One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition.

Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity.

That's the problem with these ideologue articles - they appeal to "common sence" and "no-brainers" - to the obvious intelligence of the reader. Yet, it's all hot air and lies.

Show me the fact where raising the minimum wage significantly afffects hiring, not some stupid projection put out by greedy businessmen (who, with the opposite logic, justify their huge raises by saying it will make them more productive).

Show me how the reduced welfare rolls are harmful to the economy? The last time they raised the minimum wage all studies showed positive effects and no loss in hirings.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Key word there was "reasonable."

Certain sectors lose out? Name one sector of industry that isn't being shipped overseas because of corporate profit concerns.

I'm not sure what your definition of "reasonable" - we might agree in a specific case.

As to the sectors that lose out when tariffs are involved, I think you only have to look at the reaction to EU threatened sanctions around the Steel tariffs. Autoworkers sure weren't in support of the tariffs. That doesn't mean your point about all sectors losing out by the shipping of jobs overseas isn't valid. I agree with you 100%, but I think the way to fight it is with global standards for wages, working conditions, and environmental protections.

[pseudobrit]

Ideally, yes, you've got the cure to the disease, but realistically, this nation needs a bandage to stop the bleeding now.

As far as what's reasonable, it'd be anything that would not draw the ire of other nations to the point where they'd give crippling tit-for-tat tariffs of their own.

[wwworry]

I'm not convinced that global free trade is really the best system. It's pretty good but there are problems that are not being addressed and costs that aren't being accounted for.

THere is a worldwide downward pressure on labor and a reward for capital. For a simplistic example: If someone comes up with a vast autoamated system that makes milk cost 10 cents less a gallon people are going to buy that milk. Meanwhile, tens of thousands are out of work and sustainable agriculture is down the tubes. THe costs of underemployed are not accounted for in the milk and passed on, to varying degrees to the state. Also, one person is making all the profit instead of many. The consequences of poor land management are also passed on to the state.

I have seen footage of farmers in Jamaica dumping out milk in the fields because they can't compete with cheaper imported powdered milk. Then eating the cows. Then selling the land for nothing. Then they can't afford the cheap milk.

It's just like anything else. You have to read the fine print on the package to learn that the slightly more expensive coffee maker will last longer and cost less over the long run (and make better coffee). Our current system is "fastest cheapest".

Do I know the answer? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
Also, one person is making all the profit instead of many. The consequences of poor land management are also passed on to the state.


If you make the best MP3/AAC player in the world, should you not also reap the rewards of making the best MP3/AAC player in the form of profit?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
And how about this one... Various reports I have read describe a shortage of nurses. Yet nurses don't get paid squat. You'd think if your theory was correct, that nurses would be commanding very high wages right now, but they aren't.

If there is a shortage of nurses, the wages for nurses would rise. The evidence of low nursing wages indicates that there is an ample supply or oversupply of nurses. Reports could be wrong. The market is always correct.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If there is a shortage of nurses, the wages for nurses would rise. The evidence of low nursing wages indicates that there is an ample supply or oversupply of nurses. Reports could be wrong. The market is always correct.

seems the market is wrong, then. there is, in fact, a shortage of nurses, and it's been a growing problem for years.

we're also facing an imminent shortage of commercial airline pilots. and despite their already generous pay, the air traffic controller market is always on the verge of a shortfall. note that there was no such shortage when the controllers were federalized.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
seems the market is wrong, then. there is, in fact, a shortage of nurses, and it's been a growing problem for years.

we're also facing an imminent shortage of commercial airline pilots. and despite their already generous pay, the air traffic controller market is always on the verge of a shortfall. note that there was no such shortage when the controllers were federalized.

Sounds like what we have here is a market distortion. Market is still correct, but there is a distortion on the market that makes the shortage of nurses and low wages of nurses coexist.

In both examples you cite, I see that there is a labor union involved, a labor union that is involved in setting prices on wages paid to its members.

In the jobs I have worked at, some union, others non-union, there were always ample supply of workers when I was working in the fastfood retail and hightech fields, where there were no unions. But there were a shortage of forklift operators and freight handlers when I was working for a freight company. Some unionized employees were making high wages, not commensurate to their duties, while other unionized employees were making low wages, not commensurate to their duties.

Unions are fine as a way of improving workplace conditions, and maybe in setting a base pay for members. After that, incentive pay or performance pay should be between the employee and employer

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If there is a shortage of nurses, the wages for nurses would rise. The evidence of low nursing wages indicates that there is an ample supply or oversupply of nurses. Reports could be wrong. The market is always correct.

Or the reports could be right, and you could be wrong.

Link (http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Media/Backgrounders/shortagefacts.htm)

Link (http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic14/tpc14_4.htm)


Link (http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/01/12/nursing.shortage/)

Just a sampling....
According to a July 2002 report by the Health Resources and Services Administration, 30 states were estimated to have shortages of registered nurses (RNs) in the year 2000. The shortage is projected to intensify over the next two decades with 44 states plus the District of Columbia expected to have RN shortages by the year 2020.
According to the latest projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published in the November 2001 Monthly Labor Review, more than one million new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2010. The U.S. Department of Labor projects a 21% increase in the need for nurses nationwide from 1998 to 2008, compared with a 14% increase for all other occupations.
According to American Hospital Association's June 2001 TrendWatch, 126,000 nurses are needed now to fill vacancies at our nation's hospitals. Today, fully 75% of all hospital vacancies are for nurses.
(Emphasis mine)

Consider 'the market' proven wrong.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you make the best MP3/AAC player in the world, should you not also reap the rewards of making the best MP3/AAC player in the form of profit?

What if in making the best MP3 player you had to kill lots of minnows? No one cares about minnows, except the other fish that eat them and etc.

You're cheap MP3 player has hidden costs. How are you ever going to get apple to pay the fishermen? Why should this overseas manufacturer, how never comes in contact with lowly fishermen, get the benefit that local producers miss out on?

My point is not to point out the benefits of socialism but to point out that in a lot of cases "free" trade is not exactly free. It is sort of a construct of wealthy countries and the wealthy within them to call it "free" trade. It is free for them but in some cases, expensive for others.

(not all cases, I just think the hidden costs could be better addressed which would actually make it a more efficient market, wouldn't it?)

[wwworry]

and it is documented that a correct number of nurses saves lives. That makes sence right? If nurses are the primary contact with patients how can an understaffed hospital hope to really know what's going on with patients?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you make the best MP3/AAC player in the world, should you not also reap the rewards of making the best MP3/AAC player in the form of profit?

Define make. Steve Jobs makes the best mp3 player in the world. So does Jonathan Ive. So does the engineering and design team at Apple. So do Portions. So do the folks who assemble them in Taiwan. So do Hitachi.

They may deserve whatever profit they can make from the market, but how they distribute this profit internally is not quite as "market" driven as it should be.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Define make. Steve Jobs makes the best mp3 player in the world. So does Jonathan Ive. So does the engineering and design team at Apple. So do Portions. So do the folks who assemble them in Taiwan. So do Hitachi.

They may deserve whatever profit they can make from the market, but how they distribute this profit internally is not quite as "market" driven as it should be.

The manner in which the profit is distributed internally is within the complete purview of the people involved, and not any outsider. The manner the profit is distributed is determined by the internal job market within the company, and such contracts such as profit sharing clauses and others determine this sharing arrangement. This arrangement was agreed to prior to the profit/loss being made. So, your point about this distribution of profit is a diversion, and not part of this discussion.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Consider 'the market' proven wrong.

The market is never wrong... if it were there wouldn't be a shortage of nurses, or low nurse wages.

To say that there is a shortage of nurses AND low wages for nurses means that someone is misrepresenting the need for nurses, or misrepresenting the worth of nursing duties.

Okay... follow along with me in this analysis.

You are running a hospital, you need more nurses in order to deliver better care AND increase your profits, you would hire as many new nurses, and increase wages of nurses to attract more potential nurses in order for you to deliver better care AND increase your profits. Once you have hired enough nurses so that hiring an additional one decreases your profits, you stop hiring more nurses.

You are an out of work nurse, nurse in between jobs, or a potential nursing student. You look at what you want to do in life, and you are ambivalent about the career path. You could be a nurse, and get the low nursing wages, or you could be a EMT and get better wages (this is a wild guess). You'd be as happy with either one, so you choose EMT. Others make the same decision, and at the end of your schooling, there is a drastic shortage of nurses, enough so that hospitals are NOT MAXIMIZING their profits. They raise nursing wages, so the next crop of students choose nursing instead of EMT. Pretty quickly, the job demand and supply stabilize.

But your articles point to no stablization.
Time to ask why its not.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The market is never wrong...
Really? Even Adam Smith didn't believe that.

[Sayhey]

Frohickey,

there is a shortage of nurses nationally and nurses have relatively low wages. Your dogmatic reliance on what you perceive as the infallibility of the "market" notwithstanding both are true. We have for very good reasons placed high standards on what it takes to be a nurse. This means it takes a tremendous amount of training to get new nurses and not enough are graduating to fill the needs of hospitals. Wages, on the other hand, or a function of what can be demanded by workers. This is not just a function of a shortage. Things like collective bargaining strength go into what wages can be demanded.

In California there is a huge fight on the part of the California Nurses Association (and other unions) with many private hospitals that are trying to lower wages and benefits for RNs. The Catholic Hospitals (run by Catholic Health Care West) are in the forefront of union busting efforts. Add to this the recent passage of staffing ratios for nurses that is now being ignored by Arnie's new administration and you have one holy mess in health care. That is the real world of nursing, not some abstract law of the market.

[Desertrat]

Why is anyone here puzzled about manufacturing jobs moving overseas? A parallel pair of questions is 1, how can a corporation continue to exist without being profitable (in terms of return on investment, not gross $ of sales); and, how can these jobs stay here when the products are so much cheaper when coming from overseas?

At the end of WW II, the US was the world manufacturing center. Those who gained initial advantages over us were Germany and Japan, whose rebuilt industrial infrastructure used the much later technology than much of ours. Then, such countries as the Asian Rim got their own infrastructure geared up. Now, it's India as well, plus they have a higher education level--which brings them the IT jobs.

Many of these more newly industrialized countries do not have the pollution control laws--and the costs engendered thereby--as well as the oft-lamented lower pay. There are other issues such as the cost of regulatory red tape, as well. Ergo, VW Beetles got built in Mexico, not Germany. (I also find it interesting that the wiring harnesses for Ford cars come from Brazil; I saw a few days ago that motor of one Ford comes from Germany, while the transmissions are made in France. Much of GM's trim and door handles and suchlike are made in Canada. Some Buick motors come from SE Asia.)

A corporation's only obligations to the workforce have to do with work conditions, pay, and hours. Since an unprofitable corporation goes broke and all jobs are lost, the Board and executives have their primary responsibility to the stockholders. Those who fund the corporation have first call on the profits. If they didn't, there would be no corporations and no corporate jobs at all.

When you bring tariffs into the equation, all I can suggest is that you read up on "Smoot/Hawley" and their tariff bill of (?) 1930-ish. Many analysts of the Great Depression have given much of the blame for its severity on that law.

As far as "the marketplace", it is always right--eventually. It may not be right, at any particular moment. (That's the whole deal as regards boom and bust and bubbles.) One can readily argue as to what is, indeed, "right". However, the general laws of supply and demand always work. They can be skewed by such factors as regulation, of course. Anyhow, the market is rather an uneven sine wave, always adjusting to varying conditions...

And about all anybody whose job has disappeared or might disappear overseas can do is develop a new marketable talent. Otherwise, it's the old joke of "Yes, I have a Harvard MBA; would you like fries with that?"

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think puzzled is the right word. The right word is concerned -- about the lack of a plan to do anything about the steady erosion of the working middle class in the US.

[Frohickey]

Thats the problem.

The plan should be no plan, as in no planned economy. Barriers to competitiveness should be removed, or else the businesses will remove themselves to where the barriers aren't.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Frohickey,

there is a shortage of nurses nationally and nurses have relatively low wages. Your dogmatic reliance on what you perceive as the infallibility of the "market" notwithstanding both are true. We have for very good reasons placed high standards on what it takes to be a nurse. This means it takes a tremendous amount of training to get new nurses and not enough are graduating to fill the needs of hospitals. Wages, on the other hand, or a function of what can be demanded by workers. This is not just a function of a shortage. Things like collective bargaining strength go into what wages can be demanded.


there are lots of people that have believe themselves to be correct, and the 'market' wrong... those people are called failed investors.

What is the market? The market, in this thread, is composed of people willing to pay for nursing skills and people willing to sell nursing skills. Add to this unions that distort the market if you will.

The prevailing wages for nurses are set by these two groups, the ones buying and the ones selling. If the ones selling set their price too high, the ones buying won't buy, and the price remains set where it was at last. If the ones buying set their price too low, the ones selling won't sell, and the price remains set where it was at last.

The ones selling will set their prices high enough where the buyers will be willing to pay for them, or the buyers will set their price low enough where the sellers will be willing to sell.

Collective bargaining and the wages it can bargain for are not immune to market forces. I could cobble together a union of XBox game testers and collectively bargain for $1million/hour, but if Microsoft stands to lose $1million/hour on that bargain, the wages would never be set.

If there is a nursing shortage, nursing salaries/wages will rise to meet the demand. Your insistence that there is both a nursing shortage and low wages for nurses do not sync together. It could be that your impression that nursing wages are low is due to some perceived extra value given to nurses that is not perceived by the ones buying nursing skills.

You need to separate your preconceived notions as to the desirability of certain occupations, and only note the actual demand for them. The ones buying these services base their offered compensation on that. If you are in the market for nursing services, and you have preconceived notions, that could cloud your judgement and make you offer more than what everyone else offers for nursing services. If you are in the market for nursing services, and you dismiss some value that nursing services give, that could cloud your judgement and make you offer less than what everyone else offers for nursing services.

[mactastic]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. That kind of pure capitalist economic theory is as impracticle as pure communism and for the same general reason. Human nature.

If everyone played by the marquis of queensbury rules your system might work, but the real world contains devious people and people who would willingly take advantage of someone for profit. You would allow that to happen and then punish those responsible. I'm more interested in preventing that from happening in the first place.

And as far as my preconcieved notions go, I gave you plenty of proof that not only is the quantity and quality of nurses declining, the number of patients is on the rise. So demand for nurses is rising, supply is falling, and wages are remaining steady. You can tell me my judgement is clouded, and that is your right, but it is a pretty poor way to make an argument.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
there are lots of people that have believe themselves to be correct, and the 'market' wrong... those people are called failed investors.

What is the market? The market, in this thread, is composed of people willing to pay for nursing skills and people willing to sell nursing skills. Add to this unions that distort the market if you will.

The prevailing wages for nurses are set by these two groups, the ones buying and the ones selling. If the ones selling set their price too high, the ones buying won't buy, and the price remains set where it was at last. If the ones buying set their price too low, the ones selling won't sell, and the price remains set where it was at last.

The ones selling will set their prices high enough where the buyers will be willing to pay for them, or the buyers will set their price low enough where the sellers will be willing to sell.

Collective bargaining and the wages it can bargain for are not immune to market forces. I could cobble together a union of XBox game testers and collectively bargain for $1million/hour, but if Microsoft stands to lose $1million/hour on that bargain, the wages would never be set.

If there is a nursing shortage, nursing salaries/wages will rise to meet the demand. Your insistence that there is both a nursing shortage and low wages for nurses do not sync together. It could be that your impression that nursing wages are low is due to some perceived extra value given to nurses that is not perceived by the ones buying nursing skills.

You need to separate your preconceived notions as to the desirability of certain occupations, and only note the actual demand for them. The ones buying these services base their offered compensation on that. If you are in the market for nursing services, and you have preconceived notions, that could cloud your judgement and make you offer more than what everyone else offers for nursing services. If you are in the market for nursing services, and you dismiss some value that nursing services give, that could cloud your judgement and make you offer less than what everyone else offers for nursing services.

Frohickey,

your model of the market is far too simple. Factors like unionization, monopolization, legal standards, demographics of the work force, political climate, etc. etc. change what the "market" is for wages in any industry. The number of workers available for a given job is only one, although important factor. You keep insisting that things can't be the way they are because of your preconceived notions of what market forces are and what they must mean. It is time to look at reality and not focus on your ideological position.

[Desertrat]

IJ, while concern is natural, I don't see what can be done. That is, unless one wants the entire populace to pay higher prices, products will be bought from the lowest-cost producer (at a given level of quality).

First it was manufacturing that gave in to foreign competition. Now, due to advances in communication technology, it's IT jobs. I don't have a clue as to what might be next.

Keep in mind that these changes affect western Europe and other countries as well...Who's affected is a function of local wage scales and transportation costs.

But how can any "planning" group foretell the future? About all I can see is that anybody who perceives a trend should get the word out so people can make their own individual plans for alternative work.

This latter leads me to wondering about whether or not we should focus efforts on educational facilities, on curricula, that train in whatever areas are growing in their numbers of jobs...

Damfino,

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat -- Education and training are critical factors for addressing our future, I believe. If we were to follow the suggestions of the market force theologists and simply allow the economy to go wherever the divine hand of the market takes us, we might very well find it takes us to third-world status. By this I mean, a decimated middle class, and political and social instability. History is a severe teacher when it comes to where this process leads, ultimately. This deterioration may already be the trend, but that doesn't mean it's our destiny.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
If everyone played by the marquis of queensbury rules your system might work, but the real world contains devious people and people who would willingly take advantage of someone for profit. You would allow that to happen and then punish those responsible. I'm more interested in preventing that from happening in the first place.

And as far as my preconcieved notions go, I gave you plenty of proof that not only is the quantity and quality of nurses declining, the number of patients is on the rise. So demand for nurses is rising, supply is falling, and wages are remaining steady. You can tell me my judgement is clouded, and that is your right, but it is a pretty poor way to make an argument.

That is why there is government. In order to prosecute fraud, so that people wouldn't be able to misrepresent.

As to clouded judgement, your judgement is not pertinent, unless you are involved in the nursing market, whether it be buying it or selling it. Unless you are a nurse (or their labor unions), or a hospital administrator, your judgement doesn't make one whit of difference.

Now, if enough of you go to your hospital and say that you are not going to pay them $500K if you don't get your private nurse with 44DD breasts, and they go and raise the wages for nurses fitting that description, then your judgement would have mattered, but only indirectly. :p

[Desertrat]

"If we were to follow the suggestions of the market force theologists and simply allow the economy to go wherever the divine hand of the market takes us, we might very well find it takes us to third-world status."

I think a key phrase is "simply allow". If "the people" and those in government involved with trend analysis of industry just sit around, yeah, shame on a bunch of unhappy butts.

We have both private and public sector folks gathering data and trying to draw conclusions about what the trends mean. A step further, to me, would be increasing the amount of publicly available information as to what's going on--but in a more systematic or educational way than is now being done. IMO, this would push more people into seeking retraining or reeducting themselves for whatever work will be better in their futures.

To me, this sort of thing is part of the purpose of government; the mix of public and private for the benefit of all.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
your model of the market is far too simple. Factors like unionization, monopolization, legal standards, demographics of the work force, political climate, etc. etc. change what the "market" is for wages in any industry. The number of workers available for a given job is only one, although important factor. You keep insisting that things can't be the way they are because of your preconceived notions of what market forces are and what they must mean. It is time to look at reality and not focus on your ideological position.

Unionization, legal standards, all of the things you mention are taken into account in the prices offered, demand for services, and supply of services. All of that is already factored in 'the market'.

When you have distortions caused by these events, is when the market readjusts itself. Think of it as always seeking equilibrium, and governmental regulation, and other 3rd party effects are the ones that cause the distortions. I would say that to create a market, you only need two things, a buyer and a seller, everything else, govt regulation, collective bargaining by unions, environmental concerns, etc, are all distractions and distortions.

Keep these distractions and distortions fixed, and the market will stay in equilibrium.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IMO, this would push more people into seeking retraining or reeducting themselves for whatever work will be better in their futures.

To me, this sort of thing is part of the purpose of government; the mix of public and private for the benefit of all.

'Rat

Are you saying that government should only be informed in presenting information, and gathering industry trends? I see that within the purview of the commerce clause, and entirely constitutional.

If you say that government should now enact educational programs and job retraining, I think that function is better served in the private sector. The private sector and workers would have equal access to the information put forth by the government as to industry trends, and each will act on its interpretation of the information.

So, if government sees industry trends saying MS Windows certification jobs as increasing, private industry could choose to hold more such courses, or not, and the ones that correctly gauge the industry would be winners.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Keep these distractions and distortions fixed, and the market will stay in equilibrium.

it's impossible to disprove your theory -- any evidence cited is now interference.

did you know that i can fly? no, really. but it's hard to demonstrate, because love keeps me attached to the earth. remove all love from my life, and you'll see that gravity has no effect.

i can long jump an extra two feet after any breakup. someday i'll be able to long jump from dover to calais.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Unionization, legal standards, all of the things you mention are taken into account in the prices offered, demand for services, and supply of services. All of that is already factored in 'the market'.

When you have distortions caused by these events, is when the market readjusts itself. Think of it as always seeking equilibrium, and governmental regulation, and other 3rd party effects are the ones that cause the distortions. I would say that to create a market, you only need two things, a buyer and a seller, everything else, govt regulation, collective bargaining by unions, environmental concerns, etc, are all distractions and distortions.

Keep these distractions and distortions fixed, and the market will stay in equilibrium.

"Distractions and distortions"? What you call "distractions and distortions" are vital parts of what makes up a modern capitalist economic system. Perhaps you could do a little research to show how we don't have a nursing shortage and as a consequence wages are low. In the meantime it is all just libertarian dogma.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
To me, this sort of thing is part of the purpose of government; the mix of public and private for the benefit of all.

We can agree on this as a basic statement of principle. Those who would not agree are the crypto-libertarian market force mystics.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
"Distractions and distortions"? What you call "distractions and distortions" are vital parts of what makes up a modern capitalist economic system. Perhaps you could do a little research to show how we don't have a nursing shortage and as a consequence wages are low. In the meantime it is all just libertarian dogma.

Unions are vital parts? Somehow, people are still working at the Southern California supermarkets, and food is still being sold at the grocery stores. Silicon valley engineers haven't unionized, but somehow, things are still being designed, tested, manufactured, etc.

Unions were a good idea when the working conditions were abhorent. They were the response to government being beholden to businesses in a bygone era. Nowadays, you can have an employee give an anonymous tip at OSHA, and OSHA will send its army down to the workplace, slow down the productivity, stress out the workers and managers, ask lots of questions, and maybe fine the business for not providing 30 minute restroom breaks for people when they are constipated. :D

OSHA does do its work. Its actually more responsive than the union.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Unions are vital parts? Somehow, people are still working at the Southern California supermarkets, and food is still being sold at the grocery stores. Silicon valley engineers haven't unionized, but somehow, things are still being designed, tested, manufactured, etc.

Unions were a good idea when the working conditions were abhorent. They were the response to government being beholden to businesses in a bygone era.

Yes, unions are vital. Having negotiated contracts I know first hand the difference between conditions for people who collectively bargain and those that have only themselves to demand better wages or conditions from employers. If nothing else the existence of Labor unions and laws protecting the right of people to access to union representation continues to help check employers drive for profits from coming out of employees' paychecks.

As to the So Cal strike - without union representation there would be no question that medical benefits for grocery workers would be gutted. There is no guarantee that they will win in their strike, but at least they have a chance.

The Silicon Valley engineers might be regretting the lack of unionization when jobs are being sent to India.

[mactastic]

God you sound less and less coherent all the time. OSHA only deals with jobsite saftey issues. Yes that involves repetitive stress injuries, and apparently bathroom rules too, but what help would OSHA be to the striking supermarket workers? Would they be more responsive than the unions in that case?

'Hey, management wants to gut our benefits!'
'Call OSHA. They'll be out here in no time to advocate for us.'

Yeah right.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Nowadays, you can have an employee give an anonymous tip at OSHA, and OSHA will send its army down to the workplace, slow down the productivity, stress out the workers and managers, ask lots of questions, and maybe fine the business for not providing 30 minute restroom breaks for people when they are constipated. :D

OSHA does do its work. Its actually more responsive than the union.

Frohickey,

have you ever worked in a union shop or seen a OSHA investigation? As I've said I've experience with both and it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about. I know workers who have been hurt on the job because of the foot dragging of employers to correct safety conditions and the inability of OSHA to do anything but threaten fines.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
They were the response to government being beholden to businesses in a bygone era.

Oh so government is now free of influence from business? All the evidence I've seen tells me government is just as beholden to special interest now as they ever were.

[Frohickey]

Yes. Worked under a union shop for a few years. Saw how it can get good benefits and perks for its workers. Saw how it also doesn't reward the hardworking workers and rewards the lazy ones.

Seen the effect of OSHA inspections too, during my stint in the union job. Slowed down the work during the shift before us, and that meant the next shift had to work harder, but the pay was the same.

[wwworry]

http://www.epinet.org/images/ACF87.gif

jobwatch.org has some good stuff

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
http://www.epinet.org/images/ACF87.gif

jobwatch.org has some good stuff

Pretty neat. Jobwatch.org is under the guidance of the Economic Policy Institute, and is a 'progressive' think tank. AKA liberal left wing.

Is there a counterpart to that on the other side, we can compare their data, merge it, and get the actual picture with no spin.

The graphic, the way I read it, (I could be wrong) says that overall, there was zero change in the real weekly earnings of fulltime employees older than 24.

The ones earning more earned more, while the ones earning less earned less.
Could be that low paying jobs are disappearing, and high paying jobs are increasing. Could be that high earners got raises, but low earners got docked in pay. Is there another caption to the chart saying what the ranges are for the earnings? Then we can compare this chart with the ones with the previous quarter and the next to see what is really happening.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Oh so government is now free of influence from business? All the evidence I've seen tells me government is just as beholden to special interest now as they ever were.

Yes. There are industry lobbies, just as there are labor union lobbies.

Too bad both sides can't decide to not contribute to lobbies, and instead steer all that effort and money into higher pay for their union workers and higher returns for their stockholders.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yes. There are industry lobbies, just as there are labor union lobbies.

Too bad both sides can't decide to not contribute to lobbies, and instead steer all that effort and money into higher pay for their union workers and higher returns for their stockholders.

Sounds like the gov't is under the influence of both now, rather than free of the influence of business as you suggested.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Is there a counterpart to that on the other side, we can compare their data, merge it, and get the actual picture with no spin.

Lol, and you've never gone to an AKA right wing site for your info? I seem to recall something from Thomas Sowell you posted the other day. Not exactly a middle-of-the-road guy now is he? Care to find some info from the other side so we can get the 'real' picture on that one too?:p


Pot: "Kettle, you're black".

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yes. Worked under a union shop for a few years. Saw how it can get good benefits and perks for its workers. Saw how it also doesn't reward the hardworking workers and rewards the lazy ones.

Seen the effect of OSHA inspections too, during my stint in the union job. Slowed down the work during the shift before us, and that meant the next shift had to work harder, but the pay was the same.

First the observation about rewarding the "lazy" ones and not rewarding the "hardworking" ones all depends on the workplace, the contract governing the job, and the relative strengths of the union and employers. I have seen many complaints by employers about workers not be dealt with because the employers were incompetent. Want to fire a worker who doesn't do his or her job? - follow the rules, but don't gripe at the union for protecting those rules.

Second, OSHA is an incredibly underfunded and over tasked agency. What they do on jobs can be critical to people's lives. I had a friend and coworker die on the job years ago when the bus she was driving was crushed under a falling construction crane. That crane and its operation did not meet OSHA standards, so kindly don't tell me about the horrible inconvenience of work being backed up by a OSHA inspection.

[mactastic]

Hehe, yeah I know some lazy-ass non-union workers as well. Heck I worked with some of them, and if the boss isn't savvy enough or the employee is a suck-up to the boss, or happens to be his/her favorite golfing buddy or something, the boss may very well let it go on or not see it. So to imply that all union shops promote laziness and all non-union shops are models of efficiency is far from the truth.

And I could give you example after example where people have died because of willful safety violations of non-union employers. Sure it would be great if all employers were the shining examples of efficiency and hard work that the libertarian philosophy espouses ('cuz if they wern't, they'd be out of business, right?) but they aren't and that's not the way the world works. OSHA is there because people are willing to cut corners for a buck. The rules OSHA enforces, as well as every bit of the building code is there because someone died and rule had to be put in place to make sure it didn't happen again. But sadly, it still does as people violate those rules knowing that their liklihood of being nailed by OSHA is very very low.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Since you related your story of working hard, but not getting ahead, let me relate to you my story.

I came from a lower (middle) class family...

[chomp]

Now, I think that I fully earn my pay at this company, but some people here on this forum think that I should be penalized for the wealth my hardwork earned because "The only rich people who come by their money honestly are those who win the lottery".

:mad:

I assume you are also a white male. In which case you were privleged from birth!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Desertrat

Some folks will never get ahead, no matter how smart they are or how hard they work. Such factors as personality, character and decision-making preclude success. Sad, but they gotta live with it.

'Rat

I've seen this in my own family. My younger sister has the ideal female personality and has gotten job opportunities several times she was totally unqualified for (her words, not mine) but she has such an incredible personality they ignore that! Lucky for them she is very intelligent and figures out what she is suppose to do. I can't get jobs I'm well qualified for overqualified for! Why? Because I'm a female with a "male" personality. You should see my scores on the California Personality Inventory (I think that is the right name).

[Neserk]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Individual tales of success and anecdotal stories of failure don't mean a hell of a lot when trying to explain what is happening in the economy. The fact is, the middle class in the US has been under assault for the last 30 years, and the economy is bifurcating (a fancy way of saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer). Maybe we're entering a whole new phase where the upward mobility of the working middle class (traditionally, in manufacturing) no longer matters to the economic, social and political stability of the nation. But I for one seriously doubt it.

and there is that too...

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Everyone has the choice to pursue the type of work they want to pursue. So, if someone decides to go into a field where their hard work is not rewarded monetarilly, that is a choice they have made for themselves.

Some people choose to go into a field they enjoy, but are not rewarded handsomely for their effort.

Some people choose to go into a field they despise, but are rewarded handsomely for their mediocre effort.

So, if everyone has the choice, why are others singled out to provide for the ones that made inappropriate ones?

Not that simple. If you don't have an education you don't have very many choices.

And for some of us who do have an education we *still* don't have many choices because of gender, personality, etc.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
[B]I'm saying that the solution is to let the job market decide for itself how much a job is worth.



If the job market were blind that might work. But the job market has always devalued what women do and over rated what men do (look at baseball players!). If it were strictly done on paper you would have an argument but it isn't. It is done by human beings who have prejudices.

[Desertrat]

Neserk, I follow your point about sports, but there's a shortage of women who can throw a baseball 95 mph, or who are seven feet tall and run like deer...:) As near as I can tell, the salaries of pro sports guys are dependent on the owners' perceptions as to how well they can attract an audience. Michael Schumacher's salary of over $30 million per year is due to the fact that he has proven himself to be the world's best racecar driver. Janet Guthrie was a helluva good racer, but she wasn't quite good enough to get the rides.

Overall, in the U.S., I think the economic pyramid is changing shape. The base is widening, and the sides are becoming concave. Higher wages are going to the "brainiacs", and there are fewer of those in the general population. The increase in "service" jobs at lower pay (generally) means a larger percentage of the workforce is part of that wider bottom of the pyramid. All this is to be expected as the percentage of well-paid blue collar industrial workers declines. Add to this that computers and email have reduced the need for many of the middle management jobs that no longer exist.

I dunno. I couldn't have put all this into words, thirty years back, but I could see the signs, the omens. I'm just glad that my natural curiosity and wide interests kept me from being a "mono-skilled" person. I guess I'm lucky I just never had much quit in me. :)

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Neserk
I assume you are also a white male. In which case you were privleged from birth!

DO NOT ASSUME.

If I were a white male, then I would be outraged that I have to perform above a minority in order to get the job (Affirmative Action).

If I were a minority, then I would be outraged that I got the job because of my minority status instead of my skills (Affirmative Action).

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Neserk
Not that simple. If you don't have an education you don't have very many choices.

And for some of us who do have an education we *still* don't have many choices because of gender, personality, etc.

Education is not the magic bullet.

Education just prepares you for the job. Personality, willingness, do-it-iveness, skillset and others are what makes you keep it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
DO NOT ASSUME.

If I were a white male, then I would be outraged that I have to perform above a minority in order to get the job (Affirmative Action).

If I were a minority, then I would be outraged that I got the job because of my minority status instead of my skills (Affirmative Action).

I assumed you or your family were from the Philippines (Imelda liked to collect shoes) and worked for both HP and Apple. Am I paying attention? ;)

I don't want to turn this into a debate on affirmative action but I will say such programs only get one's foot in the door and have nothing to do with job performance or skills.

[IJ Reilly]

Now 200 posts into this thread, I think I finally have the definitive answer to the question posed at the beginning: Dead, gone, retired, given up, lost, defunct, liquidated, disappeared, six feet under, not extant.