Nathan Deal's First Budget Plan (Atlanta: fit in, rental, crime)

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by Woodcutterron

Overtures are a LOT different than What the Clinton Administration did, believe me, heheh. Might as well follow that line of reason all the way back to Marco Polo if you're gonna try to make that connection. And both partied did have a hand in it . . .at least insomuch as even some Republicans will vote, for instance to "ban Handguns" Take my word for it, it was almost completely a "democrat thing" Congressionally, and 'completely' a democrat thing with regard to the delegation that went over there and sold America out to the Chinese, and it did receive stiff Republican opposition with but a very few exceptions, about the same number of the extremely rare "Conservative Democrats" . . .now all but extinct, stood against this democrat sellout of America as Republicans who supported it.

No doubt this is 'inconvenient to your position on this A.S. . . .but true nonetheless. It's not Hyperbole, it's 'reality'



That's also incorrect. Ronald Reagan, as a matter of fact, was pushing NAFTA during his first presidential campaign, which of course is well before George Seniors Administration took care of most of the details, and Bill Clinton . . .well . . . mostly did nothing but take all the credit as most of the "Heavy lifting" had already been done.

No thanks. Trusting the "word" of some random unknown personality on the net is not on my things to do list.

Perhaps you have a link to a credible source that backs your assertions up?

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Taxes that can be written off on the justification of investing/re-investing in business works just as well. This is the system that from FDR up until the time of Reagan has been working quite well. Very easy to spur new economic growth when you threaten to tax the wealthy otherwise. We also had a strong infrastructure too because of those taxes.

If it encourages investments instead of paying taxes, I'm fine with that.

Also, where have you heard reported that the public sector gets paid more than the private sector? "You heard it reported?" Come on Mathman, you're a pretty intelligent guy, you gotta do better than that.

I thought it was widely known by now.

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm - broken link)

A little googling will turn up even more stories.

Bureaucracy happens very often in the private sector as well. As businesses grow larger & more monopolistic, they tend to become very inefficient. These large businesses also tend to use unfair practices that lock out smaller competition & disrupt reformation of the entire industry.

The Private Healthcare Industry is rifed with bloat, high costs, & inefficiency. One case in point is the Federal Government's antitrust lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/he...pagewanted=all

But you will never hear stuff like that on Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. To hear these folks call it, the pure unfettered free market is GOD.

Unfair business and monopolistic practices usually fall on wrong side of the law. That is a legitimate function of government in which to intervene with an example you point to above. But yes, big companies become bureaucratic and government is inherently big and hence always bureaucratic. I always HATE to have to deal with any government agency for anything. That fact is how small companies make in roads in the market. I like and trust the free market but yes, there is need for a "traffic cop".

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm - broken link)

ooops, didn't see your post. But yeah AcidSnake, if you google it, there are a lot of stories.

[AcidSnake]

I heavily despise our free market system. I see it as nothing more than a necessary evil, inasmuch the same way as I assume you view the government.

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Unfair business and monopolistic practices usually fall on wrong side of the law. That is a legitimate function of government in which to intervene with an example you point to above. But yes, big companies become bureaucratic and government is inherently big and hence always bureaucratic. I always HATE to have to deal with any government agency for anything. That fact is how small companies make in roads in the market. I like and trust the free market but yes, there is need for a "traffic cop".

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Heh. The rescue of what? You asked a question and that's the answer.


By the way, in my opinion the matter of CEOs making ridiculous amounts of money is likewise a red herring. I completely agree that plenty of these nitwits are paid money that is grossly disproportionate to what they do.

But that doesn't justify making government jobs being more lucrative than those in the private sector, especially at a time when many millions of private sector workers have lost their employment, their homes and are barely hanging on. Why should workers who are paid by the taxpayers be treated better than the taxpayers themselves? It seems to me that the tens of millions of public sector workers could tighten their belts a little, too.

It's not only the pay, but the benefits in the public sector are better too. It used to be a trade off. The public sector offered relative job security with good benefits especially in retirement but lower pay. The private sector offered less benefits or perhaps none but the prospect of better or big pay. A number of professors opted for both worlds. Working first in the private sector to make the money and later in life when issues and retirement and health are a concern, they turn to state sponsored academia for the benefits. So they got the money, now they have the benefits.

Problem is, government, in general, doesn't generate revenue, it seizes it. And government relies on the private sector to generate the wealth to tax. If the best paying jobs with the best benefits is in the public sector, I don't think this is sustainable.

What's worse is that unions are turning to government for new membership. What a perfect set up. Government jobs are a local monopoly and the union voting block influence who the management is. Government jobs should not be allowed to be unionized.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I heavily despise our free market system. I see it as nothing more than a necessary evil, inasmuch the same way as I assume you view the government.

No, I don't despise government, I've worked in state and county government longer than in the private sector. I just think there have to be limits on government just as we put limits on practices in our economy to keep it a free market.

I remember getting a replacement social security card downtown. I had to go through security and have my bag X-rayed. The US building and SS office were dumps with workers behind glass window booths. I took a number and sat in the waiting room with a variety of chairs, apparently they used whatever chairs they were able to find. I guess when you are a monopoly, appearance doesn't matter. After waiting a few hours, a barely intelligible electronically amplified voice called out my window number. I went to my window and I presented all of my documentation, and after giving all the necessary information, I still had to wait days later to have them mail me my card from another SS office out-of-state. And it doesn't matter if it is Fulton County, State of Georgia, or the US government, it is a similar experience with similar awful office space.

I had the opportunity to live under Communism in Poland before The Wall fell. Nothing convinced me of the superiority of Capitalism than seeing what a pathetic system Comecon made in Eastern Europe. Nothing beats the free market but yes even it needs laws but those laws are mostly to ensure the spirit of the free market is protected.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I heavily despise our free market system. I see it as nothing more than a necessary evil, inasmuch the same way as I assume you view the government.

Free markets have some definite upsides. They give you choice, they enable entrepeneurs with little or no capital, they encourage innovation and they provide competition for price and quality.

That doesn't mean they are perfect or that they should be unregulated. You have to strike the right balance.

[plessthanpointohfive]

I'm suspicious of that article. It shows a chart of federal vs private salaries for jobs. But it doesn't say, or I didn't see it, at what level these jobs are. For instance, I am a statistician.

Here's what was on the chart...this is what I do for the Federal Government:

Statistician $88,520 $78,065 $10,455

But here is the 2010 General Schedule, which isn't changing in 2011 because of the pay freeze: Salary Table 2010-GS

I can't find 88,520 on the General Schedule. However, if you're making somewhere near that then that means you're a GS-13 or greater. That means you either have a Masters + 10 years experience or a PhD + 5. I know, because I am a GS-13 (my salary is 91,200 - see here for the locality table: Salary Table 2010-ATL ). I have a Masters + 10 years experience.

Let me tell you that I am not better paid than my private counterparts. Less so now that the economy is hurting but I get emails from recruiters regarding Senior Stat jobs, or Lead Stat, etc, with private companies and the pay is ALWAYS greater than what I am making now. It's usually between 105K - 120K, depending on where it is.

I worked in private industry before I worked for the Federal government. I've only been employed by Uncle Sam for 4 years. My first job out of school was for pharmaceuticals and my salary...10 years ago...for a Masters with no experiences was 57,000. So, I HIGHLY DOUBT that 10 years later a Masters+10 is only making 78K in the private sector.

Something about that chart is not truing up.

So, based on my personal experience I cannot agree that the Fed pays better. Maybe it does for some jobs.

For the record...you all do realize there is no pension with the federal government. We have a plan similar to 401k. There used to be pensions but they stopped that back in the 80s, or something. And from what I can see what I pay for my healthcare premiums is similar to what I was paying in the private sector.

The big advantage with healthcare when it comes to working for Uncle Sam is that when it comes to open enrollment I have something like 12 providers I can choose from, each with high and low options, etc. So, I have a great deal of CHOICE. But the fees aren't that different.

All this being said, there are a few main reasons I work for Uncle Sam:

1. I don't want to move from Atlanta and CDC is in Atlanta.
2. I really like the CDC "mission".
3. I get a whole lot of autonomy to grow my professional skillset. Because I am a senior statistician I have a lot of control over the projects I work on so I get to work on fun projects that stretch my brain.
4. CDC is VERY family friendly, which is nice right now, having an elementary aged child.

[MathmanMathman]

All I can say is that the source listed in the USA Today story is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless the author misinterpreted the numbers, the numbers are from the federal government itself.

Um....how does one go about getting a statistician job? Entry level in my case.

[AcidSnake]

You made great points. I just find so much frustration in a system that at one point in time commodified the bondage of human beings and at another point failed to recognize the property rights of certain other groups of people, and in this present day de-values the price of labor at every opportunity.

Nonetheless, I realize that the free market system when properly tweaked right, is a necessity. It just frustrates me when those who cry for less regulation often seem to have more of an influence in these matters.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Free markets have some definite upsides. They give you choice, they enable entrepeneurs with little or no capital, they encourage innovation and they provide competition for price and quality.

That doesn't mean they are perfect or that they should be unregulated. You have to strike the right balance.