13

# Where would you make the budget cuts?

Fri 24 Oct, 2014 01:17 pm
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 13 • Views: 3,802 • Replies: 81

chai2

2
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 03:04 pm
Unless my math is wrong, and correct me if it is, it would benefit each person receiving Social Security by \$4.96 a year.

The salaries being put out per year of former and current people:

Senators former (165) and present (100) 265 X \$174,000 = \$46,110,000
House former (963) and present (435) 1398 X \$174,000 = \$243,252,000
Presidents former (4) and present (1) 5 X \$450,000 = \$2,250,000
Speaker of the House former (4) and present (1) 5 X \$223,500 = \$1,117,500
Majority Leaders former (10, guessing) and present (2) 12 X \$194,400 = \$2,328,000
Minority Leadera (10, guessing) and present (2) 12 X \$194,000.00 = \$2,328,000.00

That adds up to \$297,385,500.00 per year, divided by the 60,000,000 receiving Social Security Benefits in 2014 = \$4.96

Even if my numbers are grossly off, and the dollars are tripled, that's still about a dollar a month for every person receiving benefits.

0 Replies

hawkeye10

2
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 04:36 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Corruption is rampant, do you really want to encourage more of it by paying public servants even less than they already get?

I thought that you were a smart guy. Maybe I was wrong.
chai2

1
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 04:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't know about any of that, but I do know the amount of money being spent in a drop in the bucket, and wouldn't benefit soldiers, retired people, or any paticular group of more than a few million in any particular way that would make much, if any difference.

The dollar amounts he's talking about just isn't that big.
0 Replies

Lustig Andrei

3
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 06:37 pm
Good points, Chai, and I have no reason to question your math, even though I haven't checked it. But the point of the o.p., of course, was to demonstrate the inequity and unfairness of the current system.
hawkeye10

1
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 06:47 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
CHEYENNE -- Cheyenne Regional Medical Center's new chief executive officer earns \$400,000 a year.

Margo Karsten officially started Feb. 1 and has a three-year contract with the board.

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2014/03/30/news/20local_03-30-14.txt#.VErynPldUy8

Do you really think it is fair to pay the same for running a hospital and for running the USA?
One Eyed Mind

-1
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 06:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawk, let's just get this right, okay?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RUNNING THE USA COMPETENTLY, AND RUNNING THE USA INCOMPETENTLY.

Did you get that? Good.
hawkeye10

1
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 06:56 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
One Eyed Mind wrote:

Hawk, let's just get this right, okay?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RUNNING THE USA COMPETENTLY, AND RUNNING THE USA INCOMPETENTLY.

Did you get that? Good.

There is a difference between managing a staff of 2,000 and managing a staff of 2.7 million.

Did you get that? Good.
One Eyed Mind

-2
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 06:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANAGING A STAFF OF 2,000, CHANGING THE WORLD FOR THE BEST, AND MANAGING A STAFF OF 2.7 MILLION, CHANGING THE WORLD FOR THE WORST.

Are we going to pay tyrants? Are we going to pay scam artists? Are we going to pay EVERY SINGLE MAN ON THIS PLANET THAT MAKES MONEY TWIST OUR STOMACH INTO SICKNESS?

Those soldiers RISK THEIR LIVES - what do those 2.7 million people do? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Our people work in factories and **** - and YOU THINK THIS IS BETTER OFF THAN WHAT GOES ON IN THE POLITICALLY RICH LEVEL?

IT'S THE LOW CLASS THAT HOLDS EVERYTHING UP AND YET, THE HIGH CLASS DEMONIZES AND VILIFIES THEM AS JUST LAZY FUCKS - IF THEY WERE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A ******* HIGH CLASS EATING AND LIVING FOR US BASED ON WHAT WE DID!!!

NEWS FLASH: THE RICH ARE USING THE POOR SERVICES BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING EVERYTHING THEY CAN.

hawkeye10

2
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 07:03 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
JEEZ, what is it with the purple? Are you Coldjoint now?
0 Replies

chai2

1
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 09:43 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Good points, Chai, and I have no reason to question your math, even though I haven't checked it. But the point of the o.p., of course, was to demonstrate the inequity and unfairness of the current system.

I'm not seeing how it's unfair. Some people earn big pensions, residuals from their work, etc.

How is it fair to take away what they and we knew they were going to end up with yearly, after they leave their jobs, when doing that won't help anyone else?

Someone right now is earning residuals from some product that is equally foolish as something like the pet rock. Is that fair?

People earn and aquire money in many unequal and downright stupid ways, like playing basketball or singing a song. I don't think they should get as much, but hey, they do.

0 Replies

roger

2
Fri 24 Oct, 2014 09:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Do you really think it is fair to pay the same for running a hospital and for running the USA?

I don't really know. Have you considered the qualifications of both jobs? President has to be at least 35 years old, natural born citizen, and resident of the US for 14 years.

What are the stated qualifications for a hospital CEO?
Miller

1
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 02:14 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

What are the stated qualifications for a hospital CEO?

In the NorthEast of the US, many have MD/JD degrees. Others have MD/MBA degrees and a few have MD/PhD degrees.

Considering that a "high-end" lawyer can command about \$1,000/hour , many of the CEOs' would appear to be worth their stated salaries/pensions, should they have the proper degrees/education.
Lustig Andrei

2
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:00 pm
@Miller,
That was Roger's point. You need one hell of a lot more qualifications to be a hospital admin. than for the hohum job of POTUS,
0 Replies

oralloy

-4
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:52 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Where would you make the budget cuts?

Nowhere.

I would raise taxes, say by putting the top tax bracket at 60% and putting in place a VAT tax.

Then I would increase military spending.
Lustig Andrei

1
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 04:50 pm
@oralloy,
I agree with the tax hike but I'm not sure that more military spending would do any good. That's way high now.
oralloy

-3
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 05:29 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
I agree with the tax hike but I'm not sure that more military spending would do any good. That's way high now.

Military spending is critically low. Our readiness levels are abysmal, and we have way too few F-22 fighter jets.
Lustig Andrei

4
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 06:53 pm
@oralloy,
Bullshit.

The only (possible) advantage I can see to increasing the military budget is that it might help ease the unemployment situation by pumping up production in defense-related industries. I certainly don't see any signs of the military being "underfed."
hawkeye10

1
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 06:59 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Bullshit.

The only (possible) advantage I can see to increasing the military budget is that it might help ease the unemployment situation by pumping up production in defense-related industries. I certainly don't see any signs of the military being "underfed."

things are pretty dicey

Quote:
Hagel said only two Army active-duty combat brigade teams were trained and ready for major combat a year ago after across-the-board cuts. But a two-year budget deal in Congress gave the Pentagon funding stability and let the Army increase training, bringing fully prepared combat brigades to 12 out of a total 37.

Then the question is why, is it because of not enough money or because money is being spent in the wrong places?
engineer

1
Sat 25 Oct, 2014 08:52 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Actual salary of retired US Presidents: \$191,300
Actual salary of retired Congressmen
Quote:
Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension
at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible
for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after
completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of
service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting
amount of a Memberâ€™s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final
salary.
As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal
pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290
had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of \$60,972.
A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with
service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was \$35,952 in 2006.

### Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake

1. Forums
2. » Where would you make the budget cuts?