Political Roundtable - Part V

[montestewart]

Where'd you get that 2.1 million federal workers number? According to OPM, there were 4.43 million federal employees in 2009 vs. 4.31 in 2012. Small decreases came in executive branch civilians and uniformed military. Judicial and legislative parts of the government remained flat.

As for the federal budget, according to data on government data, spending as a percentage of GDP peaked at 24.4% of GDP in 2009 and has been falling since then. For 2013, spending was 20.8%. For 2014, it's projected to rise slightly to 21.1%.

Federal government receipts are interesting. They peaked at 19.9% of GDP in 2000, and plummeted from there -- presumably from the Bush tax cuts. They're ticking back up since the recession, but are still at 16.7% of GDP.

Interesting.

The 2.1 million figure is probably full-time permanent civilian positions.

[dckingsfan]

Where'd you get that 2.1 million federal workers number? According to OPM, there were 4.43 million federal employees in 2009 vs. 4.31 in 2012. Small decreases came in executive branch civilians and uniformed military. Judicial and legislative parts of the government remained flat.

As for the federal budget, according to data on government data, spending as a percentage of GDP peaked at 24.4% of GDP in 2009 and has been falling since then. For 2013, spending was 20.8%. For 2014, it's projected to rise slightly to 21.1%.

Federal government receipts are interesting. They peaked at 19.9% of GDP in 2000, and plummeted from there -- presumably from the Bush tax cuts. They're ticking back up since the recession, but are still at 16.7% of GDP.

Interesting.

The 2.1 million figure is probably full-time permanent civilian positions.

Correct.

[dckingsfan]

As for the federal budget, according to data on government data, spending as a percentage of GDP peaked at 24.4% of GDP in 2009 and has been falling since then. For 2013, spending was 20.8%. For 2014, it's projected to rise slightly to 21.1%.

Federal government receipts are interesting. They peaked at 19.9% of GDP in 2000, and plummeted from there -- presumably from the Bush tax cuts. They're ticking back up since the recession, but are still at 16.7% of GDP.

Interesting.

I think we are saying the same thing? Look longer term on the spending as a percentage of GDP - look back many years. The blip of the depression, WWII and the great recession not withstanding. I doubt that outlays of 20 much less 21% of GDP is sustainable - especially when your tax receipts don't cross 17% most of the time.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=200

[hands11]

Looking at those numbers pisses me off to no end.

We were on the right rack. Still with big changes ahead but so on the right track.

We had surpluses. Record surpluses. We had the right balance of taxes and economic growth. Inflation was manageable.

We were paying down the debt. Debt to GDP is recovering.

Then the Rs and Bush/Dr Evil happened and screwed everything up.

Not just made it less good or kind of bad. The Fd everything up about as bad as anyone could image.

And the Rs celebrated it and bet their chests about how smart they were.

Amazing anyone votes for that party when their founding ideas are so fundamentally wrong. Not just kind of wrong but proven totally wrong. And yet they still find a way to sell their BS.

Blow a like patriotic hot air up someone rss and tell them they are smart and you can get them point a gun at their own head and pull the trigger. Meanwhile the international capitalist are laughing their rss off all the way to the bank.

[dckingsfan]

I've been excited lately because I can tell the liberals are winning all the important arguments, either through reason or by simple demographics. The Republican party in particular is either going to self-destruct from within, or evolve into a more robust political machine that represents more than just rich people. I can't wait.

It's been a few months since I've given my whiny lecture so here goes: Do not root for political parties like you root for sports teams. All political parties have some corruption in them and all political parties have people within them that you do not want in power (I would also argue that none of them are infallibly "right" on every issue but then we're getting subjective). You do not want a one party system. The entire premise that there are two sides to every issue is faulty. This is not meant to start an argument, nor is it meant to be pro one party over the other. Until next time.

And for some that lesson can never be learned.

[montestewart]

Blow a like patriotic hot air up someone rss and tell them they are smart and you can get them point a gun at their own head and pull the trigger. Meanwhile the international capitalist are laughing their rss off all the way to the bank.

hands, not to change the subject, but there's a beat poet inside you ready to bust out.

[Zonkerbl]

Blow a like patriotic hot air up someone rss and tell them they are smart and you can get them point a gun at their own head and pull the trigger. Meanwhile the international capitalist are laughing their rss off all the way to the bank.

hands, not to change the subject, but there's a beat poet inside you ready to bust out.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
omg i think i peed myself a little...

[popper]

"Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not 'Islamic.' ………………
And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way." –
U.S. President Barack Obama

Obviously the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is Islamic. It’s also obvious that they have a very clear vision;

From Wikipedia - In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with territory in the Levant region, which includes Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

Can someone please tell me why the President, in such an important national speech, made the above claims when they are so obviously and demonstrably false?

Also, the recent debate between progressives Bill Maher and Ben Affleck seems to encapsulate the challenges this country faces in trying to solve any number of social problems that confront our collective well being. The following link provides some perspective.

What Maher and Harris endure from Affleck (i.e. accused of racism) is something we conservatives experience any time we engage progressives in dialog regarding the breakdown of the American family and the damage it has wrought to three generations of Americans. The debate on radical Islam shows signs of repeating the same “head in the sand” mistakes we have made in the past as we studiously avoid discussion of the cause and effect of government induced dependency and the damage it does to individuals as well as to the social and economic fabric of the nation.. .

Hopefully Maher can learn from this experience and nudge his progressive audience in the direction of reasoned debate and away from personal attacks designed to silence opponents and end debate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 24224.html

[Nivek]

popper: Your link goes to an article about Ben Affleck.

[Induveca]

Jimmy Carter blasted Obama's poor foreign policy and major ISIS and Iraq blunders. Very uncommon for a former President to attack a sitting President.

Everyone is ignoring that air strikes will very little to slow down a guerrilla style army occupying such a vast area.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/politics/ ... homepage-t

[popper]

popper: Your link goes to an article about Ben Affleck.

Yeah, Half my post was about Affleck's attack on Maher and Harris (and therefore the link I provided). Maybe my roundabout way of presenting the larger point (ending dialog via accusations of racism or, in the President's case, trying to deny the relationship between ISIL and Islam) was awkwardly worded and confusing.

[Nivek]

popper: Your link goes to an article about Ben Affleck.

Yeah, Half my post was about Affleck's attack on Maher and Harris (and therefore the link I provided). Maybe my roundabout way of presenting the larger point (ending dialog via accusations of racism or, in the President's case, trying to deny the relationship between ISIL and Islam) was awkwardly worded and confusing.

Have you read/heard what the president actually said? I mean, all of it, not just a few words pulled out of context? From the transcript of the speech, it seems clear that the president's point was that ISIL/ISIS isn't "religious" or "Islamic" because of their practice of killing innocents -- something no religion condones. That seems clear because it's literally the next sentence of his remarks.

Obama was saying that ISIL is a terrorist group and that it's caliphate "vision" is mainly a pretext for brutality.

None of what I'm posting here should be understood as an endorsement of Obama's foreign policy in general or his strategy against ISIL in particular. I know little about foreign relations and less about how to deal with a terrorist group with statehood ambitions.

[Induveca]

30,000 part time workers had their healthcare terminated today at Wal-Mart due to excessive ACA costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/busin ... lmart.html

[montestewart]

30,000 part time workers had their healthcare terminated today at Wal-Mart due to excessive ACA costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/busin ... lmart.html

And my wife still without insurance after she was booted off her plan and DC Link bungled the "seamless" transfer to her new, worse, and 40% pricier policy.

[dckingsfan]

30,000 part time workers had their healthcare terminated today at Wal-Mart due to excessive ACA costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/busin ... lmart.html

And my wife still without insurance after she was booted off her plan and DC Link bungled the "seamless" transfer to her new, worse, and 40% pricier policy.

Yeah, it is basically a war on the poor right now. Continued Fed QE, Obamacare, tax deduction for healthcare, Corporate Tax Rates and ongoing deficits are all conspiring to kill the middle class (as noted by the lowest employment numbers since 1978).

And that is an indictment on both parties. I have yet to see anyone from either party come up with a comprehensive solution to get us out of this mess.

[fishercob]

30,000 part time workers had their healthcare terminated today at Wal-Mart due to excessive ACA costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/busin ... lmart.html

There's a special place in hell for the Walton family.

[dckingsfan]

Interesting Chart - and not in the good way.

http://whattheythink.com/data/70833-lab ... -322082785

[nate33]

30,000 part time workers had their healthcare terminated today at Wal-Mart due to excessive ACA costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/busin ... lmart.html

There's a special place in hell for the Walton family.

What? For creating the most efficient retailing business in the history of civilization and thereby providing the U.S. consumer with the greatest selection of goods at the lowest prices anywhere in the world? Man, what horrible people.

[fishercob]

30,000 part time workers had their healthcare terminated today at Wal-Mart due to excessive ACA costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/busin ... lmart.html

There's a special place in hell for the Walton family.

What? For creating the most efficient retailing business in the history of civilization and thereby providing the U.S. consumer with the greatest selection of goods at the lowest prices anywhere in the world? Man, what horrible people.

Efficiency at what price? Not paying your employees a living wage and encouraging them to get on public assistance strikes me as both inefficient and immoral.

[Nivek]

There's a special place in hell for the Walton family.

What? For creating the most efficient retailing business in the history of civilization and thereby providing the U.S. consumer with the greatest selection of goods at the lowest prices anywhere in the world? Man, what horrible people.

Efficiency at what price? Not paying your employees a living wage and encouraging them to get on public assistance strikes me as both inefficient and immoral.

In a sense, by restricting hours, limiting pay and encouraging its workers to get on public assistance, Walmart (and companies like it) has shifted a portion of its employee compensation onto taxpayers. A report (I think in Forbes) earlier this year said Walmart workers were getting something like $5-6 billion per year in public assistance. I also read a critique of the claim, which tried to argue that the $6 billion was mostly cost to Walmart, but was profoundly unconvinced by the attempted argument.

Walmart's not alone in this. Many companies do the same thing. It's not illegal, of course, It's just a reflection of a) minimum (or near-minimum) wage jobs not paying enough for people to actually live on, and b) the reality that they can pay less than they otherwise might because public assistance can be obtained to bridge some of the gap between wages earned and living costs.