Author Topic: A note from the Access Fund  (Read 1207 times)

Offline Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7130
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2013, 11:02:49 AM »
...Of the six counties in the US that have a median income >$100k, four are in the DC metro area, which by all economic measures escaped nearly all the effects of the 'Great Recession'. Go figure.

and you don't think that has anything to do with the # of lobbyists and "think tanks" in that area?
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

Offline pappy

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2013, 12:31:48 PM »
...Of the six counties in the US that have a median income >$100k, four are in the DC metro area, which by all economic measures escaped nearly all the effects of the 'Great Recession'. Go figure.

and you don't think that has anything to do with the # of lobbyists and "think tanks" in that area?

The WSJ did a front page piece a year or two ago showing that the number of Federal jobs that pay >$100k had increased  anywhere from 300% to >1000% since 2000 depending upon department. Lobbyists and think tanks are just  part of the government teat, too, and their numbers will be directly proportional to the amount of money and the share of the economy the government controls.
If you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough.

Offline MT

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2013, 03:59:04 PM »
Here are some reliablestats on the salaries of fed employees:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

There is no basis for the 300% to 1000% increase in the # of employees being paid north of $100K and no WSJ article to that effect. This USA Today article shows stats that suggest a modest increase of those being paid more than 100K of 4% points. The reasons for the increases are delineated at the bottom of the post, a mix of salary increases put into effect by GW Bush and maintained by Obama. Although Obama has proposed that federal workers pay more into their retirement plans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-much-do-federal-employees-make/2012/02/15/gIQAImxQGR_blog.html

Oh, and the fraction of the US population working for the federal govt is less then 1/2 of 1%. Maybe folks should get their facts straight before they start flaming about our bloated federal govt and its workers.

 

Offline kenreville

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 461
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2013, 05:27:44 PM »
So what you're saying is that the federal gov't IS NOT bloated?

Okeee Dokeee.  ::)

Offline Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7130
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2013, 05:56:58 PM »
So what you're saying is that the federal gov't IS NOT bloated?

Okeee Dokeee.  ::)

so what YOU'RE saying (with no attribution) is that the federal government IS bloated?

come on....  ::)
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

Offline JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Doing God's work
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2013, 06:54:31 PM »
Quote
Are you suggesting the wars the USA fights nowadays are for freedom? 

Not suggesting that at all, re-read my post. You may not agree w/ the foreign policy directives of our administration, but the folks who carry them out don't deserve the negative energy.

And exactly why not? Did they actually join to fight for our "freedom" (cough cough) or did they choose to join for other reasons?


Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

Offline kenreville

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 461
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2013, 07:17:01 PM »
So what you're saying is that the federal gov't IS NOT bloated?

Okeee Dokeee.  ::)

so what YOU'RE saying (with no attribution) is that the federal government IS bloated?

come on....  ::)

Yes Al. I think that the federal gov't is hugely bloated.

Eliminate numerous "departments".

The Dept. of Education would be my first choice.

Offline eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2013, 07:50:59 PM »
So what you're saying is that the federal gov't IS NOT bloated?

Okeee Dokeee.  ::)

so what YOU'RE saying (with no attribution) is that the federal government IS bloated?

come on....  ::)

Yes. Bloated beyond belief.  Do you really think that we need to have American troops in more than 75% of the countries in the world?   And this is just the "defense" department.

"Government spending at the start of the 20th century was less than 7 percent of GDP. It vaulted to almost 30 percent of GDP by the end of World War I, and then settled down to 10 percent of GDP in the 1920s. In the 1930s spending doubled to 20 percent of GDP. Defense spending in World War II drove overall government spending over 50 percent of GDP before declining to 22 percent of GDP in the late 1940s. The 1950s began a steady spending increase to about 36 percent of GDP by 1982. In the 1990s and 2000s government spending stayed about constant at 33-35 percent of GDP, but in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008 spending has jogged up to 40 percent of GDP."  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

So 4 out of every 10 dollars spent in the US is spent by the federal government, and we aren't fighting World War 2. 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 07:58:42 PM by eyebolter »

Offline JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Doing God's work
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2013, 07:56:31 PM »
So what you're saying is that the federal gov't IS NOT bloated?

Okeee Dokeee.  ::)

so what YOU'RE saying (with no attribution) is that the federal government IS bloated?

come on....  ::)

Yes. Bloated beyond belief.  Do you really think that we need to have American troops in more than 75% of the countries in the world?   And this is just the "defense" department.

Except 90%*** of the people going apeshit over the bloated govt absolutely refuse to even consider any reduction in military spending.

*** I made up the 90% so could be wrong. It might be 95%.


 
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

Offline MT

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2013, 09:58:17 PM »

 In the 1990s and 2000s government spending stayed about constant at 33-35 percent of GDP, but in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008 spending has jogged up to 40 percent of GDP."  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

So 4 out of every 10 dollars spent in the US is spent by the federal government, and we aren't fighting World War 2. 
[/quote]

Federal spending went up 5-7 %age points w/ the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression while we were winding down wars in two separate countries (one of choice and one of necessity, both botched in their execution). So no, it wasn't WWII, but to say things were hunky dory is a bit of a stretch. I'd say that the increase in expenditure post-2008 was pretty cheap considering the circumstances. As to where that $ went to, a lot in increased costs for social safety net programs, which is understandable considering how many millions of folks are out of work.

Oh, and I'd agree w/ the military spending comments. The DOD budget has doubled since 9/11. Some increase is understandable, but doubled. A lot of the charges of Iraq and Afghanistan were "emergency funding" measures and not included in the budget. So the #s for the federal budget as a % of GDP prior to 2008 (Obama put those expenditures "on the budget" so that the real costs of the war were reflected; hence, some of the heft budget deficits he's been getting criticized for) are not really accurate.

Offline kenreville

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 461
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2013, 11:05:24 PM »
Obama has led the charge in Afghanistan. HE owns the cost of that mistake. Fercrissakes- remember the Ruskies tried? For 10 years?
Hope he has the sense to stay the f*** outta Syria.
Or any other of those mideast hellholes.


Offline MT

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: A note from the Access Fund
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2013, 06:27:11 AM »
Ken,

I made no judgement over who "owns" the chaos of Afghanistan. I was just trying to show that Obama made a good faith effort to put both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars "on the books" from an accounting perspective, as well as to enliven the discussion with some actual facts.

But since you brought up the Russians....they rapidly decamped from Afghanistan and left a power vacuum that was filled by Islamic extremists. Said fundamentalists were recruited by the CIA to fight the Russians (read Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" or take the easy way out and watch "Charlie Wilson's War"--this really isn't conspiracy theory claptrap). Fast forward 9-10 yrs later and we have the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and a few years later 9/11, brought to you by terrorists trained in....you got it, Afghanistan. So fast forward again to 2008 to the mess that Obama inherited, do you think another rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, with a legion of wackadoo extremists sitting across the boarder in the Pakistani tribal areas was a good idea? I'm not saying I agree w/ all of the policy decisions of this administrations, or support specific aspects of their foreign policy, but a fair accounting of the choices they make shows that their actions really can't be summed up with inflammatory sound bites. The law of unintended consequences reigns throughout life, and is particularly robust in American foreign policy decisions. Probably nobody can foresee what our interventions in the middle east will cost us down the line, but I'm sure that folks on both sides of the aisle will spin them for political gain.

OOPS, I mentioned islamic extremists. I guess the NSA picked that up and is all up in every poster's hard drive, right Eyebolter?  ;)