The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Solecismic]

Just a couple of charts here to try and clarify what seems to be apples and oranges in the discussion:

Total Debt:

Government Debt Chart: United States 1900-2018 - Federal State Local Data

This is the primary concern. It's what we owe.

The annual deficit:

Government Spending Chart: United States 1900-2018 - Federal State Local Data

This the rate of change in the above chart. The administration claims the far right portion of this chart is accurate. Others question this.

The dollar in 2008 has the same value as $1.085 today. Yet the total debt has risen about 70% since.

[flere-imsaho]

"You know, based on personal experience and just my general speculation, I think X, Y and Z."

"Well, that's interesting, but it seem X is disproven by LINK, Y is disproven by CHART and Z is disproven by TABLE. But do you have something else which backs up what you're saying?"

"OMG STOP ATTACKING ME!!!"

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Just a couple of charts here to try and clarify what seems to be apples and oranges in the discussion:

Is there any indication in those charts what debt is 'real' in terms of being a debt to an outside force (as a lot of government debt is frequently borrowed from another aspect of the government itself in a lot of cases) and also any indication of how this balances against assets owned in debts to other governments.

I thought this was interesting btw:

Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury has been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt, meaning the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate paid on the debt.[27] Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investments such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk.[28][29] Economists such as Lawrence Summers and bloggers such as Matthew Yglesias have stated that at such low interest rates, government borrowing actually saves taxpayer money and improves creditworthiness.[30][31]

In the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the US and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but there is no guarantee that government debt rates will continue to stay so low.[28][32] Between 1946 and 1974, the US debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 121% to 32% even though there were surpluses in only eight of those years which were much smaller than the deficits.[33]

[Blackadar]

If I remember correctly, the 2008 budget deficit was projected to be around $200m at the beginning of the year. It ended up being about $450m. At the time, the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs were not included in the deficit numbers under Bush (they were "special appropriations") whereas they were with Obama. So add in another $150m to that number.

Also, the Federal Government fiscal year starts in October. Between October 2008 and January 2009 Bush approved TARP and part of the GM bailout, which cost over another $100B. So when Obama took office in January 2009, the 2009 Federal fiscal year was already 1/3rd over. Given the 2008 budget deficit + war spending + TARP costs + declining revenues, the 2009 budget deficit was easily going to hit $1T without any stimulus spending under any President - Obama, McCain, Ron Paul or Jesus Christ.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Is there any indication in those charts what debt is 'real' in terms of being a debt to an outside force (as a lot of government debt is frequently borrowed from another aspect of the government itself in a lot of cases) and also any indication of how this balances against assets owned in debts to other governments.

I thought this was interesting btw:

Those intra-governmental holdings (more than half consists of borrowing against social security tax revenue) amount to 25-30% of the debt. Since we don't pay interest on that debt, it's not as bad. However, it represents an obligation that we could find troubling if we were counting on it being paid out.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that Obama hasn't done anything unusual here - it's been a practice for the last several presidents. The run-up in the debt is almost all to public debt-holders. So the percentage was a lot higher.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It tuns out money is not just thrown into a giant hole and lit on fire, contrary to some ignorant beliefs. While there can be some waste, spending on things like roads, military spending, and food stamps actually go back into the economy and provide goods and services to the community as well as private sector job growth, in some cases.


SI

I thought we've argued for reducing military spending? I'm all for spending on roads, but the spending tends to go towards pork, special interest spending, and expanding entitlement programs. Food stamps are okay, but should they be a time-limited program? Isn't putting more money back in the hands of individuals a better way to get private sector job growth?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd target under 6% unemployment before I cared at all. The debt is a possible crisis in the future, the lack of jobs is a real crisis currently. I wish we'd worry more now about the current crisis.

I look at where I grew up in rural Ohio and see massive suffering because there are no jobs. Cutting spending doesn't mean shit to these people because they can't find work. The real physical and emotional damage being done by a lack of employment should be on the front pages papers every day. Congress should be screaming and investigating. Every election should turn on who will get people working.

But you can't spend yourself silly doing it. You either pay for it now, or pay more later.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, we just went from 10% to 7% in the space of about three years. Let's examine how that happened and maybe do more of it.

We did it with low-paying and or part-time jobs. Not exactly a great recovery...and we aren't accounting those who have gone on disability, retired, and or drop of the workforce/job market all together. The real problem with the job recovery is man is being replaced with technology, and more can done with less. What happens when the ratio of number of people in this country (or world) grows, yet the private sector jobs needed decreases continues to widen?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

mmmkay, can someone point out what the personal insult was that I used?

Facts.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The real problem with the job recovery is man is being replaced with technology, and more can done with less. What happens when the ratio of number of people in this country (or world) grows, yet the private sector jobs needed decreases continues to widen?

Didn't this start with the cotton gin? You can't stop progress, nor do you want to, as it makes the economy more efficient. The only thing you can do is invest in education (and hope that investment is efficient as well), and make the next class of new products that continually push efficiency forward.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Every election should. So how do we get more people employed, long-term? How do we deal with a record-level of people who aren't employed full-time? The stimulus ended up lowering employment when you count people who have left the work force. And we're only getting growth in part-time work.

The number we should target is percentage full-time participation in the work force. If stimulus had wound up getting that number down, then we could begin to turn this around. Instead, it's at a 35-year low - and numbers going back a few decades reflect far less participation from women.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

We disagree on how close we are to crisis with the debt. We don't feel it yet because the fed is artificially keeping inflation low. The minute that stimulus stops, we'll have double-digit inflation. Then not only are people out of work, they'll see whatever savings they have reduced in value.

People have been screaming that inflation is right around the corner for years. I'll stick with the data.

Yes, labor participation has dropped, but there's not an economist alive that would say the stimulus caused that.

We could create tons of low skilled jobs (just the type we need) if we had the will to do it. Schools need repaired as do roads and bridges. Lead abatement would be the best education/anti-crime policy we could implement. Painting the roofs white in cities would reduce energy consumption. I bet I could come up with a dozen more ideas pretty quickly.

Lots of people need jobs and lots of stuff needs doing, but we're more concerned about the debt than alleviating suffering.

[JPhillips]

In other news...

Sen. Lamar Alexander's Chief of Staff was just arrested fro child porn.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We could create tons of low skilled jobs (just the type we need) if we had the will to do it. Schools need repaired as do roads and bridges. Lead abatement would be the best education/anti-crime policy we could implement. Painting the roofs white in cities would reduce energy consumption. I bet I could come up with a dozen more ideas pretty quickly.

A need for these jobs plus a need to repair our crumbling infrastructure seems like a stimulus match made in heaven, to be honest.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A need for these jobs plus a need to repair our crumbling infrastructure seems like a stimulus match made in heaven, to be honest.

We could start by employing those (capable) on unemployment/welfare. We don't even need a stimulus for that, they are already getting paid a stipend.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A need for these jobs plus a need to repair our crumbling infrastructure seems like a stimulus match made in heaven, to be honest.

The trick with this is to get rid of the corruption. One of the stimulus bills tried to do this, and it led to very little actual job creation. I agree it is something that should certainly be worked on, and is much better to me than straight-up welfare. We just need to make sure the money ends up creating jobs, not lining the pockets of construction owners and municipal leaders.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A need for these jobs plus a need to repair our crumbling infrastructure seems like a stimulus match made in heaven, to be honest.

I honestly thought that's what the first stimulus was going to be mostly, but it turned out to be such a small part of it as to be almost negligible. I guess I am just naive.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mike D

We could start by employing those (capable) on unemployment/welfare. We don't even need a stimulus for that, they are already getting paid a stipend.

I never thought I'd see the day when you'd agree with the concept of a "works program" (because that's essentially what I'm describing).

I'm going to go fall over now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The trick with this is to get rid of the corruption. One of the stimulus bills tried to do this, and it led to very little actual job creation. I agree it is something that should certainly be worked on, and is much better to me than straight-up welfare. We just need to make sure the money ends up creating jobs, not lining the pockets of construction owners and municipal leaders.

Yep, it's a significant issue. I'd honestly like to see a bill passed that required a full account of money spent, and on what, and have that information be posted publically, when these kind of appropriations are made.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I never thought I'd see the day when you'd agree with the concept of a "works program" (because that's essentially what I'm describing).

I'm going to go fall over now.

It's a cause & effect, really. If we are saying that the rich (and really, the middle class) have additional obligation to the state to give back, then we should say that of all Americans. But let's fairly quantify and articulate those obligations. I'd rather our taxes subsidize new (safer) roads and bridges, cleaner cities, growing plants and trees, and cut grass than uncontrolled taxes subsidize a lifetime supply of McDonalds, cigarettes and beer in our current welfare state. Obviously, if people choose those things after they put in few hours of work, I'm less likely to be offended by where our tax dollars go.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I thought we've argued for reducing military spending? I'm all for spending on roads, but the spending tends to go towards pork, special interest spending, and expanding entitlement programs. Food stamps are okay, but should they be a time-limited program? Isn't putting more money back in the hands of individuals a better way to get private sector job growth?



But you can't spend yourself silly doing it. You either pay for it now, or pay more later.



We did it with low-paying and or part-time jobs. Not exactly a great recovery...and we aren't accounting those who have gone on disability, retired, and or drop of the workforce/job market all together. The real problem with the job recovery is man is being replaced with technology, and more can done with less. What happens when the ratio of number of people in this country (or world) grows, yet the private sector jobs needed decreases continues to widen?

You're bottom point is how the standard of living rises. It's no different than at any other point in history. I'd also point out the unemployment rate for tech jobs in cities like SF has been around 2% before and through the recession. So the jobs are there, but people need to retrain. Just as they had to when industry moved overseas. I don't see anyone pining to slave away in a steel mill.

Yet people are still in college getting types of degrees that are effectively worthless then bitching because they can't get a job.

[JPhillips]

The story of the "interpreter" at Mandela's funeral is incredible. It really sounds like it could have been a tragedy.

The statements by Jantjie raise serious security issues for Obama, other heads of state and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who made speeches at FNB Stadium in Soweto, Johannesburg's black township. The ceremony honored Mandela, the anti-apartheid icon and former president who died on Dec. 5. Many of them, including Obama, stood one yard (meter) away from Jantjie.

"What happened that day, I see angels come to the stadium ... I start realizing that the problem is here. And the problem, I don't know the attack of this problem, how will it comes. Sometimes I react violent on that place. Sometimes I will see things that chase me," Jantjie said.

"I was in a very difficult position," he added. "And remember those people, the president and everyone, they were armed, there was armed police around me. If I start panicking I'll start being a problem. I have to deal with this in a manner so that I mustn't embarrass my country."

Asked how often he had become violent, he said "a lot" while declining to provide details.

Jantjie said he was due on the day of the ceremony to get a regular six-month mental health checkup to determine whether the medication he takes was working, whether it needed to be changed or whether he needed to be kept at a mental health facility for treatment.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You're bottom point is how the standard of living rises. It's no different than at any other point in history. I'd also point out the unemployment rate for tech jobs in cities like SF has been around 2% before and through the recession. So the jobs are there, but people need to retrain. Just as they had to when industry moved overseas. I don't see anyone pining to slave away in a steel mill.

Yet people are still in college getting types of degrees that are effectively worthless then bitching because they can't get a job.

For the overwhelming number of jobs that don't need certification I don't think the type of degree matters much. As long as you gain transferable skills you'll be fine. Look at the degrees of corporate CEOs, they cover a wide range of disciplines.

[lungs]

I see South Carolina is going down the nullification route on Obamacare.

Silly rebs, never learn their lesson.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The trick with this is to get rid of the corruption. One of the stimulus bills tried to do this, and it led to very little actual job creation. I agree it is something that should certainly be worked on, and is much better to me than straight-up welfare. We just need to make sure the money ends up creating jobs, not lining the pockets of construction owners and municipal leaders.

Most of the stimulus bill was tax cuts. Not really what the economy needed at the time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We could create tons of low skilled jobs (just the type we need) if we had the will to do it. Schools need repaired as do roads and bridges. Lead abatement would be the best education/anti-crime policy we could implement. Painting the roofs white in cities would reduce energy consumption. I bet I could come up with a dozen more ideas pretty quickly.

The problem is that most Americans don't want to do them. We've gone decades now teaching kids that manual labor is beneath them and not a respectable job. I think if you posted a sign in each city saying "We're hiring 250,000 people to do construction", you'd sadly find that a lot of unemployed folks wouldn't bother.

There are a lot of skilled jobs involved in infrastructure development too that we just don't have. Plumbers, electricians, engineers, people who can handle heavy machinery. These are jobs we scared people away from over the last few decades and now have a shortage.

I'm all for infrastructure projects, but a bunch of Sociology majors without jobs aren't going to rush to fill them, and if they do they'll be woefully unqualified for the work.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You're bottom point is how the standard of living rises. It's no different than at any other point in history. I'd also point out the unemployment rate for tech jobs in cities like SF has been around 2% before and through the recession. So the jobs are there, but people need to retrain. Just as they had to when industry moved overseas. I don't see anyone pining to slave away in a steel mill.

Yet people are still in college getting types of degrees that are effectively worthless then bitching because they can't get a job.

I'd argue that things are very different than at other points of history because there is basically no where for jobs to head eventually as technology evolves and removes them.

Initially jobs were subsistence/agriculture based in the main
Then moved towards manufacturing
Then moved towards retail and suchlike

Retail is now being replaced at an increasing pace by online stores meaning delivery will be one of the last bastions - however automated cars and 'drone delivery' is already on the radar to replace those.

If you combine that with an increasing simplicity with regards to many formerly complicated tech jobs and all that remains are niche positions which haven't been automated yet (programmers, plumbers, electricians, etc.) and jobs which require specific human interaction or intuition (psychiatrist, teacher etc.).

It'll be a while yet before this reaches 'crisis point' - however it'd be nice if we anticipate it and stop looking down on people if they are not employed long before it reaches that crisis.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem is that most Americans don't want to do them. We've gone decades now teaching kids that manual labor is beneath them and not a respectable job. I think if you posted a sign in each city saying "We're hiring 250,000 people to do construction", you'd sadly find that a lot of unemployed folks wouldn't bother.

There are a lot of skilled jobs involved in infrastructure development too that we just don't have. Plumbers, electricians, engineers, people who can handle heavy machinery. These are jobs we scared people away from over the last few decades and now have a shortage.

I'm all for infrastructure projects, but a bunch of Sociology majors without jobs aren't going to rush to fill them, and if they do they'll be woefully unqualified for the work.

According to the latest stats, the unemployment rate for college grads is 3.4%. The high unemployment rate is driven by less educated workers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

According to the latest stats, the unemployment rate for college grads is 3.4%. The high unemployment rate is driven by less educated workers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Under 25 it is just under 9%. Underemployment was at like 19% in that demographic too.

[JPhillips]

But college grads are largely fine in this economy. It takes a while to find a job, but almost all of them work, even if it is outside their chosen field. The problem is people without a college degree.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But college grads are largely fine in this economy. It takes a while to find a job, but almost all of them work, even if it is outside their chosen field. The problem is people without a college degree.

When you say 'outside their chosen field' do you mean a professional job - or is it that the less educated are struggling to find employment because the people with degrees are now taking their positions in order to find any employment at all?

[JPhillips]

I'd guess it's some of both. So many jobs that don't really need higher education now use a degree as a sort of entrance exam as it proves the applicant is at least responsible enough to finish college.

I think eventually we're going to have problems with a more automated economy, but I don't think that's the problem right now. We could put lots of people to work, but we choose not to.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'd argue that things are very different than at other points of history because there is basically no where for jobs to head eventually as technology evolves and removes them.

Initially jobs were subsistence/agriculture based in the main
Then moved towards manufacturing
Then moved towards retail and suchlike

Retail is now being replaced at an increasing pace by online stores meaning delivery will be one of the last bastions - however automated cars and 'drone delivery' is already on the radar to replace those.

If you combine that with an increasing simplicity with regards to many formerly complicated tech jobs and all that remains are niche positions which haven't been automated yet (programmers, plumbers, electricians, etc.) and jobs which require specific human interaction or intuition (psychiatrist, teacher etc.).

It'll be a while yet before this reaches 'crisis point' - however it'd be nice if we anticipate it and stop looking down on people if they are not employed long before it reaches that crisis.

But doesn't technology tend to solve this problem as well as cause it? For instance, as farming was dying, modern manufacturing was born so those jobs were created that didn't exist before. As manufacturing got more automated, more items were created and thus retail went from a general store with a few items to a retail empire that needed to be staffed. As that started going away, we had a use for all sorts of white collar service industries: there were no computer programmers, project managers, or public relations workers before there were computers, business projects, or large scale public relations.

It's certainly no perfect system and I'm certainly not an unfettered invisible hand advocate (and this reasoning has some flaws much like the "well, don't worry about pollution as we'll technology our way out of it!"). But at some point, an industry or group of industries says "hey, there's a lot of cheap labor out there, let's soak it up". The next major set of jobs out there is something we haven't even thought of yet. Either that or we head towards a more automated society where working 60 hours a week isn't required for a person to maintain a standard living.

SI

[Edward64]

Hopefully Boehner and Ryan will bring the core GOP back into line. Not sure if Boehner can survive if this escalates but good to see him trying.

Don't expect Boehner to totally change his tune - CNN.com

(CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner may have stood up to conservative arm-twisters and embraced bipartisanship in moving a budget agreement through the House, but insiders don't see it as the start of a sea change on Capitol Hill.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is one who was pragmatic about Boehner's new and strident public tone this week toward several influential conservative groups that have questioned his leadership and blasted the compromise budget plan approved Thursday.

Senior GOP aides also cautioned that Boehner's rhetorical flogging of these groups was not part of a larger legislative strategy moving forward -- especially on immigration reform. They view it as the Speaker simply calling out people who he thought crossed a line.

Boehner took to the podium on Wednesday and Thursday to say that he was fed up with criticism from conservative advocates.

At first, he said they were "misleading their followers." He followed up with this round-house:

"Frankly, I just think that they've lost all credibility."

In recent months, Boehner has downplayed internal GOP splits and was on the defensive about why he bent to pressure from the conservative wing of the party to wage what amounted to unwinnable fights with Democrats.

The inability of Boehner to control his majority in the House, many of whom take their cues from conservative advocates, has fostered perpetual gridlock on Capitol Hill and dwindling public support for Republicans and the overall Congress.

Thursday's budget vote may provided some vindication for Boehner as the House overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan compromise panned by conservative advocates, sending it to the Senate, where it is expected to pass next week.

He enthusiastically banged the gavel down and thundered the final tally -- 332-94.

Boehner said the proposal hammered out by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate counterpart, Patty Murray, didn't achieve everything Republicans wanted.

But it proposes to reduce the deficit, relax forced military and other spending cuts under so-called sequestration, avoid another government shutdown, and restore a semblance of order to the congressional budget process, which has become an area of recurring political crisis in Washington.

[Edward64]

First his ex-girlfriend, now his uncle. Too bad there is not someone in the NK military willing to knock him off. When NK finally joins the real world it'll be fascinating to hear all the stories.

Kerry weighs in on North Korea execution, Bob Levinson in Iran – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The killing of Kim's uncle – the latest execution of many in recent months, Kerry said - shows the degree to which Kim is "reckless" and "insecure."

"And most importantly, it underscores the importance for all of us of finding a way forward with North Korea in order to denuclearize the peninsula," Kerry said, adding that the U.S. has made "progress" with China in the effort.

Jang Song Thaek, Kim's uncle by marriage, was, until recently, regarded as the second-most powerful figure in North Korea. He was considered to be the regent who secured Kim's assumption of power after the 2011 death of his father, Kim Jong Il.

The country remains "opaque," but the insights the U.S. government has about Kim indicate the young leader is "spontaneous, erratic, (and) still worried about his place in the power structure," Kerry said. He stressed that China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States all need to "stay on the same page" about the urgency of removing North Korea as a nuclear threat.

"To have a nuclear weapon potentially in the hands of somebody like Kim Jong Un just becomes even more unacceptable," he said.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

When DO you start paying back the debt?

Well, we'll start by going after our veteran's pensions. I mean really...what have you done for us lately Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghan War vets?

These go into effect December 2015.

The average cut in pension payouts, including compounding interest, for a retiring Army Sergeant first class, would be about $3,700 each year, according to the Military Officers Association of America. Over 20 years, the total losses could balloon to more than $80,000.

Military pensions "screwed" in budget deal - Dec. 18, 2013

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Well, we'll start by going after our veteran's pensions. I mean really...what have you done for us lately Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghan War vets?

These go into effect December 2015.


Military pensions "screwed" in budget deal - Dec. 18, 2013

Bipartisan agreement that this is fucking ridiculously shitty.

I'm sure we have different ideas about where the money should come from so that this didn't have to happen, but I think we can all agree this is shitty.

Then again - I'd say the same about any pensions that were previously agreed upon - not sure if you would say the same or not.

[NobodyHere]

Am I the only person who thinks a 38 year old doesn't need to be drawing a pension?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Am I the only person who thinks a 38 year old doesn't need to be drawing a pension?

The proposal affects military retirees who aren't yet 62 years old. Yet, experts say that most military retirees are younger than private sector retirees, because they enlist in their 20's and retire in their 40's, with very few staying on till they are 62.

Well yeah - they retire from the military and then are still young enough to start working in the private sector (some on the civilian side of the government or as gov't contractors...where they can get another pension if they stay long enough ). Very few people can get by after having only worked for 20 years. I've been working "real" jobs for almost 19, and I feel like I'm barely started.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well yeah - they retire from the military and then are still young enough to start working in the private sector (some on the civilian side of the government or as gov't contractors...where they can get another pension if they stay long enough ). Very few people can get by after having only worked for 20 years. I've been working "real" jobs for almost 19, and I feel like I'm barely started.

And most of them have continue to work somewhere after 20 years unless they're able to get by on 50% of their former salary.

But if you wanted to retire younger and have some kind of pension, maybe you should have tried to be in the military, or tried to be a police officer, or a firefighter. This isn't like a new thing they made up yesterday. Different jobs have different salaries and benefits.

[cuervo72]

Fair point - I wouldn't trade where I am just for a military/police/fire pension. 20 years seems like a short window for a career however -- it's a length that may have been in line with other pension plans and retirement ages as they existed years ago before being bumped either to higher ages or eliminated altogether but might be reevaluated now.

I think there might also be an argument for differentiating between pensions for the enlisted vs officers. If you were enlisted for 20 years, I'd imagine you would not be in the same position for continued employment as an officer, who I assume would have picked up skills with higher earning potentials.

[NobodyHere]

Does the "Well you should've been one too" apply to all over-paid public servants?

[JPhillips]

Nobody wants the government to cut spending on themselves, they want government spending on others cut.

[NobodyHere]

That's very true

I think the same goes for raising taxes too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

20 years seems like a short window for a career however

It's not necessarily a window for a career, it's just now long you have to serve in the military before you get some pension benefit. Some start earlier, some start later, many have other careers (especially if they only put 20 years in).

There's certain kinds of jobs where it's not necessarily advantageous to the employer (or taxpayer), to have lots of old people around on active duty pulling full salaries. At the same time, they're pretty important jobs, and it'd be harder to obtain more qualified applicants if people were just cut loose entirely in mid-life and forced to fend for themselves in a private sector for the first time as an older person. It's a fair debate what salaries and pension benefits are appropriate for these different kinds of jobs to a point, but I'm not sure they they deserve the hostility and microscopic scrutiny some like to shell out for any government employee. Pension changes should be phased in at least so they're not done to the detriment of people who have planned their careers and lives around them. Especially when it's the federal government and they're not facing bankruptcy any time soon. Personnel salaries really aren't what's breaking the bank of public budgets.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Does the "Well you should've been one too" apply to all over-paid public servants?

If you're complaining about the concepts of partial pensions benefits generally after less than 35-year career or whatever, then probably yes. Those make sense and I don't think anyone's arguing that they should go away entirely. It's like complaining that teachers don't work in the summers, or that construction workers get to work outside.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Am I the only person who thinks a 38 year old doesn't need to be drawing a pension?

They should just keep doing what they are doing?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Well, we'll start by going after our veteran's pensions. I mean really...what have you done for us lately Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghan War vets?

These go into effect December 2015.

That's two years away. Given the constituency in question, I'd be pretty surprised if it isn't somehow "fixed" by then, to be honest.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Am I the only person who thinks a 38 year old doesn't need to be drawing a pension?

I'm going to assume you're excepting those who were injured in the course of their service, right? Especially those injured to the point where obtaining and keeping a well-paying job would be challenging, right?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm going to assume you're excepting those who were injured in the course of their service, right? Especially those injured to the point where obtaining and keeping a well-paying job would be challenging, right?

They get disability.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

They get disability.

They get compensated for their losses which is an even-sum game...at best, so yes, they get disability.

I think the problem here is that for the most part, the general public only see's "The Hero's" portion of the military. The reality is that the military is a lot like Logan's Run. It's a young man's game and once you hit 40...you are done. So an Army infantry or tanker or artilleryman gets out at 40...and assuming good health...he or she is going to do what exactly? Get a job as an expert tankman? Probably not. Join a construction crew as a rookie? Probably not. So how do you entice somebody to join an all-volunteer military if you are really only planning on shafting them if they serve 20 years? The answer to that question was a pension. It's not a lot actually, it's not "retirement" from working, it's retirement from the military. It's just compensation for somebody who served the government for a long time and made themselves available to do the job that you won't be conscripted to do.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of post-military careers and a lot of success stories, but there are no guarantees, lots of folks get shafted hard when leaving, so if you want to avoid military service, which America typically does (and the reason we have an all-volunteer force vs. the draft), then give these folks a fair shot when leaving the military...and a modest pension.

[cuervo72]

That's why I would consider differing policies for the rank-and-file and officers (if there isn't one already - I admittedly don't know much about how these are structured). One seems like more of a use and discard scenario, where the other one can prep you with valuable skills (my B-I-L is a retired Lt. Col who has a good deal of IT experience; between that and contacts he made while in, he had a lot of options post-Marines).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Mike D

They get compensated for their losses which is an even-sum game...at best, so yes, they get disability.

I think the problem here is that for the most part, the general public only see's "The Hero's" portion of the military. The reality is that the military is a lot like Logan's Run. It's a young man's game and once you hit 40...you are done. So an Army infantry or tanker or artilleryman gets out at 40...and assuming good health...he or she is going to do what exactly? Get a job as an expert tankman? Probably not. Join a construction crew as a rookie? Probably not. So how do you entice somebody to join an all-volunteer military if you are really only planning on shafting them if they serve 20 years? The answer to that question was a pension. It's not a lot actually, it's not "retirement" from working, it's retirement from the military. It's just compensation for somebody who served the government for a long time and made themselves available to do the job that you won't be conscripted to do.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of post-military careers and a lot of success stories, but there are no guarantees, lots of folks get shafted hard when leaving, so if you want to avoid military service, which America typically does, then give these folks a fair shot when leaving the military.

There's always the GI Bill when you get out of the service and Tuition Assistance (at least for Air Force) while you're in. I think 20+ years is plenty of time for career planning.

On another note I don't see why a person who has been in the military for 20 years and never deployed should get an immediate pension while another person who serves 4 years and spends half of it in a combat zone gets absolutely zilch as far as retirement goes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

There's always the GI Bill when you get out of the service and Tuition Assistance (at least for Air Force) while you're in. I think 20+ years is plenty of time for career planning.

Is your desire to send 40- and 50-something people off to college with a handshake wishing them the best in job market for the first time with no backup or supplemental income based on a desire to save money or a dislike for those in the military generally?

Edit: On the latter point, do you feel the same way about, say, Forest Service Smoke Jumpers? That's another job that tends to be pretty tough to do too far into your 40s. As a result, they get some compensation beyond that for their service, though, like with 20-30 year military careers, not necessarily enough to retire on. Should they instead be entirely cut off as soon as they're not useful anymore?