The Right to Work for less money

[SniperFire]

Please rest assured I neither need nor want any of your wealth and I'm quite sure the same circumstance applies to the vast majority of Americans -- many of whom are making their way quite nicely as a direct result of the union movement.

As for the wealth you seem covetously inclined to defend, do you think you could have done as well in another country? If you've managed to acquire an enviable amount of money by engaging in commerce, either selling shoes or providing investigative services, it was possible only because a substantial number of citizens had enough money to pay you. And the union movement is why that much money was circulating in the national economy. You could not have done as well back in the twenties or beyond when the average American was struggling to keep food on the table.

The only way you could have realized the same level of success back then was to serve the relatively few rich clients, for which the competition would have been overwhelming.

But you are an advocate of the thesis that wealth is not earned and I am obligated to give it to others.

That is what you have worked out in your imagination. All you are obligated to do is pay taxes, which is where your objection lies. You very clearly manifest a paranoid delusion that government wishes to seize a part of your money hoard and turn it over to some undeserving "them."

While some percentage of the taxes we all pay will be applied to charitable purposes I'm curious to know what you believe those charitable purposes to be and which of them you most object to. So please be more specific about your objections and apprehensions about your wealth being taken from you for redistribution to others.

What do you mean, delusion?

 

[thereisnospoon]

What was your first job? How much did you earn? And what were your social conditions at the time (live home with parents)?

And if you don't believe American workers were ever exploited and abused that is because of your abject ignorance of the history of the American labor movement. The remedy for that ignorance is to read some or all of the following books and to see all or most of the following movies -- each of which is based on verifiable facts. I can assure you that a little education will bring about a radical change in your attitude and perceptions.


Union books:

Rebuilding Labor
Why Unions Matter
Unions At The Crossroads
The Transformation of U.S. Unions
Look For The Union Label
What Do We Need A Union For
The CIO
Infighting In The UAW

______________________________________

Union Movies:

How Green Was My Valley
The Grapes Of Wrath
Native Land
On The Waterfront
The Pajama Game
Harlan County USA
The Organizer
Norma Rae
Matewan
The Molly Maguires
Hoffa

I left the house at age 17, 3 weeks after I graduated high school. My first job was working outside for a surveying company making $3 a hour. I then sold shoes for Kinney Shoes as friend of mine I played ball with worked there. Within a few months I was assistant manager of a mall store working 70 hours a week, salary. Then I sold insurance, commission only, for a year. Then I went back to college and worked for a law firm. I went to get my graduate degree, worked at the law firm from 1-6 pm; 2 nights a week and 8 hours every Saturday I sold shoes at a men's store in the mall and I mowed yards and did other yard work in between for extra cash.
I was promoted to #1 investigator in that law firm in 1981. 1982 I left and started my own detective agency. Got my graduate degree in 1985 . The rest is history.
This is the normal path of all business owners and people that make a lot of $$$ in America.
We earned it. No one gave us anything. Wealth is earned. I am not obligated to give you or anyone else any of my wealth.
Go get it yourself.
Spread the word.

Are you kidding? The much more typical path for those who are well-to-do is:
tony private school -> elite university -> job (often build off of family contact)

Well, that is the prevailing "I'll never get there because I am a victim" mantra we hear from those on the left.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The wage and benefit standards of virtually all non-union employers exist because of the intimidating prospect of union organizing. The union movement brought about universal improvement in wages, benefits, and working conditions.

That's a convenient, self serving argument. Unfortuantely there isn't any real evidence for it. The organized labor movement simply isn't that big. Organized labor makes up a mere 7% of the private sector labor force. It's pretty tough to make the argument that a mere 7% of the work force is dictating the pay and benefits of the other 92%

Educate yourself, then come back. Right now you are speaking from a position of pure ignorance.

Union Books:

Rebuilding Labor
Why Unions Matter
Unions At The Crossroads
The Transformation of U.S. Unions
Look For The Union Label
What Do We Need A Union For
The CIO
Infighting In The UAW

_________________________________________

Union Movies:

How Green Was My Valley
The Grapes Of Wrath
Native Land
On The Waterfront
The Pajama Game
Harlan County USA
The Organizer
Norma Rae
Matewan
The Molly Maguires
Hoffa


The union movement once dominated the American labor scene. It led to the birth of the American Middle Class and the most prosperous period in our history. I'm talking about the early days of the Teamsters, AFofL, ILU, CIO, ILGWU, IBEW, and dozens more strong and powerful unions, many of which have been undermined mainly by the ignorance and stupidity of a spoiled labor force combined with the kind of corrupt legislation that brings about such abominations as "Right-To-Work."

You and others who think like you are in for a very rude awakening when wages begin to fall, job benefits diminish, and the American working class begins to look more like it did back in the twenties and beyond. Right now you don't believe it can happen because you probably are in school or enjoying the twilight of the American dream and are blind to the handwriting on the wall.

The union "movement" as you call it represented no ore than roughly 35% of the US workforce. That percentage began to decline in the 1960's. Long before Right to Work became a widespread fact.
The country began to take the course away from unions because unions started forcing themselves out of the marketplace.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As much as people don't want to believe it, we live in a highly stratified society. Someone born into an upper-income family who drops out of school is more likely to remain upper-income than someone from the lower class with an post-bachelor's degree is to enter the top of the distribution.

You're changing your tune a bit Polk. Regardless, where is your evidence for this theory? It doesn't even pass a basic logic test if you play it out. Said rich kid drops out of school. Then what? Someone decides to hire them for high paying position anyway, KNOWING they don't even have a degree. Or maybe daddy does them a favor and gets them a job in his business or some friends you might argue. Why would anyone with any business sense do that when they also know the person hasn't completed their education and has no experience in what they were hired for? Does it happen maybe, sure? But not enough to make the claims you make. Rich dad didnt' become succesful by a habit of letting emotion blind them into hiring people, family or not, that are wholly unqualified to do a job. You're just making yet another excuse.

More anecdotal evidence. My dad made low-mid 6 figures his working career. So did his three brothers. NONE OF THEM went to private schools in their elemetary years or college. How to get rich isn't something that is taught just in private schools. They really aren't taught in any schools, which is unfortuante. Rather they are principles handed down from generation to generation. The people that aren't fortunate enough to have that kind of upbringing are the people that insist everyone is doomed financially if they aren't protected by a union.

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

You are dwelling on the upper upper crust blue bloods who make up an infinitesimal percentage of the population.
Believe it or not each year roughly one million people in the US earn college degrees.
Truth is a college degree gets one a leg up, but there are no guarantees.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. If you are going to declare FACT, you'd better be able to post your documentation to back it up......because personal anecdotes and conjured scenarios......yada, yada, yada.

Read Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, which references all assertions with references to published data.

Then you won't be so full of overused cliches that your eyes show the void behind them.

I have read parts of this. It is a manifesto professing the notion of "fairness" and equality of outcome.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm still interested in the answer to the question "Do we have the right to work for less money?" - because I think that is the central problem with the whole union issue. Do I have a right offer my services to an employer for less money than the union is demanding? Or must I avoid undercutting them?

The obvious kink in this plot is if you dislodge a union employee by working for less money, how long will it be before someone does the same to you? And so on. That was the situation in America before the union movement commenced.

In the same way as "Right-To-Work" laws were legislated, thus undermining the union movement, all of the existing labor laws that protect workers, every one of which was fostered by the union movement, will be similarly legislated away. Workers will be competing for jobs by accepting lower and lower wages. There will be no 40 hour week. You will work as many hours as your employer demands without overtime pay. There will be no paid vacations or sick leave.

And, again, that's the way it was before the unions changed the rules. "Right-To-Work" will soon change them again.

This is the basis for all business.
For example, in most states "lowest bidder" laws are sacrosanct.
In business the same thing applies. Who cares or more accurately, who's business is it how much one wishes to charge for their services?
If I am a landscaper and I deliver flyers in a neighborhood with my price list higher than the landscapers doing the work there already, will I get any business? No.
My best course would be to match or undercut their prices to get the work. My oib would be to get the work done better, faster and with better customer service skills.
If that pisses you off, too bad. This is real world.
Now, the caveat is if one sets his prices too low, he cheapens the marketplace and sets up mediocrity. In any event, the adage here is and in most instances "you get what you pay for".
The bottom line is a balance that must be maintained between value and cost.
Unions tip that balance too far toward cost. And that is why unions have for the most part priced themselves out of the marketplace.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Anecdotes and cherry-picked examples prove little. Thus looking at aggregate data will help you learn something, today anyway.

Enjoy it.

How is pointing out the fact that more than half of the richest people in the world are self made cherry picking?

Because self-made doesn't necessarily mean rags to riches. Bill Gates grew up in Seattle's exclusive Brentwood gated community, son of a senior partner in Seattle's largest law firm.

Right. So Gates was raised in a household where his father made $400k per year living comfortably. Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people on the planet. And not because his father was a well paid attorney either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How is pointing out the fact that more than half of the richest people in the world are self made cherry picking?

Because it doesn't reflect his master's agenda. I notice he has yet to produce the documentation of HIS facts. I guess he thinks that Forbes made up the list of self made billionaires. What a dolt.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

Hit a nerve with you I see.
The fact is we all have equality of opportunity.
I saw an example of this today.
A father and son delivering a couple of file cabinets to the auto repair shop where I take my vehicles. I chatted briefly with these two. The father told me his son is great at math and science. So instead of trying to play football or another sport, this kid wants to be an architect or a construction engineer.
And the father and son are ordinary middle class people. And they are black.
So please, there is opportunity for those who want it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because it doesn't reflect his master's agenda. I notice he has yet to produce the documentation of HIS facts. I guess he thinks that Forbes made up the list of self made billionaires. What a dolt.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

And what does that mean for our country?

But first, where do you think Bill Gates met his pal Paul Allen? On a bread line? No. An elite high school for Seattle's richest families who could afford $20 grand a year for high school.

And that won't change. Of course the rich will do best by their children.

But back in the rest of America, where does that leave us compared to countries with less inequality of opportunity, like Norway, etc.? If our best and brightest come from a small percentage, how many Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs are withering away in ghettos, never to rise out and do amazing shit for us?

Do you think the school these two attended had anything to do with the creation of what is now Microsoft? Please tell me you do not think so.
Let me ask...Suppose for a moment your theory is true. That we are from birth destined to remain in the socio-economic circle to which we were born. What is your solution?

 

[MikeK]

But you are an advocate of the thesis that wealth is not earned and I am obligated to give it to others.

That is what you have worked out in your imagination. All you are obligated to do is pay taxes, which is where your objection lies. You very clearly manifest a paranoid delusion that government wishes to seize a part of your money hoard and turn it over to some undeserving "them."

While some percentage of the taxes we all pay will be applied to charitable purposes I'm curious to know what you believe those charitable purposes to be and which of them you most object to. So please be more specific about your objections and apprehensions about your wealth being taken from you for redistribution to others.

What do you mean, delusion?

I mean exactly what I said. So unless you consider Social Security to be a charity, deduct it from your graph line, then tell us specifically what charities are you referring to.

What exactly do you consider to be an "entitlement" and what specific "entitlements" do you believe should be eliminated from the budget?

Again -- be specific.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is what you have worked out in your imagination. All you are obligated to do is pay taxes, which is where your objection lies. You very clearly manifest a paranoid delusion that government wishes to seize a part of your money hoard and turn it over to some undeserving "them."

While some percentage of the taxes we all pay will be applied to charitable purposes I'm curious to know what you believe those charitable purposes to be and which of them you most object to. So please be more specific about your objections and apprehensions about your wealth being taken from you for redistribution to others.

What do you mean, delusion?

I mean exactly what I said. So unless you consider Social Security to be a charity, deduct it from your graph line, then tell us specifically what charities are you referring to.

What exactly do you consider to be an "entitlement" and what specific "entitlements" do you believe should be eliminated from the budget?

Again -- be specific.

A simple across the board reduction in yearly increases.
Right now, every federal department and program receives yearly increases as prescribed in "base line budgeting".
The debt could be reduced by limiting the annual budget increases to rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, liberal democrats have deemed entitlements to be sacrosanct.

 

[Koios]

What do you mean, delusion?

I mean exactly what I said. So unless you consider Social Security to be a charity, deduct it from your graph line, then tell us specifically what charities are you referring to.

What exactly do you consider to be an "entitlement" and what specific "entitlements" do you believe should be eliminated from the budget?

Again -- be specific.

A simple across the board reduction in yearly increases.
Right now, every federal department and program receives yearly increases as prescribed in "base line budgeting".
The debt could be reduced by limiting the annual budget increases to rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, liberal democrats have deemed entitlements to be sacrosanct.

Actually, spending increases about 3 percent a year if driven both by inflation and population increases. Clinton held it to about that, and Obama is doing a smidgen better (less than). So where larger than average annual increases come from are new spending programs; under Bush, who averaged nearer 6 percent, it was due to new stuff, such as, Medicare Part D, 2 wars, Homeland Security, etc.

And since across the board cutting is folly due to unpredictable rises in recipients, or special circumstances, to actually cut, programs need to be eliminated, such as Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, border fences, etc.

Simple reality.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I mean exactly what I said. So unless you consider Social Security to be a charity, deduct it from your graph line, then tell us specifically what charities are you referring to.

What exactly do you consider to be an "entitlement" and what specific "entitlements" do you believe should be eliminated from the budget?

Again -- be specific.

A simple across the board reduction in yearly increases.
Right now, every federal department and program receives yearly increases as prescribed in "base line budgeting".
The debt could be reduced by limiting the annual budget increases to rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, liberal democrats have deemed entitlements to be sacrosanct.

Actually, spending increases about 3 percent a year if driven both by inflation and population increases. Clinton held it to about that, and Obama is doing a smidgen better (less than). So where larger than average annual increases come from are new spending programs; under Bush, who averaged nearer 6 percent, it was due to new stuff, such as, Medicare Part D, 2 wars, Homeland Security, etc.

And since across the board cutting is folly due to unpredictable rises in recipients, or special circumstances, to actually cut, programs need to be eliminated, such as Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, border fences, etc.

Simple reality.

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

 

[Koios]

A simple across the board reduction in yearly increases.
Right now, every federal department and program receives yearly increases as prescribed in "base line budgeting".
The debt could be reduced by limiting the annual budget increases to rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, liberal democrats have deemed entitlements to be sacrosanct.

Actually, spending increases about 3 percent a year if driven both by inflation and population increases. Clinton held it to about that, and Obama is doing a smidgen better (less than). So where larger than average annual increases come from are new spending programs; under Bush, who averaged nearer 6 percent, it was due to new stuff, such as, Medicare Part D, 2 wars, Homeland Security, etc.

And since across the board cutting is folly due to unpredictable rises in recipients, or special circumstances, to actually cut, programs need to be eliminated, such as Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, border fences, etc.

Simple reality.

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

Check outlays, and not budget numbers. Here's where to look: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Koios]

A simple across the board reduction in yearly increases.
Right now, every federal department and program receives yearly increases as prescribed in "base line budgeting".
The debt could be reduced by limiting the annual budget increases to rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, liberal democrats have deemed entitlements to be sacrosanct.

Actually, spending increases about 3 percent a year if driven both by inflation and population increases. Clinton held it to about that, and Obama is doing a smidgen better (less than). So where larger than average annual increases come from are new spending programs; under Bush, who averaged nearer 6 percent, it was due to new stuff, such as, Medicare Part D, 2 wars, Homeland Security, etc.

And since across the board cutting is folly due to unpredictable rises in recipients, or special circumstances, to actually cut, programs need to be eliminated, such as Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, border fences, etc.

Simple reality.

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

Now then, in re: population and inflation, how do we reduce interest on the debt, when interest rates fluxuate, not to mention failing to pay it means defaulting?

Or fuel for federal vehicles, if gas prices go up? Budget what you will, but they still need gas. Ditto on electricity, etc. etc.

Who do we release from federal prison? What cases do not go to trial on the federal bench? Where do we stop building border fenses? What poor families do we say "go hungry" if all food aid dollars exceeds the budget, which is per recipent?

Here's how it works, vis a vis the Constitution: the president requests funding, which Congress must allocate by law, which they do, always. Then there's a war, and a supplimental bill, or bills, allocate more. People have more babies, and we have to issue more social security numbers. More people file tax returns, when new jobs are created. So the amount allocated per recipent stays the same, but costs go up. A hurricane hits, costs go up. Not a single new spending program needs to be added, and some programs can even sunset, and cost still goes up. Inflation and population alone, assure it.

So just fucking raise taxes, because: All the fucking excuses in the world, and diversions like "mandatory" cuts down the road, which when money runs out, are merely voted on again, making it possible to keep our government running. Create a debt "ceiling" and when money runs out, they raise it, everytime.

Or cut a big program, by eliminating it. Fuck border fences. Homeland security is merely responding to terror with fear (they win). Get Visa merchant discount fees out of Food Aid, and administer it ourselves. Immediately allow Medicare to bid on prescription drugs. Stop paying Big Oil to look for oil under public lands and then sell it to them at below market. Limit farm subsidies to small farms, and let Big Agro carry its own water. And so on and so on. Change policy and something happens. Create pie in the sky and totally arbitrary targets, and shit happens. Fact. Just look back.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, spending increases about 3 percent a year if driven both by inflation and population increases. Clinton held it to about that, and Obama is doing a smidgen better (less than). So where larger than average annual increases come from are new spending programs; under Bush, who averaged nearer 6 percent, it was due to new stuff, such as, Medicare Part D, 2 wars, Homeland Security, etc.

And since across the board cutting is folly due to unpredictable rises in recipients, or special circumstances, to actually cut, programs need to be eliminated, such as Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, border fences, etc.

Simple reality.

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

Check outlays, and not budget numbers. Here's where to look: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

You deny the existence of baseline budgeting?

 

[Koios]

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

Check outlays, and not budget numbers. Here's where to look: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

You deny the existence of baseline budgeting?

No. I reject that it works, or has ever worked. Tell me one time it has.

And government is no different than you. You ever create a budget, and have it spot on by year end? Fuck no. None of us do. The price of everything we buy fluxuates. Gas cost to get to work can go way up. A budget is merely a guide.

SO ALWAYS CHECK ACTUAL OUTLAYS!!! Budgets are fucking wishful thinking, with all manner of projected costs and dynamics, such as population and growth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, spending increases about 3 percent a year if driven both by inflation and population increases. Clinton held it to about that, and Obama is doing a smidgen better (less than). So where larger than average annual increases come from are new spending programs; under Bush, who averaged nearer 6 percent, it was due to new stuff, such as, Medicare Part D, 2 wars, Homeland Security, etc.

And since across the board cutting is folly due to unpredictable rises in recipients, or special circumstances, to actually cut, programs need to be eliminated, such as Medicare Part D, Homeland Security, border fences, etc.

Simple reality.

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

Now then, in re: population and inflation, how do we reduce interest on the debt, when interest rates fluxuate, not to mention failing to pay it means defaulting?

Or fuel for federal vehicles, if gas prices go up? Budget what you will, but they still need gas. Ditto on electricity, etc. etc.

Who do we release from federal prison? What cases do not go to trial on the federal bench? Where do we stop building border fenses? What poor families do we say "go hungry" if all food aid dollars exceeds the budget, which is per recipent?

Here's how it works, vis a vis the Constitution: the president requests funding, which Congress must allocate by law, which they do, always. Then there's a war, and a supplimental bill, or bills, allocate more. People have more babies, and we have to issue more social security numbers. More people file tax returns, when new jobs are created. So the amount allocated per recipent stays the same, but costs go up. A hurricane hits, costs go up. Not a single new spending program needs to be added, and some programs can even sunset, and cost still goes up. Inflation and population alone, assure it.

So just fucking raise taxes, because: All the fucking excuses in the world, and diversions like "mandatory" cuts down the road, which when money runs out, are merely voted on again, making it possible to keep our government running. Create a debt "ceiling" and when money runs out, they raise it, everytime.

Or cut a big program, by eliminating it. Fuck border fences. Homeland security is merely responding to terror with fear (they win). Bet Visa merchant discount fees out of Food Aid, and administer it ourselves. Immediately allow Medicare to bid on prescription drugs. Stop paying Big Oil to look for oil under public lands and then sell it to them at below market. Limit farm subsidies to small farms, and let Big Agro carry its own water. And so on and so on. Change policy and something happens. Create pie in the sky and totally arbitrary targets, and shit happens. Fact. Just look back.

You miss the real world issues.
The fact is that most departments have to WASTE money so that their allocation is spent in full. This is to insure the baseline increase is guaranteed.
This is all about creating and maintaining federal employment. That's all.
Your "sky will fall/doomsday" if we cannot spend like drunken sailors on a 3 day liberty pass is garbage.
Our federal government wastes more money than it puts to good use.
For example. There is no reason for a federal dept of education. That is a state issue and should be funded by the states.
There is no need for a Federal housing authority. Again, a state issue.
As it stands, all roadways are maintained and built by the individual states. There is no need for the federal government to be in that business. In fact, if there were no federal highway admin, most interstate roads would be funded by tolls. In other other words, user fees. Perfect.
The US Department of Commerce? Get rid of it. It's non essential.
The problem is too many people have gotten to used to an intrusive all encompassing federal government. It is time to rein in federal power and spending.
So now...Lets cover your concerns. Fuel for federal vehicles. Except for law enforcement, the federal fleet should be slashed to the point where only upper level management should have access to government (taxpayer) owned vehicles. Let the workers use their own cars and let them file their tax return to write off the mileage. Just like the private sector.
Many local governments bid for fuel contracts with gasoline distributors. The federal government can do this as well. They can shop around for the best price and then prepay for a portion of the yearly requirement.
Inflation has been 2% or less for years. Tue increases to that and not to exceed the ROI.
Food aid...This is an easy one but unfortunately is not the first problem to solve because it's not low hanging fruit. That is to vigorously enforce existing laws to seek out and eliminate from programs those who game the system.
For example. It is not common knowledge that according to federal law, it is a violation of law to attempt to verify the income status or eligibility of students who apply for free or reduced price school meals. Reverse this regulation and the cost of these meals would plummet.
Here's the rub. There too many politicians and too many bureaucrats unwilling to make the tough choices and stand up for the working/producing people of this country. The ones funding all of this stuff. The reason? Political expediency. After all how can an elected official look their constituents in the eye and ask for their vote when he just decided to pass a law taking away some kids free lunch, even though his parents do not qualify for public assistance..It does not matter. Once an entitlement is created EVERYONE wants their cut and it better God damned better well be there when they stroll up for their turn at the tit.
Ever ask yourself why those overindulged Greeks have a fucking COW at the mere mention of government cut backs? Human nature. The more an outside agency( government for example) makes them comfortable, the more they expect.
Liberals with their brand of compassion( the type that invariably begins and ends with other people's money) make cutting entitlement spending impossible..As with you, they simply state "let's just raise their taxes"...No fiscal responsibility. No stewardship of out money. No...Just confiscate as much as possible and when it runs out, make up stories about "fair share" and "we are out of funding for that. If you want it next year, you'll have to allow us to increase your taxes"...
Ya know what pisses me off? Here we have this gigantic federal government which comes up with the most imaginative ways to collect money from us still has to charge a fee ($15) to use Skyline Drive in Virginia. FIFTEEN BUCKS...Where the fuck is our money going? This road has been paid for several times over.
Just raise taxes?....No we've been doing it that way for too long. Time to rein in the federal government and cut cut cut..

 

[Koios]

it's 3 to 10% depending on the department. Those increases can be cut in half.
Most increases are forced due to the department heads ordering their people to spend all funds in the present budget. Lest they lose their budget increase for the next FY.
Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste..
Baseline budgeting should be OUTLAWED

Now then, in re: population and inflation, how do we reduce interest on the debt, when interest rates fluxuate, not to mention failing to pay it means defaulting?

Or fuel for federal vehicles, if gas prices go up? Budget what you will, but they still need gas. Ditto on electricity, etc. etc.

Who do we release from federal prison? What cases do not go to trial on the federal bench? Where do we stop building border fenses? What poor families do we say "go hungry" if all food aid dollars exceeds the budget, which is per recipent?

Here's how it works, vis a vis the Constitution: the president requests funding, which Congress must allocate by law, which they do, always. Then there's a war, and a supplimental bill, or bills, allocate more. People have more babies, and we have to issue more social security numbers. More people file tax returns, when new jobs are created. So the amount allocated per recipent stays the same, but costs go up. A hurricane hits, costs go up. Not a single new spending program needs to be added, and some programs can even sunset, and cost still goes up. Inflation and population alone, assure it.

So just fucking raise taxes, because: All the fucking excuses in the world, and diversions like "mandatory" cuts down the road, which when money runs out, are merely voted on again, making it possible to keep our government running. Create a debt "ceiling" and when money runs out, they raise it, everytime.

Or cut a big program, by eliminating it. Fuck border fences. Homeland security is merely responding to terror with fear (they win). Bet Visa merchant discount fees out of Food Aid, and administer it ourselves. Immediately allow Medicare to bid on prescription drugs. Stop paying Big Oil to look for oil under public lands and then sell it to them at below market. Limit farm subsidies to small farms, and let Big Agro carry its own water. And so on and so on. Change policy and something happens. Create pie in the sky and totally arbitrary targets, and shit happens. Fact. Just look back.

You miss the real world issues.
The fact is that most departments have to WASTE money so that their allocation is spent in full. This is to insure the baseline increase is guaranteed.
This is all about creating and maintaining federal employment. That's all.
Your "sky will fall/doomsday" if we cannot spend like drunken sailors on a 3 day liberty pass is garbage.
Our federal government wastes more money than it puts to good use.
For example. There is no reason for a federal dept of education. That is a state issue and should be funded by the states.
There is no need for a Federal housing authority. Again, a state issue.
As it stands, all roadways are maintained and built by the individual states. There is no need for the federal government to be in that business. In fact, if there were no federal highway admin, most interstate roads would be funded by tolls. In other other words, user fees. Perfect.
The US Department of Commerce? Get rid of it. It's non essential.
The problem is too many people have gotten to used to an intrusive all encompassing federal government. It is time to rein in federal power and spending.
So now...Lets cover your concerns. Fuel for federal vehicles. Except for law enforcement, the federal fleet should be slashed to the point where only upper level management should have access to government (taxpayer) owned vehicles. Let the workers use their own cars and let them file their tax return to write off the mileage. Just like the private sector.
Many local governments bid for fuel contracts with gasoline distributors. The federal government can do this as well. They can shop around for the best price and then prepay for a portion of the yearly requirement.
Inflation has been 2% or less for years. Tue increases to that and not to exceed the ROI.
Food aid...This is an easy one but unfortunately is not the first problem to solve because it's not low hanging fruit. That is to vigorously enforce existing laws to seek out and eliminate from programs those who game the system.
For example. It is not common knowledge that according to federal law, it is a violation of law to attempt to verify the income status or eligibility of students who apply for free or reduced price school meals. Reverse this regulation and the cost of these meals would plummet.
Here's the rub. There too many politicians and too many bureaucrats unwilling to make the tough choices and stand up for the working/producing people of this country. The ones funding all of this stuff. The reason? Political expediency. After all how can an elected official look their constituents in the eye and ask for their vote when he just decided to pass a law taking away some kids free lunch, even though his parents do not qualify for public assistance..It does not matter. Once an entitlement is created EVERYONE wants their cut and it better God damned better well be there when they stroll up for their turn at the tit.
Ever ask yourself why those overindulged Greeks have a fucking COW at the mere mention of government cut backs? Human nature. The more an outside agency( government for example) makes them comfortable, the more they expect.
Liberals with their brand of compassion( the type that invariably begins and ends with other people's money) make cutting entitlement spending impossible..As with you, they simply state "let's just raise their taxes"...No fiscal responsibility. No stewardship of out money. No...Just confiscate as much as possible and when it runs out, make up stories about "fair share" and "we are out of funding for that. If you want it next year, you'll have to allow us to increase your taxes"...
Ya know what pisses me off? Here we have this gigantic federal government which comes up with the most imaginative ways to collect money from us still has to charge a fee ($15) to use Skyline Drive in Virginia. FIFTEEN BUCKS...Where the fuck is our money going? This road has been paid for several times over.
Just raise taxes?....No we've been doing it that way for too long. Time to rein in the federal government and cut cut cut..

Which ones intentionally waste and what percentage of spending is it.?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Check outlays, and not budget numbers. Here's where to look: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

You deny the existence of baseline budgeting?

No. I reject that it works, or has ever worked. Tell me one time it has.

And government is no different than you. You ever create a budget, and have it spot on by year end? Fuck no. None of us do. The price of everything we buy fluxuates. Gas cost to get to work can go way up. A budget is merely a guide.

SO ALWAYS CHECK ACTUAL OUTLAYS!!! Budgets are fucking wishful thinking, with all manner of projected costs and dynamics, such as population and growth.

Unfucking Believable.....