Pay Freeze

[BG45]

By now I'm sure many who frequent the news sites or listen to the bit of evening news or cable news have heard about the pay freeze for Federal employees. I'll admit it's a good idea, but unlike some people in our government, I'll also admit that the [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45678.html"]Republicans pushed for it before the Democrats rallied around the idea for publicity's sake after the public got behind the idea.[/url]

[quote]Washington Democrats have antagonized House Minority Whip Eric Cantor with the nickname "Dr. No." But the White House may have to amend that to "Dr. Know" after reversing course and calling for the very same federal pay freeze Cantor promoted earlier this year with his oft-ridiculed YouCut program.

In the second week of balloting for YouCut — an Web initiative that solicits public opinion on budget cuts— online voters picked freezing government salaries as the best possible federal savings.

At the time, Obama's fiscal 2011 budget envisioned a 1.4 percent cost of living adjustment for federal workers. But instead, the administration announced Monday that wages would be frozen at current levels for the next two years, producing a cost savings of $2 billion or likely less than two-tenths of one percent of the deficit for the year.

Cantor said he is "pleased that President Obama is ready to join our efforts.

"I am encouraged by President Obama's proposal to freeze non-military federal pay for the next two years. This past May, House Republicans, prompted by YouCut voters, offered the very same spending-cut proposal on the floor of the House," Cantor said in a statement to POLITICO.
[/quote]

More in the article.

[BG45]

Sorry should read "suggested pay freeze".

[Winchester]

We could cut several billion from handouts. No let's screw the people who work. Good call.

[mommas_boy]

I'm quite glad that they decided not to cut pay for military personnel, including those who are not serving abroad. Those folks don't make a whole lot as it is.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1291082934' post='2189934']
We could cut several billion from handouts. No let's screw the people who work. Good call.
[/quote]

BTW--The government has also frozen benefit levels for 2011 for Social Security Medicare recipients.

I thought it was funny (and not surprising) that a poll of online voters picked freezing salaries of federal workers as the best way for the government to cut costs.

Former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur Mills, once quipped, "Don't tax you, Don't tax me, Tax that guy behind the tree!"

Although he obviously had a good sense of humor, Wilbur Mills is probably best known for being stopped for speeding by Washington Police, who found him intoxiated and with a cut face, after an altercation with his companion, stripper Fanne Foxe (aka, "The Argentine Firecracker,") Ms. Foxe jumped from the car, and dove into the Washinton Tidal Basin in an unsuccessful attempt to escape the police.

[Winchester]

Social Security recipients paid in. The people who should be taking a hit are those on welfare. I know it might rob some people of cell phones and televisions, but they will survive.

We do not have revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1291207167' post='2190179']
Social Security recipients paid in. The people who should be taking a hit are those on welfare. I know it might rob some people of cell phones and televisions, but they will survive.
[/quote]

Yeah. "They paid in." So did [i]Madoff's[/i] suckers. That doesn't mean the people who got into his pyramid scheme first have a "right" to recoup their losses from the people who got in later.

Anything that any retired person collects from Social Security is being paid by the current generation. Just like those who got in last in any other Ponzi scheme, they do not deserve anyone else's money. They got hosed, and that's sad, it's unfair, and it's not right, but it's also not justifiable to hose the current working man to cover for the money stolen from them. Nobody is morally obliged to cover their having gotten robbed by getting robbed themselves. I have no right to take money from future generations, and neither do you. You have to be kidding, Winchester. I expected more from you.

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1291237395' post='2190236']
Yeah. "They paid in." So did [i]Madoff's[/i] suckers. That doesn't mean the people who got into his pyramid scheme first have a "right" to recoup their losses from the people who got in later.

Anything that any retired person collects from Social Security is being paid by the current generation. Just like those who got in last in any other Ponzi scheme, they do not deserve anyone else's money. They got hosed, and that's sad, it's unfair, and it's not right, but it's also not justifiable to hose the current working man to cover for the money stolen from them. Nobody is morally obliged to cover their having gotten robbed by getting robbed themselves. I have no right to take money from future generations, and neither do you. You have to be kidding, Winchester. I expected more from you.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I wanted to draw a distinction between handouts and social security. Scheme or not, it's not a handout. The biggest problem with social security is its compulsory nature. It's a form of insurance and it's not tied to some special activity, but to work. The point is that it's not a handout.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1291240241' post='2190248']
I wanted to draw a distinction between handouts and social security. Scheme or not, it's not a handout. The biggest problem with social security is its compulsory nature. It's a form of insurance and it's not tied to some special activity, but to work. The point is that it's not a handout.
[/quote]

It is a handout. It's not your money you're getting "out of Social Security." It's a handout of [i]other people's[/i] money, and certainly not insurance, any more than food stamps are insurance. There are people who made $100,000 in their bubble jobs who are now on food stamps. Would you say that their receiving food stamps this fiscal year is not a "handout' because they paid compulsory taxes that funded welfare [i]last [/i]fiscal year?

You speak as though the money that got taken from you for "your retirement" is sitting in a vault somewhere. You know that it is not. The fact that this money is stolen under a different ruse doesn't mean it's not stolen and not a handout. It's no different than any other form of taxation paying for handouts.

~Sternhauser

Edited December 1, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1291243712' post='2190257']
It is a handout. It's not your money you're getting "out of Social Security." It's a handout of [i]other people's[/i] money, and certainly not insurance, any more than food stamps are insurance. There are people who made $100,000 in their bubble jobs who are now on food stamps. Would you say that their receiving food stamps this fiscal year is not a "handout' because they paid compulsory taxes that funded welfare [i]last [/i]fiscal year?

You speak as though the money that got taken from you for "your retirement" is sitting in a vault somewhere. You know that it is not. The fact that this money is stolen under a different ruse doesn't mean it's not stolen and not a handout. It's no different than any other form of taxation paying for handouts.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

And you act like money is a real entity and has any real value to it beyond what the government says it does. Doesn't everyone have to play the game a little bit?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1291250441' post='2190266']
And you act like money is a real entity and has any real value to it beyond what the government says it does. Doesn't everyone have to play the game a little bit?
[/quote]

Is money not a real entity? Is it not a medium of exchange for goods and services? If you mean "the value of currency," then I think we can agree that it is rapidly losing one of the key features of money: a store of wealth. However, FRNs are still the medium in which most people are paid, and the debtnotes still have subjective value ascribed to them. The value ascribed to all non-human things is subjective, [i]including [/i]the value ascribed to gold and silver. Despite that, I'm still not sure of your point. Money is being robbed from the working generations in order to pay for non-working generations. It's not a game. It's robbery: money taken by force or threat of force to pay off people in a pyramid scheme. Now, I have no problem with people picking up booty after a bunch of pirates have robbed it from its rightful owners and it can't be returned to them. But to say we must continue to be robbed by the pirates because "[i]we[/i] owe it" to the victims who were victimized first? That's nonsense. Any money they get should come out of the estates of any living senators and congressmen responsible for keeping the scheme alive.

~Sternhauser

Edited December 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1291243712' post='2190257']
It is a handout. It's not your money you're getting "out of Social Security." It's a handout of [i]other people's[/i] money, and certainly not insurance, any more than food stamps are insurance. There are people who made $100,000 in their bubble jobs who are now on food stamps. Would you say that their receiving food stamps this fiscal year is not a "handout' because they paid compulsory taxes that funded welfare [i]last [/i]fiscal year?[/quote]
We're talking about social security, which although I do not support, is different from welfare. Which I also do not support. Are you attempting to convince me that social security is stupid and wrong? Too late.


[quote]
You speak as though the money that got taken from you for "your retirement" is sitting in a vault somewhere.
[/quote]
No I don't.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1291321173' post='2190439']
We're talking about social security, which although I do not support, is different from welfare. Which I also do not support. Are you attempting to convince me that social security is stupid and wrong? Too late.
[/quote]

The only difference is the nature of the lie used to justify it, Winchester. With Socialist Security, the lie is that "these people can't get along without robbing other people now, because they were robbed of their own money for years." The reality is that working people are being robbed now, to cover for[i] [/i]the other generation's having been robbed [i]earlier. [/i]That's unjust.[i] [/i]With welfare, the lie is that "these people can't get along without robbing other people, because nobody else will help them if we don't rob working people." That is also unjust.

Apparently, you don't think it's stupid and wrong enough to imply that they have no right to take other people's forcibly-taken money: "[i]They[/i] paid in. The people who should be taking a cut are [i]the ones on[/i] [i]welfare[/i]." But apparently, the people on welfare don't have the right to get other people's forcibly taken money. They're both acts of robbery, Winchester. Robbery in order to buy a car, or robbery to buy a boat: they are both still acts of robbery.

They're simply justified with different twists on utilitarianism.

~Sternhauser

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

For a minute (or three), I want to bring Social Security down to a personal level.

This past summer I was approved for Social Security Disability. Currently, it is very difficult to qualify for Social Security Disability. The basic requirements are strict in the first place, and only something like 15% of applicants are approved, even on Appeal. (Note: Although Social Security is a federal program, it is administered at the state level, so the 15% figure is very rough, and varies by state.)

The time from when I first applied to when I was approved was almost exactly 6 months. Due to understaffing of Social Security Disability, the expected time these days from application to approval is more like 2 years. (Again, this varies by state.)

Even though I know that I am sick enough to honestly quality for Social Security Disability, I consider both the fact that I was approved in the first place, and approved in only 6 months, to be a miracle from God.

Whether I "deserve it" or not, Social Security is a lifesaver for me. It's not only the check I get every month, which isn't a lot, but the fact that I now qualify for Medicare. For all kinds of reasons, some of them understandable, and some of them very unfair, it is often impossible for those who are not working due to illness to get health insurance.

I know far too much about Social Security and the U.S. health insurance system from my former job. Writing about the U.S. federal government, focusing on benefits for working people, was what I did for a living. Virtually every comment or proposed solution I have read regarding government benefits has some serious errors, because the issues are so complex that there are no "simple" answers. Because of what I know, I also know that coming up with a workable solution is far beyond my own knowledge and intelligence. This doesn't mean that those in the government and others shouldn't continue to work on the issues, but I have chosen for myself not to spend my energy debating the issues, because I don't feel that I can make a real contribution to a solution, and I need my energy for other things.

Is it "fair" that I get benefits from the government when many people, people who may need benefits more than I do, don't receive those benefits, or receive enough benefits? Probably not. But, part of the reason I am in circumstances where I finally had to swallow my pride and apply, is that other things happened in my life that were "unfair." I tried for several years to support myself with no assistance, and tried very hard to find a way to generate income so that I wouldn't need government assistance. I'm sure people are very bored of hearing me ask for prayers for my health, but what I want most is for my health to improve sufficiently so that I can fully support myself and not need the assistance of the government. The process was VERY painful, and I waited too long to apply, because I had too much pride. In our society, people who can't work are considered "failures" and "leeches on society." I try my best to give back to society in "little ways" that might only affect one person at a time, but I hope can make a small positive difference. But, every day I feel the weight of my "failure" and the "leech" that society in general considers me to be. I'm continuing to work hard on learning to be humble, and to ignore the views of people who don't understand my specific situation, but it's difficult.

Social Security is far from perfect and far from fair, but at least it's there. All I know is that, even with all its flaws, Social Security allows one single person (me) to be able to get the medical care I need, and, barring changes, I'll receive enough every month not to end up as a bag lady. It's incredibly scary to be totally on your own and be too sick to work. Lots of weeks I can't even muster the strength to take out my garbage. And, I have lots of years ahead of me where I'm going to have to constantly figure out how to "get by."

I no longer expect life to be fair, but if someone (even if that "someone" is the government) can help even a little, it has made a huge difference to my life.

I am definitely not asking for pity. As for prayers, many of you have prayed for me already, and some of you pray for me consistently. But, I'm not going to ask again (at least not right now), because other people probably need your prayers more than I do.

Note: If anyone wants to preach to me that I need to learn to trust God, and pray more about it, do me a favor and save the preaching for someone else. God and I talk a lot about this, and I listen to him. Most of my humility (something I consider a true virtue and gift) that I finally have learned, has come from God's grace--and I still have a LOT to learn. And, to me, it goes without saying that I pray about this. A lot. Constantly.

So, what's the purpose of this post that has become too long? Just a reminder that, when debating Social Security and other governmental programs, don't forget that Social Security and other government benefits are not an "intellectual exercise" or "philosophical issues," but something that can make a huge difference in the day-to-day life of individuals, some of them people you "know."

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' timestamp='1291336523' post='2190488']
For a minute (or three), I want to bring Social Security down to a personal level. . . .

So, what's the purpose of this post that has become too long? Just a reminder that, when debating Social Security and other governmental programs, don't forget that Social Security and other government benefits are not an "intellectual exercise" or "philosophical issues," but something that can make a huge difference in the day-to-day life of individuals, some of them people you "know."
[/quote]

Ignatius,

I'm sorry you're hurting. Still, your words do not change the nature or moral quality of the scheme. You admitted as much. So I don't know why you mentioned those things. The Church, large families and [url="http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/from-mutual-aid-to-welfare-state"]mutual aid societies[/url] (how many people were taught about those in Stateschool?) were the original "social security." And still the best. Then it was edged out of business by forcefully taking resources that would otherwise be better and voluntarily used. Again, the state breaking your leg then giving you a crutch:

From the article:

"During the 1930s, officials of the homes for the elderly and orphans of the SBA cited Social Security and other welfare programs as justification not only for rejecting applicants but for closing down entirely. The Security Benefit Association, for instance, closed its orphanage because of "a lack of demand or need for that form of benevolence attributable to public funds now available for the support of dependent children." It used the same justification to discontinue its home for the elderly several years later. While Mooseheart remained open and even increased capacity, applications fell off rapidly in the decades after the Depression because of a rise in social-welfare alternatives such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children."

~Sternhauser

Edited December 3, 2010 by Sternhauser