OT: 1 Trillion explained

[BLSamuel]

... What did McCain do for his social security? He has been a senator for a long time. Senators have their own pension benefits too. In fact, Anyone in congress gets a better pension and benefits than most of us. Let's say you have contributed in the private sector but then become a member of congress. Since it carries much better benefits should there not be a deletion of social security? I realize in sheer numbers it is small, but morally do you see it like I do? Now the ss deducted from joe sixpack's paycheck is a tax. It's called a tax. It is there to pay for the retirees in the system (albeit an entirely mis-managed system due to fund raiding by the same members of congress who don't need it). So why is it then a disgrace if current workers are paying for today's retirees? That's what taxes do. They redistribute income. ... Politicians are good at that.

Hmmm... it seems that the things politicians are good at are very good for them and not at all good for the rest of us....

So. We need to get to work to get Thebes elected president. Maybe he can appoint some of his Forum buddies or groupies to cabinet or other government posts.... I'm assuming cabinet members and ambassadors get a cushy deal like Congress?

The new American dream - get elected to a term in Congress.

[LarryC]

I'm not sure i get this. My father in law joined the navy for wwII, and worked for the government basically until his retirement. He does not get social security because there is a separate system for government employees. They get a pension, but not social security. What did McCain do for his social security? He has been a senator for a long time. Senators have their own pension benefits too. In fact, Anyone in congress gets a better pension and benefits than most of us. Let's say you have contributed in the private sector but then become a member of congress. Since it carries much better benefits should there not be a deletion of social security? I realize in sheer numbers it is small, but morally do you see it like I do? Now the ss deducted from joe sixpack's paycheck is a tax. It's called a tax. It is there to pay for the retirees in the system (albeit an entirely mis-managed system due to fund raiding by the same members of congress who don't need it). So why is it then a disgrace if current workers are paying for today's retirees? That's what taxes do. They redistribute income. It boils down to a refusal to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade.

I assume he must have had some private sector job? However, from wiki: "He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and, moving to Arizona, entered politics. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. After serving two terms, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election easily in 1992, 1998, and 2004."

Perhaps it's Social Security Disability? I amsure he would have argued otherwise if it wasn't SS, wouldn't he? It is my understanding that you can dip three times in the Federal trough: once for SS, once for military pension, and once more for GS pension. Perhaps Larry knows this better than I. I recall a category called "triple dippers". (They were never "disgraced" either!!!).

Since I wasn't familiar with the congressional pension system, I Googled the following from About.com:

Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, the were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

In other words, members of Congress DO pay into SS. That's also true of officers in the federal uniformed services (military, Public Health Service, NOAA, etc.). So, Sen. McCain would have paid into SS throughout his Navy career, and then through his congressional service as well -- well beyond the 10 years that would have made him eligible for SS. That lengthy period of contributions at a relatively high salary (probably exceeding the "cap" which meant max contributions throughout) no doubt explains his relatively high SS monthly payment. FYI, SS calculates the monthly payment based on the "high 35" years of earnings.

OT, your father-in-law clearly worked for Civil Service after his service stint, and in those days, civil servants didn't pay into SS, so he only had the CS pension system, as you said. The FERS system changed that somehow to do some of the logical combining you and the public have wanted.

I think a few members of Congress may decline their SS payments, but McCain apparently doesn't turn them down.

I think it's not widely appreciated that retirement pays are pieced together for some people, in contrast to a single income source during the working years. That's just as well for many people, as their total retirement income can be quite low. Meanwhile, a military person is given only his/her single-source military pay during active service, but can eventually (after age 62 or 65) add Social Security to the retirement pension. A civil service annuity can be also paid for those hired before 1983. The triple dipping Mark refers to apparently can occur if a CS annuity is added to military retirement and eventually SS payments, if one did military service, retired, and then went into CS. I don't think that can happen now under the FERS system.

See also Snopes.com.

[Jeff Matthews]

Speaking of hypocrisy. "I propose drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars and an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted, bla, bla, bla...."

Anything seem funny about this picture?

[mungkiman]

Is it that he's black?

[Jeff Matthews]

So, I guess you'd be okay with what is basically being said: "None of us big-heads should have to sacrifice when it comes to luxury travel, but all you little people should. After all there are so many MORE of you than there are of us big-heads. Your sacrifice alone will make a difference."

That's ludicrous. It's a free country, and if I want to drive like a big-head and can afford to, it's my money and my choice. They don't need to try to legislate my lifestyle, thank you very much. [:#] I am beginning to miss Ron Paul, even though I did not vote for him.

BTW: Don't give me "the President doesn't get to choose" line. Hey, he's the President. If he says he wants a Ford Focus, he gets a Ford Focus.

[Jeff Matthews]

If you think I am worried, you are wrong. All I am doing is giving you a lesson so you can train yourself to spot a BS-er more easily. If the BS flows there, where else are we being BS-ed? It's kind of like Gore's energy-hungry mansion, while he gets a Nobel for worrying about how the American lifestyle is ruining the earth. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp (of course, the article, being fair and balanced as it is, shows that a hypocrite will have an excuse for anything). Hope you enjoyed your Kool-Aid, but might I suggest some big-boy drinks? Your messiah is a false prophet.

[Jeff Matthews]

You are correct in that respect. But, think about what you are saying. You like the guy's policies because he says they are his policies, when in fact, he does not practice those policies. Now, how on earth do you expect these policies to truly be his? I highly question that. And if he doesn't live by his own policies, might it suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in them? He can't even live by them, but somehow they are best for "us." Sorry, but I am not a chump like that. Nixon was much that way. As usual, these big-heads believe the end justifies the means. Might your messiah really be looking to sell dope to get votes? Dam* the country; it's votes that count. If they could spend us all down the drain (that is, those of us who still have some spending power), they'd do so in a heartbeat because there is this big block of disconnected poor to tap into. It takes money to do that - our money. Enjoy the Kool-Aid!

[Jeff Matthews]

Agreed on all 3 counts (even without researching). Not necessarily agreed so much as I get the jist of your point, to which I wholeheartedly agree. Nothing novel there. So..... please raise MY taxes???????

[jacksonbart]

A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.

[jacksonbart]

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates many current 'green' features. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

[jacksonbart]

Al Gore is my hero and an energy pig.

[pauln]

As numbers go, one trillion is not so big. There are about 10^60 protons in the known universe, about 10^123 different combinations of human DNA..

[Jeff Matthews]

Might as well get all the facts right, right?

------------

Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

Al Gore recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global climate change.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs -- even on his Christmas tree.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave.

Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction. "One of the things that is tremendously powerful about what the Gores have done is demonstrate that you can take a home that was a dog, an absolute energy pig, and do things to correct that," Shinn said.

---------------

Okay, let's make sure the facts are right and not just brush through that article so fast. THe house used to use 20x what the average home uses. Now, with all the money Gore pumped into it, it uses 11% less than it used to. Hmmmmm....... 20*.89=17.8. It now uses a mere 17.8 times the average home. I supposes you CAN take "a dog, an absolute energy pig, and do things to correct that." How impressive.

Honestly, I don't care. The point is if you get to looking into it, it is easy to spot an opportunist.

[Jeff Matthews]

To continue on with the "dimwit" analysis....

What sort of dimwit doesn't readily recognize that the losers of the world continue to preach how everything can be fixed if only the government had more money? What sort of nincompoop votes for a guy who wants more of YOUR money so he can waste it on loser social experiments? What sort of mental imbecile sees gas rise to $4.75 per gallon and doesn't realize being taxed more will not help him? What sort of fool wants - indeed begs- for a policy that forces him to pay more money for the care of other people's children? What moron asks to be fiscally responsible for someone else's fiscal responsibilities? What sort of fool believes a "populist" tax-hiker will be free of the reigns of the corporate tycoons, while reality dictates he will force the middle class to pay even greater taxes and still leave the middle class to be suckers for the rich? What kind of dimwit thinks the government can help him by using his money more than he can help himself by keeping his money? Now, I know you can't be in that category. You are self-employed. Opportunity is your way up - not taxation and government projects.

The two biggest lies in politics:

Politican: Hi, I'm your representative, and I'm here to help you.

Citizen: Glad to see you.

[Jeff Matthews]

Not an anarchist at all. A minimalist would better describe how I believe government's role should be. Did you miss my earlier comment about how I am beginning to miss Ron Paul even though I did not vote for him? Paul is a bit quirky, but I can identify with much of his ideas on simplifying government.

[Jeff Matthews]

Yes, our policy difference is that I want the government to use less of my money, and you want it to use more of my money. []

[Jeff Matthews]

A minimalist would better describe how I believe government's role should be. Did you miss my earlier comment about how I am beginning to miss Ron Paul even though I did not vote for him? Paul is a bit quirky, but I can identify with much of his ideas on simplifying government.

Well, simplify in what way - specifically?

Here's a general overview to answer your question. I think it is time for people to put their cards on the table and realize it is time to starve the government until it is lean again.

[LarryC]

Here's a general overview to answer your question. I think it is time for people to put their cards on the table and realize it is time to starve the government until it is lean again.

Feel free about "cards on the table." Note that Reagan in your Youtube clip said how unsustainable it was for the government to live on borrowed money. What a laugh -- that's how he created a big increase in the national debt during his presidency, in order to make the sun rise in Morning in America. Clinton reduced the debt somewhat, but GWB promptly re-ran Reagan's scenario and raised it again to a new high.

So, in the interest of cards on the table, here's a comparable Youtube clip that you should watch, since you feel others should also watch yours, and will also help to answer questions:

.

The relative increases in national debt under Reagan-Bush I and then Bush II are well documented. In the interest of a little more accuracy, I disagree with the narrator's statement that Dwight Eisenhower started us down the road to Vietnam. Just the opposite.

Good luck on "starving the government." It would work up to a point, but we don't have the political will or leadership to do it intelligently and even-handedly. A principal rationale behind the big Reagan (rationale out in the open) and Bush II (rationale hidden away) deficits was to "starve the beast," meaning to saddle Congress and future administrations with considerable debt, incurred on behalf of that party's spending priorities such as military to hold down the other party's spending on its priorities. That's a lot of what's been going on in Bush's spending increases and tax cuts.

Thus, the eagerness of Bush II to spend gobs on "anti-terrorism" and a war with Iran if the public could be persuaded, and then a future huge space venture to Mars that would sop up Dem spending hopes, all for a decade or more.

Starving the best has to be a bi-partisan process. Enough cards for now? BTW, I'm amazed at what you assume is the only gospel around.