• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government can't create jobs

Government can't create jobs

  • Total voters
    83
cpwill said:
I've been in favor of switching from a pension to a 401(k) style program for military members for some time now - this way we can actually provide a benefit to the vast majority of servicemembers who honorably serve their country and then get out to go to college or take other employment in the workforce. As pertains to the wealthy and entitlement cuts - I and congressional Republicans am on record as supporting means testing them out of the entitlement programs, while in my proposed Social Security Reform I suggested hiking the FICA cap to (as I recall) a little over $400K.
Click to expand...


So you would place our military members pensions at risk on Wall Street. I am sure this warms the cockles of their dead little hearts!

I agree with you on raising the FICA cap.
 
Catawba said:
So you would place our military members pensions at risk on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

over the past two-three years, my Thrift Savings Program (which is what this would be) has outperformed my Mutual Fund investments.

I am sure this warms the cockles of their dead little hearts!
Click to expand...

it will piss off the guys who have been in for 12+ years and are only staying in to hit 20 and get the full pension. for the majority of our military members (and, critically, the vast majority who are actually in combat), this would be a great boon.

I agree with you on raising the FICA cap.
Click to expand...

:) but only in context so that you don't create perverse incentives for avoidance. ;)
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
over the past two-three years, my Thrift Savings Program (which is what this would be) has outperformed my Mutual Fund investments.
Click to expand...

"Shareholders lost nearly $11 billion when Enron's stock price, which hit a high of US$90 per share in mid-2000, plummeted to less than $1 by the end of November 2001."
Enron scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The number of victims from Bernard Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme continues to grow. A list with thousands of names of clients who invested money with Mr. Madoff was released as part of a bankruptcy-court filing. Below, see some of the most exposed investors and sort by the amount of potential losses.
Madoff's Victim List - The Wall Street Journal


How Wall Street and Wisconsin Officials Blew Up the State’s Pension Fund


Public Pension Funds Lost Value As Stocks Fell

Wall Street costs Ohio millions of dollars in pension funds


"The 401(k) generation is beginning to retire, and it isn't a pretty sight.

"The retirement savings plans that many baby boomers thought would see them through old age are falling short in many cases."

Boomers Find 401(k) Plans Come Up Short - WSJ.com


Need I go on.................
 
yes, because none of your citations do anything to disprove the point. the military 401(k) is the TSP. It is literally impossible to buy individual stock (enron) in TSP, just as it is literally impossible to put all your money with a single manager (madoff). You ride broad sectors of the market - or you can buy into treasuries. as you yourself point out - pension funds have to invest in the market as well, and are just as prone to market failure as individual accounts are. Something that I find intensely amusing when people talk about all the "greed" that led to the dizzying sub-prime mortgage bubble and burst is that inevitably they fail to mention that among the biggest pushers of that market were... pension funds; who wanted official AAA security, but with a higher return than they would get from treasuries.

:shrug:you are right to say that the market is volatile. you get dips in the market. that is why you shouldn't put any money there that you intend to need in 3-5 years. you also get recoveries and sharp rises. over time it averages out - since this is a long-term retirement fund, you are riding that long-term average, and you benefit by it and the compound interest it affords.
 
cpwill said:
yes, because none of your citations do anything to disprove the point. the military 401(k) is the TSP. It is literally impossible to buy individual stock (enron) in TSP, just as it is literally impossible to put all your money with a single manager (madoff). You ride broad sectors of the market - or you can buy into treasuries. as you yourself point out - pension funds have to invest in the market as well, and are just as prone to market failure as individual accounts are. Something that I find intensely amusing when people talk about all the "greed" that led to the dizzying sub-prime mortgage bubble and burst is that inevitably they fail to mention that among the biggest pushers of that market were... pension funds; who wanted official AAA security, but with a higher return than they would get from treasuries.

:shrug:you are right to say that the market is volatile. you get dips in the market. that is why you shouldn't put any money there that you intend to need in 3-5 years. you also get recoveries and sharp rises. over time it averages out - since this is a long-term retirement fund, you are riding that long-term average, and you benefit by it and the compound interest it affords.
Click to expand...

Why don't you pitch your wall street pension scheme for the military to your GOP candidates and have them make it a plank in their platform, if you think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Heck, it sounds like it is just extreme enough to be right up Ron Paul's ally!

This may be what he needs to put him over the top!
 
Catawba said:
Why don't you pitch your wall street pension scheme for the military
Click to expand...

they're actually already looking at the idea.

to your GOP candidates and have them make it a plank in their platform, if you think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Heck, it sounds like it is just extreme enough to be right up Ron Paul's ally!
Click to expand...

:lamo actually it's the Obama administration that is looking at putting this into practice. but hey, I'm 100% in favor of you refusing to vote for a candidate who would support such an extreme right-wing idea. :lol:

state-of-the-corps.jpg


:D woops?
 
Last edited:
I predict: silence.
 
Catawba said:
So you would place our military members pensions at risk on Wall Street. I am sure this warms the cockles of their dead little hearts!

I agree with you on raising the FICA cap.
Click to expand...

A 401k is simply a retirement savings account. The plan can be set up so that the money in the plan does not have to be invested in equities. It may be kept in an interest bearing savings account.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
they're actually already looking at the idea.



:lamo actually it's the Obama administration that is looking at putting this into practice. but hey, I'm 100% in favor of you refusing to vote for a candidate who would support such an extreme right-wing idea. :lol:

state-of-the-corps.jpg


:D woops?
Click to expand...

Just more evidence that Obama is a center-right politician and the rightwing whines about socialism are just a delusion
 
sangha said:
Just more evidence that Obama is a center-right politician and the rightwing whines about socialism are just a delusion
Click to expand...

nah, antipathy to the military is a lefty tradition for the past few decades or so. everyone in the service knew generally what was coming when he was elected - that's one of the reasons the military votes so strongly republican.
 
cpwill said:
they're actually already looking at the idea.



:lamo actually it's the Obama administration that is looking at putting this into practice. but hey, I'm 100% in favor of you refusing to vote for a candidate who would support such an extreme right-wing idea. :lol:

state-of-the-corps.jpg


:D woops?
Click to expand...

Nice colors in your unlinked graphics!
 
Centinel said:
A 401k is simply a retirement savings account. The plan can be set up so that the money in the plan does not have to be invested in equities. It may be kept in an interest bearing savings account.
Click to expand...

The military already has a good pension deal going (Fox News thinks its too good)-

"It sounds like a pretty good deal: Retire at age 38 after 20 years of work and get a monthly pension of half your salary for the rest of your life. All you have to do is join the military."

Read more: Are Military Pensions Too 'Generous'? | Fox News
 
Catawba said:
The military already has a good pension deal going (Fox News thinks its too good)-

"It sounds like a pretty good deal: Retire at age 38 after 20 years of work and get a monthly pension of half your salary for the rest of your life. All you have to do is join the military."

Read more: Are Military Pensions Too 'Generous'? | Fox News
Click to expand...

I responded because someone posted something that implied that all 401k plans force those using them to invest in equities. I wanted to point out that this is not necessarily the case. Funds can be put into interest bearing savings accounts.
 
Centinel said:
I responded because someone posted something that implied that all 401k plans force those using them to invest in equities. I wanted to point out that this is not necessarily the case. Funds can be put into interest bearing savings accounts.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw your post. I posted info to show they have a superior deal now under the current military pension system, with zero risks!
 
Catawba said:
Yes, I saw your post. I posted info to show they have a superior deal now under the current military pension system, with zero risks!
Click to expand...

Oh, thanks. I was afraid I was being unclear, and I just wanted to clarify.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I looked at the voting on this poll and it seemed a bit lopsided. Then I looked at the poll w/o being loged in.
Click to expand...

There are a handful of self declared conservatives (who have no idea what that ideology actually means) who collectively have the combined maturity of a spoiled toddler. When a poll on an issue near to their heart goes in a way that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas, they tend to act accordingly like a spoiled toddler. It's really quite sad considering these users pretend to favor transparency and self responsibility. Hypocrites they are very much so.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: well, as a quick way of compressing the point, in relatively open economies that are marked by high levels of debt (such as ours), the multiplier effect is actually NEGATIVE.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware America was a developing country.

You are so dishonest it's gotten to the point where anything you post is extremely suspect.

"In developing countries, output initially responds negatively to increases in government consumption."

Some other users may take you at face value, but I've seen enough of your posts to consider you one of the least honest posters on the forum.

If you were to study every major attempt to stimulate an economy in an OECD country since 1970, you would find that those that succeed are the ones that cut taxes, whereas those that fail are the ones that increase transfer payments.
Click to expand...

Are you REALLY pushing that SAME study again?

Seriously dude. I point out why your arguments are total garbage, you wait a few months and then repost the same refuted bull****.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...ichele-bachmann-quotes-19.html#post1059611617
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...ichele-bachmann-quotes-17.html#post1059610041
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...ichele-bachmann-quotes-17.html#post1059610154

You essentially are like a YEC. You get destroyed, lay low for a while and then repeat the same refuted bat**** argument again hoping no one notices.
 
cpwill said:
the rough figure is that it costs a million dollars per servicemember per year to deploy to Afghanistan. as a guy with multiple friends in PMC's, their costs are much lower per man, per year.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm pretty sure that million figure is accounting for future liabilities stemming from that service year.

furthermore (this is perhaps crass, but still true), the government loses nothing when a contractor dies other than the loss of his services before the company can get someone else out there. when a servicemember dies, the costs start at half a million dollars and go up from there - that's not counting for transport, burial, or any of the services we offer to the families of the fallen.
Click to expand...

This is basically what Cheney argued as to why PMCs would save the government money. But it's not just death, the costs of rehab are not borne by the government for a PMC who gets injured. It's crass, but it's still true.

but yes, I think that the DOD is now spending more on pension/benefits than we are on pay - it's a huge issue and one reason we are looking to move to a defined contributions plan.
Click to expand...

Gates basically said that benefits are eating the Pentagon alive.
 
Government can create jobs. There is actually a very simple solution that worked very well. It's called economic independence. Jefferson, in his signing of the Embargo of 1807, jumpstarted American industrialization. We were mainly self reliant until the end of the 19th century and into the turn, excluding the south which didn't manufacture until later. Since the turn, we have become more independent on other countries to make our products. We obviously have a workforce, based on the 9% unemployment, and we have the resources. All we need to do is use them. A high tariff on imported goods will be just the spark that is needed for re-industrialization of America, because there is nothing us Americans hate worse than expensive things that we can make ourselves.
 
TheLastIndepent said:
Government can create jobs. There is actually a very simple solution that worked very well. It's called economic independence. Jefferson, in his signing of the Embargo of 1807, jumpstarted American industrialization. We were mainly self reliant until the end of the 19th century and into the turn, excluding the south which didn't manufacture until later. Since the turn, we have become more independent on other countries to make our products. We obviously have a workforce, based on the 9% unemployment, and we have the resources. All we need to do is use them. A high tariff on imported goods will be just the spark that is needed for re-industrialization of America, because there is nothing us Americans hate worse than expensive things that we can make ourselves.
Click to expand...

There is much we agree on here, although I think a trade embargo would not be very practical or doable. We certainly do need to become more self reliant. And I think we need to address the tax incentives for outsourcing jobs from this country, and pay our full-time workers a living wage that does not require taxpayer funded welfare to supplement.
 
I can agree, a full out embargo would be devastating. However, a tariff, so that Americans have a reason to make our own, would be plenty enough. And if it doesn't bring jobs, it will at least it will generate revenue that our government refuses to generate from the people that AREN'T making jobs but sitting on millions of dollars.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: well, as a quick way of compressing the point, in relatively open economies that are marked by high levels of debt (such as ours), the multiplier effect is actually NEGATIVE. So, in order to "create" jobs, the government first destroys or chokes off a greater number of jobs - which means that net there are fewer rather than more jobs. This has been one of history's most consistent economic experiences. If you were to study every major attempt to stimulate an economy in an OECD country since 1970, you would find that those that succeed are the ones that cut taxes, whereas those that fail are the ones that increase transfer payments. Every. Single. Time.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Click to expand...

That's debt. Not public sector jobs. Those are two different things.
 
TheLastIndepent said:
I can agree, a full out embargo would be devastating. However, a tariff, so that Americans have a reason to make our own, would be plenty enough. And if it doesn't bring jobs, it will at least it will generate revenue that our government refuses to generate from the people that AREN'T making jobs but sitting on millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

I am not entirely opposed to the idea, but how would a tariff on imports reduce the practice of companies out-sourcing jobs and investments for foreign markets?
 
Catawba said:
I am not entirely opposed to the idea, but how would a tariff on imports reduce the practice of companies out-sourcing jobs and investments for foreign markets?
Click to expand...

It increases the cost of foreign made product. Thus reducing the benefit to a company of building elsewhere.
 
Phys251 said:
That's debt. Not public sector jobs. Those are two different things.
Click to expand...

:doh

yes. and for every public sector job that we have, there is greater than one private sector job that was either destroyed or choked off. the two points are not disconnected because you have to account for where you are getting the money from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom