So SpaceBill, you got your question answered and you obviously had nothing relevant to respond with. It's a huge part of the budget, and it is overfunded.

So...you were wrong.

Jamo, you make me miss Fresno. not because of the content of the posts. just because.....

Do the rich gorge themselves? Yes, of course they do! But in the process, THEY CREATE jobs and opportunities for others. Governments are leeches on society, they USE. They create nothing [waste excepted].
The rich, while indulging themselves, DO create for all.
That should be obvious, even to a liberal. "Obvious to a liberal," is that a contradictory statement?[/quote]

Well I would argue that the rich got rich because they do not spend, and for the amount of money they poses, the percentage they spend has no real affect on job production, Unless you are talking a rap star, they are the only ones that trickledown economics really work, they spend as fast as they get it and keep their posse of 60 to 1 well employed.

As for government being a leach on society, I would argue that too, I work for the department of defense, and have played a vital role for the last 35 years in service to our government, every state has its workers, everything from city clerks to road crews, to and all, I would argue do a valuable service for the people, otherwise there would be no need for those positions,
and as tight as government budgets are these days there are no frivolous employees working for the government, I will give you the fact that we create nothing, but we serve the public, the people that need public service
the fire department, the law enforcement, the department of defense, the VA it goes on and on and all we get is crap from people that we are a leach on society, try to have anything less than a third world nation without us, and the wealthiest among us rely on, and use government services more than anyone, we keep commerce moving, law and order we even go to war for oil companies!

it's a large part, but not huge, it's a small percentage when you factor in the overall budget. so what civil servants would you like to get rid of? should it be the fire department? how about the cops? I know DMV, maybe Caltrans worker? :rolleyes:

Well I would argue that the rich got rich because they do not spend, and for the amount of money they poses, the percentage they spend has no real affect on job production, Unless you are talking a rap star, they are the only ones that trickledown economics really work, they spend as fast as they get it and keep their posse of 60 to 1 well employed.

As for government being a leach on society, I would argue that too, I work for the department of defense, and have played a vital role for the last 35 years in service to our government, every state has its workers, everything from city clerks to road crews, to and all, I would argue do a valuable service for the people, otherwise there would be no need for those positions,
and as tight as government budgets are these days there are no frivolous employees working for the government, I will give you the fact that we create nothing, but we serve the public, the people that need public service
the fire department, the law enforcement, the department of defense, the VA it goes on and on and all we get is crap from people that we are a leach on society, try to have anything less than a third world nation without us, and the wealthiest among us rely on, and use government services more than anyone, we keep commerce moving, law and order we even go to war for oil companies![/quote]


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

None so BLIND as those who will not see!!

JUST TWO, very, very rich individuals, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Just those two, at still fairly young ages, HAVE CREATED, more jobs that are PRODUCTIVE and wealth for MILLIONS OF people all over the globe.
Millions of jobs and Billions of wealth for ordinary individuals.
More jobs and more wealth than ALL Governments have created in history.
I should not say BILLIONS, they have created jobs that pay in the TRILLIONS worldwide.

Henry Ford, from his head, Trillions of money was made by auto workers, suppliers, truck drivers. RTC., ETC.
Edison, from his head, millions in hundreds of industries, collected paychecks amounting to Trillions.
That list could go on for thousands of names.

The list of Government officials that have done as well as whomever would be the last name on the list?

None!

You really don't understand what is being discussed here, do you.

It is a huge part of the budget when you consider the vast majority of the 95 billion is simply non-discretionary according to most folks...little things like keeping the lights on at the schools, keeping dams from falling apart, fighting fires, etc.

One more time...CalPERS is overfunded. In fact, even if we paid ABSOLUTELY NOTHING into it this year, and even if the economy stayed in the same shape for the next several decades, the participants would still receive the VERY SAME BENEFITS they are guaranteed now by working less than a year longer.

But, nobody is suggesting to decrease the contribution for the current participants. What is being proposed is that any new participants (new employees) be provided the package of benefits provided back in 1999...which still includes defined benefits.

Having them go to 401(k)-style plans like private industry has would save even more. But again, this is only for new folks.

Do you understand that?

Apparently you have never applied for a government job, you have to be so over qualified it's not funny, the degrees and level of education, that are required for the lamest of jobs is stupid, and most who have that level of education will not waist there time for so little money, the only thing that entices good employees for that kind of money is the benefits.

Are you being serious?

None so BLIND as those who will not see!!

JUST TWO, very, very rich individuals, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Just those two, at still fairly young ages, HAVE CREATED, more jobs that are PRODUCTIVE and wealth for MILLIONS OF people all over the globe.
Millions of jobs and Billions of wealth for ordinary individuals.
More jobs and more wealth than ALL Governments have created in history.
I should not say BILLIONS, they have created jobs that pay in the TRILLIONS worldwide.

Henry Ford, from his head, Trillions of money was made by auto workers, suppliers, truck drivers. RTC., ETC.
Edison, from his head, millions in hundreds of industries, collected paychecks amounting to Trillions.
That list could go on for thousands of names.

The list of Government officials that have done as well as whomever would be the last name on the list?

None![/quote]

OK I will give you that there are a handful of people that have done a lot for our economy, however, if the top 1% hold as much wealth as the other 99% then the rest are not doing their part.

OK I will give you that there are a handful of people that have done a lot for our economy, however, if the top 1% hold as much wealth as the other 99% then the rest are not doing their part.[/quote]

Puleese, I have a functioning brain. It will not process liberal illogical thoughts.
I looked up a word!

as·i·nine (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif)adj.

1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.

2. Of, relating to, or resembling a liberal.

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).



Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2004
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%

DUH! That's why they are called the POOR

Your stats prove the liberal "Law of Unintended Consequences," is always in effect. You make the case for all of the rest of us. Your own stats show that in 21 years there was relatively little change in any direction. Expanding the stats into earlier centuries would very likely show the rich were richer and the poor were poorer but more numerous!

Otherwise, what you posted might get liberals off, but it is really irrelevant!
Yes there are poor. There always has been poor, there always WILL be poor. They 'earned' it. They deserve it. Show me the poor cleaning their yard, show me the poor hauling trash to the dump. Show me the poor painting their neighborhood. [we would supply the paint, but they would inhale it.]

Assright! And just remember SpaceBill, it's the poor that keep government employees working.

BTW, Dan...for the second defn., it's spelled "assinine." You are welcome.

Some of this conversation has been intriguing, but a simple piece has been puzzling me. In all the give-and-take, it seems to be assumed by some that the American ideal assures equal outcomes. Why is this so? Where did this assumption come from? IF all will recall, the seminal American document assures "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness." At no time did ANY allusion to assured wealth, life, or happiness get a mention. Why? Because the founding fathers knew that to be successful, it required hard work, dedication, and yes, a lot of luck. Why should we assume that income should be redistributed to 'balance' the scales? Certainly those scales were much further out of balance than today! I have NO problem with Gates, Ford, or anyone else getting huge sums of $...because I want to work to become one of them! Before anyone starts handwringing and gnashing teeth over the plight of the poor, show me what they do to help themselves first! Do they pursue education? Do they keep family units intact to foster better environments? If they do, help them as financially possible! If they don't; screw them because feeding, clothing, and sheltering the shiftless is draining funds from the truly needy and worthy while dragging our society into the toilet.

I think the part you missed was who was considered poor(wage and salary workers). This did not list those that do not work, it was people that made $60.000 or less
so if based on my salary alone, I would fit that category, POOR!
and that list only went to 2004. So how many hardworking people do you know of in that category, I'm not talking about people that don't work, I'm talking about hard working Americans who at least deserve a living wage and to be able to retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work, it sounds as though you would put them out on the streets for all their years of work, would you do that to your parents? Would you do it yourself? I still have to remind you, these are the fire fighters, the cops on the beat, the road crew the sewer and water crews, there is apparently a lot more they do for you then you understand, those working poor!

All those downtrodden you mention, fire fighters, the cops on the beat, the road crew the sewer and water crews, MAKE more than $60,000. And have superb health care plans and retirement plans well beyond the average worker.
And the average worker gets what he earned, an average retirement. If that is good or bad it is the average workers fault or credit, not yours, mine OR the Governments!

ONLY by thinking that what he gets out of life is equal to what he put in, is unfair, can one possibly, insanely, think that taking from someone else IS fair!
The person that got rich, got rich. The person that got poor, got poor. THAT IS FAIR!

What it isn't is liberal hokum!

I think the part you missed was who was considered poor(wage and salary workers). This did not list those that do not work, it was people that made $60.000 or less so if based on my salary alone, I would fit that category, POOR!

And yet, you have a comfortable life, with at least ONE expensive toy, yes? You prove my point yourself! WHY should I take from YOU to assist anybody?!? You work hard, and have prospered and have fulfilled the American ethic.

I'm talking about hard working Americans who at least deserve a living wage and to be able to retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work

Again. what says anybody deserves anything?!? You have an opportunity...THATS IT! There is no right to ANYTHING!

I still have to remind you, these are the fire fighters, the cops on the beat, the road crew the sewer and water crews, there is apparently a lot more they do for you then you understand, those working poor!

And did anybody force them into these occupations? Or did their life choices lead them there? Did or do they think that they will become rich and affluent in these positions? Or do they make a choice? In the end, I believe we are all responsible for ourselves...period. We must save and plan for retirement, vacations, toys, whatever. It is our responsibility to produce for ourselves, not ask others to subsidize our shortcomings!

Evolution of the species dictates the results...

Actually you would be surprised at how little many of those occupations make in small towns in America, sure, a cop in a big city makes 60 to 70 thousand, still there on their threshold, and not all of us have a desire to be rich, money is not everything, I was offered a job with a six digit salary about 5 years ago, but at the time I wanted the benefits from my job more than that amount of money, OK I agree, I have a really good benefits package, that's why I stay working for the government even though I do not make that much money, call it a bribe or incentive, whatever, all I know is I love my job, I have everything I need in life and I am happy! I just think its armchair quarter backing to want to take peoples retirement away from them because the state made mistakes when it comes to the budget, you can't keep having your taxes lowered for the last 30 years and expect that all those things we need government to do for us, is not going to cost you, and to have qualified people in these jobs it is still going to cost you,
and yes, I was serious, try applying for a government job sometime and see what the qualifications are for a job like that, anyone else with that sort of education, without the benefits package would not even consider the position.

I do not speak the liberal language, it is incomprehensible. But in English or American, BENEFITS are DOLLARS!!

The ONLY thing I NEED the Government to do for me is listen to the people, follow our own laws and stay the hell out of my life,,,,and wallet! There is no translation into liberal speak for that statement.

Half of all the money the Gov. TAKES from us is wasted, the other half is "spent" on liberal bullsh!t programs that have never worked throughout history and will never work.