An Example Of Why Republicans Are Beyond Pathetic

[NJ Stinks]

And people wonder why the GOP is drowning fast....

Here in NJ we don't have money to fix our roads and bridges. Mainly because the gas and diesel state taxes have not been raised since 1988. (Gas tax is second lowest per gallon in the nation.) So something has to give because New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund is broke.

So gutsy Christie says we have to raise the gas tax 23 cents a gallon. That seems awfully high to me but I guess the situation warrants this high an increase. Still, I'm surprised but glad Christie has the balls to address the problem head-on.

Except he doesn't. Christie says we must cut the state sales tax from 7% to 6% if we are going to increase the gas tax. Why? Because Christie thinks people will leave NJ if he doesn't offer a tax cut of some sort to offset the increase in the gas tax.

Wasn't the reason for gas tax increase because the state is broke? If so, how can we afford to cut the sales tax? In short, what won't get funded if the sales tax is reduced?

My guess is cops, firemen, and teachers will have their state pension funds underfunded even more than in the past if Christie gets his way and cuts the sales tax. I guess if you aren't a cop, fireman, or teacher who gives a shit?

Not Republicans - that's for sure.

[classhandicapper]

As a state's rights person, I think you'd be more comfortable in California. ;)

[Parkview_Pirate]

The title of this thread would be more accurate if "politicians" is substituted for Republicans.

As the economy falters, all levels of government will be scrambling to balance budgets. Pensions, health care, education, infrastructure, etc., will all be impacted. Politicians will be forced to occasionally tell the truth and reveal how badly they've "managed" things.

Democrats won't be spared. None of us will be spared.

[classhandicapper]

The title of this thread would be more accurate if "politicians" is substituted for Republicans.

As the economy falters, all levels of government will be scrambling to balance budgets. Pensions, health care, education, infrastructure, etc., will all be impacted. Politicians will be forced to occasionally tell the truth and reveal how badly they've "managed" things.

Democrats won't be spared. None of us will be spared.

Exactly.

We are in about the 8th year of an expansion. There should be surpluses. The cash is typically loose and free flowing at this stage. But things have been so mismanaged (especially when it comes to pensions, healthcare, union contracts etc..) that things are tight now. When this recovery ends, people will be shocked at how bad thing are going to get in this cycle.

[ArlJim78]

those pensions are killing states like NJ and IL.
You're right though, people who have no defined pension plan (most of us) might not give a shit, they might not feel like paying higher taxes for someone else's extravagant pension plan. You guys can cry and whine all you want but that won't change the facts, they can't be sustained.

[chadk66]

it's more proof the economy is getting worse and worse. Despite all the fluff the libs are throwing out there. What Christi also failed to state I'm sure is that gas tax collections are at an all time high in NJ. But the greedy politicians can't keep their hands off it. Just like social security. There is one thing I can guarantee you. If Hillary is elected for eight years, we will look back at this era as very prosperous:ThmbDown:

[JustRalph]

That's all you're pissed about?

But you openly support the party that facilitated 954,000 abortions in 2014

But ok......a gas tax increase is pretty bad too.

[zico20]

And people wonder why the GOP is drowning fast....

Here in NJ we don't have money to fix our roads and bridges. Mainly because the gas and diesel state taxes have not been raised since 1988. (Gas tax is second lowest per gallon in the nation.) So something has to give because New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund is broke.

So gutsy Christie says we have to raise the gas tax 23 cents a gallon. That seems awfully high to me but I guess the situation warrants this high an increase. Still, I'm surprised but glad Christie has the balls to address the problem head-on.

Except he doesn't. Christie says we must cut the state sales tax from 7% to 6% if we are going to increase the gas tax. Why? Because Christie thinks people will leave NJ if he doesn't offer a tax cut of some sort to offset the increase in the gas tax.

Wasn't the reason for gas tax increase because the state is broke? If so, how can we afford to cut the sales tax? In short, what won't get funded if the sales tax is reduced?

My guess is cops, firemen, and teachers will have their state pension funds underfunded even more than in the past if Christie gets his way and cuts the sales tax. I guess if you aren't a cop, fireman, or teacher who gives a shit?

Not Republicans - that's for sure.

Are you freaking kidding me. Your state has a 7 percent sales tax rate and your state doesn't have enough money. That is one of the most mismanaged states in the country. Missouri has a 4.225 sales tax and we are getting along just dandy here in the Midwest. Time for all the politicians to get booted and replace them with people who can actually run a state. Pathetic, just plain pathetic. Should I guess which party is running things there. Oh yeah, the Democrats control both houses of your General Assembly.

[horses4courses]

But you openly support the party that facilitated 954,000 abortions in 2014

You know, I'm willing to cut the pro-lifers some slack IF
they are willing to outlaw male masturbation.

After all, every sperm is sacred.

fUspLVStPbk

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The one question that never seems to be at the fore is, what would government cost to provide the services demanded by the public? Of course, "demanded by the public" is not always easily defined. The reason there are as many things funded by government as there are is because there are an unlimited number of interest groups looking for their cut of the pie. If a candidate suggests defunding of a federal department - say the EPA - there are some passionate people ready to jump all over that guy, and nothing happens. If you are the Federal government, you can keep everyone happy by deficit spending, kicking the can down the road. States don't usually have that option. Many states have balanced budget requirements. So what they do to balance the budget is underfund things, say roads and bridges, until a crisis occurs and the public reluctantly agrees to increase the funding source. Christie, being political, kicks the can across the street instead of down the road. Let's reduce the sales tax, which will result in a new crisis that we can deal with later.

In my mind a big part of the problem is that people want filet mignon at ground beef prices. The politician who could force biting the bullet would be a hero in history, that is if he could survive the sh*tstorm from goring all the ones.

As for pensions, that is a difficult discussion. In the case of teachers, police and firefighters, their unions negotiated some great deals, but the states need to take 50% of the blame for any problems, unless you believe the states could not have resisted the unions. One of the trade offs was that teachers, police and firefighters sacrificed salary. The average salary for a police officer in this country is about $54K, not exactly the lap of luxury. The average salary for teachers is less than $50K.

The theory was that it would be a lot harder to get good, qualified people to work for the salaries without sweetening the pot with pensions.

A number of states - NJ is a prime example - failed to make payments to the pension plan in difficult budget years. When the bill came due they had a pretty good case that the pension fund was nearing insolvency, blaming it on the sweet deals.

Many state - mine included - and municipal employees were exempted from paying FICA because they had a pension plan. That was the deal when social security was passed. However, the fact is that if you don't pay any social security, you don't get any social security when you retire. You have to have 40 quarters of work where you paid social security to qualify for social security. Your pension is your retirement. The other thing is that both employees and employers paid for the pension plan, just like social security. For example, an employee may pay 8% of his salary for the pension, while the employer might make a similar contribution to the pension. There is an authority that is supposed to manage the fund and keep it solvent. Of course, the fund is often dependent on the skill of investors, but also on the assumptions they make about return, and in the really down years the pension funds suffered.

Christie is a lame duck who probably doesn't have an extended political career. This would be the perfect time to finally reset the system.

[Tom]

As a state's rights person, I think you'd be more comfortable in California. ;)

Do you know why NJ has all the toxic waste sites and Kalifornia has all the lawyers?

NJ got to pick first.


Whine, whine, whine......

[NJ Stinks]

Interesting post for sure, HalvOnHorseracing.

I just want to emphasize this: NJ needs to find money for the Transportation Trust Fund because the Transportation Trust Fund is broke.

If the sales tax is reduced and the gas tax increased, there is not much of a net difference to most NJ residents according to this article:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/will_gas_tax_hike_sales_tax_cut_deal_save_you_mone .html

So where is the money for the Transportation Trust Fund really going to come from? You won't find out from the Governor and his GOP cronies in Jersey.

[Clocker]

So where is the money for the Transportation Trust Fund really going to come from? You won't find out from the Governor and his GOP cronies in Jersey.

That would be the administration that the people of NJ freely elected?

[Tom]

Ever hear of cutting spending?

Oh, no of course you haven't.
That would be pathetic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

Ever hear of cutting spending?

Oh, no of course you haven't.
That would be pathetic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

The people of NJ are looking for a savior and all you got to offer is common sense. :faint:

[NJ Stinks]

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

The people of NJ are looking for a savior and all you got to offer is common sense. :faint:

Cut spending is all you got? We already stopped spending on roads and bridges because we are tapped.

Not enough revenue coming in - got it? I doubt it. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Cut spending is all you got? We already stopped spending on roads and bridges because we are tapped.

Not enough revenue coming in - got it? I doubt it. :rolleyes:

Here is your chance - vote for Trump and create jobs.

I guess I don't understand how on the one hand, the economy is so great under Obama, yet on the other hand, your guys are broke????

Wassup wit dat?

[classhandicapper]

As for pensions, that is a difficult discussion. In the case of teachers, police and firefighters, their unions negotiated some great deals, but the states need to take 50% of the blame for any problems, unless you believe the states could not have resisted the unions. One of the trade offs was that teachers, police and firefighters sacrificed salary. The average salary for a police officer in this country is about $54K, not exactly the lap of luxury. The average salary for teachers is less than $50K.

I don't know all the details of what's going on in NJ, but some of the union deals in NY are so ridiculous you couldn't defend them with a straight face. I'd be willing to make a blind bet that if I had the time and energy to investigate, I'd find plenty of the same thing in NJ.

It's corruption.

Politicians (typically on the left) make outrageous long term promises to the unions in order to get political support that will help them get elected. They couldn't give a rats ass what the comparable rates are in the private sector for the same work. They couldn't give a rats ass what the long term math says. They only know they want to get elected and it will be someone else's problem years later.

Now the long term is fast arriving and the bills are coming due.

That means one of two things. Someone has to pay or someone has to get stiffed on the promises.

People are reasonable. They are willing to pay extra taxes to support good services at fair prices. They are not willing to pay high taxes to help keep outrageous promises to people that already have way better deals than they have. On some level Christie is right. If the choice is exclusively "someone has to pay", there will be a flight out of the city or state that made the outrageous promises towards cities and states that didn't.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Cut spending is all you got? We already stopped spending on roads and bridges because we are tapped.

Not enough revenue coming in - got it? I doubt it. :rolleyes:

I believe you worked for the federal government. As a result, I suspect you have little appreciation for the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy. I mean no disrespect. Productivity for simple functions, like A/R and A/P processing, is horrible at the government level compared to the private sector. I'd bet you my every last dime if you gave me total power over NJ government, I could cut the budget 10% to 15% and improve services. Labor costs are too high, and government labor is too inefficient.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Here is your chance - vote for Trump and create jobs.

I guess I don't understand how on the one hand, the economy is so great under Obama, yet on the other hand, your guys are broke????

Wassup wit dat?

Trump wants to increase the deficit. He's on the record saying that to CNBC just a week or so ago. He's "a debt guy." I'm not twisting his words.

It's amazing that all the large cities and states going broke have been dominated by Dems over the past 30 years. CC is gov of NJ, but he's dealing with the vestiges of past Dem largesse.

[Clocker]

Trump wants to increase the deficit. He's on the record saying that to CNBC just a week or so ago. He's "a debt guy." I'm not twisting his words.


He said recently that with interest rates so low, we should borrow a lot to lock in rates and use the money to fix our infrastructure.

If you really dig down into Trump's policies, he is saying the same thing Hillary is: The country is in trouble and the fix is more government, led by me.

[Clocker]

Now the long term is fast arriving and the bills are coming due.

That means one of two things. Someone has to pay or someone has to get stiffed on the promises.



NJ is a micro version of the federal government. Nancy Pelosi summed it up when she said we don't have a spending problem, we have a 'pay-for' problem.

[delayjf]

Are you freaking kidding me. Your state has a 7 percent sales tax rate and your state doesn't have enough money.

I will see your 7% and raise you to 9%. Our gas tax is 39.5 cents per gallon.
The top state income tax rate is 13% (over 1 million dollars). We also have a carbon tax.

So please, a little respect - we are CA, when it comes to imposing taxes our motto is "Yes we can" :bang:

[chadk66]

every state should be required to have a balanced budget. If a state can't afford something they don't do it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

every state should be required to have a balanced budget. If a state can't afford something they don't do it.

Most do, at least for the operating side. The issue is pensions and other unfunded liabilities aren't properly accounted for in that equation.

[Clocker]

Most do, at least for the operating side. The issue is pensions and other unfunded liabilities aren't properly accounted for in that equation.

The long term for most state governments is the next election and/or the next budget session.

[classhandicapper]

Most do, at least for the operating side. The issue is pensions and other unfunded liabilities aren't properly accounted for in that equation.

Exactly. They aren't calculated correctly at the federal level either other than in cooked books estimates that no one reports on.

[Clocker]

Exactly. They aren't calculated correctly at the federal level either other than in cooked books estimates that no one reports on.

And at the federal level it includes Social Security, Medicare, etc. Which is why a lot of financial analysts say that the true national debt isn't $20 trillion or whatever is claimed, but at least 3x that, and probably even more.

[Rise Over Run]

And people wonder why the GOP is drowning fast....

Here in NJ we don't have money to fix our roads and bridges. Mainly because the gas and diesel state taxes have not been raised since 1988. (Gas tax is second lowest per gallon in the nation.) So something has to give because New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund is broke.

So gutsy Christie says we have to raise the gas tax 23 cents a gallon. That seems awfully high to me but I guess the situation warrants this high an increase. Still, I'm surprised but glad Christie has the balls to address the problem head-on.

Except he doesn't. Christie says we must cut the state sales tax from 7% to 6% if we are going to increase the gas tax. Why? Because Christie thinks people will leave NJ if he doesn't offer a tax cut of some sort to offset the increase in the gas tax.

Wasn't the reason for gas tax increase because the state is broke? If so, how can we afford to cut the sales tax? In short, what won't get funded if the sales tax is reduced?

My guess is cops, firemen, and teachers will have their state pension funds underfunded even more than in the past if Christie gets his way and cuts the sales tax. I guess if you aren't a cop, fireman, or teacher who gives a shit?

Not Republicans - that's for sure.

So when exactly are you planning to discuss the alternative plan suggested by the Democratic Leaders in NJ Assembly.....

Do you have a similar problem when their proposal is to raise the gas tax by the exact same amount ($0.23) and cut various taxes.....

[NJ Stinks]

Here is your chance - vote for Trump and create jobs.

I guess I don't understand how on the one hand, the economy is so great under Obama, yet on the other hand, your guys are broke????

Wassup wit dat?

Glad you asked.

" When it was enacted by former Gov. Tom Kean, the Transportation Trust Fund was designed to be self-sustaining, with half coming from the revenue gained largely through the gas tax, and half coming from borrowing that would be limited so it could be replenished as the bonds are paid off.

But over time, governors raised the borrowing limit without providing more revenue through a higher gas tax. What happened was the lion's share of the money dedicated to the fund from the gas tax has been used to pay off old debt rather than pay for new road and rail repairs."

link: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/5_things_to_know_about_njs_transportation_trust_fu nd.html


So the problem is simple enough to understand: NJ has not raised the state gas tax in 28 years. That was a luxury that we couldn't afford. But worse than that is the fact that NJ governors since Christine Whitman (around 1990) pretend they are balancing the state budget every year (required by state law) when they know full well they are not fully funding the state pension fund or the Transportation Trust Fund.

[Tom]

NJ should have that many roads that need maintenance.
Only roads OUT of the state get that much use. :rolleyes::D

[NJ Stinks]

So when exactly are you planning to discuss the alternative plan suggested by the Democratic Leaders in NJ Assembly.....

Do you have a similar problem when their proposal is to raise the gas tax by the exact same amount ($0.23) and cut various taxes.....

On my way out but I'll say this first. Sweeney is proposing tax cuts that he feels the state can afford. Sweeney does not think we can afford to cut the state sales tax by 1% and still pay our bills.

As for the 23 cent a gallon increase, we will still be well below PA and NY. Obviously, I don't want a gas tax increase at all but what else has gone up at all since 1988?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't know all the details of what's going on in NJ, but some of the union deals in NY are so ridiculous you couldn't defend them with a straight face. I'd be willing to make a blind bet that if I had the time and energy to investigate, I'd find plenty of the same thing in NJ.

It's corruption.

Politicians (typically on the left) make outrageous long term promises to the unions in order to get political support that will help them get elected. They couldn't give a rats ass what the comparable rates are in the private sector for the same work. They couldn't give a rats ass what the long term math says. They only know they want to get elected and it will be someone else's problem years later.

Now the long term is fast arriving and the bills are coming due.

That means one of two things. Someone has to pay or someone has to get stiffed on the promises.

People are reasonable. They are willing to pay extra taxes to support good services at fair prices. They are not willing to pay high taxes to help keep outrageous promises to people that already have way better deals than they have. On some level Christie is right. If the choice is exclusively "someone has to pay", there will be a flight out of the city or state that made the outrageous promises towards cities and states that didn't.
Some of the pension deals were the result of two things. Yes, a part of it was to garner political support from the unions. But just as much was a mindset that investment gains would continue to keep pensions solvent. The second assumption turned out to be optimistic to say the least. The agreements were only outrageous if you knew the market would tank. It certainly wasn't as simple as politicians ignoring what they knew about the long term. If you read about the housing bubble bursting, people at the large investment banks would have gotten fired if they suggested the crash was coming. The most common analysis was, "Housing prices have never gone down in history."

This was the same sort of thing that happened to American car companies that were paying a ridiculous amount of salary and benefits to basically semi-skilled labor. They assumed profits would remain high enough to fund everything and still make executives wealthy. You can say it was a bad idea, hindsight being 20-20, but you can't say the people making the deals didn't have a choice. They just didn't have the balls to exercise it. Of course, eventually the unions came to their senses, and now things are back on track. The same thing is happening in a number of pension states, including mine. The deal for new employees is nowhere near as lucrative as it was for people 30 years ago.

Much like NJ, NY is exascerbating the problem by deferring pension payments. Since 2010, the state and municipalities have skipped $3.3 billion in pension payments. That's $3.3 billion that doesn't get invested with a potential to grow. You can't underfund the pensions and act outraged as things get dire. NJ went something like 11 of 13 years skipping their payments, while state and municipal workers were making theirs with the expectation the governments would hold up their end.

I know the simple analysis is to blame the democrats, but in 90 years there have been plenty of opportunity for the Republicans to fix this. They have controlled State houses for significant periods in many states. Plenty of blame to spread around to both parties.

As I said, the pension funds were always supposed to be self-sustaining. When the markets tanked, yes, it was necessary to act and I'd agree many politicians were gutless, although not corrupt. I can tell you that ANYONE who was offered a pension deal like the police got would have given up a portion of their private sector salary AND their social security. This was the George Bush plan, to allow for employees to move to private pensions where the money had a chance to grow with the markets. Don't kid yourself - Republicans liked the idea that pensions should be self-funded and not the responsibility of the government.

The pension system needs to be reset, but you don't screw people who contributed in good faith, realizing that the pension was potentially their entire retirement nest egg, especially when the government didn't hold up its side of the bargain.

Maybe people don't want to pay more taxes to fund "outrageous" pensions, but it was their representatives who agreed to the deals in the first place. The people essentially made the deals, good or bad. Representative democracy is a bitch sometimes.

[Saratoga_Mike]

On my way out but I'll say this first. Sweeney is proposing tax cuts that he feels the state can afford. Sweeney does not think we can afford to cut the state sales tax by 1% and still pay our bills.

As for the 23 cent a gallon increase, we will still be well below PA and NY. Obviously, I don't want a gas tax increase at all but what else has gone up at all since 1988?

Your point was the state's broke, and this is no time for tax cuts. Sweeney's plan, which has GOP support, cuts taxes $900 mm/yr (annual run rate when implemented), whereas CC's proposal would cost the state $1.6 billion.

If your central premise is "this is no time for large tax cuts in NJ," then you should have used the thread title: "An Example of Why DEMS and REPS Are Beyond Pathetic."

http://observer.com/2016/07/sweeney-and-prieto-unveil-new-ttf-fundingtax-cut-plan/

[JustRalph]

In the early 80's I was in the Air Force. Reagan tasked an AF General with finding waste in the Air Force due to some stories coming out about $900 dollar toilet seats and coffee pots.

This General started a program where you could point out waste on official forms etc. the kicker was that you had to come up with an alternate product or process to replace the one you were pointing out.

If you were successful, or made sense etc, you would get a check equal to 10% of the first years savings. The second year you got 5%. It turned into a bonanza for some sharp Troops.

I guarantee you do that in NJ and you won't have to raise taxes.......

[Tom]

What is pathetic is that raising taxes is ALWAYS the first thing dems think of.

[Rise Over Run]

Your point was the state's broke, and this is no time for tax cuts. Sweeney's plan, which has GOP support, cuts taxes $900 mm/yr (annual run rate when implemented), whereas CC's proposal would cost the state $1.6 billion.

If your central premise is "this is no time for large tax cuts in NJ," then you should have used the thread title: "An Example of Why DEMS and REPS Are Beyond Pathetic."

http://observer.com/2016/07/sweeney-and-prieto-unveil-new-ttf-fundingtax-cut-plan/
EXACTLY! And why NJ Stinks is a giant fraud.

[mostpost]

Here is your chance - vote for Trump and create jobs.
Moody's Analytics says the Trump economic plan would cost us over three million jobs over the course of his first term. So thanks, but I think I will pass on that option.

[elysiantraveller]

Moody's Analytics says the Trump economic plan would cost us over three million jobs over the course of his first term. So thanks, but I think I will pass on that option.

Never side with you but that was one of Tom's funnier ones...

[Tom]

Moody's Analytics says the Trump economic plan would cost us over three million jobs over the course of his first term. So thanks, but I think I will pass on that option.

Of course you will.
All you want is to keep showing those new McJobs every month, while millions of people are out of the job market.

Hillary will create no REAL jobs.
She will COST us far more jobs than Trump will.

[Clocker]

Moody's Analytics says the Trump economic plan would cost us over three million jobs over the course of his first term. So thanks, but I think I will pass on that option.

Moody's says that quantifying the real estate mogul’s economic polices “is complicated by their lack of specificity.”

But then they go ahead and quantify it anyway. :D

Moody's says that two of the big problems with Trump's unspecified policies are restrictions on trade and bigger deficits. Which is what Hillary is proposing.

Moody's also ignores the ongoing deadlock in Washington which shows no signs of abating and which makes it highly unlikely that either candidate, if elected, would be able to implement any major changes in policy.

[classhandicapper]

Some of the pension deals were the result of two things. Yes, a part of it was to garner political support from the unions. But just as much was a mindset that investment gains would continue to keep pensions solvent. The second assumption turned out to be optimistic to say the least. The agreements were only outrageous if you knew the market would tank.

If you are saying the politicians are investment idiots on top of being irresponsible we agree. For example, you don't have to be an investment genius and predict a market crash to know that investment returns are going to be low for quite awhile going forward given the current prices of stocks and bonds.

[classhandicapper]

Moody's Analytics says the Trump economic plan would cost us over three million jobs over the course of his first term. So thanks, but I think I will pass on that option.

Is that the same Moody's that rated all those bankrupt companies and securities as AAA before the bust? ;)

Most of those rating agencies are political hacks or the extended marketing arm of Wall St. It's not supposed to be that way, but that's the way it is.

If they get a call from Washington to downgrade some foreign debt to send a political/economic warning shot (like Russian debt for example), it will happen because they were told to what to say and do.

If they know Wall St is selling toilet paper, it will be rated at whatever Wall St wants until they clear inventory on the public. It will get downgraded several months after all the sharp people already know the bust is in motion.

[mostpost]

I believe you worked for the federal government. As a result, I suspect you have little appreciation for the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy. I mean no disrespect. Productivity for simple functions, like A/R and A/P processing, is horrible at the government level compared to the private sector. I'd bet you my every last dime if you gave me total power over NJ government, I could cut the budget 10% to 15% and improve services. Labor costs are too high, and government labor is too inefficient.
0.9%
0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%

What are those numbers? Those are the administrative costs of Social Security as a percentage of expenditures since 2000.

Between 1997 and 2009 Medicare costs increased 4.3% annually.
During the same period Private insurance costs increased 6.5% each year.

Medicare spends 2% on overhead.
Private insurance spends 17%

The United States with privately run health care spends twice as much per patient on health care as Great Britain with no better outcomes.

In the mid 1990's Great Britain privatized its rail system. The government now spends a larger % of revenues to subsidize the private companies than it did to run the system on its own.

Arizona, which has the most privately run prisons in the country recently did a study. It found that privately run minimum security prisons cost just as much to operate as government run facilities and medium security prisons cost considerably more than government. And that does not take into account the draconian sentencing guidelines being implemented to keep those prisons filled.

[NJ Stinks]

Your point was the state's broke, and this is no time for tax cuts. Sweeney's plan, which has GOP support, cuts taxes $900 mm/yr (annual run rate when implemented), whereas CC's proposal would cost the state $1.6 billion.

If your central premise is "this is no time for large tax cuts in NJ," then you should have used the thread title: "An Example of Why DEMS and REPS Are Beyond Pathetic."

http://observer.com/2016/07/sweeney-and-prieto-unveil-new-ttf-fundingtax-cut-plan/

Christie won't sign a bill that doesn't contain tax cuts. No tax cuts means no bill. Sweeney's tax cuts are almost half as big as what Christie wants.

But I know many want to believe both parties stink, so be my guest.

And Rise and Shine, a fraud? Really? :rolleyes:

[Saratoga_Mike]

MP - even the government benefits from huge scale - in essence, SS is a large processing business that is basically on autopilot, outside of new entrants and exits (deaths). Therefore, I'm not impressed by your numbers. If you honestly believe the govt is more efficient than the private sector than you're out of your mind (we can't rule that out). The only government entity that I'm typically impressed by is the Post Office, which is quasi-governmental, as you know. I've already covered the Medicare issue with you in the past. Your private G&A number is wrong. See public filings at sec.gov.

I know a ton about the private-prison industry. You're plain wrong on the cost issue, and I don't care about one study...or two...or three. But I'll give you the left-wing argument about where the savings comes from - private prison operators (like CCA and GEO) save money by paying (for the most part) non-union wages and lower retirement benefits. That's your argument, not that there's no savings. I do think there are too many non-violent drug offenders incarcerated, especially in federal prisons, but that's an entirely different issue.

[Clocker]

Medicare spends 2% on overhead.
Private insurance spends 17%

The usual shell game with government accounting.

A significant part of Medicare's administrative functions are performed by other government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the SSA and the IRS and are not charged to Medicare's budget. Much of the administrative functions of accounting and premium collection is actually done by employers. Private insurance company costs also include taxes, including state taxes on premiums paid. Medicare does not pay taxes. And on and on.

Medicare also has higher costs per beneficiary. According to Forbes, 'private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare.'

"The Myth of Medicare's Low Administrative Costs"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4f4e59a45338 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4f4e59a45338)

"Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs":

http://mforall.net/files/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

[Saratoga_Mike]

Clock - he posted the same Medicare info a year or so ago - you and I both refuted it already.

[Clocker]

Clock - he posted the same Medicare info a year or so ago - you and I both refuted it already.

It's good to stay in practice in case a real challenge comes up. :p

[zico20]

0.9%0.7%

What are those numbers? Those are the administrative costs of Social Security as a percentage of expenditures since 2000.

Between 1997 and 2009 Medicare costs increased 4.3% annually.
During the same period Private insurance costs increased 6.5% each year.

Medicare spends 2% on overhead.
Private insurance spends 17%

The United States with privately run health care spends twice as much per patient on health care as Great Britain with no better outcomes.

In the mid 1990's Great Britain privatized its rail system. The government now spends a larger % of revenues to subsidize the private companies than it did to run the system on its own.

Arizona, which has the most privately run prisons in the country recently did a study. It found that privately run minimum security prisons cost just as much to operate as government run facilities and medium security prisons cost considerably more than government. And that does not take into account the draconian sentencing guidelines being implemented to keep those prisons filled.

You are delusional. Great Britain's health care is in shambles. How can you even make a claim like that and expect to be taken seriously on these boards.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html

Then again, as long as everybody is covered, it really doesn't matter if nobody actually gets treatment. :lol: From the article.

In 2012, 52,000 patients were denied common procedures such as cataract operations and varicose veins treatment as a result of cuts to the NHS. In Wales, NHS health boards are reported to have cancelled more than 13,000 operations over the last three years largely due to bed shortages and lack of staff.

[NJ Stinks]

You are delusional. Great Britain's health care is in shambles. How can you even make a claim like that and expect to be taken seriously on these boards.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/19/heal-o19.html

Then again, as long as everybody is covered, it really doesn't matter if nobody actually gets treatment. :lol: From the article.

In 2012, 52,000 patients were denied common procedures such as cataract operations and varicose veins treatment as a result of cuts to the NHS. In Wales, NHS health boards are reported to have cancelled more than 13,000 operations over the last three years largely due to bed shortages and lack of staff.

You don't know a damn thing about NHS. First off, people in the UK love it. Not like it - love it. I'm sure you can't wrap your head around it but it's true.

You are talking about 52,000 patients in a country with over 60M people. Just think for a second about the millions of people in the USA who don't have health insurance and can't afford health treatment. Then compare coverage in the US system vs. coverage by the NHS.

[zico20]

You don't know a damn thing about NHS. First off, people in the UK love it. Not like it - love it. I'm sure you can't wrap your head around it but it's true.

You are talking about 52,000 patients in a country with over 60M people. Just think for a second about the millions of people in the USA who don't have health insurance and can't afford health treatment. Then compare coverage in the US system vs. coverage by the NHS.

They just don't know any better. I know I would love to wait months or years to get treatment in their system. NOT! We have Obamacare, if people want health care they can get it. If they can't afford it, then they need to work multiple jobs so they can afford it. But you want everything given away for free. Go find a country that better suits your needs than the USA.

[mostpost]

The usual shell game with government accounting.

A significant part of Medicare's administrative functions are performed by other government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the SSA and the IRS and are not charged to Medicare's budget. Much of the administrative functions of accounting and premium collection is actually done by employers. Private insurance company costs also include taxes, including state taxes on premiums paid. Medicare does not pay taxes. And on and on.

Medicare also has higher costs per beneficiary. According to Forbes, 'private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare.'

"The Myth of Medicare's Low Administrative Costs"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4f4e59a45338 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4f4e59a45338)

"Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs":

http://mforall.net/files/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

Here is a paragraph from Avik Roy's Forbes article.
Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don’t have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare’s administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare’s massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.

Now my contention is that Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance and I provide stats that show Medicare spends 3% on overhead whereas private insurance spends 15% to 20%. You counter with Avik Roy's article which argues that several government agencies are involved in Medicare and must all be included in determining costs.

Let's start with the IRS which collects the taxes which fund the program. It varies from year to year, but in general it costs the IRS fifty cents to collect $100 of tax revenue. That is 0.5% (One half of one percent.) Let's add that to our 3% and we get 3.5%.

We continue on to Social Security which according to Mr. Roy collects premiums for Medicare. From my previous post in this thread we know that Social Securities over head is 0.7%. Add that to 3.5% and we get 4.2%. Still a very long way from 20%.

Mr. Roy points out these various additional government entities which he claims prove the government is just as inefficient as the private sector. But he provides no numbers. He never says how much IRS adds to the cost. Never says what Social Security and HHS adds.

If he had those numbers and they proved his point, why would he not use them?

[mostpost]

Clock - he posted the same Medicare info a year or so ago - you and I both refuted it already.
In your dreams.

[NJ Stinks]

They just don't know any better. I know I would love to wait months or years to get treatment in their system. NOT! We have Obamacare, if people want health care they can get it. If they can't afford it, then they need to work multiple jobs so they can afford it. But you want everything given away for free. Go find a country that better suits your needs than the USA.

NHS is not free. Start with that.

Read the link below if you want to learn a bit about the NHS.

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx


And Zico, I would enjoy living in the UK if I could swing it . Their climate is 10 times better than ours in NJ, I can bet on anything I want whenever I want, and they love horseracing a lot more than it is appreciated here. Biggest negative about living there is that I'm an American - not a Brit. No way would I not miss being home.

[mostpost]

You don't know a damn thing about NHS. First off, people in the UK love it. Not like it - love it. I'm sure you can't wrap your head around it but it's true.

You are talking about 52,000 patients in a country with over 60M people. Just think for a second about the millions of people in the USA who don't have health insurance and can't afford health treatment. Then compare coverage in the US system vs. coverage by the NHS.
That would be less that one tenth of one percent. Did you read the article zico 20 posted? Apparently he didn't. Despite what zico 20 thinks, the problems with the British Health system are being caused, not by the socialist nature of the system, but by deliberate attempts to sabotage it by conservatives. Budget cuts of 20% have been instituted to be followed by 30% cuts. The purpose? To cause long wait lists and bed shortages to be fixed by private providers.

[chadk66]

The one question that never seems to be at the fore is, what would government cost to provide the services demanded by the public? Of course, "demanded by the public" is not always easily defined. The reason there are as many things funded by government as there are is because there are an unlimited number of interest groups looking for their cut of the pie. If a candidate suggests defunding of a federal department - say the EPA - there are some passionate people ready to jump all over that guy, and nothing happens. If you are the Federal government, you can keep everyone happy by deficit spending, kicking the can down the road. States don't usually have that option. Many states have balanced budget requirements. So what they do to balance the budget is underfund things, say roads and bridges, until a crisis occurs and the public reluctantly agrees to increase the funding source. Christie, being political, kicks the can across the street instead of down the road. Let's reduce the sales tax, which will result in a new crisis that we can deal with later.

In my mind a big part of the problem is that people want filet mignon at ground beef prices. The politician who could force biting the bullet would be a hero in history, that is if he could survive the sh*tstorm from goring all the ones.

As for pensions, that is a difficult discussion. In the case of teachers, police and firefighters, their unions negotiated some great deals, but the states need to take 50% of the blame for any problems, unless you believe the states could not have resisted the unions. One of the trade offs was that teachers, police and firefighters sacrificed salary. The average salary for a police officer in this country is about $54K, not exactly the lap of luxury. The average salary for teachers is less than $50K.

The theory was that it would be a lot harder to get good, qualified people to work for the salaries without sweetening the pot with pensions.

A number of states - NJ is a prime example - failed to make payments to the pension plan in difficult budget years. When the bill came due they had a pretty good case that the pension fund was nearing insolvency, blaming it on the sweet deals.

Many state - mine included - and municipal employees were exempted from paying FICA because they had a pension plan. That was the deal when social security was passed. However, the fact is that if you don't pay any social security, you don't get any social security when you retire. You have to have 40 quarters of work where you paid social security to qualify for social security. Your pension is your retirement. The other thing is that both employees and employers paid for the pension plan, just like social security. For example, an employee may pay 8% of his salary for the pension, while the employer might make a similar contribution to the pension. There is an authority that is supposed to manage the fund and keep it solvent. Of course, the fund is often dependent on the skill of investors, but also on the assumptions they make about return, and in the really down years the pension funds suffered.

Christie is a lame duck who probably doesn't have an extended political career. This would be the perfect time to finally reset the system.this is the million dollar question. I keep getting the "what are you willing to cut" treatment from my legislators when I bitch about the insane rate of property tax here. Fire?- I said absolutely, I live ten miles from the fire house and I have insurance. No way your going to save my house anyway. And my insurance rates reflect that. Ambulance? I told them my insurance will pay any trip I make. Probably to the tune of $800 for the ten mile trip. Roads? I told them that was cute but if your a legislator you should already know our state and federal fuel taxes pay for that. Water? I informed him I am on rural water and pay about four times the rate of people in town. water is already being paid for by the end user so it's a mute point. This went on and on. He refuses to correspond with me anymore since he can't bullshit me. To top it all off our state has a multi billion dollar surplus.

[zico20]

That would be less that one tenth of one percent. Did you read the article zico 20 posted? Apparently he didn't. Despite what zico 20 thinks, the problems with the British Health system are being caused, not by the socialist nature of the system, but by deliberate attempts to sabotage it by conservatives. Budget cuts of 20% have been instituted to be followed by 30% cuts. The purpose? To cause long wait lists and bed shortages to be fixed by private providers.

Your percentage means squat. It does not matter how many people are in the country but rather what percent that needs that exact treatment is getting turned down. If, for example, 60,000 need it and 52,000 are denied that is a horrible figure.

[Rise Over Run]

Christie won't sign a bill that doesn't contain tax cuts. No tax cuts means no bill. Sweeney's tax cuts are almost half as big as what Christie wants.

But I know many want to believe both parties stink, so be my guest.

And Rise and Shine, a fraud? Really? :rolleyes:
Yes, a fraud.

You changed your tune when you called called out on it. You went from a Gas Tax & Tax Cuts suck because of a Republican Governor, to Gas Tax & Tax Cuts are acceptable because it's proposed by Democrats and can't be as bad as what the Republican Governor wants.

[NJ Stinks]

Yes, a fraud.

You changed your tune when you called called out on it. You went from a Gas Tax & Tax Cuts suck because of a Republican Governor, to Gas Tax & Tax Cuts are acceptable because it's proposed by Democrats and can't be as bad as what the Republican Governor wants.

I'm not changing my tune about anything. You don't like Democrats or liberals? I could care less.

Try to grasp this, if possible. The Dems proposed tax cuts only because they can't get past Christie's veto without tax cuts being in the bill. Only a fool would think that even though the government is broke, it still must cut taxes to offset a needed tax increase. But then that's the GOP for you. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Mr. Roy points out these various additional government entities which he claims prove the government is just as inefficient as the private sector. But he provides no numbers. He never says how much IRS adds to the cost. Never says what Social Security and HHS adds.

If he had those numbers and they proved his point, why would he not use them?

He doesn't have them because the government doesn't keep track of them separately and does not charge them against Medicare's budget.

That's why they are 'hidden costs'. Duh! :rolleyes:

[fast4522]

I'm not changing my tune about anything. You don't like Democrats or liberals? I could care less.

Try to grasp this, if possible. The Dems proposed tax cuts only because they can't get past Christie's veto without tax cuts being in the bill. Only a fool would think that even though the government is broke, it still must cut taxes to offset a needed tax increase. But then that's the GOP for you. :rolleyes:


Try to grasp this, without the ability to milk the middle class dry you will not get a drop anyplace else. It is obvious the middle class has had enough be it in NJ or any other state. Yes governments are strapped for money, but it is a condition of spending to much.

[mostpost]

The usual shell game with government accounting.

A significant part of Medicare's administrative functions are performed by other government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the SSA and the IRS and are not charged to Medicare's budget. Much of the administrative functions of accounting and premium collection is actually done by employers. Private insurance company costs also include taxes, including state taxes on premiums paid. Medicare does not pay taxes. And on and on.

Medicare also has higher costs per beneficiary. According to Forbes, 'private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare.'

"The Myth of Medicare's Low Administrative Costs"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4f4e59a45338 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#4f4e59a45338)

"Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs":

http://mforall.net/files/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf
Avik Roy is full of Crap.

https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7731-03.pdf
That is a link to a Kaiser Family Foundation report titled: Medicare Spending and Financing: A Primer February 2011.

On page five of that report it states:
Administrative Costs
The costs of administering the Medicare program have remained low over the years – less than 2 percent of program expenditures. As such, program administration is not a contributing factor to Medicare’s expenditure growth.

Administrative costs include all expenses by government agencies in
administering the program (HHS, Treasury, the Social SecurityAdministration, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission).

Also included are the cost of claims contractors and other costs incurred in the payment of benefits, collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse control activities, various demonstration projects, and building costs associated with program administration.

That totally destroys the basis of Avik Roy's column in Forbes and completely disproves your theory of hidden costs. It very specifically states that Administrative costs include all costs by all government agencies involved.
It states unequivocally that such things as the cost of claims contractors, collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse control activities and even building costs associated with program administration are included in that 2%.

[Tom]

Only a fool would AGREE with that.
You are broke because you spend too much.
End of story.

[Saratoga_Mike]

MP,

1) There are huge benefits to scale.

2) There are huge benefits to having a monopoly (no marketing and forced pricing on the provider).

3) Please realize a large portion of the Medicare population is actually serviced through the private sector (i.e., Medicare Advantage).

4) The rates of fraud in govt programs (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid) dwarf fraud rates in commercial plans.

Overall, I believe Medicare works well, but (and you want to ignore this part) it's is subsidized by the private insurance market. How? In the vast majority of cases (whether it's a nursing home or a DRG-code at a hospital), private insurance is the best payor. If you move to a single payor system, the subsidization ceases (and innovation and quality of care suffers). I know you think I'm misrepresenting things, but I'm not. I've already said the GOP is bought and paid for by the drug lobby. I have no agenda, just trying to give you additional information to ponder.

[chadk66]

Avik Roy is full of Crap.

https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7731-03.pdf
That is a link to a Kaiser Family Foundation report titled: Medicare Spending and Financing: A Primer February 2011.

On page five of that report it states:
Administrative Costs
The costs of administering the Medicare program have remained low over the years – less than 2 percent of program expenditures. As such, program administration is not a contributing factor to Medicare’s expenditure growth.

Administrative costs include all expenses by government agencies in
administering the program (HHS, Treasury, the Social SecurityAdministration, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission).

Also included are the cost of claims contractors and other costs incurred in the payment of benefits, collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse control activities, various demonstration projects, and building costs associated with program administration.

That totally destroys the basis of Avik Roy's column in Forbes and completely disproves your theory of hidden costs. It very specifically states that Administrative costs include all costs by all government agencies involved.
It states unequivocally that such things as the cost of claims contractors, collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse control activities and even building costs associated with program administration are included in that 2%.let's pretend it is 2% (which 90% of us knows it isn't. by the way my wife works for the feds lol). How much of the medicare budget is roasted via medicare fraud. That has to be added into the cost of the program. Specifically administration because if administrated properly you wouldn't have near as much fraud. But they choose to let the fraud slide so that admin costs appear low.

[Clocker]

Also included are the cost of claims contractors and other costs incurred in the payment of benefits, collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse control activities, various demonstration projects, and building costs associated with program administration.



It says it, but it doesn't show any detail or proof. I note that you are ignoring the study on hidden costs I linked to, which says otherwise.

Also, Medicaid defines some costs differently. According to the Washington Post, many costs that private companies call administrative are called 'vendor services' by Medicare. The Post estimates administrative costs to be 5-6%.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/administrative_costs_in_health.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/administrative_costs_in_health.html)

All of this ignores the cost of fraud, which is generally accepted to be over 10%. And the cost percentages for private providers of 17% is way high. All in all, Medicare is no more efficient.

[classhandicapper]

Since we don't have an apple to apple comparisons, it's hard to know. But given what we do know about government in general it's impossible for me to believe that medicare is run more efficiently and effectively than private businesses with a profit motive. The advantage medicare has is economies of scale.

[chadk66]

Since we don't have an apple to apple comparisons, it's hard to know. But given what we do know about government in general it's impossible for me to believe that medicare is run more efficiently and effectively than private businesses with a profit motive. The advantage medicare has is economies of scale.Just use the VA as an example:blush:

[Saratoga_Mike]

In your dreams.

I know it kills you, but I know more about the hc system than you do. You know more than I'll ever know about the Post Office. It's okay.

By the way, Feds announced today that they will stop using private prisons. The FBOP uses about 25k private beds and houses another 175k or so in public beds. Believe it or not, I support this move. While there's no question a 1,000-bed private prison is cheaper than a 1,000-bed public prison, the public system has lots of excess capacity, especially after last fall's mass release. The marginal costs favor using that public capacity, or at very least using the leverage to hammer the private vendors on price.

[dartman51]

I know it kills you, but I know more about the hc system than you do. You know more than I'll ever know about the Post Office. It's okay.




In case you didn't get the memo, MoPo is an expert on EVERY subject. He also "reads minds", as an extra added attraction. :faint:

Oh, and don't prove him wrong too often, or you will get put on ignore. :D

[Inner Dirt]

I know it kills you, but I know more about the hc system than you do. You know more than I'll ever know about the Post Office. It's okay.

By the way, Feds announced today that they will stop using private prisons. The FBOP uses about 25k private beds and houses another 175k or so in public beds. Believe it or not, I support this move. While there's no question a 1,000-bed private prison is cheaper than a 1,000-bed public prison, the public system has lots of excess capacity, especially after last fall's mass release. The marginal costs favor using that public capacity, or at very least using the leverage to hammer the private vendors on price.

If "Most Post" comes from being a retired Post Office employee I now understand how the guy is deluded into thinking he is smarter than everyone. The Post Office has to have some of the stupidest, laziest government employees around. Pretty sure a person of average intelligence would stand out like an Einstein if they worked in a post office.

[mostpost]

MP,

1) There are huge benefits to scale.
If that is the case, why not go to single payer? Doctors, hospital etc would still be private. Only the source of payment would change.

2) There are huge benefits to having a monopoly (no marketing and forced pricing on the provider).
By forced pricing you mean the ability to negotiate. Again, a reason to phase out private health insurance.

3) Please realize a large portion of the Medicare population is actually serviced through the private sector (i.e., Medicare Advantage).
I'll have to check out what a large portion means.

4) The rates of fraud in govt programs (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid) dwarf fraud rates in commercial plans.
That is a statement that can't be proved either way. Private insurance companies are not required to report cases of fraud. Medicare/medicaid is.
In many cases it is the insurance companies themselves that are committing the fraud. Also many of the cases which Medicare reports as fraud turn out to be simply errors.

One report I saw breaks down fraud thusly:
80% Medical entities
10% consumers
10% other.

Overall, I believe Medicare works well, but (and you want to ignore this part) it's is subsidized by the private insurance market. How? In the vast majority of cases (whether it's a nursing home or a DRG-code at a hospital), private insurance is the best payor. If you move to a single payor system, the subsidization ceases (and innovation and quality of care suffers). I know you think I'm misrepresenting things, but I'm not. I've already said the GOP is bought and paid for by the drug lobby. I have no agenda, just trying to give you additional information to ponder.
I don't think single payer affects the quality of care because the care will still be provided by the private sector. By private sector I mean the combination of private hospitals, University hospitals and non profits we have currently.

[dartman51]

If "Most Post" comes from being a retired Post Office employee I now understand how the guy is deluded into thinking he is smarter than everyone. The Post Office has to have some of the stupidest, laziest government employees around. Pretty sure a person of average intelligence would stand out like an Einstein if they worked in a post office.



Saw a video, just this morning, of a postal delivery person, dumping mail in a dumpster. I guess she felt bad about delivering all those BILLS to people, and was just trying to help them out. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

If "Most Post" comes from being a retired Post Office employee I now understand how the guy is deluded into thinking he is smarter than everyone. The Post Office has to have some of the stupidest, laziest government employees around. Pretty sure a person of average intelligence would stand out like an Einstein if they worked in a post office.
There are many people who are smarter than me. None of them are conservatives. At least none on this board.

A sure sign of ignorance is to judge a person on where they work.

[classhandicapper]

I don't think single payer affects the quality of care because the care will still be provided by the private sector. By private sector I mean the combination of private hospitals, University hospitals and non profits we have currently.

I'll try to distill my objection to single payer to a couple of sentences.

People rob banks because that's where the money is.

The more money and power you put in Washington, the more criminal, corrupt and greedy private people will try to use that to their advantage. There will be more fraud and abuse, more instances of corrupt politicians being bought and writing regulations and laws that benefit some people at the expense of others, more inefficiencies because of the lack of competition, less of a willingness to restructure and improve because it could cost government jobs etc...

There is nothing terribly wrong with a public option to ensure that people that don't have jobs and or can't afford healthcare can get it, but the goal should be to minimize it and create rules that allow the private sector to operate better. It's that latter area that needs work.

[Inner Dirt]

A sure sign of ignorance is to judge a person on where they work.

It is a fact someone with an I.Q. of 85 can work at a Post Office and make $60k a year with great benefits. Please tell me the challenges to someone's intelligence that working in a Post Office demands. My neighbor retired as an
area supervisor and knows every Post Office worker in the era. He has a pretty low opinion of most of his co-workers. I use the Post Office a couple times a week. You can't tell me the job requires any skill or intelligence.
If you are such a genius why weren't you a rocket scientist instead of a mailman?

[Clocker]

There are many people who are smarter than me. None of them are conservatives. At least none on this board.

A sure sign of ignorance is to judge a person on where they work.

Another sure sign of ignorance is for anyone from any place on the political spectrum to make a claim such as that above.

[chadk66]

Another sure sign of ignorance is for anyone from any place on the political spectrum to make a claim such as that above.all the libtards I know feel they have superior intelligence. I once asked one "if your so damn smart then show me how to check the oil in your car". Needless to say he STFU

[Rise Over Run]

The Dems proposed tax cuts only because they can't get past Christie's veto without tax cuts being in the bill.

Ohhhh, this is solid gold. Waaaah, Republicans made us do it.

[JustRalph]

There are many people who are smarter than me. None of them are conservatives. At least none on this board.

A sure sign of ignorance is to judge a person on where they work.

You are hysterical.........

[HalvOnHorseracing]

all the libtards I know feel they have superior intelligence. I once asked one "if your so damn smart then show me how to check the oil in your car". Needless to say he STFU
Of course. The dipstick maneuver

[mostpost]

It is a fact someone with an I.Q. of 85 can work at a Post Office and make $60k a year with great benefits. Please tell me the challenges to someone's intelligence that working in a Post Office demands. My neighbor retired as an
area supervisor and knows every Post Office worker in the era. He has a pretty low opinion of most of his co-workers. I use the Post Office a couple times a week. You can't tell me the job requires any skill or intelligence.
If you are such a genius why weren't you a rocket scientist instead of a mailman?
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html

Mail carrier IQ 99.1

Also, your $60,000 a year is BS

[HalvOnHorseracing]

When I was in college I worked summers as a union carpenter (anyone who has parked in one of the garages at the Empire State Plaza would be unwitting witness to my work). A couple of the guys I worked with were really quite well read and I would have called them intelligent. Not all of them, but I suppose I'd opine that you can find sharp people in a lot of different professions, even if that profession might not universally attract them. On the other hand, I've known some PhDs that were what my father called, "educated beyond their intelligence." It doesn't surprise me that there are really bright people working in blue collar jobs that don't require a lot of education. There are a lot of those jobs that can be quite satisfying, especially when at the end of the day you can look at your work and feel good about it.

I'll suggest this about the people on PA. If you are any kind of competent handicapper, you gotta be a little smarter than the average bear, regardless of your politics.

[Inner Dirt]

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html

Mail carrier IQ 99.1

Also, your $60,000 a year is BS

That average refutes nothing, a person with an I.Q. of 85 can do the job. I got that $60K from my neighbor I guess you are calling him a liar this time and not me. You have trouble comprehending written language don't you?

[johnhannibalsmith]

... (anyone who has parked in one of the garages at the Empire State Plaza would be unwitting witness to my work). ...

Oh boy. I'm guessing you are talking about the underground parking under the Capitol buildings in Albany unless there is another with the same name. Thanks for tonight's nightmare. :lol:

[mostpost]

http://geniustests.com/quiz_result/Mzk%3D/OTg%3D
Anyone else care to take the test and post your results? You can do so here.
http://geniustests.com/

I took the thirty minute version-in 21 minutes

[mostpost]

That average refutes nothing, a person with an I.Q. of 85 can do the job. I got that $60K from my neighbor I guess you are calling him a liar this time and not me. You have trouble comprehending written language don't you?
See post 87.
As for the $60,000, that may be for a supervisor. A carrier may make $50,000 tops. Of course they will make more with overtime, which can be frequent.

I'm going by how it was when I was working ten years ago.

[Inner Dirt]

http://geniustests.com/quiz_result/NDc%3D/OTk%3D

99th percentile. That was a stupid test. I would call it trivia.

[JustRalph]

http://geniustests.com/quiz_result/NDc%3D/OTk%3D

99th percentile. That was a stupid test. I would call it trivia.

I answered the 3rd answer on every question and got a 76

I might have mixed it up a little ....some were true and false.

[NJ Stinks]

Ohhhh, this is solid gold. Waaaah, Republicans made us do it.

I can see where you might get a good :lol: out of my response, ROR. :)


(I hope the Jersey Dems were made to do it but it's no lock.)

[Greyfox]

Intelligence tests measure the ability to perform well on intelligence tests.
They have some predictive validity, but they are not the definitive answer to what intelligence is.
I agree with Mostie.
It is unwise to judge anyone's intelligence on the work that they do.
I've found in life that it is usually prudent to never underestimate the intelligence of anyone, until you know an awful lot about them.
They might surprise you.

[chadk66]

I could put together an intelligence test that most would be lucky to get 25% right. And I'm sure anyone on here could put one together I'd be lucky to get 25% on.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Oh boy. I'm guessing you are talking about the underground parking under the Capitol buildings in Albany unless there is another with the same name. Thanks for tonight's nightmare. :lol:
I actually think I parked there once. If anything happens I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has expired.

[Parkview_Pirate]

http://geniustests.com/quiz_result/NDA%3D/OTk%3D

99th percentile in 19 mins, skipping two questions (hate jumbled letters).

Ironic though, as I thought to work at the post office, one just needed to be a black female. At least that's what I observed in the downtown Chicago post office when I was about 11 years old (1973), traveling up there with my dad to pick up my grandmother at the train station. 50 windows, and every one of them "manned" by a black woman.

When I asked my dad about it and stating that didn't seem right, he told me "that's what democrats call equal opportunity...."

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq8dImsWAAEsmWw.jpg

[chadk66]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq8dImsWAAEsmWw.jpgso tell us exactly what the libs did when they controlled everything during obama's presidency. What legislation did they pass that straightened out all the things they have been claiming about forever. Why wasn't there a gun ban/bill passed? Why weren't the inner city blacks taken care of? Why are the Native American's still pissing and moaning for more government help? etc. etc.

[Clocker]

so tell us exactly what the libs did when they controlled everything during obama's presidency. What legislation did they pass that straightened out all the things they have been claiming about forever. Why wasn't there a gun ban/bill passed? Why weren't the inner city blacks taken care of? Why are the Native American's still pissing and moaning for more government help? etc. etc.

You are obviously forgetting all the times that Obama tried to sit down with the GOP leadership trying to work out compromises on ObamaCare, the Keystone Pipeline, the deficit and the debt, and so on.

And what did the Republicans do? Refused to meet with him. Remember that?

[chadk66]

You are obviously forgetting all the times that Obama tried to sit down with the GOP leadership trying to work out compromises on ObamaCare, the Keystone Pipeline, the deficit and the debt, and so on.

And what did the Republicans do? Refused to meet with him. Remember that?yea my memory fails me:D

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

For people who think that Republicans are saints, I always say, "It just seems that way when you compare them to the Democrats."

The Republican establishment wants Hillary to win as much as the Democrats, because they know that someone who cannot be bought out by special interests will severely impact the criminal way of life for all republ-o-crats.

We anxiously await President Trump.

[chadk66]

For people who think that Republicans are saints, I always say, "It just seems that way when you compare them to the Democrats."

The Republican establishment wants Hillary to win as much as the Democrats, because they know that someone who cannot be bought out by special interests will severely impact the criminal way of life for all republ-o-crats.

We anxiously await President Trump.isn't that the truth

[Tom]

You want to look thin, hang out with fat people.