Poll - Democrat or Republican?

[Carlene 12]

Carlene: I think I may be misunderstanding what you said about Government workers making more than their counterparts in the private sector. Did I get that right?

My DH worked for the Department of Defense and for the Army for many years. He now works for a defense contractor and believe me, he makes much more money than if he had stayed in even a very powerful job in the Government.

Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying?

I was referring to an article published locally just last month. Here it is, in its entirety.

Pay is double for federal workers

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

For the first time ever, federal employees are bringing home paychecks double that of their private-sector counterparts, according to a recent study.

The average federal worker — excluding postal workers and military personnel — brought home about $106,579 a year in salary and benefits last year, compared with private-company employees who banked an average of $53,289, according to a study by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian policy-research center.

“About a decade or so ago, federal employees had about a 50 percent advantage, but now it’s double,” said Chris Edwards, an institute economist. “They’ve had very generous salary increases every year . . . and they have very generous benefit packages.”

State and local government workers, according to the federal tables cited by Edwards, average $54,849 in total compensation.

There are 1.8 million federal employees in the United States — more than 108,000 in Texas and at least 24,000 in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Edwards’ report — which showed that without benefits, the difference in average federal and private employee salaries is $71,114 to $43,917 — drew criticism from taxpayer watchdog groups and agreement from federal-employee groups.

The disparity between the salaries has steadily grown through the years. Ten years ago, federal employees took home an average of $62,359 in salary and benefits, compared with $36,330 for private-sector employees, according to the May report based on data from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

National Federation of Federal Employees officials say the data are skewed.

“This information is absolutely wrong. If anything, we are below the scale of private-sector counterparts and have been for years,” said Bill Fenaughty, assistant directing business representative with the Washington, D.C.-based group. “I suggest that Congress make some efforts to get federal employees up to the same level as private-sector employees.”

He said he and others have been working for a pay accountability act that will raise federal employee salaries to what he said will match salaries of private-sector employees.

“There’s overspending on countless issues, but this isn’t one of them,” said Fenaughty, whose organization represents about 150,000 federal government employees.

Officials with Citizens Against Government Waste disagree. They say the report confirms what they’ve known for a long time.

“Government work is good if you can get it,” said David Williams, vice president for policy with the nonpartisan federal watchdog group in Washington, D.C. “The federal government always complains that they can’t attract the best and brightest because of the lack of pay.

“This report dispels that myth,” he said. “It’s a system that is completely out of whack with increased benefits and cost adjustments.”

To level the playing field, Edwards suggests a salary freeze for federal employees and possibly privatizing some jobs.

He said there are many reasons why federal employees’ salaries are higher: steady raises, generous benefit packages, few low-level positions and a highly skilled work force.

But not all federal employees earn more than those in the private sector. Financial analysts, for instance, might earn less working for the government than by working on Wall Street and lawyers might earn less working for the government than in a private practice, Edwards said.

Even so, high federal salaries “cost taxpayers a lot more money,” Edwards said. “And we don’t necessarily want all the best people in federal government.

“We want smart people to build businesses in Fort Worth and software companies in Seattle,” he said. “If we want to keep good people in the private sector, there’s a balance we need to strike.”

[maryb 1]

Republican and I am not ashamed one bit for George W. I am ashamed of the whole political system in general... too much lying and a** kissing to get elected and trying to stay in office.

[faybie 0]

Still, I can understand why those 52 people might resent paying almost 25K in taxes. Human nature makes us want it ALL. And with the value of the dollar being what it is today, I think raising the exemption on the estate tax to 4 or even 5 million dollars is not unreasonable. But to repeal it altogether is a very bad idea. Dynastic fortunes breed nothing but trouble for everyone except the fabulously wealthy few, who would literally own the entire country in about 50 years.

Ok so, any one who rises above poverty level to middle class then eventually the "rich" class is the enemy? Please explain.... Whether your money is new or old it is still a strive to achieve a better life for your successors. So I am the enemy because I strive to put my children and their children in the "rich' category? I literally came from poverty to the point of not eating for weeks..... that was incentive enough to want to strive to be better. I am so confused about the resentment for people who have more than 2+ million in their estate.....

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Ok so, any one who rises above poverty level to middle class then eventually the "rich" class is the enemy? Please explain.... Whether your money is new or old it is still a strive to achieve a better life for your successors. So I am the enemy because I strive to put my children and their children in the "rich' category? I literally came from poverty to the point of not eating for weeks..... that was incentive enough to want to strive to be better. I am so confused about the resentment for people who have more than 2+ million in their estate.....

I can not speak for anyone else, but I think that the problem is not with middle-class or even rich, what ever that is, but with the wealthy.

I am talking about the less than 1% who own more than the other 99% combined.

What is funny is that two of the people who epitomize the wealthy are speaking out and acting out against the system. Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet are in favor of the elimination of the inheritance tax. Both are removing the inheritance tax problem from their situations by giving their money away to important causes.

But many of the wealthy will leave their money to spoiled children who think it is their right to rule over others. Warren Buffet has said he has an obligation as a rich man to leave his children enough money so that they can do anything, but not enough that they will be able to do nothing.

George W BuSh is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator and the great grandson of a rich man. The Rockefeller's and the Kennedy's and many other politicians are our leaders almost as if they were a monarchy. Same goes for William Ford who just stepped down from CEO of Ford. I guess his "Blue-Blood" acquired by being the great grandson of both Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone (founder of Firestone tires) was not enough to make him a leader of men. But, I bet he made many 100's of millions of dollars from the CEO's job although he was completely incompetent. Keeping the inheritance tax does not stop these dynasties, but it may help.

Faybie, there is nothing wrong with wanting your kids to do well and I do not think that makes you the enemy, but it is the people who think because they are billionaires that they have a right to show us who's boss. Steve Forbes inherited his money and business from his hard working father, so he thinks he can buy the presidency and he proposes a flat tax to keep even more of the money. People like him are the enemy.

Rich is only a word. Most CEO's of the Forbes 500 companies, make so much money, that if I hit the Florida Lottery twice a week for a whole year, I would still make less then a CEO. They make that money even when their companies are losing huge sums of money. Their retirement is more in a year than people like us make in 10 lifetimes of wok.

If you could give each of your children one winning lottery ticket each (for separate dates, of course), I am sure you would be satisfied that they have a chance to succeed in life with that as a start. If they blow that money rather than invest it, the problem is them, not the system, but if you have instilled the values you have spoken of into them, one lottery is enough to start a rich life.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

By the way, this debate is one reason why the Republicans keep winning. The pit the middle-class against the poor against the rich, while the really wealthy go quietly unnoticed. :faint:

[Alexandra 55]

I just want to applaud all of you taking part in this conversation. It's enlightening, inspiring, and all-around wonderful to see civil and educated discourse on this board! :clap2:

Now, is everyone getting ready for November 3? Don't forget to vote!!

[KariK 0]

I wish instead of Democrat/Republican/Independant, we had these parties: Morally Liberal Democrat, Morally Conservative Democrat, Morally Liberal Republican, Morally Conservative Republican, Independant.

I wish people who are anti-abortion, didn't have to choose between fiscal responsibility and moral responsibility. It seems like whenever you want to debate which political party you support, neither party fits really.

Republican and Democrat should be about how we spend our tax dollars, not about wether or not we support abortion or some other moral issue. Im sure a lot of people feel like they identify with the Democratic ideology of helping the working class and middle class to succeed and not be treated like worker-bees for the benefit of a handful of billionaires. But yet these same people are probably voting Republican in large part due to a belief that the Republican party is the more moral party that doesn't support abortion.

Im not saying what my personal preferance here is, im just saying that I wish we had more than 2 choices when it comes to Democrat and Republican parties. For some reason I have a hard time voting for an independant because I want to know where they stand, I don't want a loose canon in charge.

[Carlene 12]

Ok so, any one who rises above poverty level to middle class then eventually the "rich" class is the enemy? Please explain.... Whether your money is new or old it is still a strive to achieve a better life for your successors. So I am the enemy because I strive to put my children and their children in the "rich' category? I literally came from poverty to the point of not eating for weeks..... that was incentive enough to want to strive to be better. I am so confused about the resentment for people who have more than 2+ million in their estate.....

Fay...

I do not resent people who work hard, save their money and leave their kids 2 or 3, or even 6 or 8 million dollars. I am concerned about the social and political consequences of the unchecked accumulation of dynastic wealth.

If the very, very wealthy were allowed to pass intact fortunes down generation after generation, there would soon (in 50 or 60 years) be a class of super rich individuals literally ruling the USA, controlling and manipulating laws, as well as foreign and domestic policies, to their own benefit and reigning over what would essentially be a feudal system, similar to the Middle Ages.

As TOM pointed out, the world's two richest men do not favor repeal of the inheritance tax. Why do you suppose that is? Bill Gates' father even wrote a book called "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes."

Huge chunks of unearned, inherited wealth tend to sap ambition and reward the wanton disregard for dignity, morals, and any semblence of social conscience. Just take a look at Christina Onasis, Paris Hilton, and many of the world's so-called royal families.

I know that you are planning to raise children who become responsible, conservative, thrifty, sober, adults. I had the same plan - so did lots of other people. What we end up with, in spite of our best efforts, is often something else. What if your kids, or your grandchildren, look at their inheritance as a get-out-of-jail free card - a windfall that will enable them to quit work and just do nothing for as long as it lasts? Would that make you happy? Would you feel that you had done them a big favor? Money is a two-edged sword. Too much, too early, with too little effort is often the worst legacy we can leave them.

[Scribby 0]

Morally Liberal Democrat, Morally Conservative Democrat, Morally Liberal Republican, Morally Conservative Republican, Independant.

moral

I have a HUGE problem with this word and phrase. Having "morals" is way too subjective. I am a supporter of choice not because I am immoral or because I like the idea of terminating pregnancies, I am pro choice because I dont think its up to others to decide whats "moral" for me or others. No one can dictate whats moral and not.

I also want to point out that "liberating" Iraq wasnt for the people of Iraq in case no one has figured that out yet. He tricked the poeple into thinking that Saddam was connected to 911, took the oportune time after 911 when people wanted to see somone "pay" for all the hurt that we were all feeling. Obviously was mistaken about the WPD and ruined Colin Powells carreer over that one. The deception over Iraq should be enough for people to be angered.

If it was truly about Sadamn being a tyrant (which of course he was) why in the hell arent we demanding action in Darfur where millions of people are being torured, suppressed, raped and murdered by their own govenrment?

One answer...bcause they dont have anything we want...

Shameless really...

[faybie 0]

Rich is only a word.

I completely agree with this. When I meet my retirement goals, I may have the amount of money that puts me in a higher category for that moment, however my goals are so that I can live without financial worry and similar to how I live now when I am retired, not so that I can live lavishly.

When I reflect on what you say about the "wealthy" feeling that they think they have the right to rule men, its an interesting subject because goverment has very little impact on their buying or purchasing power, maybe the SEC to some extent.

Whether we like it or not, wealthy people will (unfortunately) always have power no matter which political party is in the majority. I saw Bill Gates and Warren Buffet mentioned. Two men who did not come from extremely wealthy backgrounds, I believe that is why they have the values that they do regarding their view on money and their heirs. I personally would not partake in a battle that I could never win, too stressful. I don't see what I could do as a Democrat or a Republican to change the "influence" of the wealthy. It is what it is.

I still after all of the rebuttals on my comments feel that the inheritance tax does not affect the "wealthy" (as we are no longer talking about "rich") as much as it does common middle class citizen living conservatively that has been diligently saving.

One answer...bcause they dont have anything we want...

Shameless really...

True. True. So very true. It is shameless.

However, one thought came to mind as I was posting my response. If gas went up to $50 a gallon because a majority of the worlds oil resources are in Iraq and we had no one in power there willing to negotiate, I would be directly affected. "What if" it cost more to travel to work than a person makes in salary........ that would be tragic for the common man. $50 a gallon of gas wouldn't really affect the wealthy as much as it would me. So yea, it's true, it's shamelss but the alternative is a harsh reality for the common man.

[Carlene 12]

But yet these same people are probably voting Republican in large part due to a belief that the Republican party is the more moral party that doesn't support abortion

Karik...

I struggle with this, too. I am a Catholic Democrat. I do not promote, march, protest, or otherwise support the cause of abortion on demand. Neither do I picket clinics that perform abortions. I do believe that life begins at conception. I am a mother. I know absolutely that unborn babies are simply human beings that have not yet seen the light of day.

On the other hand, I have never been unmarried and pregnant, or impregnated by rape or incest, or too poor to give a child a decent upbringing. I have never carried a child in my belly that I did not want. That I did not plan, yes....but I was never willing to do away with them.

I hate the idea of women using abortion as retroactive birth control. I hate the thought of unborn babies being thrown away like so much garbage because they were conceived at an inopportune moment in their mothers' lives. But I have to let those women make their own choices and deal with whatever consequences follow. I have to....because to do otherwise says that I think I am morally superior, that my way - my church - is the only "right" way, and that if you don't agree with me, you are going to hell. I do NOT believe that, and I HATE it when other people do that to me.

The Republican party is NOT "the more moral party". I think that's probably an oxymoron anyway....none of them have a particularly sterling record when it comes to morals. But traditionally - historically - the Democratic party has been the champion of the working man and middle class families. Republican legislation has always tended to favor big business and wealthy individuals. But it is no longer as simple as that. Now there have been all kinds of things other than economics stirred into the mix, like abortion and stem cell research. Phrases like "family values" get tossed around like they mean something. They do not - not coming from politicans, they don't. It's just another catch phrase, invented by professional spinners to grab as many votes as possible.

No one is likely to get everything they want from any political party - ever. You just have to search your own conscience and vote for the greater good, or sometimes the lesser evil. It's not a perfect system, but it beats just about anyone else's.

[KariK 0]

A lot of people who vote Republican truly believe it is the morally superior party. They think their moral influence is more important than any other issue. Thats why (in my oppinon) people whom it would be more financially advantageous to vote democratic vote republican.

We all have differant oppinions about differant moral issues. Im not saying what I feel is right. I think as Americans we all have the right to our own oppinions. Im just saying I feel like the Democratic and Republican parties as they are now are too polar in moralaity issues.

Maybe if there were choices more in middle ground, we could come together as a country.

For instance.. hypothetically speaking.. say you are a morally conservative Republican and a morally Conservative Democrat wins the election.. well at least you can find comfort in the fact that you can agree with your current representation on moral issues.

It just feels like its such an all or nothing situation right now. It just feels really polarized to me.

But I feel like as people and individuals we are more alike than we are differant. I know that I personally enjoy knowing people who are differant than myself, I like cultural and other diversity. If everyone thought just like me, well I'd be bored to tears.

[Carlene 12]

When I reflect on what you say about the "wealthy" feeling that they think they have the right to rule men, its an interesting subject because goverment has very little impact on their buying or purchasing power, maybe the SEC to some extent.

As Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis once said, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

[BJean 16]

Carlene: You gotta be careful about "studies". I'm sure you know that they can be skewed any way they want them, if the questions and parameters are carefully structured. For instance, they didn't just use the term salary to compare compensation between government and private sector jobs, they included "and benefits." Well for one thing, government workers accumulate vacation much more rapidly than in the private sector, generally speaking. But then, generally speaking is what is clouding the issue. I agree with some of the article (study?) but since we have walked in both private and government employee shoes (both my husband and I), the article you referred to does not seem completely straight forward in its' approach or outcome.

Concerning the issue of abortion, I am quite vocal and vehement about it. Once again, I am married to someone who is Catholic and probably believes just what comes down from the pulpit in the Catholic church. But for myself, I cannot understand why any woman would wish to allow outsiders (read Men - Pope - Priest - Preacher - Politician - Supreme Court Judge) to rule over the issues of her health and reproductive decisions. It shouldn't matter whether you want to have an abortion or care if anyone else does. You should not want anyone to be controlling a decision like that or any other completely personal issue, except you and whoever else you choose for support.

When are women all over the country going to learn from some of the atrocities that have happened and are still happening in certain countries in South Africa and elsewhere? What if men were told that they HAD to be sterilized if they impregnated a woman who desired an abortion? Now that would be a nice little control issue, wouldn't it?

Why do you honestly believe that the Catholic Church has taken this stance? I am less than respectful and very cynical about some of the men who have made the decisions for millions of Catholics throughout the ages. If their decisions weren't made to perpetuate the Church, but only for the well-being of their parishioners, I'll eat my hat.

The abortion discussion does not need to include when conception begins. That's irrelevant to the issue of whether a woman has a right to decide for herself what she will allow to happen to the core of her being. No other person should be able to tell anyone they must or must not have a medical procedure.

Now are we going to discuss euthanasia? Did I spel that rite?

[BJean 16]

P.S. Tired Old Man: I agree totally about the wealthy's ability to rule quietly from the shadows. It was an interesting thing to watch during the Reagan administration. And it was interesting to hear my parents and grandparents discuss it when they were my age. The very wealthy's ability to pit the working class majority voters against each other over "moral" questions, instead of about the political issues that affect them in the pocketbook, has worked very well for them over the years. When things start looking dicey for them, another scandalous "moral" delemma crops up and we all start arguing over it and labeling our beliefs "Democrat" or "Republican".