Citizens Against Government Waste
Paul Anderson
dollar bill would seem to be an easy way to save a boatload of money.
Citizens Against Government Waste have issued a "spending cut alert" on
the issue.
<http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-issues-spending-cut-5.ht
ml>
Paul
Beanie
"Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:paulranderson-25A...@news.charter.net...
While I agree that the elimination of the dollar bill is a good idea, the amount
of savings in terms of the overall budget is miniscule.
Currently the gubmint is pissing away a fortune minting dollar coins that
virtually no one wants or uses, minting pennies that wind up in a jar or the
gutter and coming up with stupid programs like the NP quarters and dumb ideas
like edge lettering.
oly
> "Paul Anderson" <paulrander...@charter.net> wrote in message
Both the French and the Mexicans and some other folks have always been
able to do "edge lettering" with very minimal problems, with many
examples dating back to at least the 18th Century.
Makes you wonder what the problem is here in the U.S.A.
oly
Bob-tx
"Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:paulranderson-25A...@news.charter.net...
Apparently site is down. Bob-tx
We're sorry - the page or function you tried to access could not be found on
our web site. We would appreciate it if you could take a moment to email us
at Memb...@cagw.org, including details of how you arrived at this page, so
that we can correct the problem.
Thank you for your help,
Citizens Against Government Waste
Return to Home Page
Bob-tx
"Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message news:ieg3fc$ad9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
AGREED, but we hear this about most things that are pointed out. Example:
'Earmarks are
only a miniscule amount of the deficit - go after Social security &
Medicare'. But if we
would eliminate even these small items, they will add up.
My name is Bob-tx, and I approve of this message.
>
>
Bremick
I've always agreed about the dollar coin-bill issue. We continue to mint
dollar coins at the same time as dollar bills. It seems obvious to me which
effort has been the greatest waste of our money, considering general public
usage. If the paper dollar were discontinued, that would be the ideal time
to mint dollar coins as replacements. Meanwhile the decision is to produce
both. The popular argument that dollar bills don't last long is testament
to their heavy usage. Most of the dollar coins already minted will likely
last forever, considering the extent of requirement for them and the
circulation they are subjected to. Any savings from discontinuing one bill
denomination while continuing to print fives, tens, twentys, fiftys, etc.
would be negligible as opposed to ceasing production of paper bills
altogether. The frequent claim that dollar coins are recyclable implies
that dollar bills are not. Also, paper is a totally renewable resource
while metals can only be mined or recycled.
Pennies, dollar coins, and fanciful quarters likely will continue to be
produced as long as we have a Congress made up of representatives from all
50 states. This inertia will be difficult to overcome.
Jud
l>
> > While I agree that the elimination of the dollar bill is a good idea, the
> > amount of savings in terms of the overall budget is miniscule.
> > Currently the gubmint is pissing away a fortune minting dollar coins that
> > virtually no one wants or uses, minting pennies that wind up in a jar or
> > the gutter and coming up with stupid programs like the NP quarters and
> > dumb ideas like edge lettering.
I am sure someone will correct me, but I believe it was Senator
J.William Fulbright who once said back in the 1950's "A million
dollars here, a million dollars there, and before too long, we are
talking about some REAL money".
Dave Allured
>
> "Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:paulranderson-25A...@news.charter.net...
> > In these days of concern over the government deficit, eliminating the
> > dollar bill would seem to be an easy way to save a boatload of money.
> >
> > Citizens Against Government Waste have issued a "spending cut alert" on
> > the issue.
> >
> > <http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-issues-spending-cut-5.ht
> > ml>
> >
> > Paul
>
> Apparently site is down. Bob-tx
No, the posted link was broken. Paul, see if you can fix your news
client settings. This link works:
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-issues-spending-cut-5.html
--Dave
gogu
news:4D0BCD...@nospom.com...
> Bob-tx wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:paulranderson-25A...@news.charter.net...
>> > In these days of concern over the government deficit, eliminating the
>> > dollar bill would seem to be an easy way to save a boatload of money.
>> >
>> > Citizens Against Government Waste have issued a "spending cut alert" on
>> > the issue.
>> >
>> > <http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-issues-spending-cut-5.ht
>> > ml>
>> >
>> > Paul
>>
>> Apparently site is down. Bob-tx
> No, the posted link was broken. Paul, see if you can fix your news
> client settings.
It was not broken, just the "ml" part went in the second line in the initial
posting!
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
Peter
It was Senator Everett Dirksen. I forget when, but I was watching him
say it on television. Whether he said it first, I don't know. The
Dirksen Center doesn't seem to be able to confirm this, even so.
http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere.htm
Jerry Dennis
> It was not broken, just the "ml" part went in the second line in the initial
> posting!
aka "broken." I noticed it and manually keyed in the missing
letters. Worked fine. For my own trime's worth, I support and use
dollar coins all the time. Still, politics with Crane Paper in
Massachusetts, I believe, is still a roadblock, even though Ted
Kennedy is no more.
Jerry
j-rod
I don't think the problem is that people do not want to use the dollar
coin.
Most people don't even know they exist.
JAM
j-rod
Social Security is not part of the deficit and not part of the federal
budget.
JAM
Richard L. Hall
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c95a1e4-7b59-436e...@o4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
*****
I think it was Senator Everett Dirkson from Illinois (1950-1969) who said "
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"
or a variation thereof
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/170.html.
However, the Dirksen Center says they can find no record of him saying that,
http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere.htm
If you go to the bottom of this, apparently some people remember him saying
it on "The Johnny Carson Show."
--
Richard
http://www.richlh.com
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
oly
> "Jud" <numismat...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
> - John Kenneth Galbraith -
It's nice to remember Illinois' U.S. Senator Dirksen (who died way
back in 1969) - we have a public statue in his honor here in
Springpatch on the Capitol grounds, and I personally know quite a few
people who are related to him by blood - but 50 billion dollars is a
"rounding error" in federal expenditure nowadays.
Hell, 500 billion is practically meaningless.
oly
----------------------------------
Now Mr. Hall, JKG was a professional bullshitter, but Gawd he could
write convincingly. Goddamn Canadian.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Comapred to that lying bastard JKG, please give me honest men like
Pierre Berton or Gordon Lightfoot anyday.
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
OMG, OMG. I looked up that "CBC's 100 Greatest Canadians" thingie,
and OMG OMG O-M-G there aren't six or eight persons on it who will be
remembered even a decade from now.
33 million people and a total "terrine de la merde".
But at least they mentioned Pierre Berton and Gordon Lightfoot in the
top fiddy.
What a sorry excuse for a nation-state.
oly
Bob-tx
"j-rod" <j-...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4D0C19A3...@nospam.net...
Sorry JAM, but SS is part of the deficit. There is no special SS account.
Many years ago, our elected officials decided to spend the SS money for
other purposes. SS payments now come directly out of the general fund of
the US Treasury. They are a large part of the deficit.
Bob-tx
Jerry Dennis
> "j-rod" <j-...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4D0C19A3...@nospam.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bob-tx wrote:
>
> >> "Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message
> >>news:ieg3fc$ad9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's put it this way. Social Security and Medicare weren't supposed
to be part of the deficit. It was to be funded entirely through FICA
(Federal Insurance Contribution Act). What a lie. Even though the
SSA denies it, many people (me included) believe FDR and company
instituted Social Security as a way to steal more tax money. At the
time, payments didn't begin until age 65. Men's average lifespan was
63 and women's 67. And part of the proof that anything the government
touches turns to diarrhea, consider Ida May Fuller. She is considered
the first recipient of monthly SS benefits. She worked for three
years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her
salary during those three years were a total of $24.75. Her initial
monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of
$22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#idamay
Jerry
If you give it freely, it's a "contribution."
If they take it by force or threat, it's "theft by extortion,"
unless the government does it, then it's "taxes."
Beanie
"Jerry Dennis" <JDen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3beb4c0e-1003-4df4...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Let's put it this way. Social Security and Medicare weren't supposed
to be part of the deficit. It was to be funded entirely through FICA
(Federal Insurance Contribution Act). What a lie. Even though the
SSA denies it, many people (me included) believe FDR and company
instituted Social Security as a way to steal more tax money. At the
time, payments didn't begin until age 65. Men's average lifespan was
63 and women's 67. And part of the proof that anything the government
touches turns to diarrhea, consider Ida May Fuller. She is considered
the first recipient of monthly SS benefits. She worked for three
years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her
salary during those three years were a total of $24.75. Her initial
monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of
$22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#idamay
Jerry
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, let's just kick the elderly to the curb and let them starve, thereby
reducing the surplus population, right Scrooge?
Peter
> Yeah, let's just kick the elderly to the curb and let them starve, thereby
> reducing the surplus population, right Scrooge?
Your response seems to accuse the previous poster of being harsh and
also raise the seemingly obvious view that the elderly are surplus.
Clearly, the elderly have less of a future than the young and are more
of a burden since they are at an age where they will soon rapidly
increase their need for medical services (around 90% of you lifetiime
expense is in the last year of your life, on average). Coming out
forthrightly in favor of bearing all of the support old folks need
certainly warms my heart and I would like to know how to enlist your
support if my resources should fail.
There is an idea that one should save for retirement. Perhaps, but
all of the seemingly sound arguments usually avoid demographics. The
government is little better at overcoming problems induced by a
demographic shift than are individuals. Some individuals are smart
enough to invest their money in populations that are growing and are
better able to provide for a retirement. The US seems baffled by the
idea.
Having a secure retirement when you don't have any money to save is a
more difficult problem.
The recent attempts to treat such problems have simply tried to create
more money. It works OK for very minor perturbations of the economic
system. Taken to the extremes that we seem to be approaching it may
have the possibility of aiming to help everyone, but instead depriving
everyone.
j-rod
Ya, maybe we should have thrown her into the street to die so the rest
of us could have more.
JAM
Bremick
"Peter" <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b439b82-350c-4c0f...@o4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 18, 7:57 pm, "Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote:
> Yeah, let's just kick the elderly to the curb and let them starve, thereby
> reducing the surplus population, right Scrooge?
Your response seems to accuse the previous poster of being harsh and
also raise the seemingly obvious view that the elderly are surplus.
<< Yeah, folks please lay off us "surplus" elders who actually remember
spending Unc Mercuries and WL halves.
Clearly, the elderly have less of a future than the young and are more
of a burden since they are at an age where they will soon rapidly
increase their need for medical services (around 90% of you lifetiime
expense is in the last year of your life, on average). Coming out
forthrightly in favor of bearing all of the support old folks need
certainly warms my heart and I would like to know how to enlist your
support if my resources should fail.
<< It took me 70 years to become a burden, although my dear late mother
might want to expand on that. I'd like to think my existance matters <<more
than simply being looked upon as a "burden". It must be the American
society. Many other cultures revere their elders. Personally, I <<have
started to look at young people as more of a burden.
There is an idea that one should save for retirement. Perhaps, but
all of the seemingly sound arguments usually avoid demographics. The
government is little better at overcoming problems induced by a
demographic shift than are individuals. Some individuals are smart
enough to invest their money in populations that are growing and are
better able to provide for a retirement. The US seems baffled by the
idea.
<< Actually in most socialist countries, they have come to expect cradle to
grave govt support and subsidies, lately without having to pay to <<keep it
going.
Having a secure retirement when you don't have any money to save is a
more difficult problem.
<< That's where wasted school days often come into play.
Jerry Dennis
What did the elderly do BEFORE Uncle Sugar decided he could take care
of the elderly better than families? Truth is, people were forced to
take care of themselves by standing on their own two feet and plan.
It's the mindset that Social Security will be there when most retire
that allows people to spend, spend, spend without a care for the
future. If SS didn't exist, people would be forced to plan for their
own retirement or work until they dropped dead.
Jerry
Social Security is NOT an entitlement; you paid for it all your
working life.
Jerry Dennis
>
> - Show quoted text -
See my reply to Beanie. Same thing applies.
Jerry
Bremick
____________
So you're suggesting we should return to those conditions? Do you really
believe that children today would automatically expect to take in and
support their aged parents like they did generations ago when the average
retired worker may have had a meager pension or nothing at all?
You're fortunate you're apparently so well off.
Beanie
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, let's just kick the elderly to the curb and let them starve, thereby
> reducing the surplus population, right Scrooge?
What did the elderly do BEFORE Uncle Sugar decided he could take care
of the elderly better than families? Truth is, people were forced to
take care of themselves by standing on their own two feet and plan.
It's the mindset that Social Security will be there when most retire
that allows people to spend, spend, spend without a care for the
future. If SS didn't exist, people would be forced to plan for their
own retirement or work until they dropped dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My my my but you're a heartless SOB, aren't you?
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem with Social Security is that individuals and their
employers didn't pay enough, in any accurate actuarial life expectancy-
based sense. Also, the Roosevelt administration started paying people
from the inception of SS despite no funding - the expenditures were
not a lot of money back then, but still got the system off to an
unsound start (Roosevelt was apparently scared to death of Huey Long
and two other political gentleman who whipped up the retirement scheme
idea).
Also, the survivors benefits and diability stuff are very expensive.
I had a friend who died in 1993 at age 32 or 33 with two very small
children. I'm terribly glad they got paid those benefits, but one of
those kids is still getting paid - and there's no way my friend ever
paid in even 20% of what SS has subsequently paid out. Finally, as
somebody has pointed out, the Feds simply spend any excess SS
contributions on present every day governmental operating expenses.
I'm not even certain that you could "invest" these vast funds in the
sense that an individual might "invest".
My paternal Great-grandpa Olson (born 1870) had ten children, farmed
and did really well during WWI and never had SS - lived to the year
1964. He simply didn't live very high and only about half of his
children ever married - they kindly took good care of him in his very
old age.
My paternal Grandfather (born 1902) finally joined SS about 1964 -
farmers had never been required to be in the system until LBJ
established a firm date when they were required to join. Farmers of a
certain age had to choose to get in or stay out forever. My Grandpa
got in, paid for about four years and then drew on the system until
1989. Thank goodness he joined, the inflation after 1970 would have
totally swamped his limited financial resources.
"Truth in Labeling" - For the first three or four or five years, your
Social Security "Check" should read "Social Security". The first
couple of years checks soon equal what you and your employer
contributed, plus any realistic accrued interest. After that, the
"Check" really should be entitled "Senior Citizens Welfare".
Truth in Labeling regard SS MIGHT cut down on some of the senior
bitching. These kids under 30 right now are going to get screwed
royally, big time, before all the slight-of-hand related to our
Federal and State finances is said and down.
I believe that I've said almost all of that on this forum before!
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Post should read "said and done"; but "said and down" isn't
inaccurate...
oly
Bremick
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:345e792d-1aa3-4a58...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
_______________________
You've got to admit though that today there are a lot more investment
vehicles, venues, and information for little people than say 50 years ago.
Those kids under 30 should know well that any future SS payments they might
receive will be mere gravy in addition to whatever they organize on their
own as their main source of retirement income. Today, most middle agers I
know who don't expect a pension own at least some stocks, bonds, mutual
funds, etc., and many know how to buy and sell securities themselves. Poor
mom and dad were ignorant about that stuff, unless some friend of a friend
tried to sell them some can't-miss oil well or uranium stocks.
Peter
> My my my but you're a heartless SOB, aren't you?
Perhaps he is, but consider that on a global scale he is not unusual.
China has been cited for many things. One popular aphorism is that
they are prodigious savers. One reason why is that their employers do
not commonly pay for health insurance or retirement. So, saving is
their solution to the problem of caring for the elderly.
Our government is vexed by this saving because one of the related
aspects is that the Chinese have pegged their currency to the US
dollar. This prevents the Fed's policies from reducing the value of
the US dollar. Reducing the value of the US dollar seems to be their
secret (if perhaps ill considered) plan to allow the US to resume
exporting.
It appears to me that the Chinese policy together with the Fed's
approach may prevent, in the longer term, either country from
adequately caring for the elderly (in the US the elderly will have
pensions that don't buy anything and in China, the elderly will have
savings that don't buy anything).
If I thought the US government was expert at managing
intergenerational transfers of wealth, then having them manage social
security would seem like a plausible idea. When, instead, it appears
that sometimes their approach to accounting is as good as "pay-as-you-
go" and other times it is worse, it is hard to imagine that Social
Security can ever be sound. It only can look plausible if you assume
that demographics does not matter. Unfortunately, demographics is
potentially the most important issue.
oly
I remember back in the late 1980s when everybody everybody everybody
thought the mantle of international leadership and success would
quickly pass from the U.S.A. to Japan. Everybody was 100% certain of
it.
My best guess is that the future leadership and all success doesn't
lie with China either. I can't believe they won't have a civil war of
some kind - the top-down domination communist party isn't likely to
remain tolerable forever and the distribution of wealth and income in
China doesn't bode well for avoiding civil unrest.
A gentleman named Hugo Salinas, a Mexican who advocates the use of
silver as currency, recently wrote a neat internet article about how
the Chinese government could realistically buy a more secure future if
the minted a 1/10 ounce troy silver coin and offered it to all Chinese
people as a savings vehicle.
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: The name is Hugo Salinas-Price; not to be confused with
former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
oly
Jud
> A gentleman named Hugo Salinas, a Mexican who advocates the use of
> silver as currency, recently wrote a neat internet article about how
> the Chinese government could realistically buy a more secure future if
> the minted a 1/10 ounce troy silver coin and offered it to all Chinese
> people as a savings vehicle.
>
> oly
A Mexican Bernard Von Nothaus!
oly
No, Senor Salinas Price is a rich and successful retired businessman.
oly
j-rod
The Chinese will make the Japanese look like a bunch of amateurs.
We have shipped our jobs and our wealth to China.
There has never been a great nation built on a service economy.
JAM
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, but I won't place my bets on the Chinese.
A "command and control" political system, a bastardized gambling-based
financial system and an unfair factory system don't make China the
same as Great Britain in 1815 or the U.S.A. in 1870. Taking 800
million Chinese people into the modern world today is a lot more
difficult than taking the 20 or 30 million British or 70 million
Americans into the modern world was way back when.
"There has never been a great nation built on a service economy" is so
incredibly trite, and it obviously ignores that America is already a
great nation. America's problem is a stabilzation and maintenance
problem, not a "building" problem.
oly
Peter
> "There has never been a great nation built on a service economy" is so
> incredibly trite, and it obviously ignores that America is already a
> great nation. America's problem is a stabilzation and maintenance
> problem, not a "building" problem.
>
> oly-
I can only partially agree. The issues of leadership and vision are a
current problem for the US.
I see all of the problems you mention for the Chinese and wonder about
India or Brazil in the longer term. Even so, I don't see clarity in
their vision, either.