The Postal Reform Act Of 2022

[vantexan]

One of the major network news outlets did a thorough investigation of the matter and the numbers they quoted came directly from the federal Bureau of Corrections .And they interviewed a number of current and recently quit corrections officers. Two most common complaints....Low pay ($45,000) a year, mandatory overtime due to staffing shortages and increased threat to personal safety due to insufficient and often below minimum staffing requirements per cell block.
Main reasons given.....budget constraint driven hiring freezes...And given that you personally haven't paid in a dime in years and years yet you have the audacity to cry about minimal sentences , early releases and minimal bail.
And yet you holler for tax cuts for those who dutifully pay in every week or every quarter....Fine, but by law the reduced revenues have to be made up with cuts some place else....The Bureau of Corrections happens to be one of those places.

Except as has been borne out again and again the tax cuts result in increased revenue to the government due to the increased economic activity that happens when people can keep more of what they earn. However people like you say oh look, there's more revenue, let's find new ways to spend it. The few years I haven't paid taxes were more than offset by the stimulus checks I didn't get. Meanwhile letting hardened criminals walk the streets has resulted in more crime, more victims, and increased costs. Seems the Democratic leadership would offset that by spending more on salaries and manpower but they care more about the criminals than the victims.

 

[vantexan]

Accept high taxes? Of course not! Cut spending! They had every branch of the government with Trump as president and they did the very easy tax cuts and faded away while pointing fingers at democrats trying to blame them for not cutting spending. It’s insane.

When have Democrats ever been in favor of cutting spending?

 

[AKCoverMan]

I mean I thought we were talking about the Post Office here?

 

[vantexan]

I support the elimination or privatization of social security. I would sacrifice what I've paid in already for that.

I do not support the idea that someone deserves to not have to work after age 65 just for the accomplishment of not dying.

That's a young man's argument. When your body weakens and starts failing you'll understand the necessity of having Social Security.

 

[bbsam]

When have Democrats ever been in favor of cutting spending?

Exactly. They haven’t. So why should republicans expect them to?

 

[vantexan]

@DriveInDriveOut
@Cactus

Both of you disagree. Do you disagree simply because it will take away from a benefit that you now or soon will receive?

Or is it that Social Security is a promise made to citizens and we’ve never promised younger generations that we’d actually be fiscally responsible? They have no right to complain about the enormous debt they’ve been saddled with?

I’m actually very curious about how that thinking goes.

Social Security is a self funded program which we paid into, not a promise. I remember when you were saying it should be eliminated all together because some wouldn't get as much as others. So if a person chooses to not work but receive government welfare and ends up with a minimal SS check it's unfair? Keep in mind that those getting better SS payments spent their entire working lives paying the taxes that helped pay for welfare and other government programs. To say that's unfair is really biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[vantexan]

Exactly. They haven’t. So why should republicans expect them to?

Because we've spent ourselves into a corner that will take a good deal of pain to get ourselves out of.

 

[bbsam]

Because we've spent ourselves into a corner that will take a good deal of pain to get ourselves out of.

Follow along.

Republicans like to cut taxes.

Republicans like to spend (even if they say they don’t).

Democrats like to raise taxes.

Democrats like to spend and have no problem saying it.

Can we agree to these simple, historical generalizations.

 

[vantexan]

Follow along.

Republicans like to cut taxes.

Republicans like to spend (even if they say they don’t).

Democrats like to raise taxes.

Democrats like to spend and have no problem saying it.

Can we agree to these simple, historical generalizations.

I don't recall Reagan being a big spender. Newt Gingrich and those Congressional Republicans got the budget balanced. George W. Bush spent a lot. When Trump wanted to spend a lot on the military over 100 Republican Congressmen opposed it. So much so Trump turned to Democrats to get that budget passed. I think it's fair to say some Republicans are willing to spend, some aren't. But at this point they better start trimming the size of government substantially and if the Dollar collapses they won't have a choice.

 

[AKCoverMan]

Gentlemen..

The issue should be less about assigning blame for mistakes in past and more about what is best moving forward, no?

 

[bbsam]

I don't recall Reagan being a big spender. Newt Gingrich and those Congressional Republicans got the budget balanced. George W. Bush spent a lot. When Trump wanted to spend a lot on the military over 100 Republican Congressmen opposed it. So much so Trump turned to Democrats to get that budget passed. I think it's fair to say some Republicans are willing to spend, some aren't. But at this point they better start trimming the size of government substantially and if the Dollar collapses they won't have a choice.

All political math. It’s jus like the senate votes on “repeal and replace”. As soon as they had the votes, they made sure they didn’t have the votes.

 

[bbsam]

I don't recall Reagan being a big spender. Newt Gingrich and those Congressional Republicans got the budget balanced. George W. Bush spent a lot. When Trump wanted to spend a lot on the military over 100 Republican Congressmen opposed it. So much so Trump turned to Democrats to get that budget passed. I think it's fair to say some Republicans are willing to spend, some aren't. But at this point they better start trimming the size of government substantially and if the Dollar collapses they won't have a choice.

 

[vantexan]

View attachment 373568

Democrat Congress. And remember it's the House of Representatives that controls the money, not the President.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

One of the major network news outlets did a thorough investigation of the matter and the numbers they quoted came directly from the federal Bureau of Corrections .And they interviewed a number of current and recently quit corrections officers. Two most common complaints....Low pay ($45,000) a year, mandatory overtime due to staffing shortages and increased threat to personal safety due to insufficient and often below minimum staffing requirements per cell block.
Main reasons given.....budget constraint driven hiring freezes...And given that you personally haven't paid in a dime in years and years yet you have the audacity to cry about minimal sentences , early releases and minimal bail.
And yet you holler for tax cuts for those who dutifully pay in every week or every quarter....Fine, but by law the reduced revenues have to be made up with cuts some place else....The Bureau of Corrections happens to be one of those places.

Hurr durr MSNBC says we need higher taxes.
Yawn.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

They had every branch of the government with Trump as president and they did the very easy tax cuts and faded away while pointing fingers at democrats trying to blame them for not cutting spending. It’s insane.

Revisionist history. No they didn't have every branch. Trump had the white house, and Republicans led by China Mitch are anti Trump. They were, and still are.

I don't vote for those people.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

That's a young man's argument. When your body weakens and starts failing you'll understand the necessity of having Social Security.

I don't have a problem with an old age social safety net. I have a problem with a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme.

If social security was a social safety net based on ability to work that would be a totally different discussion.

 

[vantexan]

I don't have a problem with an old age social safety net. I have a problem with a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme.

If social security was a social safety net based on ability to work that would be a totally different discussion.

Pretty much anyone at some point no longer has an ability to work. And most doing physical jobs crap out before their 70's.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Pretty much anyone at some point no longer has an ability to work. And most doing physical jobs crap out before their 70's.

Yes. And like I said, I have no problem with an old age social safety net to keep people above the poverty line.

That is not what social security is.

 

[vantexan]

Yes. And like I said, I have no problem with an old age social safety net to keep people above the poverty line.

That is not what social security is.

Everyone is contributing towards the day when they'll need that income. If you want to put a means test on it fine. If you want to force Congress not to touch that money great. Yes today's workers are paying for today's retirees. And most likely without a fix won't receive as much as today's retirees. That's the fault of the administrators, not the retirees.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Everyone is contributing towards the day when they'll need that income.

No, everyone is contributing towards the day when they will be entitled to that income regardless of need.

If you want to put a means test on it fine. If you want to force Congress not to touch that money great. Yes today's workers are paying for today's retirees. And most likely without a fix won't receive as much as today's retirees. That's the fault of the administrators, not the retirees.

That's what I'm saying.
I have no problem propping up past promises. But there should be a phase out to a more sustainable system for new contributors.