Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ahh ... you might want to go back and read the OP - the quote from the Washington Post article does indeed include the firing of some federal workers.
Off topic - this is about a specific set of actions proposed by the GOP (and not for the first time). There's plenty on-topic to discuss without going off on tangents.
you can't cherry pick certain parts of a story just to prove a point. Look at what happened to the black agriculture woman (Sherrod?) a few months back? They showed a portion of a video, and Obama's staff forced her to resign without knowing all the facts.
You must look at the big picture
1. GOP wants to cut gov't spending
2. Libs want to raise taxes, and "spread the wealth"
you can't cherry pick certain parts of a story just to prove a point. Look at what happened to the black agriculture woman (Sherrod?) a few months back? They showed a portion of a video, and Obama's staff forced her to resign without knowing all the facts.
You must look at the big picture
1. GOP wants to cut gov't spending
2. Libs want to raise taxes, and "spread the wealth"
Well, seems like more facts have come out since the intitial Sherrod backpeddling and that she may indeep have fraudulently collected money that was not hers. So, that may not be the best case to cite. Breitbart actually did open the door to further investigation of Shirley Sherrod.
Bascially if we want to lower the deficit that has gotten so huge just like the loacvl;state and privte sector the biggest cost labot has to be addressed. The federal payroll has grown and grown over the years;so of course if we are goig to cut the federal spending it will involve cutting employeees;just like the other have and are doing.
Yep, yep, let's increase unemployment. GREAT idea.
I'm sure a one party system would do wonders to shrink government.
We already have it. The party of Big Government: The Republicrats. Fund the liberal side favorites, then "negotiate" and fund all the right side favorites. Or vice versa, when Repubs swing back into power. Political Class wins, taxpayers lose. A bidding war with both sides using the confiscated wages of Americans.
The Libertarians are the only legitimate "alternative" political party, and I don't see the media giving any Libertarian candidates air time. I can't believe there aren't any out there, though there won't be any in the current corrupt government that lives by "making deals," trading votes for each others' pork.
The day I see a ballot with a choice between "more of the same" Big Government versus Very Limited Government and Much Lower Taxes, that's when we'll have a valid 2-Party system.
you can't cherry pick certain parts of a story just to prove a point.
Wrong again.
What I'm doing is staying on topic ... ya know, the topic of this thread? Hint: The topic of the thread is the article in the Washington Post about the size of the federal workforce and the salaries of federal workers.
To further refresh your memory, here's the post that I maintain is off-topic:
"Quite hilarious that the socialists here think the GOP is the ones that want the cheap labor, meanwhile back here on planet Earth, the Dems put Arizona in a pickle with this. The Feds say they will go after any company that hires illegals in Arizona, but they made it illegal to check citizenship at the time of hire! Who's actually playing games with the country? The DEMS!!!!"
See anything in this rant on Arizona, illegals, and citizenship - anything at all - that mentions the size of the federal workforce or the salaries of federal workers?
Well, seems like more facts have come out since the intitial Sherrod backpeddling and that she may indeep have fraudulently collected money that was not hers. So, that may not be the best case to cite. Breitbart actually did open the door to further investigation of Shirley Sherrod.
so what? Even if a fraudulent money case is true that doesn't change anything regarding the video and subsequent forced resignation.
If you want to get an idea of how big government is getting, take a look at the labor market in NYC.
In NYC alone 569,000 people work for government (Fed, state and local). I would guess that is a greater population than most cities in the USA.
This is in a workforce of about 3.7 million people. So, 15 out of every 100 people works for the government in some way or form.
Indeed many are necessary - But, there has to be room to cut "fat".
Many government workers are dedicated and hardworking people...But, there are many deadbeats.
Just look at what happened in Congress the other day..They had a clown entertaining them. And it wasted the time of not just the Congress people, but all of the support staff that you saw standing around watching, all the security people, all the maintenance people.... Just typical of government waste..
For those that want a link...go here and click on labor market statistics at bottom of page:
Iv'e come to realize you have one heck of a chip on your shoulder against companies. Why?
You blast gov't contractors. Have you ever been one?
I'll blast government contractors.
And your question is absolutely irrelevent to the topic.
I've seen deadbeat contractors where the government cannot do anything about them because they don't control contractors or contracts.
Private sector employment is from a "for profit" entity.
By nature, they're going to cost more to attain a profit margin.
The cost to the government for each contracted position is around 150% of a government employee. (This doesn't show until after the second year of a contract - historically).
Bush contracted out inherently governmental positions to Halliburton & subsidiaries. Then there were the mercinaries who kill in our name.
Positions were contracted out for Halliburton, Brown & Root, etc over the past 2-3 decades; 5 Rs in Congress pushed for the contracting. Gee, wonder whose pockets they were in.
Contracting out is a convenient way to tell Congress and the public that government is being downsized. They look at the FTE (Full time equivalent) numbers, not at the rising costs. Many of those costs based on contracted personnel.
I'll blast government contractors.
And your question is absolutely irrelevent to the topic.
I've seen deadbeat contractors where the government cannot do anything about them because they don't control contractors or contracts.
Private sector employment is from a "for profit" entity.
By nature, they're going to cost more to attain a profit margin.
The cost to the government for each contracted position is around 150% of a government employee. (This doesn't show until after the second year of a contract - historically).
Bush contracted out inherently governmental positions to Halliburton & subsidiaries. Then there were the mercinaries who kill in our name.
Positions were contracted out for Halliburton, Brown & Root, etc over the past 2-3 decades; 5 Rs in Congress pushed for the contracting. Gee, wonder whose pockets they were in.
Contracting out is a convenient way to tell Congress and the public that government is being downsized. They look at the FTE (Full time equivalent) numbers, not at the rising costs. Many of those costs based on contracted personnel.
There's some truth to that. Now, I thought that contracts were supposed to be "temporary" ?
Yes, I'm with you, lets cut the unnecessary contracts and/or unnecessary federal workforce.
How about some links, I mean, your opinion is important, but it doesn't equal facts.
How is 34 years on the job and a friend doing the personnel contract work?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a statistic to think about
