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.
clb10 has provided no factual proof that Federal workers have better pay and benefits than the equivalent private sector employee. The only person who has proviced facts addressing this issue was Newto CA and I must say his argument is compelling
When you pay someone it isn't "sour grapes" when they are lazy and entitled and overpaid and unnecessary and you speak up to defend the use of your money.
CBO: Highly Educated Feds Earn Less Than Those in Industry
Federal employees with professional or doctorate degrees earn about 23 percent less than those with the same degrees in the private sector, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office.
The report, released Monday, found that overall, federal employees are paid an average of 16 percent more in pay and benefits than their private sector counterparts. Federal employees with a high school diploma, for example, earned 21 percent more than private sector employees with similar education levels, while federal workers with a bachelors degree earned about the same as those in the private sector. Federal workers in those two groups also enjoyed better benefits than those in the private sector, with benefits 72 percent higher for federal employees with a high school diploma and 46 percent higher for federal employees with a bachelor's degree.
But federal workers with professional, masters or doctorate-level degrees earned an average of about 23 percent less than their private sector counterparts, the study found. Average benefits for professional and doctorate-level employees were about the same in the two sectors.
CBO's study also noted that studies of federal pay like one by the American Enterprise Institute, which claimed that federal workers earn 61 percent more in pay, benefits and extra job security than their private counterparts, "overstates the differences between the cost of employing federal workers and similar private sector workers because the dispersion of wages (the range from low to high wages) differs between those two groups."
Defenders of government waste never factor for the unemployment rate of feds over the last 6 years vs. Americans over the last 6 years.
That is what percentage of federal bureaucrats were RIF'd vs. the percentage of Americans who were permanently laid off over the last 6 years.
Can't speak directly about the specific numbers of Federal workers laid off, but you DO know don't you that the government cuts have mostly hit the States harder the Federal goverment. This is because the States are very dependent on the US goverment for funding. The really ironic thing is that many of those Red States - the ones where folks are most likely to demand Federal government cuts - are the very States most dependent on Federal dollars (Alaska for example is essentially a "Socialist" economy, with the Federal government being the States' largest employer and Federal dollars indirectly providing jobs for even more). Right now, the percentage of workers in the public sector is the lowest in been in at least 30 years.
Because the States are so dependent upon Federal dollars most of these cuts have been at the State level and the biggest single group affected by these layoffs have been teachers (heck, who needs educated kids anyway? If American companies want educated workers they'll send those jobs overseas or import the workers they need ) followed by policemen (heck, who needs cops anyway? If all Americans had their own guns they'd just protect themselves anyway ).
Can't speak directly about the specific numbers of Federal workers laid off, but you DO know don't you that the government cuts have mostly hit the States harder the Federal goverment. This is because the States are very dependent on the US goverment for funding. The really ironic thing is that many of those Red States - the ones where folks are most likely to demand Federal government cuts - are the very States most dependent on Federal dollars (Alaska for example is essentially a "Socialist" economy, with the Federal government being the States' largest employer and Federal dollars indirectly providing jobs for even more). Right now, the percentage of workers in the public sector is the lowest in been in at least 30 years.
Because the States are so dependent upon Federal dollars most of these cuts have been at the State level and the biggest single group affected by these layoffs have been teachers (heck, who needs educated kids anyway? If American companies want educated workers they'll send those jobs overseas or import the workers they need ) followed by policemen (heck, who needs cops anyway? If all Americans had their own guns they'd just protect themselves anyway ).
Why is it only conservatives that realize that the goal is to make states LESS dependent on the federal succubus?
Maintaining the "heroin addict/ heroin dealer" relationship between the states and Washington, D.C. may be central to the growth of the democrat party but it is killing our nation.
At least you admit that a class of Americans should be protected from economic reality at the expense of regular Americans.
Notice what's going on. The upper-class, that actually is insulated from economic reality at the expense of regular Americans, is trying to divide middle-class private sector workers and middle-class public sector workers.
When the middle-class is divided, the ruling class gets its way while the middle-class fights among itself.
Private sector workers live among side public sector workers and send their children to the same schools. They should both be working together to recover the lost benefits and pensions that were once commonplace in America. Instead, we now have a race to the bottom. Instead of private sector workers demanding better benefits they instead demand that public sector workers be stripped of theirs. All this does is benefit the corporate owners.
Why is it only conservatives that realize that the goal is to make states LESS dependent on the federal succubus?
Maintaining the "heroin addict/ heroin dealer" relationship between the states and Washington, D.C. may be central to the growth of the democrat party but it is killing our nation.
This has to change.
If that's SO, then why is that so many of the RED States are the MOST dependent on government spending?
It seems to me it's a classic case of "do what I say, not what I DO".
It sure doesn't lend much crediblity to the GOPs arguments.
Ken
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.
) followed by policemen (heck, who needs cops anyway? If all Americans had their own guns they'd just protect themselves anyway 
