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.
Now if he froze govt hiring..that would be newsworthy..just spreading the wealth around..better to hire more govt workers than to not..they are still making more than they should..how about cutting congress pay??
Exactly. I say we decrease politicians pay also
We get less taxes and able to keep more of our money.
I say they earn min wage and only get a raise when we have a balanced budget
Heck lets go a step further. Does John Kerry really need his salary? Does John McCain? How about they work for a dollar a year. It is after all service to the country is it not
He can say that puppies are adorable and they'd be up in arms over it.
since stevie apparently couldn't answer, maybe you can.
who have you seen in this thread that is 'up in arms' over this decision? or are you both just pre-programmed to wail about 'bashing' to the point that it doesn't even need to exist for the wailing to commence?
since stevie apparently couldn't answer, maybe you can.
who have you seen in this thread that is 'up in arms' over this decision? or are you both just pre-programmed to wail about 'bashing' to the point that it doesn't even need to exist for the wailing to commence?
The second response in this thread was a typical "pre-programmed" response. Ironically it goes directly against what you guys were celebrating a couple of weeks ago when the GOP proposed making another cut that probably would have amounted to the same % of reduction. That alone makes it even more partisan and as usual...ridiculous. But the GOP is good with that. Anything that they originally were in favor of, is bad once Obama suggests it. Fortunate for the Republicans their base all seem to have amnesia so flip flopping isn't really anything more than business as usual.
I never thought this was necessary. I would rather see retiring and quitting employees not replaced to downsize the government and eliminating some agencies. I would think if salaries are going to be frozen for two years some feds may retire earlier than planned because they can't bump up their high three with the freeze. Again, just don't replace them.
The freeze doesn't apply to military personnel, but applies to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense
A great 1st step would have been not freeze it before you hand out a raise. Instead of handing out a raise and then freezing it to the higher level you increased it.
Like I said, I agreed with the spending increase to avoid a depression. If that took the form of more money in government worker's pockets, I say great.
There was an increase in government worker pay under Obama, but even your article points out it was the smallest increase since 1975. Are (or were) you equally as condemning (or even more so since they did it to a larger degree) of presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. for this practice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
No I dont believe every single economist in the country agreed. That would be a miracle if they did.
I never claimed "every single economist". The fact is that a vast majority of economists agreed that the best way to avoid a depression and to come out of the Great Recession was temporary tax cuts coupled with temporary increased spending. That was the overwhelming consensus. Obama did it, and it worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
How about he freeze the level of spending to the level before he increased it? Its rather pointless to say increase spending 25% and then brag about cutting it 5% and that is what Obama is doing
I already said I'd be on board with that. I have no problem if he cut pay to offset the 1.5 or 2% increase under his watch. I'd even be okay with deeper cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
We agree on the decrease in pay and number of federal employees. I would step that up to politicians in dc working less and earning less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
We need a gov that is efficient and learns to live within its means.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. I'm 100% behind fiscal prudence. A complete lack of it was one of the main reasons I was so critical of the Bush Jr. administration.
"The freeze would not apply to military personnel,..."
And why the heck not?! We'll make everyone tighten belts as we should have long time ago, but make sure our sacred cows are fat and happy?
you can't be serious?? Do you have any clue how much our military men and women make? I am not talking about Gen or Admirals or even a step below. I am talking enlisted personel and the lowest of the officer ranks? Never should their salaries be frozen. The congress yes, maybe all other federal employees as well, but certainly not our military.
so governmet workers who are already underpaid (yes they are, I said workers, not executives..a gs9 only makes about 52k, and has a lot of responsibility) get pay freezes.....will congress..bet they dont
The federal government is top-heavy. It's the headquarters offices that bringing up the average. The people in the field offices don't make nearly as much.
Not all govt workers live high on the hog. I make 50% less than I did working in the private sector. It also costs more for my medical coverage alone than it did for my medical, dental, and vision combined in the private sector. Plus, my cost of living has not decreased, and my work responsiblities and load are much more than they were in the private sector. So lumping all federal workers as a bunch of good-for-nothing moochers isn't really accurate. There are some who are, believe me, but many are not.
Freezing pay increases does nothing if the govt continues to spend as it does. How about we ALSO:
Freeze Congressional salaries and raises for the next 3 years?
i don't know what you do for the government but I find what you are saying a little hard to believe. I come from a family of civil servants, from city all the way to federal. Never did they pay more for medical coverage and their salaries were not 50% less than private industry. In some cases they may have been below private industry but nowhere near what you are saying.
Like I said, I agreed with the spending increase to avoid a depression. If that took the form of more money in government worker's pockets, I say great.
There was an increase in government worker pay under Obama, but even your article points out it was the smallest increase since 1975. Are (or were) you equally as condemning (or even more so since they did it to a larger degree) of presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. for this practice?
I never claimed "every single economist". The fact is that a vast majority of economists agreed that the best way to avoid a depression and to come out of the Great Recession was temporary tax cuts coupled with temporary increased spending. That was the overwhelming consensus. Obama did it, and it worked.
I already said I'd be on board with that. I have no problem if he cut pay to offset the 1.5 or 2% increase under his watch. I'd even be okay with deeper cuts.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. I'm 100% behind fiscal prudence. A complete lack of it was one of the main reasons I was so critical of the Bush Jr. administration.
Can you prove without a doubt that without the increase we would have been in a depression?
I dont care if it was the smallest. The point is there was an increase. A penny is to much. We are about to be over 14 trillion in debt and who knows how much more we are in debt. Audit the fed and lets find out.
He isnt really cutting anything if he is only cutting it back to the level he increased it. A cut would be to cut it more then the level he increased it.
So you were against Bush because he was not fiscally responsible yet you support Obama not being fiscally responsible?
The second response in this thread was a typical "pre-programmed" response. Ironically it goes directly against what you guys were celebrating a couple of weeks ago when the GOP proposed making another cut that probably would have amounted to the same % of reduction. That alone makes it even more partisan and as usual...ridiculous. But the GOP is good with that. Anything that they originally were in favor of, is bad once Obama suggests it. Fortunate for the Republicans their base all seem to have amnesia so flip flopping isn't really anything more than business as usual.
i thought you said they were 'up in arms' about it. now, apparently, one person not being sufficiently enthusiastic equals 'bashing' and 'up in arms'? there were a number of right-leaners who said it was a good thing - did you miss those?
now you're claiming that republicans are saying this is 'bad.' link please.
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.
