To people like you "middle class" means unions. While there are 160 MILLION middle class people in this nation that have to pay the wages, pensions, health benefits, and everything else of a "public employee", less than 10% of them are union. The rest are actually HARD WORKING Americans that have to shoulder the burden that people like you actually support.

And they are SICK of paying for this garbage.

And by the way, why don't you print some FACTS instead just throwing out hate filled rants about people that you don't agree with politically?

Middle class means middle class, don't try to twist my meaning. So you support Radical Candidates that strip Unions of their right to negotiate. The sleeping giant is alive and well, screwing with labor was their first huge mistake. You don't believe me, ask Scott Walker.

Speaking of hate fille rants, have you read your own posts CherylLM? By the way, what evidence do you have that federal workers aren't HARD WORKING "REAL" tax-paying Americans?

Government jobs are JOBS, people. And the GOP wants to reduce the number of jobs in this country?

And before all you Ayn Rand fanatics start spouting about how government jobs aren't jobs, tell me this - what's the difference between a government worker who processes Medicare claims and a private insurance company worker who processes Medigap claims?

Answer: A whole lot of corporate profit and a fat CEO paycheck.

Cheryl: So speaking of hate filled rants...Where on earth did you get the idea that federal jobs are not real jobs and federal workers are not real people doing real jobs and paying real taxes?? Do you not understand "paying for this garbage" means you can do without the air traffic controllers, air marshalls, food inspectors, mining inspectors, the folks who work in the VA hospitals and who get the VA checks out, who monitor air and water quality, satellites, and defend this nation? When did working for the United States of America become a badge of dishonor --something you expect people to be ashamed of--Have you ever even heard the words "public service jobs"? Who died and appointed you the arbiter of what it takes to be a "hard working" American and who on earth told you your hate filled rant was a sign of patriotism? (hint: whoever it was, they were wrong.)

Federal workers pay taxes too. A job is a job.

Sooooooooo, how many of you libs on here have a government job?

we don't need to stinking government jobs. We need private sector jobs, that is what will get this economy moving not government jobs.

We should be reducing the government AND those jobs to get the government out of the way and allow the private sector do what it does best, moving the economy

Yes, because we've all seen how well the Bush administration's policy of "getting government out of the way" has worked for everyone, right?

Will you people just stop? Libs did this. Republicans did that. Dems screwed that. Just stop with the attacks already and focus on solutions.

Perhaps instead of reducing headcount right away, they should target fraud, abuse and inefficiency first. Then after that has been done, analyze which jobs to cut first. This shouldn't be a party thing -- this should be an efficiency thing.

I'm all for greater efficiency and then cutting the dead wood, but remember these are people with families, homes, mortgages, etc. just like us. Some will get a another job and maybe even a better one.

I would suggest they cut the crap from the elected officials first and remove their loopholes (insider trading, etc.) and force them to work for the people rather than themselves. Maybe we should reduce their salaries and pay them for performance instead with laws that make positive impacts.

Get rid of any jobs means less money is spent buying merchandise, which means less demand for a product, which means less workers needed to make that product, which means higher unemployment.

you people cant read or are too stupid to comprehend. the word attrition, it means you do not hire replacements when people retire. it does not fire or lay off anyone. these people are retiring not getting fired. private industry has learned it can be more productive with less employees, abiout time the fed govt learns the same lesson. maybe then we can start to decrease our debt instead of blowing it out of sight every year.

James, the notion that govt workers pay taxes too, just like private sector workers, is an accounting fiction. Yeah, technically there is a piece of paper somewhere that says they paid $x in taxes, but they were given this money by the real taxpayers. If necessary, instead of referring to taxpayers/non-taxpayers, we could refer to tax-victims and tax-parasites. You can probably guess that I'm a tax-victim.

If hiring govt workers is good for the economy, I could use a job. How about economic consultant? While I don't consider myself qualified for the position, I could certainly do a better job than is being done now.... but then so could my dog. My dog would never make an unprovoked attack on another nation. Nor would she spend more money than we have.

People, we don't have any money. There's really not much more to this. If govt had cut back in times of plenty, perhaps we could consider raising govt spending now to stimulate the economy. But they didn't.... and they won't.... ever, at least until there is no other option.

Govt spending under Bush II was outrageous. yet somehow our economy tanked. If you're right about govt spending, that would not have happened. Govt spending now is beyond all reasonable limits, so your scheme of huge govt spending leading to a great economy is still on trial. So far, it's failing.

Survive.

The private sector will NOT make up for these lost jobs. As technology increases, less people are required to do the same job. Our population increases while the number of people required to perform a certain job decreases.

Private sector companies have been using technology to become more efficient and shed jobs. Music store jobs, all gone to iTunes and online streaming. All those jobs are gone forever. The newspaper industry where thousands of people were responsible for printed paper, now all gone in favor of online news. All those jobs are gone forever. Bookstores are dropping left and right as people move to eReaders. All those bookstore jobs are gone forever. Grocery stores are installing do-it-yourself checkouts in place of real people. All those jobs are gone forever. Video rental stores are disappearing as more people stream movies. All those jobs are gone forever. Line workers who build cars, those were replaced by robots a long time ago. All those jobs are gone forever. Remember travel agents, they were people who would help you plan and book a vacation. All those jobs are gone forever, replaced with online tools.

All those Republicans who believe that the private sector is our only saving grace are in for a rude awakening. They are not smart enough to realize that the private sector is becoming more efficient, by needing less and less people to do a job. Of course, it always easier to plug your ears, cover your eyes, and pretend it is not happening.

We should be targeting cuts to fraud and subsidies before jobs. But God forbid we touch all that corrupt money flowing through lobbyists.

The jobs will be cut through attrition....meaning, if someone quits you don't fill the position and eliminate it. Although this will be cutting a potential job, no one will be losing their job over this. We need to reduce the gubberments drain on our resources. This is a good thing for libs and repubs.

Although federal employees were not the cause of the financial crisis or our nation’s budget deficit, they are being asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of solving our fiscal problems. Federal employees are already struggling through a two-year pay freeze that will deprive them of $60 billion over the next ten years," said Democratic members of the oversight panel.

Actually they are part of the problem...because there are too many federal employees and benefits and pensions are costing this country dearly.

And boo hoo on the pay freeze...with benefits included 80% of federal jobs pay more then the private sector with benefits included which FAR outpace private sector benefits.

"By contrast, there were 14 percent more federal executive branch employees in September of 2011 than in September of 2007. There are now about 2.1 million of them."

How could the government justify hiring almost 2 million more Federal workers in a recession - especially when the average Federal civilian workers gets compensated more then twice as much as a private sector worker? Here's the link that shows the AVERAGE Federal worker get over $123,000 per year vs only about $61,000 for a private sector worker; Of course, the reason is obvious - studies show that government workers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and getting another 2 million voters (plus spouses) gives them a big advantage.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Govt spending under Bush II was outrageous. yet somehow our economy tanked. If you're right about govt spending, that would not have happened. Govt spending now is beyond all reasonable limits, so your scheme of huge govt spending leading to a great economy is still on trial. So far, it's failing.

Failing? Did it fail when government spending got us out of the Great Depression? Hoover cut spending to get us out of a recession and we see how well that worked out. When FDR thought we needed to slow spending during the depression it halted until spending was increased again. We don't need another mistake of 1937. As for Bush's increased spending, his came without top level tax increases. It was the increases on the wealthiest Americans that helped fuel the surplus left behind by the Clinton administration. Bush did increase spending but also increased the amount of money in the pockets of those that were least likely to pump it back into the economy.

And as for "Tax Parasites" I'm a government employee. I work for the Federal Government. I pay just as high a tax rate as the rest of those in my tax bracket. I work long hard hours and pay my taxes. I am a rarity where I work in that I am adequetly paid (not over-paid, adequetly compared to the private sector). Most of the Federal employees I work with, however, are over worked and way under-paid. I fail to see how giving them more work at their already low salaries is going to help keep the best and the brightest.

tell me this - what's the difference between a government worker who processes Medicare claims and a private insurance company worker who processes Medigap claims?

Duh!!! One our government borrows from China to pay and the other is paid by policy holders. How long do Libs really believe we can continue to borrow $.40 for every dollar our government spends each and every day and not end up like Greece? Talk about Blantant and Unbridled Greed. Your motto: Give to me now and to hell with our Grandchildren becoming slaves to their Chinese Debt Masters.

And boo hoo on the pay freeze...with benefits included 80% of federal jobs pay more then the private sector with benefits included which FAR outpace private sector benefits.

What kind of crappy, worthless job do you have? My private sector job pays WAAAAAY more than a public job. In fact, every person I know in the private sector has a higher salary and a better retirement than any public worker I have ever met.

Unless you are working at a pathetic, no-intelligence-necessary job, that any moron can do... like swinging a hammer... the private sector pays way more.

What is with all these uneducated people praising public jobs? Go to college and become a valuable human being, then you will see that public jobs are crap compared to the private sector.

TG - THERE WAS NO SURPLUS left behind by Clinton and a Repubs controlled congress.

If that was the case our overall debt would have went down. It didn't they borrowed from SS and other retirement plans and said they balanced the budget.

Kind of like in MN, they borrowed from the tobacco law suits and from schools and cheered they balanced the budget.

As for Government employees, I have no problem paying them whatever they can negotiate for today. What I have a problem with is paying for their retirement and then paying them after they are retired.

The federal government has become severely bloated. It takes 10 government employees to do the work that is done by 6 or 7 private sector people. There are many government employees whose only job is to review and put their name on work that is actually being done by contractors so that it can be claimed to be a government product. Much of the real work is actually being done by contractors with the government types only there to manage the contractors and drink coffee. I worked around the government my entire career and the level of productivity I saw from most government workers would have gotten them fired inside a week in the private sector. This is not to say that there are not some hard working government people, but on a whole the productivity level of the typical government worker is maybe 50-60% of the productivity of a private sector worker. It is time that government employees started really earning their paychecks.

The above posts show why it is IMPOSSIBLE for Washington to do the right thing - EVER. If you focus on fraud, abuse, redundancy, you will absolutely cut jobs. Attrition as explained by a few earlier, is just not hiring those that leave or retire. So that brings me to my example.

Some years ago, I got hired as an outside contractor for a city. So obviously they were busy right? NOPE. It was just that the public workers did not want to take on any task they felt they weren't assigned originally to do. So there was no money to hire a full-time public worker and thus they hired me to perform tasks nobody else wanted to do. I really liked the people a lot, loved the job, but I swear on my mother's grave that the workers did very little during the day. They moved at a snail's pace and basically dreamed up paperwork to look busy. Really, it would never matter anyway if they didn't look busy, because nobody was going to get fired nor any job eliminated.

Unbelievable. The middle class is an income number, bracketed at two sides. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who thinks differently is being lied to. Since prices continue to increase and wages (pure data, not spin) are stagnant, more people are dropping off the lower bracket. It's very simple math. Most people work hard, but I've been from poor to middle class, and what I've seen is the poor work harder and more hours. The middle class work hard, but do less disgusting jobs overall. I can't attest to what the 1% does, and 99% of us never will.

The oxymoron in this piece is "arguing which side has a better jobs plan." The republicans have no jobs plan. They have the same plan Reagan had when he came into office in 1980. He put it in place, and the recession became a slide. He then raised taxes (several times) and the recession went away.

Here are some common lies everyone should know about: trickle down economics, supply-side economics, raising taxes on the wealthy hurts job creation, illegal immigrants are voting, illegal immigrants take good American jobs, the stimulus failed, the current President didn't create any jobs, poor people caused the housing crash, redistributing wealth is bad.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Let's look at wealth redistribution. During the depression, the wealthy hoarded their money, and circulation stopped, much like putting all the body's blood into the big toe; the patient dies. Wealth redistribution is the basis of capitalism, and without it, the system dies. Take money from the rich, give it to the poor, and trickle-up economics will put it back in the hands of the rich. That keeps the country running.

Their may be one or two people on the entire newsvine that would lose any money. The rest of us gain it. If you believe otherwise, again, you're being lied to.

We want the economy to grow? Give the people that pump it up money to pump it up. Jobs, unemployment benefits, social security, medicare, whatever. It all get's spent to keep circulation of money going. Otherwise, we all lose. That includes every republican netting less that $1,000,000 a year. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the people that won't recirculate the money. They deserve the blame.

The military is $500 BILLION larger than it was in 1997. Idea:

Let's just take the budget back to 1997 spending levels and 1997 tax levels. The economy was in great shape, the middle class was well employed, government jobs were still considered honorable, we had half as many soldiers and about 80% fewer "government contractors" being paid $150k/yr to change tires, education was still considered importnat, the differential betwwen the richest and the poorest was half what it is now.....

Let's cut the military in half ($500 bill/yr), cut congressional salaries in half, require full disclosure for ALL political donations, stop all retirements for Congress and give them the same 401k's average office types have, have all elections allowed for only a 6 month season that INCLUDES the primaries and the convention and campaign funds are publicly provided, cap salaries in Washington at $120,000 for ALL employees, cancel all limosines for Congress ($5 billion/yr), cut all government subsidies and tax breaks to US businesses ($50billion/yr), close 300 US installations overseas ($50 billion/yr), reverse the Bush tax cuts for all Americans until we pay off the debt ($300 billion/yr), institute a price freeze on doctors, pay the same prices for medications they pay overseas ($10 billion/yr), close the Bush Dept of Homeland Security ($70 billion/yr), and levy a 5 cents per dollar non-food and non-energy sales tax.

Yes - we would have to pay more, but that is what people do when they have a big debt to pay off. They work more, spend less, and do that until they pay off the debt. Eisenhower did it and the economy took off like a rocket, we had a new highway system, better schools and infrastructure, and no debt. Don't let the John Birchers fool you - that setup was super for this country.

We don't have to disrespect government jobs, teachers or taxes to repair this mess. We ust need to expose the cynnical war mongers who finance the military, the prisons, the government contractors, the pentagon, the CIA and all the rest. Ron Paul talks about auditing the Federal Reserve - I'd like to see an audit of the MILITARY BUDGETS. It has never been done. Hmmmmmmm.

Let's cut the federal workforce (including the military and mercenaries military contractors) to 1997 levels AND lets go back to 1997 level taxes, including eliminating all of the loopholes tax preference items.

If we went back to spending under the last Clinton era budget, we'd have a surplus.

Dirp,

So are you supporting the architect of the Clinton Era Balanced Budgets for POTUS?

I'm not, but just wondering.

Dirp,

BTW, you do realize returning to higher across the board tax rates will be negative economically, don't you? Not to mention it will be a 50% rate hike on the lowest wage earners.

TG76

Our Government Spending did not bring us out of the Great Depression. There were two many other variables at play to credit government spending it's way out. The spending kept people from starving until demand picked up.

"the federal government itself has remained a reliable job creator for the past ten years"

"job creator" .... give us a break. Power hungry administrations bloating government simply for the on-paper "jobs increase" with a total disregard for the taxpayers who are stuck paying the salaries and benefits of this useless positions is a far cry from "job creation".

Of course we need to cut federal hiring... we also need to increase federal firing.

TG76 it was not government spending it was World War II that got us out of the Great Depression. That was the greatest private sector expansion in our history even if the Govt was initially paying the bill. The jobs were not public sector during World War II they were private and following the war while many of them disappeared there were enough left to prevent us going into a new depression. The reason was that being private jobs many of the employers found other avenues to make a profit and didn't need to shutter all the factories. Many were repurposed to civilian needs.

IndieParty

There Are No Jobs Being Cut by this Legislation. The reductions are due to attrition, i.e. people retiring or leaving for another job! No one is being put out of work! The government will just not be hiring to replace those leaving for a while. Learn to read an article fully and understand what is being said before commenting.

Oh, by the way, I don't know what type of super job you claim to have, but last time I checked, those swinging hammers paid higher than average wages. Also, next time you need repairs done to your car, home, plumbing, electricity, or heat I suggest you get a book, buy the tools and repair it yourself. The tradesman that I know wouldn't even talk to you over the phone for an insult like that.

Attrition so that we do more with less for longer. Let the government do more with less for longer until they're doing everything with nothing forever. Get real Boner! Eric, message for you, stop congress from insider trading on the stock market. Let that bill come to a vote so we don't allow any more congress men to break the SEC rules about insider trading!

TG76 if you check out your history you will find that the worst year of the Depression was 1937 and the economy did not return to the 1928 level until 1948. Government spending was worthless in trying to fix the economy.

Let's just have the government take over 100% of the jobs. Than the govt. can tax us at 100% and provide us with shelter and food. What more do we need?

Wouldn't that be a perfect world?!?

Just wanted to throw my opinion in on all this. First off, I am a federal employee/former business owner/current business partner. Second, we need smaller government. The size of our government is a problem as spending increases with size. We need to start letting federal workers go. Those close to retirement should take the early out, in the long run it saves money. From personal experience most employees that are within 4 years of retirement do what's called floating. It costs us money as typically they are high, or maxed, in their pay band. Replace those close to retirement with entry level feds.

As the federal work force ages we need to restructure operations. Agencies need to be consolidated into a single agency.. when the areas of operation are similar. The federal side and private side need better communication. A good example of this is with imports and exports. Different agencies inspect goods/produce, it is up to private industry to contact the correct federal agencies.. there can be a large number of agencies to contact, cracked eggs are inspected by one agency where whole eggs are inspected by another. Meat on one slice of bread is inspected by one agency where meat on two slices of beard is inspected by another. Confusion with agencies wastes time, which boils down to money.

The list goes on. We need cuts in spending, agency consolidation and a federal budget. We need someone with backbone to take the time and develop a critical path to reduce our spending. We need set milestones. We need true accountability and someone in charge that will chop the head(s) of agencies/people that do not perform. We don't have a leader with the backbone to chop heads and I don't see that backbone from any of the candidates that are running.

That's just my personal opinion and I don't see any of that happening any time soon.

Let's see, how much revenue does the Federal government, or any government for that matter, generate?

*crickets*

That's what I thought. NONE!

When will you indoctrinated, government loving, buffoons realize government does NOT create jobs!!!

Not productive jobs, revenue generating jobs, profitable jobs. Jobs that can be exported to four corners of the world to generate commerce which returns revenue to our Treasury to pay down our debt, and into the free-market that creates long-term jobs. Government is a burden on every single American's income, prosperity, wealth attainment and standard of living. The more government that is created, the more it costs to run it. The massive bureaucracy that government has created is fraught with waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. Yet many of you have been brainwashed that the government is a means of commerce.

It's NOT!!!!!

Government’s sole purpose is to perform the mandates demanded by the Enumerated Powers in our Constitution. Unfortunately, since the beginning of the century Progressivism has bastardized our perception of government and created the massive debt and economic collapse we are experiencing today. It has done this by expanding its realm of governance into entitlements, social programs and political corruption that consumes over 60% of our budget. This will NEVER improve our economy.

Endless feel-good social programs are created, 25% of which fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve, at a cost of $123 Billion dollars annually. The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts. Health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers between $125 billion and $250 billion annually. Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse. The list goes on and on exposing the incompetence of our government.

Yet the criminals we have running our government have a hard time agreeing that we need to curb Federal hiring AND dramatically reduce the size of our government.

More amazingly are all the mindless, useful idiots that prance around our great nation and demand that more spending is the solution to our soon to be $16.5 TRILLION Dollars in Debt government.

Where is the reform of our criminal progressive tax system we drastically need to eliminate the massive tax avoidance that only the individuals who have the means to employ the army of tax consultants, lawyers and advisors can afford?

Where is the corporate tax reform that will allow industries to return to our shores to create jobs that will allow many, especially those who are incapable of higher education, to still earn a living?

Where is the regulation reform that burdens businesses with $1.75 TRILLION Dollars of cost that could be used for expansion, R&D and job creation?

Where is the massive education reform we need to allow our children to be competitive in the new technologies and industries of the 21st century?

Where is our energy policy that will help us to capitalize on the TRILLIONS of dollars of resources we have in coal, oil, shale-oil, natural gas, shale-natural gas and nuclear that can help reduce our cost of industry and productivity and reduce our massive debts?

By Friday our criminally incompetent government will be requesting that the final $1.2 TRILLION Dollar increase in the debt ceiling negotiated in August be released. The first $900 Billion dollars has already been spent in 5 months. I can guarantee you the same cabal of deviants will be seeking another raise on the debt ceiling by the end of 2012. When will it end? When will our once envied economic engine start creating the revenue we need to become the proud America we are used to being?

These are the questions we should be asking, not whether we need more government.

"The private sector job market is doing just fine. Obviously, it is the public sector that needs help."

- Harry Reid Oct. 2011

I guess that's why the hobos are lined up three deep on the corner begging for change. Will somebody please replace the rest of the liberal losers in Congress that will not stop until we are Greece???

About time this went into effect. I would also love to see a cap on the number of Federal employees in all areas except defense. We also really need to get that balanced budget amendment past the obstructionist Senate.

What jobs are being sent out of the country?

Public or private sector.

Which ones are being terminated by the American people,and which ones are being terminated by private businesses?

I hope that the people that don't want jobs going overseas are against reducing Federal workers.

Otherwise, it is they too,who are causing the jobs losses and the high numbers of unemployed and not just unions and private businesses..

Darn that Dream is right. I live in a town with 40% of the workforce is gubmint- a state capitol where no major businesses are located. They swear they pay taxes. We have an entire population that has no critical thinking ability. IT was never developed because the school system dumbed down the curricula decades ago. So these people belive they pay taxes. With people who cannot understand such simple concepts we have no chance of solving the difficult issues facing us.

Glory Freedom

Last time I check most health care insurance compines convicted of bilking billions yes with a b of goverment medicare and medicad funds were own by regestered republicans

Hell we even elected a former CEO of one as gov of FL

lets see the no bid contract for the Iraqi war..... Cost us billions

Billions in hard cash sent to Iraqi and lost

money spent on no bid contracts that required work to be redone

60 to70 plain chesseburgers for the troops in Iraqi

Misspent money after Katerina(they bought over 80 million in Ice that could not be shipped there and paid to store it

All of this under a republican congress and president

all the while tripling the Goverment workforce but cutting air traffic control jobs and inspectors jobs

Oh yea lets not forget all the moeny sent to the northern states by the goverment for the last thirty years to help keep up an out of date privately owned power grid....... Hey glory do you not work in one of those states that get federal funds for that

and sorry to say but the feds just made some comapny 16 billion in forgein sales in fighter jets

and if we by what the constition says is the law while guess what no FAA, No army and no Airforce, Navy is the only authorzed force to exist in none war time conditions

no roads (all roads used to be privatey owned)

no airports (they recieve fed goverment funds)

no ports as we know them(they all receive fed goverment funds)

And freedom your dates are off again by as much as 50 years since the first feel good programs were inacted after a republican president(liberal) went to war to keep the union whole. They were not allowed to as per the constition spend federal money on war restrution since it is not covered in there. Even before that federal funds were used to build canal in the north east(again not in the constition)

No NASA no Satilites, no mass commuincations,

lets see what else, oh yea no vaccines against certian deseaise

Of course that is what we all want to live in world where the document greated 200 years ago is not allowed to adjust for the times where woman are not allowed to vote and men can have as many wives as Glory wants

Obama inherited a big war big money economy with a government sized to match. He is contracting the big war big money economy which is leaving perhaps a half million federal staff standing around at least part of every day, relatively speaking. Having a lot of highly paid highly skilled workers standing around is a drain.

A good new direction for our country would be to embrace our God given natural resources and get our industry going again. The country could become again a big industry big money economy given leadership in this regard by the Obama admnistration.

Industry can be grown again to be in good proportion for our gigantic government.

Julkie

"Government jobs are JOBS, people. And the GOP wants to reduce the number of jobs in this country?"

The government has grown too big and most of it produces nothing except paperwork. It should cut back like real businesses do when times are hard, not expand like has happened under the current administration.

Tnank you Tiggle! Cut all the nice profitable loopholes all those milliionare Congresspeople get that we don't first. Base salary on performance or just freeze those nice salaries at least. Make them have to have the same retirement and health care we have. Cut the election process down to three months from the neverending monster it is now. We would have more choice instead of two parties that are in continuous deadlock unless a bill comes up that enriches them or the special interest groups that spend millions so they can reap the benefits. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. The super rich are so afraid of another revolution, no matter what the country, the middle class has to go--slowly but surely. Especially in the U.S. and other countries where there is a sizeable and mostly pissed off workforce seeing our jobs outsourced, eliminated, and working harder for less.

For all those offshored jobs, those that are working for much less, should start demanding more, instead of being grateful for further enriching the super rich. Most of these people accept working conditions, pay, and demands no American, Canadian, Japanese or other "first world" country would put up with(unless you are a "undocumented worker").

I'll tell you what goes on here in my city. No streets get repaired because most of our tax revenue goes for

FAT PENSIONS AND FREE INSURANCE FOR LIFE for our past lazy and incompetent city workers!

I suspect this the same reason the USPS is about to go belly up too.

Collective bargaining....ain't it great?

Ever check into what your elected officals make and their pensions and medical????

Collectiver bargining is not the issue it is all the signle one person contracts that are kill most cities/Counties/ States

If your school system is cutting teachers why do you people (non-union) making 6 figures.

why do we pay medical for people that hold two jobs and one of them is elected and the other a regular city job

why do they hold closed door meetings?

Earlier this year an article on this site stated that the top spot in the nation for new hiring was Washington DC itself.

The problem with government jobs is the pension system set up by legislators who get their campaigns funded by union groups. These same politicians trade their bought votes for their silence in discussing the pension crisis gripping US towns, cities, and states.

In Connecticut, there have been a lot of news stories detailing some of the pensions that are being paid out...some fairly graphic stuff. State police officers getting younger officers' overtime hours gifted to them in a historical practice...and the yonger officers know that as they near retirement, their junior officers will be gifting overtime hours to them. So the overtime hours in their last 3 years of service are lumped into their salaries when determining pensions. They get pensions based on 70% of their highest 3 paid years, including overtime and any unused sick time. We have 45 year old patrolmen retiring after 20 years with lifetime health benefits and pensions over $100,000.

This is a single example...but extrapolate that out and it becomes pretty clear why our states are going broke. In this state, there are about 3.2 million people and about 200,000 state & municipal union employees. In the last state election, there were 1.3 million votes cast. Simple math says that the government union vote can easily dictate who gets elected. Any candidate the unions support has a near insurmountable edge in guaranteed votes. And we end up having union-licking legislators year after year after year...so the pension system is never financially addressed and repaired.

If it wasn't for all the governmental hiring over the last couple years, our unemployment rate would be ghastly...and I'm glad that so many Americans found jobs.

But the tab due when those jobs end has grown out of control and there's no reason to believe that politicians who owe those unions so much for so many votes...will ever do anything to change things.

And our municpal, state, and federal governments will continue to take more and more out of our paychecks to fund this ever-growing beast that is devouring us all.

Blah, blah, blah, Handouts, blah, blah, blah

Yeah, I know. It's so disgusting that people actually like to KEEP for themselves what they work for. It just doesn't fit that "social justice" model that you nation haters want.

Actually youjust......my message is from an Independent who in the last election, out of ten "party" candidates voted for 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

How "independent" are you? Based on your personal attack on me, instead of any thought out debating points, I'd guess you find the most left wing candidate, or just look for the "Dem" next to a candidate's name and check it off.

Seeing as you automatically assumed that I am a Tea Party member, INSTEAD of actually putting out any kind of INTELLIGENT debate, I would also guess you're just another "social justice" genius who thinks massive government growth, spending, borrowing, regulations, and DEBT, is actually "good", while lower taxes, less spending, less borrowing, reasonable regulation, and a BALANCED BUDGET is actually bad, right?

Cheryl: seems your the one doing all of the whining. Let me guess: this is the Republicans latest "jobs" bill? And you expect anyone to take you seriously? Only a complete idiot would assume anyone with a federal job is a Democrat and therefore 'expendable'. You actually think the entire federal workforce left with George Bush?

Cheryl:

Where do you get these ideas? What you say is insulting to government employees. There are good employees and bad employees in the public sector just as there are good employees and bad employees in the private sector. I have worked in public sector, I have worked (and still do) in the privagte sector, and I have been a private sector employer for 20+ years. You paint with such a broad brush you are your own worst enemy.

CherylLM

Actually youjust......my message is from an Independent who in the last election, out of ten "party" candidates voted for 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

Pulling individual levers, as opposed to the single-pull party vote, doesn't make you an independent. I've witnessed your anti-progressive vitriol time and time again; your insults are expected. Regardless of whether or not you'll own up to it, you're a liptonite.

... Though, it is nice to know I can get your goat with just two words: Tea Party.

BTW - if you can discern my political affiliation by the scant eight words I typed, you should really start investing in the Lotto. You might have a gift in scrying.

CherylLM, let's take politics of of this if possible. I am a Democrat and I think it's a great idea. There has to be a way to fill critical positions. Typically making a business case for a new hire is the way to go. Most business's have been operating this way, trying to control wages and costs. Don't assume all Democrats are the same and I won't assume that all Republicans are sucking the teats of the wealthy :)

Cheryl,

I do..The more people working, the more money they have to buy goods and services. The more goods and services are purchased, the more goods and services are needed. The more goods and services are needed the more goods and services are produced. The more goods and services are produced, the more jobs are created. The more jobs are created the more tax revenue there is..So, yes, government jobs do stimulate the economy.

We need to do away with public secter unions! They are not in the taxpayers best interest!

I think they should pass the bill , but it won't get past the senate , The Republican house has passed something like 28 jobs bills , that the socialist communist democrat senate won;t even bring to the table for discussion much less a vote

THIS IS FACT and the constitutional democrats are really sick of it and leaving the party ,

BUT there are always those who are blind and will not see what obama meant when he said he would FUNDAMENTILY TRANSFORM AMERICA , give him credit , he is doing it , Turning America into the socialist communist states of poverity ,opps ( America )

Just like the alternate way to calculate the cost of living increase and the increase in retirement age, reduction by attrition is a good way to cut back. It needs to start somewhere. Making these items a party issue is not helping the Democrats' cause in my view. I have been a fairly strong supporter of what people have called socialism, like requiring businesses to compensate their employees for the actual value of their work, but no politician has ever mentioned that as far as I know. If a reasonable percentage of profit does not end up in workers' pockets, the economy will shrink; that should be a no-brainer. Wages fuel the economy as consumer spending, if products are sold at too high a price compared to those wages, eventually they are not going to be sold. Greed is choking the life out of this country. It is simple arithmetic.

softdude

The pendulum will swing back and wages will rise again. The laws of supply and demand do exist and when the talented labor pool is back to work then employers will be faced with paying higher wages to retain and hire qualified employees. The problem is that as long as government chases away business by increased regulations and taxes, we'll be locked into a third world service economy. Before anyone jumps on the regulation comment, understand that unnecessary regulation, over regulation, and failure to remove old regulations when new ones are put in place are the problem. We do need to regulate commerce, but in an intelligent way, not by knee jerk reaction like we saw after the gulf oil spill. Regulations were passed because of public outrage not rational thought and it cost the industry 250,000 jobs in the southern US alone.

Let's just have the government take over 100% of the jobs. Than the govt. can tax us at 100% and provide us with shelter and food. What more do we need?

Wouldn't that be a perfect world?!?

youjustsaid - "I've witnessed your anti-progressive vitriol time and time again"

Here is the defination of the progressive movement, I would hope that everybody is anti-progressive.

How is this quote from you late great leader. (H.G. Wells)

"The State that most resolutely picks over, educates, sterilizes or poisons its People of the Abyss will be most successful."

The Progressive Movement began late in the 19th Century. Its Central Tenets are Statism, Income Redistribution, Unionism, Government Management of the Economy, womb to tomb provision for its citizens, and a Libertine Social Policy. To accomplish these aims, The Progressive Movement believes in State Ownership of Businesses—instead of Entrepreneurial Free Enterprise; Central Planning by the Government of the supply of goods and services, including fixing prices of wages, and of goods and services—instead of Free Market Capitalism; That all Citizens should have equal wealth except for the Elite Rulers; And that Sovereignty does not belong to Individual Citizens—but that the People only exist for the benefit of the National State. Various large parts of this Ideology are identical to Socialism and Fascism, including the ideas that the use of courts, bureaucracies—even the police and military—should be used to accomplish goals that would never be approved by a Democracy or a Republic (such as The United States of America under its current Constitution)

H.G. Wells ... you say "late great leader," I say writer of fiction.

More like this, I believe, Tom:

TOTALITARIANISM:

1: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

You Just Said,

Are you saying you have a different definition of progressive?

Tom - Plymouth

You Just Said,

Are you saying you have a different definition of progressive?

How about this, Tom, I embrace to concept of social progression. The opposite of progression is regression.

It could be argued that the "Tea Party", social conservative and religiously conservative movements embody precisely this concept of backsliding.

YouJustSaidWhat

CherylLM

Actually youjust......my message is from an Independent who in the last election, out of ten "party" candidates voted for 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

"Pulling individual levers, as opposed to the single-pull party vote, doesn't make you an independent. I've witnessed your anti-progressive vitriol time and time again; your insults are expected. Regardless of whether or not you'll own up to it, you're a liptonite."

Anti-progressive? That is a badge of honor except to those who can't spend enough of other peoples money on themselves. Progressive is just another word for leftist socialist. There is no progress in leftism or socialism which can't survive long term by putting those who won't work or produce on one form of welfare or another at the expense of those who do work.

In good times, progressives still don't want to work and their socialist policies increase. In bad times progressives don't want to work and their socialist policies increase. Basically, they won't be happy until the country falls because of their laziness and/or ignorance. Just ask the Greeks, Spain, Italy, Portugal, USSR, Cuba, and the list goes on.

I would bet that the bulk of the so-called progressives that actually have a degree chose a field where they can't make a living, even in good times, and will forever be whining about their own mistake while trying to blame someone else.

You sound bitter. Slaving away, unfulfilled and unappreciated?

Actually, Bob, I have a pretty decent job. I take care of me and mine and have plenty left over for savings and recreation.

Oddly (at least according to your values), I've managed to not hold people who have a lesser standing on the economic ladder in disdain and welcome a portion of my tax dollars supporting them in their strife. It certainly seems a better expenditure than throwing cash at a needless war ... or two ... or three.

I'd bet you've never managed to quite "get ahead" and have resorted to blaming those without, as opposed to those of a higher social status, pulling your strings.

Here's a factoid for you" There isn't a single "free world" nation that doesn't have expenditures in social programs. In fact, the nations that are the more well-to-do embrace the concept of taking care of those who don't quite have the means to do so themselves.

Not to mention pitching in with Helping Hands and Habitat for Humanity (damn that Carter!)

I'm wondering of your vapid and meandering hatred of "welfare" extends to the corporate definition?

YouJust...

Life must really be simple when one can always answer those one disagrees with simply by calling them a 'teapublican' or 'repugnant' or whatever term is in vogue on this site...and feel that the accusation ends the conversation.

Yet you get offended by another person here for supposedly trying to "discern (my) political affiliation" based on words you've written. Aren't you doing the very same thing ?

Here's a hint...for most people who happen to disagree with you, the TEA Party is nothing more than a little blip of a memory from time past that has no bearing om current discussion.

People in unions tend to be democrats more than republicans or independents.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146786/democrats-lead-ranks-union-state-workers.aspx

Read and weep. The trend is in both government and private sector.

YJSW,

I like your definition of progressive vs regressive. However, socialism isn't progressive. It is regressive in the fact that it takes, by force, that which some earn and gives it (redistribution) to those who didn't. It is forced charity which is nothing more than legal theft. Europe is a prime example that it doesn't work, except possibly for the short term, because sooner or later it runs out of other peoples money.

Tell me how progressive believe that encouraging people not to fend for themselves is good for any society or economy?

Try to respond without name calling and patronization of people who disagree with you.

BTW, I don't like corporate welfare either and would like to see all tax credits, loopholes and subsidies end for everyone. Equal opportunity is what it is called.

I'm inclined to agree with CherylLM on this one. When you read the paragraph that members of the democrat oversight panel wrote it is hard to argue that we are paying far to much to far to many. Their analysis points out that the two year pay freeze to federal workers will deprive them of $60 Billion over the next ten years. No matter how you look at it, that is a savings that every American in the private sector should be able to enjoy.

While the statement by Brad Cantor looks good on paper, it unfortunately is not accurate. The problem with his statement is that he assumes that all goods would be produced here and the reality is that a great majority of the goods purchased in this country are manufactured in other countries. Because of that fact and without cutting federal jobs, we continue to further our deficit each and every minute of each and every day.

If they cannot eliminate the regulations then they will eliminate those who are supposed to enforce the laws. If the republicants are allowed to fulfill their agenda of no regulations it will provide an ideal business environment for the criminals who are funneling huge donations their way. Within 10 years we will have a free market environment just like the one in Mexico where there are no regulations or controls. This is the same tactic the banking and investment execs used to rip us off and, because of the lack of regulatory controls, none of them are going to jail. Wake up sheeple...you are going to get screwed time and again if you do not get smart and start to understand what they are doing to us.

"By contrast, there were 14 percent more federal executive branch employees in September of 2011 than in September of 2007. There are now about 2.1 million of them."

How could the government justify hiring almost 2 million more Federal workers in a recession - especially when the average Federal civilian workers gets compensated more then twice as much as a private sector worker? Here's the link that shows the AVERAGE Federal worker get over $123,000 per year vs only about $61,000 for a private sector worker; Of course, the reason is obvious - studies show that government workers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and getting another 2 million votes (plus spouses) gives them a big advantage.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

What lunacy! You came up with that completely out of the air. That’s the
problem with this country now. You have so many uninformed people who refuse to
do some research so that they can really understand what is going on. Instead
they listen to propaganda and vitriol and then spread it.

There are many Federal employees that are doing double and triple a normal
workload because it is not in the budget to hire additional workers. Many of
the Agencies are understaffed, so a large reduction would cause the U.S.
Government to crash and all the services and protections that American citizens
receive to be eliminated. Federal employees do receive decent benefits like
healthcare, but they contribute a lot towards it, and a great number of
positions require a Bachelor’s Degree. I have an MBA that I obtained before
returning to Federal service.

This bill is nothing but negative partisanship. It was created to distract
the American citizens by having them turn against each other. The majority of
Federal workers make the same or less than private sector employees in the same
field with the same education level. It is the Congressmen and Senators that
are the millionaires. They are the ones with the amazing benefits (healthcare,
retirement, vacation, etc.). They voted to freeze Federal employee salaries at
the 2010 rate, but they always vote to give themselves ridiculously high cost
of living increases.

Also, think about how in this bad economy with
high unemployment how stupid it would be to eliminate the jobs of thousands of
Federal employees. It would be that many more people on unemployment competing
for the limited jobs that the businesses are stingily hiring for.

Handouts to the Billionaire Corporations needs to stop, barking up the wrong tree much?

Government workers are SO smart and hardworking.....we should lay off 300,000-400,000. These people are SO smart, they will start the businesses we need to make private jobs. Why should all these business geniuses be kept from creating new jobs? Why these people will create all the new jobs, and the government workers not fired, will easily pick up the slack, because they are so smart and hardworking also.

tryreality - "Handouts to the Billionaire Corporations needs to stop, barking up the wrong tree much?"

No he has the right tree... the one Democrats are hiding in.

Does "too big to fail" ring a bell? or how about the bailouts? or how about the tax gifts?

Exhibit A:

GM's sweetheart tax deal

"The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.

"Since the company shed $30 billion in debt during bankruptcy, it should have wiped out most of the tax break...But somehow, that never happened, and the automaker was able to keep most of its tax breaks, essentially receiving a $14 billion "gift" from the government.

While it's unclear why GM was allowed to carry over its losses, some experts insist that GM got preferential treatment...the tax break was just another example of how GM's bankruptcy process was unlike any previous bankruptcies.

One reason the government might have let General Motors claim the loss, was to reduce the perceived cost of the bailout, said Linus Wilson, finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Also, the fact that GM kept the tax breaks made its stock more attractive at the time of its initial public offering last November, Wilson said."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

You really should try reality sometime.

To keep them in business making AMERICAN products, and to keep thousands of employees working

to feed their families, buy American made supplies (er), pay taxes and stay off of welfare AND not

run guns or dope for survival. How's that for starters.

"Too big to fail", brought to you by George W. Bush and Hank Paulson.

Which tree is that in genius?

Joe66, are you on social security and medicare?

tryreality2012

"Handouts to the Billionaire Corporations needs to stop, barking up the wrong tree much?"

Oh, you mean to companies like GE which are "helping" Obama set financial policies while not paying taxes and at the same time sending jobs overseas?

Ever hear of Solyndra, the green energy company Obama gave 1/2 billion to that is now bankrupt? Eat it taxpayers.

I say all government worker unions have about done us in.

Who knows what it costs us in pensions shaped and bloated by "collective bargaining"

They should have called it "collective blackmail"

The absolute last thing we need to do is lay off more people from the government sector. Its almost ridiculous how some of you rethugs think. We need people working. We need them paying taxes. We need them to buy goods just like the private sector folks. What really needs to happen is for the tax codes to be fixed where everyone pays a flat rate. Including investments, corporations. Cut out all loopholes. And everything will be fine. Shrinking goverment isnt the solution.....its making everyone pay their fair share and its just isnt the case right now. As for socialism being regressive...you couldnt be more wrong. Its aggressive anyway you look at. By dumping programs(mostly tied to the poor and unfortunate) is regressive and taking money out of the economy.

jon, you forget that we have to borrow money to pay the wages of the government workers and only a small portion returns as taxes paid!! You need not terminate anyone but stop increasing the number of federal employees by a hiring freeze and allowing attrition to decrease the number.

I understand why you would say that since you cheat on your taxes and want a lower risk of audit by reducing federal workers... if you get audited you'd finally be paying you fair share of taxes.

Oh, by the way... the bullsh!t you've been talking about the Bush tax cuts... let's see.. I bet (sarcastically speaking) you haven't reduced your federal AND state income taxes by the section 179 deduction have you..... OR the special depreciation allowance of 50%? Hmm, it went from $25k to like $400k under Bush junior..... F@CK YOU~~~~ for saying that only the bottom 75% got the benefit when you got to reduce YOUR taxable income by 50% or more BEFORE applying taxes.

What a F#CKIN' GREDDY F#CK you are NOT to mention a liar and a cheat!!!!!!

JayCFO You only call me names because you have no other arguement!! I do not "cheat on" my taxes. Just because you did doesn't mean everyone else does. And you can kiss this "GREDDY F#UCK's" A##!! You of all people should know that section 179 only allows you to deduct what you spend on equipment. It should not count as income since it is the cost of doing business!! The shortening of the depreciation schedule was to encourage capital purchases. (to help the economy)

Got ya! And this is why people should not listen to you.

Your actual taxable earnings BEFORE the purchase of equipmnet could have been as high as $750,000 since you could write of in ONE year what you would have normally in best case scenario wrote off over 5 years. That means you could have, and probably did, reduce your top taxable income, at the 35% rate, by as much as $400,000. And yet you have the audacity to say the breaks went to the bottom 75% while getting, yourself personally, probably as much as $140,000 in tax breaks. Using just $1,000 as what 140 people at the low end got.

Let's see ... a little over 1.7 million returns (to equal 1.8%). Even if just 10% took the max, the effect is nearly $24,000,000,000 in taxes.... as in BILLION and the average benefit the "lower class" got was $ 1,000 per return... hmmm thhat would be 24 milion people compared to 170,000 people who are W2 earners and really are only limited to home mortgage interest, real estate taxes and some contributions.

I haven't even talked about the difference in home mortgage interest on million dollar homes that the rest of us also paid for with tax breaks.

So you say the bottom 78% got 80% of the benefit but fail to incorporate all of those "special" little "business" breaks that really was intended for small business only, those with 50-100 employees, NOT 1,000 employees or more.

Just that little comparison above shows how few really received such a large share of the actual tax benefit opportunity.

So.... you analysis, as usual, is just more bagger bullsh!t.

Jay You are still trying to mislead others! You talk like section 179 is free money. If I spend $100,000 on equipment I can deduct that in 1 year instead of 5. At 35% I save $35000 in taxes but I still have to spend $100000 for a net cost of $65000 (just like any other business expense). Before the change it would have been expensed over 5 years saving me $7000/yr for 5 years or $35000! I will let you explain this big tax advantage for me!! Hint- only the interest involved I still doubt your credentials since you don't even seem to understand section 179! To get this large tax break you talk about I still have to spend $750000!

Yup... you're absolutely right, you still would have received the tax benefit of the depreciation over 5 years or 7 years, depending upon the asset class assigned to it.

However, your income may be lower in later years, hopefully not. Accelerating that depreciation, whether 100% with Section 179 or the 50% special allowance means you were given, through the tax code structure, an earlier deduction than you would have gotten had the law been sunsetted. Also, the limit was raised from the $100k which had been raised from the previous $25 from the $10k.

That Section 179 was intended to help "small" businesses. You are not a small business anymore if you are in those earning levels you talked about. But leaving that argument aside and just simply addressing the bullsh!t you spout on how the bottom 75% received such a huge benefit is the real issue here.

YOU, as well as your fellow millionaires, were able to reduce your top line taxable income in 10 years each year if you were purchasing equipment, which would have meant in some industries the equipment could get changed out through their normal life cycle while reducing the taxable income.

WHEN you factor those extra little items in, that's why the wealthy got such a bigger break than you purport. Unfortuntately, IRS statistics don't show those little "benefits".

Also, IF you are in manufacturing, which today you can argue many businesses are manufacturing including home construction/remodeling, you get an automatic (starting either beginning of last year or this year, I'd have to look it up) 9% deduction with NO cash expended.

So your continued spouting of the Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the bottom 80% is a lie.

Just so you know, I've been preparing corporate and individual tax returns since the mid 80s and therefore cut my teeth on Section 179, investment tax credit and the depreciation rules.

Prior to Reagon, you could make up whatever method you wanted to depreciated property (except for goodwill, which changed as a result of a McDonald's vs Commissioner case back in the early 90s).

The point, which you fail to understand, is that the wealthy DID get a lion's share of the benefit WHEN you take into consideration all of the additional little items, such as an increase in the Section 179, special depreciaiton, manufacutring allowance, etc. These items mean those individuals in the high tax brackets could reduce their taxable income significantly and because of the law of large numbers resulted in a heavily weighted benefit to the wealthy.

Unfortunatley, it IS difficult know exactly BECAUSE they are not shown on the tax return line item statistics. However, having used these techniques personally, I know how effective they are.

Right! Lets get rid of more teachers, air traffic controllers and of course boarder patrol agents. Who needs the Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers and Food and Drug inspectors? We can fire the SEC and Bank regulators because we know businesses wil do the right thing. Right?

Shh sharky...don't tell them what federal workers actually DO...they think they are all standing around opening the door for Obama.

Its gross how effective the Republican propaganda has been about this topic. Government and Private sector both have their roles. A government employees taxes are just as good as a private sector persons.

Check out the RACIAL makeup of the public employees and you will get the answer you are looking for little grasshopper !That is why the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS want to expand the workforce in the public sector !!

@Johnny N.; Are you as stupid as your posting? I'm just sayin'.....

Hey Detarda, am I wrong ??? Be honest now , am I Wrong ?

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE TAXES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A RETURN OF TAX DOLLARS ,Tax dollars pay the pay check , government employees simply return a portion of these dollars back to the government ,Theoretical yes they pay taxes , in reality NO government is a non profit entity , it derives its income from profitable business , Government is a liability not an asset to American economics ,

DO WE NEED THESE government people YES some of them BUT government liabilities have gotten out of control and way to big , AND it is bank rupting our country , when that happens ,and it is coming under obama and the socialist communist democrats there won't be any money to pay the government employees , not even those we need ,

What is really sad is most not all government employees still have the blinders on and when the bust comes , and it is coming Obama and the socialists want another trillion plus dollar loan again this next year , at a time when we are only paying the interest on the debt no principal ,how far can we go NOT VERY FAR , when the bust comes government employees are going to be hurt the worst , they will lose every thing , pay checks pensions ,investments , any thing not paid for , homes autos etc, AND since their pay checks have remained constant in place they have been still living as if this was the robust 80s and 90s , with out fully comprehending the true financial state of America ,

Johnny N.

Your not talking about "Affirmative Action" by the Democrats? Not now a days. Really now! Really?

Johnny N.

Your not talking about "Affirmative Action" by the Democrats? Not now a days. Really now! Really?

Small government! Cut Spending! Lower Taxes! Goddamn! Why don't we all just lie down and sulk until we die? We need a strong, fair, and responsive government dedicated to the welfare of the people it governs. 20 million people are out of work. They must have jobs that pay wages appropriate to the cost of living here. We have a tax system that is twisted to benefit the wealthy and corporations. That s$^t has to change. The wealthy and corporations must carry a more equitable share of the countries tax load. We must provide incentives for state and local governments not to lay people off. When these workers are laid off, the resulting carnage spreads throughout all those dependent upon their services. Aye Gwad, we must come to understand, we cannot survive on an economy driven by various bubbles and retail spending. The answer is an overwhelming capital infrastructure investment program, which will not only provide those needed jobs, but will also make this nation more competitive, yield a stronger economy, allow us to manage and pay down the debt, and better secure our way. Additionally, the time and place we are in today demands we construct and maintain the worlds best "universal health care system". Social Security can be reformed to serve those entitled to Its benefits, and can be so done at the pace of economic growth. Tall order? Hell no! Stay the hell away from Oligarchy, but govern fair. Mostly though, We the people must learn better sense than to chase "straw men" every time some goddamn corrupt and ignorant politician or media mogel sticks one in our face.

mac - "We must provide incentives for state and local governments not to lay people off. When these workers are laid off, the resulting carnage spreads throughout all those dependent upon their services."

Good Lord you have to be joking. Incentives to keep useless government positions so more whining losers can sit around until they retire to collect pensions for another 25 years? What a wonderful gift for your children to pay for.

Having government viewed as a "job creator" is about as un-American as it gets... actually advocating it even more disturbing. You want a government to provide you a job move to 1980's Russia.

pjam09: Sigh. Damn! What the hell is the use? Sigh. Don't need Teachers, Firefighters, Police, Utility workers, Sanitation Workers, Public Health professionals, Highway patrol, Building Inspectors, etc,etc,etc? 1980's Russia, my capitalistic ass.

Mac Forrester

Yes we need a strong "efficient" government that cares for the welfare of the people it governs, but we do not need the monstrous one we have now. We need a fair tax system not the regressive piece of trash that allows almost half of all tax payers to not pay taxes. The Democrats complain about the top 1% as if it is all their fault, when in fact it is the regressive nature of our current tax laws that allows this to happen. A flat tax is said to be regressive, but at least a simple flat tax with no loop holes allows everyone to pay the same percentage of their income in tax. Remember that 10% of a million is ten times more than 10% of a hundred thousand and 100 times more than 10% of ten thousand. Change the tax code, simplify it by closing the loop holes and reducing the rates. The net effect will be increased revenue proportionate to income.

archangel 3:16: A flat tax would kill us. I do agree with a fair and simplified tax code. Progressive income tax is the fair and right way. Killing loopholes is a great way to increase tax revenue. I like it, even though I would have to pay more. We do need some regimentation that blocks abuses of disability claims etc. All who spend money in this country pay some form of taxes. Federal, state, and local coffers are dry due mostly to a lack of employment, which if corrected, would mend most of these shortfalls, and restore balance to our currency, its value, and our overall economy.

How is a flat tax not fair and simple??

Dems keep talking about fair share but they sure don't want to talk any numbers or real percentages. If everyone pays the same percentage, it is fair. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it.

Mac

I use a flat tax as an example. However, the progressive system we have in place now is even worse than a flat tax would be. The problem is that by creating loop holes to help the middle and lower classes, you open them up for everyone to exploit. Tax accounting is over a hundred billion a year business that should be able to be handled with grammar school addition. If the loop holes were closed, and exemptions were much more limited, then we wouldn't need a bracket any higher than 30%, nor should we have one lower than 5%. In the long run, you may not pay any more than you do now, but everyone at least would share the burden.

archangel 3:16 #4.16: I pretty much agree with your logic. Regarding income, I see no reason why progressive brackets cannot be established from base to ceiling absent loopholes. This though, would require Congressional action and the political sticking point would likely be the %'s assessed at each bracket. An honest Congress though, could do it. Exemptions should be limited to direct costs of net gains and to those whose incomes are within established poverty levels. A flat tax will not yield such considerations, plus, when added to all other taxes could become prohibitive for many. Regards

Mac...

Aren't total taxes pretty "prohibitive" right now ?

In my state in 2006, the "average" taxpayer paid a total of 38.3% of income in taxes to local, state, and federal tax collectors. Those are verified numbers. Taxes have been increased since then, including this year's largest increase in state taxes in our state's history...so you have to figure the number must be approaching...or has already reached 40%. And that's for the "average" taxpayer...those making more, pay more since federal income tax rates grow higher as income grows higher.

40%...seems pretty prohibitive and demoralizing to me, considering the general lack of results shown. Add to that, the people and politicians who never seem to feel anyone is ever paying enough.

"More" never seems to be enough.

sharky.: try not to be an alarmist. First of all, teachers are employed by the states, not the federal government. Second, you should know and probably do that even the most right of the right wing understand and value the role of most federal employees and programs. Just saying that isn't true doesn't make it right.

The problem with many federal funded jobs and programs are that we could do without many of them or at least cut back on them. How many times have we heard about an enourmous sum of money being granted to some program so that someone can study something so insignificant that we are left scratching our heads?

So you're saying that we should just "freeze" at current levels that have us OVER 1.2 Trillion dollars in debt every single year instead of even attempting to cut back?

Forget the "charters". There is too much government in this country right now.

When three tree huggers can close down a drilling site that has billions of dollars invested in it and might actually LOWER oil prices, simply because an ice breaker SEVENTY miles away "might affect the air quality" of a town of 400, there's something wrong.

When the Dept of Education has OVER 70 Billion dollars in "discretionary" spending to go along with it's OVER 23 Billion in mandatory spending, something is wrong. Especially when the DoE's primary function, BY LAW, is to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect date on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights". And that costs this nation over 90 Billion dollars a year? They actually put out $500 MILLION for a program to help kids "sit still" in kindergarten! You actually want to pay for crap like that?

When the Dept of Energy hands out a $535 MILLION dollar loan to a company who's CEO had already filed for bankruptcy before and had been found guilty on 31 charges of theft in 2003, simply because he is a "bundler" for Obama, something is wrong. When 80% of Dept of Energy's $20 BILLION loans and grants go to Obama staff members and Obama/Democrat supporters, something is wrong. (Even the Dept of Energy's own Inspector General stated that contracts have been steered to "friends and family")

Forget all that garbage!!

The Federal Government needs to get cut DOWN to enforcing the laws of this nation and STOP subsidizing the out and out theft of taxpayer dollars!

Not at all what I said Cheryl.

My point is that, like any large corporation, we shouldn't just freeze or cut every department back a certain percentage, and then complain that they're not doing their jobs, but rather do it the right way and look at what isn't needed.

The best way to cut spending by the government is to get it back to it's "18 Enumerated Powers" in the US Constitution.

Cheryl,

What's wrong with collecting more revenue to help ease the deficit?

Collecting more Revenue is fine IF spending is cut just as much or more.

Brad Cantor

Can you afford to pay 5% more in federal taxes every year? How about 10% more? That is in addition to the 10,15,or 20% that you are currently paying. Because that is where your thinking is headed. Every time there is a tax increase, spending doesn't go down or remain the same, it increases. Budget cuts, elimination of waste and fraud need to come first, then increased revenue can be considered. At home you can try to increase revenue, but in an economy with 10% unemployment that is very hard to do on the federal government level it is easy to do, but no lesson is learned. We are spending ourselves into a ever deepening hole. The funniest part is that the Democrats who point at the Bush administration for his deficits, have for all practical purposes tripled and quadrupled his deficits with out so much as batting an eye. Then complain when they are called to the carpet for doing the same thing they criticized the other side of doing.

Hey genius....do you actually READ?

The "cuts" would be from NOT HIRING and allowing the present work force to either retire or leave. NOT firing them.

But of course it's better to throw out LIES than it is to actually think for yourself, isn't it?

Actually, unemployment benefits "stimulate" the economy. According to Piglosy and fellow dem id10t's

The "cuts" would be from NOT HIRING and allowing the present work force to either retire or leave. NOT firing them.

Because we all know how people who need to find jobs just remains static, forever.

And if you followed your own advice I didn't suggest that people were going to get fired, you implied that.

lackOfBrainMatter -

1st try, complaining that people would be unemployed.: "Much better to just have more unemployed people, after all, unemployment benefits are free--oh wait."

2nd try, cmplaining that people would remain employed: "Because we all know how people who need to find jobs just remains static, forever."

Just because your first try was obviously wrong (yes a salary and a pension cost taxpayers far more than unemployment) doesn't mean that contradicting yourself later undoes your ignorance.

Fact

Read the article! The cuts would be made by attrition. You do understand the word attrition don't you? No one would be fired or laid off because of this bill, it would only prevent hiring to replace lost numbers.

If the number of people requiring employment is growing, and the government, a major employer, is not hiring, what do you guys think those people are going to do?

Not find a job?

Ding ding ding.

Or is the concept of having to keep hiring people to offset the growing eligible workforce a difficult concept?

Unemployment benifits are not only "free" (LOL), they also go on forever!

Can you imangine working 6 months and getting unemployment for years? That is just about as classic as people arriving in this country and collecting SS and SSI 6 months later.

Do you have a clue what attrition means? Get a dictionary, look it up, come back, and try not to look so ignorant.

oh cmon everyone. The rethugs would like nothing better than to see families lose their homes. Then lose their jobs(not just from the gov sector). Then not get the(unemployment) benefits entitled to them by law because they alreay PAID for it. They want to see people of our great nation suffer. Again its the folks of the do nothing party to be me, me and me. Who cares about anyone else and especially the unfortunate during these hard times.

jon, the employee does not pay for unemployment insurance! This is paid for by the employer! You are so bent on bashing the "rethugs", you cannot even use facts! Do some homework instead of just repeating what you have heard from the left!!!

Yup, you're right.... FUTA .006 this year and state.... well, worst case scenario 8%.... so....let see,

if, you're paying $10 per hour that is costing you .86 / hour.... or about $2,000 per employee, IF they are full time.

Wow, and they made you at least $20 per hour.... what a f#ckin prick comment!!!!!!!

JayCFO What a"prick"!! I'm still right that the employer pays for it. And your point is???!! (other than to bash me)

The point is you don't get it. That it is YOU who is the problem in america today. Not just the government, not just the unions, and not just the banks, but you, the well to do, who truly believes $10 an hour is livable wage and demand to pay only that because you're pissed off because you pay so much in taxes. While the rest of us have to subsidize your employees because you are too f@ckin cheap.

Sell your business to me and I'll grow it 5 times in 5 years, pay your existing staff better and I'll probably still be making more than had you kept the business.

Nancy, I do know what government employees do and I don't have a problem with them as long as the dept/agency they are working for can be found in the US Constitution and it's 18 Enumerated Powers or the 10th amendment. If it can't be, it should be shut down.

For every good employee I can show you five who just set on their a$$ and waste oxygen.

Nancy,

The problem is that most of the posts on this vine are knee jerk reactions to other comments. The article says the cuts would be achieved by attrition not layoff. It makes no comment on the value of government employees although it suggests that higher productivity should be attainable. My Sister-in-Law has worked for Social Security for 35 years and is nearing her retirement, her job would not go unfilled but an entry level position would not be refilled as everyone moves up. Unfortunately every debate on this vine turns into a finger pointing session.

sonmanvb,

So, the Constitution was written in 1787, and this is 2011. Would you argue that the world is a bit different place today than in 1787? Those 18 enumerated powers you speak of were based on a 1787 world.

None of the founding fathers could even conceive of a space program, an interstate highway system, air travel, and on and on.

Don't be so naive!

Excuse the base of the country..low end people??? What is that you idiot??? Go read a book and learn something.

Wow Jeff, could you be a little more elitist and offensive? "A lot of low end people who will still vote for Obama"? You're a prime example of what this class warfare stuff is about.

Yeah I started out dirt poor with 3 kids but now make 6 figures after working very hard to obtain an advanced degree. And guess what? It took "intelligence" to earn that degree.

Go Obama and Biden 2012!

Jeff,

I consider myself intelligent, and I don't think Obama is "spending us into the ground". Now what?

GO OBAMA!!!

See Jeff, I support Obama. But no, wait. I'm someone at the low end of society, even though Jeff doesn't even know who I am or what my story is.

Jeff, if you wanted to try and make yourself and the GOP sound elitist and anti-American than you just succeeded.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Brad - "I consider myself intelligent, and I don't think Obama is "spending us into the ground". Now what?"

Now nothing. Just enjoy the laughter you created across America by actually proclaiming to believe yourself intelligent while obviously not even understanding the basics of debt or the magnitude of what Obama has done.

LMAO, at the TP/GOP trying to get back in the game. Too bad, stick a fork in them, they're done.

let's look at the facts, rather than emotional crap.

Why does Obama have to go? He actually reduced government spending by 3% his first year. Compare that with a 17% increase in spending in Bush's last year! So, you are telling me we must go back to spending at a 17% per year increase in spending rather than a 3% decrease?

There may be reasons to vote a Republican in the next election, but decreased spending is certainly not one of them.

Please explain...

EEngineer,

One of the first things Obama asked congress for and got was a 40% increase in spending across the board for discretionary spending other than defense. This was before one dollar of stimulus was requested and received. The 17% increase your referring to happened while which party controlled the legislature? Look back at spending and deficits during the Bush administration and you will find an upturn in spending and in deficits after Democrats took congress in 2006. The largest increases were in 07 and 08 under a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.

Jeff,

Those "low end people" (poor) will vote for Obama; unfortunately those "intelligent people" (liberals) will vote for him too. Neither care that he is spending us into the ground. They really don't care if the debt is 16 trillion or 46 trillion. Obama will be our president until 2016. We are worse than broke now and will collapse half way into his next term.

And these numbers aren't pulled completely out of thin air. You've researched, done efficiency studies to determine whats necessary and whats not. No, you're making everything up based on rhetoric spoon fed to you. 75%? Are you kidding me? Stop being naive.

Just shrink the military by about 600 bases worldwide, the Pentagon by thousands of people, and the military budget by $500 billion. We'd still be left with a military the size Reagan had in the 1980's - and that supposedly won the Cold War.....

The military, prison, oil & gas, anti-tax lobbyists have this country by the nose hairs....

WOW....you may get the prize for the dumbest post of the day!

What lunacy! You came up with that completely out of the air. That’s the problem with this country now. You have so many uninformed people who refuse to do some research so that they can really understand what is going on. Instead they listen to propaganda and vitriol and then spread it.

There are many Federal employees that are doing double and triple a normal workload because it is not in the budget to hire additional workers. Many of the Agencies are understaffed, so a reduction of 75% would cause the U.S. Government to crash and all the services and protections that American citizens receive to be eliminated. Federal employees do receive decent benefits like healthcare, but they contribute a lot towards it, and a great number of positions require a Bachelor’s Degree. I have an MBA that I obtained before returning to Federal service.

This bill is nothing but negative partisanship. It was created to distract the American citizens by having them turn against each other. The majority of Federal workers make the same or less than private sector employees in the same field with the same education level. It is the Congressmen and Senators that are the millionaires. They are the ones with the amazing benefits (healthcare, retirement, vacation, etc.). They voted to freeze Federal employee salaries at the 2010 rate, but they always vote to give themselves ridiculously high cost of living increases.

Also, think about how in this bad economy with high unemployment how stupid it would be to eliminate the jobs of thousands of Federal employees. It would be that many more people on unemployment competing for the limited jobs that the businesses are stingily hiring for.

lol.

Ha. Good one leroy.

I needed a good laugh.. That was a good one. Yea, Right!!!

Thanks Leroy, glad to know he's earning that Nobel Peace prize.

Shut one war down that was bogus.

Ending another one that was over when Obama got Osama.

Kept us out of Libya, even though the TP/GOP went ape trying to get us in.

Funny the party that wants to cut spending has so many ways of getting rid of our tax dollars.

IMHO

Shut one war down that was bogus.

That already had an agreement and exit strategy in place prior to his election.

Ending another one that was over when Obama got Osama.

I sure hope he isn't ending the war on terror. Getting out of Afghanistan is fine, but that isn't the war we are truly fighting. Afghanistan is only one battlefield or have you never understood that?

Kept us out of Libya, even though the TP/GOP went ape trying to get us in.

Then who was it that went against congress and authorized the use of military personnel and equipment for a bombing campaign against the Libyan government? Can't say that it was Bush this time!

Funny the party that wants to cut spending has so many ways of getting rid of our tax dollars.

And it is hilarious to here Democrats criticize Bush spending when they are spending three to five times as much in deficits and more than triple the overall expenditures than the Bush administration made each year!

Bush was named second most respected.... Just sayin'

Thnk Obama nominated and elected himself to this high post!

Where are the jobs Obama, Reid, and Pelosi..... You RAN this government completely for TWO years and what do we have to show for it? Massive borrowing, spending, and debt. And NO JOBS.

Now we get the left asking Boehner where the jobs are, DESPITE the fact that EVERY bill passed by the House has been tabled by Harry Reid.....except of course raising our DEBT by Trillions of dollars.

The few bills that the Congress put out there was a non starter because of GOP/Tea Party "poison pills". Face it , the GOP/Tea Party want us to fail. that's your party Cheryl. Proud?

But obamacare was not a "poison pill". Why did the dems not do any thing about jobs in bam bam's first 2 years tool?

Don't worry, in 1/21/2013, you will start seeing the economy grow and jobs being created and the unemployment to start going down because obama will be gone with most of the obstructionists dems

Cheryl,

You say the Dems ran Congress for Obama's first 2 years. How's that? And don't tell me they had 60 votes, neither. They didn't. There were 2 independents, of which 1 was Lieberman, and he is no Dem. Also, unlike the Right, the Dems don't make everyone vote lock stock and barrel. They welcome differing views. Their "tent" is inclusive. Also, how many fillibusters did the Right use to block everything Obama tried?

Actually, jobs have been created for the past 21 months, even though the stock market dropped after the Tea Baggers cost us our credit rating. So I can justify that Obama helped create jobs since He's been president for over 2 years. And the Tea Party STILL rages on about no jobs being created. Read a book instead of getting all your info from Fox.com.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEMOCRATS BEAT GOP 2012

The jobs are setting in the socialist communist democrat senate ,DUMMY , 28 JOBS BILLS , passed by the Republican house totaling from a low of One million to a high of Three million permanent American Jobs ,

WHY don't you ask the Right person , WHERE ARE THE JOBS reed ,

flunkiee - "jobs have been created for the past 21 months, even though the stock market dropped after the Tea Baggers cost us our credit rating."

The fact that you believe job creation is related to the stock market being up or down explains how you can also believe the people wanting to CUT the wasteful spending ruined our credit.

You are a perfect, obedient, unthinking, Democrat sheep.

It is obvious the Democrats are made up of uneducated masses and liberals that are no more than sheep. They are being told what they want to hear and go with it. The Democrats have done so much harm the past 3 years with control of the Congress from 2006 through 2010. The Senate now controlled by Reid and Pelozi, holding bills out from being voted on. Everyone wants to blame the Republicans but, they are doing what they can to correct a massive mistake by Obama and his cronies. Look at the facts and stop being sheep. America needs a leader not a promoter and puppet as president. The media writes nothing but propaganda from the government. Don't believe what you see or hear. Do your research.

You know, the TP/GOP are fighting to reduce taxes on corporations that are sending our jobs to real socialists and communists. I don't think the idjits of the TP/GOP even know what a socialist/communist is.

Obama Biden in 2012.

tryreality

Go ask Harry Reid! He is the one tabling all the house jobs legislation that has been passed, 28 bills and counting that are sitting on his desk that he won't allow to come to a vote. Talk about obstructionist!

Go ask Bush and the Republican dominated Congress he had for 6 years out of 8. Where are the jobs?

All I saw was was 7.5 million jobs lost in the timeframe from dec, 2008 until June, 2009.

If Republicans are really gonna do such a good job, they gotta show me something more than the results they showed the last time they held power!

Republicans were elected on a jobs agenda in 2010. Where are the jobs they promised then?

Sorry! Republicans fail! Until and until they demonstrate they can deliver on their promises, I'll stick with what we have. At least it ain't Bush!!!

Fuzzy,

You are too funny. So all Democrats are dumb and sheep? That's laughable when it's obvious that you don't even know that Nancy Pelosi (not Pelozi) is the minority leader in the House, not the Senate. Only a Republican sheep would claim to be so smart and call all Democrats dumb.

Take a little time out and learn a few things before you spout such nonsense.

Democrats like to pick and choose the way they read and twist to benefit there wants and needs. Can't face the facts head on or able to refute the information. No problem. Just like a child throwing the attention off themselves.

Get congress to finalize taxes and business costs and then business will resume hiring based on need and long term affordability. Unfortunately, Obama does not want to do this in an election year, as it takes away his ability to criticize Congress, when he kicks the can down the road.

His term will end 2016, GET USED TO IT.

You need to get out more, next year is 2012 not 2016.

Nope, he's right 2016, get used to it.

America won't make it til 2016 with bozo as president!

And all we have to do is nothing. Don't take action on the deficit reduction bill and we will have a 10% reduction of federal jobs and/or spending. That was the deal, if the TP/GOP live up to it.

IMHO

Do you realize what you are saying? Cuts in defense the size that would happen would only result in a reduction in force to meet the goals along with the cut of almost every major weapons program. Did you realize what that means? I'll tell you. It means the end of thousands of jobs in ship yards that support the Navy by building new ships as soon as the ones under construction are finished. The end of thousands of jobs at aircraft manufacturing facilities and their suppliers when the F-35 program dies. It means thousands of veteran service members, private contractors used by DOD added to the unemployment roles. It means the cost of every ship, aircraft, truck, and stock used by the military taking a significant cost increase because the buy schedules will no longer dilute the R&D costs. That is just the defense cuts, now look at the rest of the mandatory cuts your so happy with. No it would be much better for us to look for ways of saving dollars than letting the mandatory cuts happen.

And do you pay 100% of your own salary, pension, and benefits? Because that's what the PRIVATE SECTOR does for you. While you pay what, maybe 20% of your total annual income in taxes, pension, and healthcare? That means the PRIVATE SECTOR gets to pick up the other 80%. Now multiply that by 2.1 MILLION federal employees.

When are YOU going to do a little research yourself. This isn't about "faux news", the article is in MSNBC, or didn't you actually READ it?

As for "needing federal assistance", if people actually bought their own insurance, or even PREPARED for any kind of event, they wouldn't actually need federal assistance, would they? But of course in YOUR "entitlement" mindset the government is the "answer" to everything, isn't it?

And since my husband actually IS a federal employee, I'm not being hypocritical at all. When he retires in 18 months he actually CAN be "covered" by someone else. Since the government is so OVERBLOATED now, even replacing him directly should be no problem. They'll just have to do without someone like you who thinks they are "entitled" to everything and people that are sick of TRILLION dollar deficits are "sheep".

But I'm sure that you are oh so important in what you do that absolutely no one can cover for you when you retire, right? As a matter of fact, you probably aren't being paid "enough", are you?

JOE: You don't have to explain to me. These people have been so brainwashed to the evils of "Big Government" there ain't no talking to them. Perhaps they'd like to fly on planes not inspected by the FAA or get food poisoning from beef not inspected by the FDA or take drugs again not tested by the FDA.

Absoutle nitwits, the lot of them. They have an almost religious like fervor to denounce anything created by the government but they sure don't mind begging for help anytime there is a disaster. Hypocrits, the lot of them.

@CherylLM....you are whacked.....I don't contribute to my own salary by paying federal taxes just as anyone else???? What the hell am I getting for free? And you say your husband is a fed and you still buy into this crap....well since he hasn't gotten a pay raise in 2 years, and now that hey are talking about cutting fed pension benefits, get back to me in 18 years when he retires and let me know how you feel then....don't bite the hand that feeds you...idiot.

don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Typical liberal entitlement tool. . .

Typical liberal entitlement tool...

Typical generalizing conservative fool...

Joe - "we don't pay for any of our benefits....you people are sheep! I pay taxes, I pay into my pension,"

That's right you don't. America is paying your salary with our taxes, since the money you "earn" is ours anything you pay for is still paid for by us... except you are the only one who gets the benefits.

How much are YOU paying into OUR pensions? oops, that's right, unlike you we don't have a population of schmucks to fleece and fund our retirement for us.

"I don't contribute to my own salary by paying federal taxes just as anyone else???? "

Um no. How do you think anyone who is paid for providing a good or service pays taxes into THEIR OWN salary? Customers pay our salary, we are all paying into YOUR salary.

What the hell am I getting for free?"

A. A "job" that otherwise wouldn't exist.

B. Healthy raises and benefits no matter how little you create or how awful your service is, or how much business you conduct.

C. A pension that you will spend the last 3 years of employment "top-loading" so that you can further screw taxpayers until you die.

TP/GOP want federal employees to pay 100% of the salaries in taxes. Idjits. Especially CherylLM

Intrepid for someone who loves government bloat so much you don't even know who inspects your food. Meat is USDA. Not to mention that the fact that USDA and FDA need separate agencies to do the same thing is bloat in itself. Given the total failure of the FDA and at least limited success of the the USDA in inspection I think you could bring the FDA into the USDA and save some bloat while doing at least a marginally better job. Of course then the FDA people would have to learn what it means to have a clean plant and actually do some on site inspection. Unfortunatly no matter how over the top you get regulating things there is a plateau of safety you will not get passed short of taking extreme measures and no amount of excess government employees or increased inspection will help. It goes back to personal responsibility not governement interference. There are way too many examples of this duplication and nearly all of them are bloated, overpopulated and wasteful. Even your liberal cry of cut the military has merit. The pentagon may not like it but there is plenty of waste and duplication that can be cut there too. What lacks here is a willingness to get down to it and an alternative strategy to defend our private sector. If you find yourself just too frightend of a world where regulation is returned to reasonable levels then get behind something protectionist like forcing our so called trading partners out of the market if they won't comply with our regulations. We don't need to be the only trading partner with any of these countries that has no bans or tarriffs to level the playing field. They will always have lower labor costs but they don't have to have lower production costs or export costs depending on the route you take. Sure it makes products more expensive here but it also makes it more attactive to employers to manufacture here so jobs will have to come back if only to support the American market.

Tea

Lets look at the budgets cuts the USADA and FDA have have in the last 20 years and the requirements for more reports to congress.......

The biggest cuts were under a republican congress lead by the speaker of the house newt saying the private sector would pick up the slack and the goverment regulation is not required

for every elected offical he or she has 20 to 30 others the goverment pays to support him or her including Bachman, have not seen any of those wastefully jobs cut

The 435 inside traders in Congress like their advantage!

Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) reamed out the Republican that introduced it and put a stop to the bill. Democrats are torgued off at Eric. Stop insider trading TP/GOP. Or is that ok in your book too?

Rick, seeing as EVERY bill passed by the House has been tabled by Harry Reid instead of being VOTED on like it should be, you'll never hear a thing, will you?

You don't even know what's been proposed in the budgets passed by the House, do you?

All you "know" is what Pelosi, Reid, and Obama tell you. (As they refuse to put forward ANY kind of budget for this country for they THIRD year in a row now, but don't have any problem borrowing and spending TRILLIONS of dollars)

remove the socialilst from office... that would be number 1.

RICK: Weren't these the scmucks that campaigned on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"???

And when they criticize Obama for not creating more jobs they fail to take into account that GOP governors have laid of many tens of thousands of state workers as if these jobs didn't count.

There was one miserable twit a week or two ago who posted "I'd gladly pay an extra ten cents for a stamp if it would mean them laying off 100,000 postal workers"! Can you believe these animals? As if these people didn't have families to take care of.

they were being paid more than they were worth.

the post office should be disbanded.

Intrepid, I don't blame Obama or dems or repubs for not creating jobs since the government can not and never will create a private sector job. However, I do blame all of the above for getting the government tooooooooooooooooo big and way to many regulations that cost businesses billions of dollars every year. That is what government is, FORCE. The Obama economy is into picking the winners and losers and most small businesses are just trying to stay above water until obama and the dems no longer have control.

Cheryl,

Please answer my question. How many bills have the Rebuplicans fillibustered, thus tableing, in the Senate in Obama's 3 years? And how does that compare to the amount executed by any party in the past?

You won't see a GOP plan until Harry quits stuffing them in a drawer and not bringing the up.

Cheryl,

Didn't get your meds today. Could it be you need to go see your local VA nurse? Oh, let me guess, you never actually served in the armed forces.

Brad - "How many bills have the Rebuplicans fillibustered, thus tableing, in the Senate in Obama's 3 years?"

Not nearly enough. Why do you think they had such a landslide victory in the 2010 midterms?

Yeah, 2010 TP/GOP promise jobs. What are they going to promise in 2012? Who's going to believe them. The Idjits?

lildi

Once again I say read the Article! The cuts are through attrition not layoff. The law also requires that the number of civilian contractors is frozen not reduced. This is so the government can't hire a contract worker in place of a lost employee. Get your facts straight.

Same old garbage. You don't care about 16 Billion dollars given out in "loans and grants" being given out to Obama staff and supporter in the "green" energy field. You don't care that the Dept of Education is going to spend over 95 BILLION dollars this year.

Instead you throw out garbage that you think makes you look "intelligent" and "amusing".

CHERYL: Tell me something. Were you voicing your outrage when George Bush started 2 wars, one of them totally unnecessary, both of them UNPAID FOR while he simultaneously cut taxes?

Can you name me another war in our history where we cut taxes? Can you imagine if FDR cut taxes after Pearl Harbor? We'd all be speaking German or Japanese.

8 years for Bush proved one thing. The Right spends just as much money as the Left, if not more but instead of raising taxes to pay for it, they cut taxes, so that everyone thinks they're getting a free lunch. It was your hero, draft dodging Dick Cheney who famously said "Deficits don't matter" We were also told that Iraq would be a cake walk and we would be repaid by profits from the Iraqi oil production, remember? Latest estimates for the Iraq war? When all the dust settles, somewhere between TWO TO THREE TRILLION. Where's your outrage Cheryl???

"Can you name me another war in our history where we cut taxes?" Korea.

"8 years for Bush proved one thing. The Right spends just as much money as the Left, if not more"... considering that Obama tripled the budget deficit his first year in office and has kept it tripled every year since, "8 years of Bush" actually proved the opposite.

P.S.

Funny you leave out the costs of Libya and the lack of return of anything from it, other than creating a new safe haven for Al Queda.

Let's see, Bush left the democrats a mess to clean up. First year we were working on just keeping the economy afloat after Bushes 2 wars and all that deficit spending. (off the budget too)

What serial hypocrits the TP/GOP are.

Obama Biden 2012

TP/GOP nominee, bozo the clown.

INTREPID1

You do realize that the national debt after world war II was over 100% of our GDP at the time, don't you? You do realize that lend lease was all done on the cuff and never really paid back by our allies don't you? You do realize that congress approved both the action in Afghanistan and Iraq before any shots were fired don't you? You do realize that support for both of those actions were with BIPARTISAN support, don't you? And you do know that it was Bill Clinton that signed the resolution authorizing the use of whatever means necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power? In 1998, before the campaigns that year?

IMHO-2730490-

You have got to be kidding! Were you in another country. Democrats never worked on the economy the first year or now 3 years. Obama does nothing but think he has a blank check. $6 trillion dollars plus in less than 3 years spent by Obama and the Democrats. Bush didn't have but $8 trillion total.

Those same private Corporations that sent Millions of Middle class jobs oversees, ya, we'll get right on that, NOT

Why not? Let's outsource Congress to India!

Foreign interests are running the show already through lobbying.

Capital Gains Tax = 0

Get on that instead

Insider trading for everyone. Just make it legal and tax it.

Of course not... it won't mow your yard or paint your house either.

It will reduce the amount of hands under them that also receive raises due to "budget increases" as well as the resulting lifelong pensions.

Telll you what smart guy, how about from now on you eat food not inspected by the FDA and fly on planes not inspected by the FAA.

Those "Big Goverenment" workers you insult put a man on the moon, created the internet, created the nuclear bomb, built the Hoover damn. FYI, I know plenty of incompetent fat slobs who work for corporations, you half wit.

How about we get all the GOP Congressman to voluntarily give up their "Socialized " health care??? How many volunteers do you think we'll get?

who are you kidding... Al Gore created the Internet.

can you imagine these indolent, overpaid, obese, uneducated fuks trying to compete in the real world.

Right wing hate seems to have no end, does it? The fact is that by curtailing federal jobs blacks are disproportionately affected as a far higher percentage of blacks with decent incomes work for the government. They don't vote GOP so they become game for attack.

But stereotyping federal workers is asinine. They are simply no different from the rest of America. They are citizens just like the rest of us. And for the most part they are hardly overpaid.

Those like Velicirap will only miss government when it is gone. When they realize they have become willing slaves of private industry.

voxrat - "federal workers... They are simply no different from the rest of America."

You have the nerve to say America is like the amoebas at the DMV or the corrupt perverts in our government and yet you say the right wing is hateful? Go look in the mirror.

Pray to your god that the rest of the world does not view Americans as they view our federal workers.

pjam09, the rest of the world only wish they had our federal workers. They even try to steal into our country illegally. They sacrifice family ties and safety just to come to America where they can expect freedom. Thanks Feds for keeping this a great and free nation.

The Feds are tied up on foriegn issues

bingo.

the post office would be gone is a week

GREG: Why do assume that they aren't held to certain standards of work???

You just talk like everyone is sitting around, drinking beer.

VELO: And exactly what do you know about the post office? Their rates happen to be more competeitive in many instances than that of UPS. No, you're just a "Big Government" hater, blindly mouthing the lines that the GOP and Fixed News gives you.

lol

why are they more competitive?

they are being subsidized by the 1%.

you're just a "Big Government" hater

Thank You

Thank You

Thank You

Thank You

I needed to ship something yesterday, a rearview mirror to a company for repair. For the same size box and the same delivery time the rates were almost $60 for UPS/FedEx and $10 for the good ol post office. You frickin teabag morons can spout all the ignorance you want but i'll gladly stand in line at my local post office to save $50 any day of the week. So you be sure and patronize those amazing private sector companies that are bending you over on shipping and stay the hell out of the post office, it'll just make the line shorter for me.

Jeff - That is why the "good ol post office" is bankrupt and will be bailed out by taxpayers within the next 4 years and your grandchildren will be paying for their loses.

Intrepid - "GREG: Why do assume that they aren't held to certain standards of work?"

He's probably met a government worker or seen their work.

Post Office is being raided by our TP/GOP to pay for other government programs, like their big wars.

If they didn't need to fund their retirement system 75 years in advance, they would be solvent without subsidies. Is UPS funding their retirement for employees 75 years in advance. Or is the TP/GOP giving UPS an unfair advantage? Hmmmmm, seem those inside traders (or should I say traitors) are up to their old games.

Jeff

The post office is also in default on payment for their retirement benefits to the Federal Government, I don't think UPS or FedEx falls into the same category. They have to pay for their obligations or they go under. The Government may not be outwardly subsidizing the Post office, but they are still keeping them afloat. The reason that the post office operates at a loss is the result of how the Government Pay Scale is set up and the amount of underfunded benefits they receive.

The post office is going under because technologies such as email and online payments advertising etc are making them redundant. Despite this they are required under the terms of their union contracts to maintain full employment, pay and pensions.

So WHO is going to pay for this cluster F?

Pjam and archangel you are both wrong, the post office is not bankrupt due to the rates they charge nor can they be compared to UPS/FEDEX with regards to retirement funds. The private sector is not required to fund retirement benefits 75 fricking years into the future like the post office is. Without that corrupt and ridiculous albatross around their necks the post office would be totally in the black. Now if one of you right wing private sector suckups would like to explain why it costs so much more for the private sector companies to use the same routes to deliver packages i'm all ears. The reality of it is they charge that much because morons like you keep paying it.

Don't confuse them with facts. The fact is the pension system imposed on the postal service is a poison pill placed there by the Republican congress and Bush to deep six the USPS. They are paying pensions on employees who aren't even born yet. The sad part is Fed/Ex and UPS want no part of the day to day delivery and if private contractors are used the cost to taxpayers will explode.