Federal Budget Thread (Was: RNC to spend $10 million to reach minorities)

[steeldawg]

I think the point he is trying to make is that government workers are paid entirely too much for what they do. I work with civil service employees who make truckloads of money for doing virtually nothing. I honestly watch 8 guys sleep off and on in the break room for hours on end while watching tv. They get paid twice as much as I do. So yes, absolutely some of those jobs can be cut.

You go on and on about the 600000 people that will lose thier jobs, my question to you is, why pay those 600000 people astronomical salaries for doing virtually nothing? That seems to be the definition of waste to me.

First lets not keeping saying government workers are paid astronomical salaries because they are not. 2nd there is a difference between replacing poor workers rather than just eliminating jobs. The more people with good paying jobs, the better it is for the economy, eliminating jobs is bad for the economy its bad for businesses especially to save between 30 billion - 60 billion dollars against a 20 trillion dollar debt. I understand his point but your talking about the livelyhoods of 600000 thousand americans to save a tear drop in a swimming pool full of debt.

[GBMelBlount]

I work with civil service employees who make truckloads of money for doing virtually nothing. I honestly watch 8 guys sleep off and on in the break room for hours on end while watching tv. They get paid twice as much as I do. So yes, absolutely some of those jobs can be cut.

This is what boggles my mind Hindes.

That people act as though by suggesting we cut back on government waste and duplicity we are heartless anarchists.

We are 20 trillion in debt so why is it out of line to ask the government to do more with less like everyone else.

[silver & black]

I think the point he is trying to make is that government workers are paid entirely too much for what they do. I work with civil service employees who make truckloads of money for doing virtually nothing. I honestly watch 8 guys sleep off and on in the break room for hours on end while watching tv. They get paid twice as much as I do. So yes, absolutely some of those jobs can be cut.

You go on and on about the 600000 people that will lose thier jobs, my question to you is, why pay those 600000 people astronomical salaries for doing virtually nothing? That seems to be the definition of waste to me.

This is why I can't take Liberals seriously. They seem to think there is no end to the money supply to pay/bail out useless, lazy people that contribute nothing to society.

[steeldawg]

Shedding 600,000 jobs over time is a problem but the government is living beyond it's means and should cut back just like those in the private sector.

We are not asking the government to do anything that normal every day Americans aren't already forced to do.

The government can cutback, but we need long term solutions not massive job cuts that would just crush the economy. If you want spending cuts they need to be in areas of waste they do not need to be in jobs, jobs are way to important to people, business, and government to be the area we need to cut.

[GoSlash27]

First lets not keeping saying government workers are paid astronomical salaries because they are not. 2nd there is a difference between replacing poor workers rather than just eliminating jobs. The more people with good paying jobs, the better it is for the economy, eliminating jobs is bad for the economy its bad for businesses especially to save between 30 billion - 60 billion dollars against a 20 trillion dollar debt. I understand his point but your talking about the livelyhoods of 600000 thousand americans to save a tear drop in a swimming pool full of debt.

The government is not a "jobs program". Every American who collects a State or Federal paycheck is paid with either tax dollars or debt, and is thus an overall drain on the economy. I say get rid of every single unnecessary government employee (which'd be almost all of 'em). Less Federal workers= less taxes, bureaucracy, and red tape and therefore more economic growth (which opens up all sorts of jobs for the former government employees).

[steeldawg]

This is why I can't take Liberals seriously. They seem to think there is no end to the money supply to pay/bail out useless, lazy people that contribute nothing to society.

What! they are talking about taking 600,000 jobs thus putting those people on government assisstance and you think only liberals think thats a bad idea. You could wipe out all goverment salaries and you probably would be hard pressed to save 500 billion dollars its a terrible idea.

[steeldawg]

The government is not a "jobs program". Every American who collects a State or Federal paycheck is paid with either tax dollars or debt, and is thus an overall drain on the economy. I say get rid of every single unnecessary government employee (which'd be almost all of 'em). Less Federal workers= less taxes, bureaucracy, and red tape and therefore more economic growth (which opens up all sorts of jobs for the former government employees).

Well there is a big difference between an unecessary employee here and there but 30% of the government workforce is insane. Also less government workers just means more unemployed people and less people paying taxes also less people spending money so im not sure how that transalates into lower taxes. Weve seen what businesses did with lower taxes they did not create economic growth, actually alot of economists say it hurts growth while also driving up the debt.

[GoSlash27]

Well there is a big difference between an unecessary employee here and there but 30% of the government workforce is insane. Also less government workers just means more unemployed people and less people paying taxes also less people spending money so im not sure how that transalates into lower taxes. Weve seen what businesses did with lower taxes they did not create economic growth, actually alot of economists say it hurts growth while also driving up the debt.

Seems pretty straightforward to me: Nobody draws their full employed salary on unemployment, so what you're talking about is paying 20% less per former employee and collecting 15% less per former employee in taxes. The impact on the private sector is immense.

I don't want to argue around in circles with you; we both know where each other stands on this. I don't think we should have so many as even one government employee who's not necessary.

[steeldawg]

Seems pretty straightforward to me: Nobody draws their full employed salary on unemployment, so what you're talking about is paying 20% less per former employee and collecting 15% less per former employee in taxes. The impact on the private sector is immense.

I don't want to argue around in circles with you; we both know where each other stands on this. I don't think we should have so many as even one government employee who's not necessary.

One more quick point even if we are paying 20% less forthem on unemployment your also sacrificing the taxes that come out of their paycheck not to mention other government entightlements such as food stamps and wic that these people will need to survive, and thats just talking about the individual thats not even taking in to account if they had a family, i actually think it would end up costing more after all of those factors.

[Count Steeler]

Yes he said he "wants the goverment to step up and do more with less" and the entire conersation has been about businesses stepping up and hiring more people and paying better wages. Even if you wanted to go that route its also not the answer, what kind of message is that? We are going to improve the economy and lower spending by cutting peoples salaries? Do you really think that by cutting the wages of 2 million americans that you will put a dent in our national debt? Also maybe we should be looking at private businesses also to keep up with rising costs afterall we pay for those jobs as well. Yes there pay checks come from the business but where does that money come from oh ya from the people buying their product, so your tax dollars pay government workers and your consumer dollars pay private sector workers. Attacking workers salaries private or publicis no way to turn an economy around i dont care how you slice it.

There is just so much wrong here. However, the main point and what has to happen to government is that it becomes responsible and that it's employees have the same sense of job loss fear as the private sector. Entitlement attitude is the major problem, supported by government and the unions.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if you cut 600000 workers lets even say they all made 100000 per year but we both know its less you would save a total of 60 billion dollars, is saving 60 billion dollars against a 20 trillion dollar deficit really worth putting 600000 people out of work?

Let's keep apples to apples. The deficit is about 1.5 trillion this year. The debt is approaching 20 trillion.

At first the 60 billion would not seem like much, but it is the ripple effect that is important. Get the government responsible again and stop thinking it is entitled to your money. I work hard for my money and I don't like to see it being wasted, either in my household, or in my country.

[Count Steeler]

One more quick point even if we are paying 20% less forthem on unemployment your also sacrificing the taxes that come out of their paycheck not to mention other government entightlements such as food stamps and wic that these people will need to survive, and thats just talking about the individual thats not even taking in to account if they had a family, i actually think it would end up costing more after all of those factors.

I find it fascinating that you think there are only 2 options for government employees. If they get fired, they will HAVE to be on government assistance to survive. Really? Maybe getting fired will wake them up and cause them to become productive citizens again and turn around and employ hundreds of workers. Ever think of that possibility?

Also, they are paid 100% with government taxes, they pay maybe 40% in income tax? Net effect is 60% savings to the government AND they start performing like an efficient entity and not a cesspool of waste.

[steeldawg]

There is just so much wrong here. However, the main point and what has to happen to government is that it becomes responsible and that it's employees have the same sense of job loss fear as the private sector. Entitlement attitude is the major problem, supported by government and the unions.

- - - Updated - - -



Let's keep apples to apples. The deficit is about 1.5 trillion this year. The debt is approaching 20 trillion.

At first the 60 billion would not seem like much, but it is the ripple effect that is important. Get the government responsible again and stop thinking it is entitled to your money. I work hard for my money and I don't like to see it being wasted, either in my household, or in my country.

Your justification for laying off all those workers and there families is you want to put the fear of job loss into them? You would rather your tax money pay for unemployment as opposed to workers? Wow a perfect example of how republicans do not care about people, you would put all those people on the street if it meant ur taxes would go down a percentage point. What ripple effect you have not made any signifcant cut, all you did was take peples jobs and put them on entightlements. Not one of the posters have even addressed the people and their families that something like that would affect, theyve described them as waste that can be tossed aside, I could never share that point of view.

[steeldawg]

I find it fascinating that you think there are only 2 options for government employees. If they get fired, they will HAVE to be on government assistance to survive. Really? Maybe getting fired will wake them up and cause them to become productive citizens again and turn around and employ hundreds of workers. Ever think of that possibility?

Also, they are paid 100% with government taxes, they pay maybe 40% in income tax? Net effect is 60% savings to the government AND they start performing like an efficient entity and not a cesspool of waste.

No thats not what i think, but if you put 600,000 people out of work what do you think is going to happen, they are just gonna go to the private sector and get jobs, because companies are obviously hiring and there are obviously 600,000 open positions, or oh lets take your suggestion they will all start their own businesses that are incredibly successful, because everyone who owns a business knows its really easy all you have to is wake up, its not like its takes capital or anything. Hey maybe they can get loans im sure banks will be dying to give 600,000 unemployed people loans to start a business. You think because these people are paid with tax dollars they deserve to lose their jobs? You do realize that we pay private sector employees also, you know businesses dont operate without customers.

[Count Steeler]

Your justification for laying off all those workers and there families is you want to put the fear of job loss into them? You would rather your tax money pay for unemployment as opposed to workers? Wow a perfect example of how republicans do not care about people, you would put all those people on the street if it meant ur taxes would go down a percentage point. What ripple effect you have not made any signifcant cut, all you did was take peples jobs and put them on entightlements. Not one of the posters have even addressed the people and their families that something like that would affect, theyve described them as waste that can be tossed aside, I could never share that point of view.

Why don't you address the fact that government employees are under employed. You have the poor view of government employees. I believe they will become even more productive citizens if you take away the entitlement attitude. Your path is proven to destroy the finances of a country. You want to keep the status quo and let the government just proceed into bankruptcy. Then who is going to pay for the unemployment benefits? IF you want to keep a sustainable country, you have to start cutting government spending and making efficiency a goal.

Your proposed solution of letting the private sector pick up the slack will never work on its own. For if the economy picks up, the government will not change it's ways and will continue to be wasteful. The next recession will be even worse. If this cycle is not broken, and the government is not held accountable, your premise of keeping all government employees working, inefficiently, will be the foundation upon which your country crumbles, and is crumbling.


Entitlement is a disease. Most people want to eradicate diseases. You want to foster it and allow it to thrive.

[steeldawg]

Why don't you address the fact that government employees are under employed. You have the poor view of government employees. I believe they will become even more productive citizens if you take away the entitlement attitude. Your path is proven to destroy the finances of a country. You want to keep the status quo and let the government just proceed into bankruptcy. Then who is going to pay for the unemployment benefits? IF you want to keep a sustainable country, you have to start cutting government spending and making efficiency a goal.

Your proposed solution of letting the private sector pick up the slack will never work on its own. For if the economy picks up, the government will not change it's ways and will continue to be wasteful. The next recession will be even worse. If this cycle is not broken, and the government is not held accountable, your premise of keeping all government employees working, inefficiently, will be the foundation upon which your country crumbles, and is crumbling.


Entitlement is a disease. Most people want to eradicate diseases. You want to foster it and allow it to thrive.

Who said anything about keeping status quo, Im all for spending cuts but not cutting jobs. You could never cut enough jobs from the public sector to make an impact. Your view of people who work in the public sector is really warped. These are people who do a job and get paid for it why would you think they feel more entightled than anyone else. This idea that all government workers are lazy wastes of space who expect everything handed to them is absolutely ridiculous. The fact you think government workers is the spending problem in this country is laughable its such an extremly small portion of our debt it would do virtually nothing to spending or the debt. I never proposed the private sector pick up any slack i said they need to start hiring and getting their wages up to par. Your solution of putting that many workers out of work from the public sector is asking the private sector to pick up the slack. An economy where businesses continue to cut jobs and wages public or private with a growing population is unsustainable. My path has not proven to destroy countrys, My path is simple more well paying jobs and a strong middle class spending money is exactly what we need to build a strong economy, if we had more people working with good paying jobs we would have lower taxes we would have a strong economy. Please dont start making a strawman arguement about how im for entightlements and spending when i have said nothing of the sort, Im simply against putting 600,000 people out of work to try and save a buck.

[X-Terminator]

OK then, let them keep their jobs. But then tell them not to expect a raise any time soon, and start paying for more of their benefits. You know, like those of us in the private sector have had to do for the past 5 years. Also, immediately cut the salaries of all members of Congress and the President, and eliminate many of the perks they get just for knowing how to lie better than anyone else.

If we have to suffer out here, then they need to share in the pain.

[steeldawg]

OK then, let them keep their jobs. But then tell them not to expect a raise any time soon, and start paying for more of their benefits. You know, like those of us in the private sector have had to do for the past 5 years. Also, immediately cut the salaries of all members of Congress and the President, and eliminate many of the perks they get just for knowing how to lie better than anyone else.

If we have to suffer out here, then they need to share in the pain.

I believe they have been on a pay freeze for the past 2 years and congress has extended it for a 3rd year.

[Count Steeler]

Who said anything about keeping status quo, Im all for spending cuts but not cutting jobs. You could never cut enough jobs from the public sector to make an impact. Your view of people who work in the public sector is really warped. These are people who do a job and get paid for it why would you think they feel more entightled than anyone else. This idea that all government workers are lazy wastes of space who expect everything handed to them is absolutely ridiculous. The fact you think government workers is the spending problem in this country is laughable its such an extremly small portion of our debt it would do virtually nothing to spending or the debt. I never proposed the private sector pick up any slack i said they need to start hiring and getting their wages up to par. Your solution of putting that many workers out of work from the public sector is asking the private sector to pick up the slack. An economy where businesses continue to cut jobs and wages public or private with a growing population is unsustainable. My path has not proven to destroy countrys, My path is simple more well paying jobs and a strong middle class spending money is exactly what we need to build a strong economy, if we had more people working with good paying jobs we would have lower taxes we would have a strong economy. Please dont start making a strawman arguement about how im for entightlements and spending when i have said nothing of the sort, Im simply against putting 600,000 people out of work to try and save a buck.

Do you ever win an argument with yourself? I think even you forget what the issue is with yourself. You keep moving the mark, making it look like you never say anything, which, in reality you don't.

Bottom line to all this crap, entitlements are destroying your country and mine. Let's just leave the status quo and we will all rise like the Phoenix once the fires are put out.

[zulater]

OK then, let them keep their jobs. But then tell them not to expect a raise any time soon, and start paying for more of their benefits. You know, like those of us in the private sector have had to do for the past 5 years. Also, immediately cut the salaries of all members of Congress and the President, and eliminate many of the perks they get just for knowing how to lie better than anyone else.

If we have to suffer out here, then they need to share in the pain.

I know a way we can save an easy million! Don't let Biden go to England or France and stay in a hotel ever again!

Vice President Joe Biden spent more than $1 million for two nights in hotels in London and Paris, according to government documents.
Biden and his hefty entourage spent the night at two five-star hotels in early February - one night at the Hyatt Regency London for a total of $459,338.65 and another night at the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand for $585,000.50.
The cost of the trips was first reported by the Weekly Standard, which discovered the official contract filing online, showing how much the government paid for the hotel bill.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2OVRWM3Pq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[steeldawg]

Do you ever win an argument with yourself? I think even you forget what the issue is with yourself. You keep moving the mark, making it look like you never say anything, which, in reality you don't.

Bottom line to all this crap, entitlements are destroying your country and mine. Let's just leave the status quo and we will all rise like the Phoenix once the fires are put out.

Nice deflection but my arguement has stayed exactly the same.

[X-Terminator]

I believe they have been on a pay freeze for the past 2 years and congress has extended it for a 3rd year.

They should extend it another 5.

Sorry, but they make too much money for what they do. Which ain't much in many cases. I'd rather just eliminate most of them entirely, but I do understand the impacts on the country if that did happen. It's a damn shame that we're in that position to begin with.

Next thing they should do is eliminate all of the money wasted on pork projects and campaign kickbacks to special interests. Outside of entitlement programs, that is really killing this country financially.

[silver & black]

What! they are talking about taking 600,000 jobs thus putting those people on government assisstance and you think only liberals think thats a bad idea. You could wipe out all goverment salaries and you probably would be hard pressed to save 500 billion dollars its a terrible idea.

Look at it this way... how many of those 600,000 jobs are essential to the running/importance of this country? I'm betting not even half of them.

- - - Updated - - -

OK then, let them keep their jobs. But then tell them not to expect a raise any time soon, and start paying for more of their benefits. You know, like those of us in the private sector have had to do for the past 5 years. Also, immediately cut the salaries of all members of Congress and the President, and eliminate many of the perks they get just for knowing how to lie better than anyone else.

If we have to suffer out here, then they need to share in the pain.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

[steeldawg]

They should extend it another 5.

Sorry, but they make too much money for what they do. Which ain't much in many cases. I'd rather just eliminate most of them entirely, but I do understand the impacts on the country if that did happen. It's a damn shame that we're in that position to begin with.

Next thing they should do is eliminate all of the money wasted on pork projects and campaign kickbacks to special interests. Outside of entitlement programs, that is really killing this country financially.

I would say most of them is a stretch, since most of the public sector jobs are police, teachers, fire fighters etc.. but government jobs have been on the decline for awhile now weve laid off many teachers and police officers weve done the pay freeze but it has not provided any boost to the economy its actually had an opposite effect.

[steeldawg]

Look at it this way... how many of those 600,000 jobs are essential to the running/importance of this country? I'm betting not even half of them.

- - - Updated - - -

.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

Alot of police teachers social workers firefighter emts in there that i would say are pretty important. not to mention they also pay taxes and spend money in our economy. Laying off 600,000 people will not help our economy, It will cut what we would of spent on their salaries but thats it. It in no way helps economic growth.

[GoSlash27]

Who said anything about keeping status quo, Im all for spending cuts but not cutting jobs. You could never cut enough jobs from the public sector to make an impact. Your view of people who work in the public sector is really warped. These are people who do a job and get paid for it why would you think they feel more entightled than anyone else. This idea that all government workers are lazy wastes of space who expect everything handed to them is absolutely ridiculous. The fact you think government workers is the spending problem in this country is laughable its such an extremly small portion of our debt it would do virtually nothing to spending or the debt. I never proposed the private sector pick up any slack i said they need to start hiring and getting their wages up to par. Your solution of putting that many workers out of work from the public sector is asking the private sector to pick up the slack. An economy where businesses continue to cut jobs and wages public or private with a growing population is unsustainable. My path has not proven to destroy countrys, My path is simple more well paying jobs and a strong middle class spending money is exactly what we need to build a strong economy, if we had more people working with good paying jobs we would have lower taxes we would have a strong economy. Please dont start making a strawman arguement about how im for entightlements and spending when i have said nothing of the sort, Im simply against putting 600,000 people out of work to try and save a buck.

And that's what people are talking about when they say "sense of entitlement". Where else but in government could cutting useless functionaries be considered "heartless"?
I think the problem here is that you've got the end confused with the means. Nobody is in the business of collecting a paycheck while productivity is just a happy by-product. It's the other way around. Likewise, businesses are in the business of providing goods and services to their customers in a competitive manner and keeping their investors happy. Good paying jobs are a by-product of that, not the other way around.

We have a large group of people in our economy who are being paid to do things that aren't needed (assuming they're doing anything at all). It's not "heartless" to stop doing that, it's an absolute necessity with our budget as out- of- whack as it is. It's not a bad thing to end waste, it's a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Alot of police teachers social workers firefighter emts in there that i would say are pretty important. not to mention they also pay taxes and spend money in our economy. Laying off 600,000 people will not help our economy, It will cut what we would of spent on their salaries but thats it. It in no way helps economic growth.

And how many of these "police teachers social workers firefighter emts" are Federal employees?
/notice how they always act as if there's no such thing as a useless bureaucrat?
// they only "pay" enough "taxes" to cover 20% of their own jobs

[steeldawg]

And that's what people are talking about when they say "sense of entitlement". Where else but in government could cutting useless functionaries be considered "heartless"?
I think the problem here is that you've got the end confused with the means. Nobody is in the business of collecting a paycheck while productivity is just a happy by-product. It's the other way around. Likewise, businesses are in the business of providing goods and services to their customers in a competitive manner and keeping their investors happy. Good paying jobs are a by-product of that, not the other way around.

We have a large group of people in our economy who are being paid to do things that aren't needed (assuming they're doing anything at all). It's not "heartless" to stop doing that, it's an absolute necessity with our budget as out- of- whack as it is. It's not a bad thing to end waste, it's a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -



And how many of these "police teachers social workers firefighter emts" are Federal employees?
/notice how they always act as if there's no such thing as a useless bureaucrat?
// they only "pay" enough "taxes" to cover 20% of their own jobs

Honestly slash Im all debated out tonight if i dont get off this computer i might end up cross eyed, i will pick it up tommorow night.

[zulater]

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/4306...dr-ben-carson/



I don’t have much patience for hired hacks who dine out on race-baiting, but this is worth mentioning. You see, Touré is the arbiter of all ideas and whether they are compatible with certain races or not.

If you are black, you are not supposed to believe in limited government and economic opportunity, you are genetically determined to believe in a huge nanny state and endless government entitlements. Doesn’t sound patronizing and condescending towards blacks at all, does it?

Dr. Carson recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he would “seriously consider” running for office, and the Democrats are already clearly concerned.

“It’s not my intention to do that, but what I’ve said is if a year-and-a-half goes by and people are still clamoring for me to do that, and there’s no other very good candidates, I would certainly have to seriously consider it. The likelihood of that is incredibly small, so I’m not really planning on that.”

There’s not really much else to say, because I’m pretty sure Dr. Carson would wipe that grin off of Touré’s face if the two ever had a face-to-face debate. But if there’s anything that sends chills up the spine of Democrat Party operatives, it’s an intelligent black conservative.

[zulater]

Someone needs to tell Toure that by only wanting people to vote once per voter, that isn't voter suppression. How the hell can a statement like that go unchallenged?

[GBMelBlount]

Steeldawg

Your view of people who work in the public sector is really warped. These are people who do a job and get paid for it why would you think they feel more entightled than anyone else. This idea that all government workers are lazy wastes of space who expect everything handed to them is absolutely ridiculous. The fact you think government workers is the spending problem in this country is laughable its such an extremly small portion of our debt it would do virtually nothing to spending or the debt.

For the record, being critical of the inefficiency of government employees is NOT an indictment of the government employees themselves, but the way government is run. Government employees as indiviudal people are just as great as the next guy.

The problem lies in if you give someone 3 or 4 hours of work each day and they have 8 hours to do it what choices do they really have...

[GoSlash27]

Honestly slash Im all debated out tonight if i dont get off this computer i might end up cross eyed, i will pick it up tommorow night.

Roger, Roger.
Have a good evening, Sir