home

The Era Of Big Government Is Over

Surely there is a pressing need for school uniforms legislation, no? This is a mistake.

Speaking for me only

< Justice For Some, Again | Someone On The Internet Was Mean To Me >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's not a (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:02:01 PM EST
    mistake if you're of the Grover Norquist persuasion, and want to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub.  Freeze the pay of federal workers, pay them less, and you will get less and less desirable federal workers.  You can argue that many of the federal workers are drones and do not do a great job, but do you really want the FDA, EPA, CDC, OSHA, etc, staffed by the less and less competent?  If people think that regulations are lax now, just wait.  Let's privatize everything, and then you can really worry about the drugs that you are prescribed, the safety of your workplace, the quality of the water you drink, and so on.  Think it's bad now?  It could get much, much worse.

    Well, President Obama really, really (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:54:43 PM EST
    did not want to do it, but he just bit his lip and went with a good Republican idea.  Indeed, Eric Cantor said that he is pleased that Obama is joining the Republican efforts.

    But, after all, the estimated $60 billion in savings over ten years (if kept that long) will help to pay down a little piece of the latest compromise plan being bandied about: to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes under $l million (rather than the previous $250 million), which will cost about $400 billion over the same period (v. $700 billion for incomes below $250,000).  

    Parent

    I'm a jerk (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:26:55 PM EST
    But I put on my facebook something about the U.S. being the new Sparta.  If you are willing to die at the command of a "leader" you can have healthcare you can afford, retire in 20 years, and get raises.  The rest of ya'll can go pound sand.  You are beneath the soldier class.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    I wish YOU were my friend on facebook!

    Parent
    We're Helots! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    This is the group of non-Spartan citizens of ancient Sparta.  They were considered "non-free", because they existed in a nether world between freedom and slavery.  Hmmm ....

    Of course, the Helots always vastly out-numbered the Spartans.  You need a lot of servants to keep a self-indulgent military class operational.  

    The Spartans would occasionally declare war on the Helots, so they could kill them with impunity.

    There were some Helot revolts, but surprisingly few.  Most historians feel the lack of revolts was due to the fact that Sparta featured lush farmlands.  And if the Helots stayed out of the Spartans ways and followed the rules, they could have relatively pleasant lives.

    Hmmm ... this all sounds too familiar.

    Parent

    I love this site (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:54:06 AM EST
    So true (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 10:10:32 PM EST
    And I'm so glad that on facebook, my personna is a dog. As a dog, I don't talk politics.  I talk bones and cats.

    Parent
    even our media (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    a quote from the movie "Doubt":

    "in ancient sparta the winner was decided by who shouted loudest.  fortunately we are not in ancient sparta."  

    that was then.

    Parent

    I was always partial to the Athenian (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    literary types....

    Parent
    I thought I was too (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    And then I stumbled upon a room full of spartans and my ovaries kicked in hard :)

    Parent
    I'm getting too old to die in childbirth though (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:36:25 PM EST
    So I will be buried unmarked.

    Parent
    Aspasia would have been interesting... (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:48:46 PM EST
    Except (none / 0) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    the folks voted to go to war over and over again during the brief period of pure democracy.

    Parent
    I wish we were Sparta! (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:48:12 PM EST
    Wikipedia


    The closest western historical example of free public nudity was ancient Sparta, a society with rigorous codes of training and physical exercise, yet also having art and music. Spartan women wore briefer clothing than other Greek women, yet they sometimes dispensed with these garments and went nude in the town if they wished. (Customarily, they and other Greek men and women were nude at festivals of the Classical period). In Spartan society naked women or men in the city would probably have been treated with the same respect as clothed people.


    Parent
    born to late (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    we were Dan

    Parent
    Just following the recommendation (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    of the Cat Food Commission (draft/pre-vote), although for only two years, rather than three--coinciding with his term of office apparently.  It includes civilian Pentagon employees, but excludes the military along with its brass.  

    Hey man (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    If you cut active duty off from feeling that forward moving motion, we could decide that the possibility of dying doesn't sound so great after all :)

    Parent
    My husband and I just scrapped over it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    He said that you can't put extra stress on military and their families while we are in the midst of two wars.  He lives in a military bubble though, he has no idea what stress other families are trying to survive right now.

    Parent
    Take 2 billion dollars in spending money (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:58:51 PM EST
    out of the  economy this year. Brilliant.

    That's a rounding error. (none / 0) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    True enough, but it's a rounding error in (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    the deficit too. It's a cosmetic gesture at the expense of people that could use a pay raise, as could most of us.

    Parent
    rounding error? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:34:25 AM EST
    not for those of us whose salary will be frozen and transit benefits cut, etc.

    Parent
    By the time Obama is done, (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:13:10 PM EST
    Christine O'Donnell will be able to beat him at the polls in 2012.

    Tax breaks for the wealthy and pay cuts for average workers is not a good formula for generating votes for your side.

    More on actual cut in take home pay (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:48:16 AM EST
    for federal workers.

    The freeze, which must be approved by Congress, would be the first two-year halt to federal raises in modern history. With health insurance premiums for civil servants set to jump 7.2 percent on average next year and a federal transit subsidy to be cut by half Dec. 31, the plan will amount to a pay cut for many workers. WaPo


    Parent
    Einstein was said (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:22:31 PM EST
    to have stated, "either I'm a genius and everyone else is insane," or......you know the rest.

    Where did this proposal come from? It wasn't even on the tea-baggers list, as far as I know.

    I'm beginning to think the pressures of the Presidency have rendered Mr. Obama incapable of rational thought. What was a throw-away thought yesterday is becoming more and more plausible today.

    You can just picture the free-association, strategy sessions in the White House.......Snap! I got it! "They" hate the Government." "They" just got hassled at the airports by "government workers" (many minorities) Anti-Government, and racist.....a twofer!

    "Big Guy, you're a genius!"

    Or..........


    I read that one of the Catfood commision's (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    recommendations was for a three year freeze. This looks like a variation on that.

    I didn't make the connection to the TSA discontent. I bet you are exactly right.

    Parent

    I see I read it right here from KeysDan (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    usually a reliable source.

    Parent
    I didn't think the school uniforms (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by masslib on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    was a particularly bad idea.  It's funny how the anti-uniform crowd is now the Waiting for Superman crowd, since so many of those charters require uniforms.  But, I digress.  Point taken.  It's a cheap gimmick, and worse, it takes money out of the economy and validates the austerity push.  Stupid.

    The era of democracy (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Coral on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 11:07:40 PM EST
    is over. We have now entered the era of Empire and Oligarchy.

    Shared sacrifice = force sacrifice of the bottom 90% while the top 1% not only increases wealth exponentially, they are no longer subject to the rule of law. Plus they get more tax reductions.

    Don't you just love it (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:01:49 AM EST
    All these rich, right wing, pundits, "reporters," politicians, and insiders touting how brave, bold, and far sighted they are for coming to this `tough choice." After much agonized soul searching they're happy to report they that they found "the guts" to make the "right choice."

    They have concluded that the only way to solve the deficit problem is if "we're all in this thing together."

    The pissers, and the pissed upon, are equally guilty, and fairness dictates that both take a hit. The poor must decide whether to buy life saving medication.....or eat. The rich, whether to vacation with the personal Lear.....or first class time-share.

    In an article that could've been authored by the Onion, our own "liberal democratic" pundit, Robert Friedman, writing in the "liberal" New York Times this past Sunday spells it out for us:

    *****************
    Telling us that the only road to success is "..one that blends elements of both party's instincts."

    and

    ".... That hybrid politics will require hard choices:

    "We need to cut Medicare and Social Security entitlements at the same time as we make new investments......."

    "The best thing the president could do right now is declare his support for the draft recommendations on how to reduce the country's budget deficit just laid out by the co-chairmen of the White House's fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson."

    "In their plan, everybody takes a hit."

    ******************
    And what could be fairer than that? Congratulations, Mr. President. Your dream of PPUS is about to become a reality.

    You mean Thomas Friedman? (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:23:13 AM EST
    AKA "the moustache of understanding"?  I don't know that Thomas Friedman is at all "our own liberal Democratic pundit" though.

    Parent
    That's what you get (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:10:05 AM EST
    when posting after midnight.Thanks.

    And whatsa matta you? google <snark> then tell me about Friedman.

    Don't know how to make a smiley face, but there's one on its way to you.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    school uniforms legislation


    If they really want to make an economically (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by esmense on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:52:53 AM EST
    pointless gesture that will elate all the folks back home -- whatever their ideology -- they'd take up my proposal; limit congressman's pay to no more than 3 times the average per capita earnings in their district, and senator's to no more than three times the per capita earnings in the state. Raises would be automatic -- when their districts and states get a raise, they get a raise. (Wage decreases for constituents would, of course, also lead to wage decreases for their "representatives.")

    You would think the Republican "accountability" crowd would love this idea, wouldn't you?

    In the private sector, employers freeze (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    salaries in order to keep costs down and stay in business; the firm I work for did not give raises in 2009, and took other measures to cut costs in order to maximize cash flow and ride out the downturn in the economy - among them were staff and attorney-level cuts.  Private firms, unlike the federal government, cannot create the money they need to continue to function; they rely solely on the demand for what they produce or for the services they provide.

    The federal government does not have to cut spending - how many times do we have to go over this essential element before it sinks in?  And why on earth would you (1) do this in a down economy or (2) make the announcement at the beginning of the holiday spending season, when retailers - who were feeling optimistic about the Black Friday revenue - are looking to make up some ground lost in the previous year?  

    How clueless does one have to be to think this makes sense?

    I think it's time to fear the worst: that all of the "sacrifice" is going to come at the expense of those who have nothing left to give, that the decisions made will not help the economy, that more people will sink into poverty.

    But, hey - if you're a member of the elite, you can breathe a sigh of relief: there will be no pain for you.

    Between the Congress' apparent refusal to extend unemployment benefits, the administration's belief that it's major problem is one of messaging - and not that it has failed to do what's necessary to create jobs - the administration's obscene pandering to deficit hysterics, it's inability to or disinterest in regulating and/or investigating the practices of Wall Street and the banking industry, we are firmly ensconced in a handbasket that is headed straight for hell.

    I ask again: who are they going to turn on after they've effectively eliminated the old, the sick and the poor whom they believe to be the cause of the country's economic woes?


    Why i dont watch cable political talk anymore (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    Mordantly funny Digby recap of John King's show tonight. Oy vey indeed.

    As she says, when John King and Gloria Borger thinknyou are making a brilliant move, it's time to think twice.

    I hate to keep saying this (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 09:49:11 PM EST
    They are conservatives... Obama is a conservative.... they like what he is doing because he is their kind of politician.  

    They are getting a tax cut and the serfs are getting effed over.  It's a win for all of them.
    The oligarchy continues.

    Parent

    Plus it drastically increases the chances (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:18:59 AM EST
    of even more Republican wins in 2012. An across the board win for them.

    Parent
    Salaries (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:16:38 AM EST
    A web site I go to lists salaries of some federal employees.  I am utterly shocked at how much some of them make, especially when you consider the benefits.

    However, Obama mighta, shoulda, reserved the freeze for the upper echelons and left the little people alone.  Then, honestly, I could support a wage freeze.

    Of course, neither party is about the Lilliputians.  

    The civilians that work with my husband (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:12:36 AM EST
    make good money.  I think it is a GS13 slot, but my husband got Friday off after Thanksgiving.  They did not.  I see them bust their tails a lot.  We have a friend who is a GS13 in a bookkeeping type job on post her.  Her boys have a birthday in the middle of closing out the fiscal year so they reschedule the bday celebration because she can't do it when she is in the midst of that.  The civilians that I know are very hardworking and now frozen salarywise.

    Parent
    what website is that? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:35:54 AM EST
    doesn't accord with my knowledge of federal salaries vs. equivalent private sector salaries. take a look at the federal job postings at usajobs.com and see what government doctors, VA nurses, scientists, etc make compared to their private counterparts.

    Parent
    i prefer to look at it as... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    ...the "average" private sector employee is underpaid as opposed to those on the federal level overpaid.  Many federal employees, gasp, are also unionized if I'm not mistaken.

    Parent
    I linked to this one earlier (none / 0) (#59)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    These numbers come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    But if you google federal pay versus private pay you'll tons of hits and all with varying data and almost all show federal higher than private, but not all.

    Parent

    Politics aside (none / 0) (#32)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:31:39 AM EST
    I don't  have problem with freezing federal salaries. They already make more than their private industry counterparts and in two years when this freeze is over, they will still make more than them.

    They still have jobs in a down economy and probably have some of the best job security out there.

    They make more? If you take private (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by observed on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:49:36 AM EST
    sector salaries and compensation and compare, I really doubt it, especially if you average in the salaries of the top executives. One guy pulling in $500 million can really change an average!

    Parent
    I think he was probably talking (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:22:00 AM EST
    about the other 99% of the population.

    Parent
    Well, it's highly debateable... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by masslib on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    That's state and local, not federal (none / 0) (#44)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:42:29 AM EST
    Sorry, wrong link... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by masslib on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    Here you go...

    Federal pay cuts: A bad idea for what gain?

    In the context of the deficit, Obama will get chump change from freezing federal pay, and will only enlarge the degree to which federal pay lags that of the private sector (a gap of 22%, according to the federal pay agent's report. See Table 4.)
    This is another example of the administration's tendency to bargain with itself rather than Republicans, and in the process reinforces conservative myths, in this case the myth that federal workers are overpaid. Such a policy also ignores the fact that deficit reduction and loss of pay at a time when the unemployment rate remains above 9% will only weaken a too-weak recovery. --Lawrence Mishel



    Parent
    I guess my question would be (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    if they are so underpaid why does anyone take the jobs?
    they seem rather coveted.

    benefits perhaps?

    Parent

    It is a very comfortable wage and benefit (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:58:50 AM EST
    package, and it is very stable usually.  

    Parent
    Job security, benefits... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by masslib on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:59:51 AM EST
    They are fine jobs, particularly in areas where there are few other decent jobs, that doesn't mean the folks who work them are overcompensated.

    Parent
    only my experience... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    but I left academia for a federal government job for several reasons:  job security, pension, better health insurance, and personal locality/family reasons.

    When I look around my agency and others, it seems that the vast majority of federal workers (secretaries, administrators, etc) are there because it's the best choice for those that don't have a college degree and have very few options other than minimum wage/go nowhere jobs. It's actually nice to see some of these people get into the GS scale at the bottom and move up for a change, with a decent quality of life.

    Parent

    I agree that it is chump change compared (none / 0) (#52)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    to everything else that is broke financially. I tried to read the report you linked to and I'm just not smart enough to get it, sorry.

    I'll go with this report based on Bureau of Economic Analysis numbers.

    Parent

    I worry that this (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:55:46 AM EST
    will only play into and deepen the current wage stagnation.  This gives their private industry counterparts even less leverage now to bargain for higher wages too.  And you don't see that disparity everywhere.  When it comes to trigger pullers, private industry trigger pullers make a hell of lot more than their military counterparts.  If only my husband would agree to go fly for Saudi Arabia, I could be living the high life.  It just seems like a bad idea to hamper middle class wage increases in any sector to me.  We can't tax the rich, but we will freeze middle class.

    Parent
    MT, this is a big part of the issue. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:06:03 AM EST
    In the grand scheme of things, a GS 13 doesn't make 'a lot' of money. In Daleville or Enterprise, it's a nice gig. But even with COLAs elsewhere,  government workers don't get rich. there are many more 7-13 level than higher levels.

    The trade is stability and health for a lower wage. One of the reasons bribery isn't an issue in the US government on any systemic scale? security and supposedly decent treatment. Well, this won't play well with government workers, let me tell you. They will blame the administration, not the congress, and rightly so.

    The GS 7's in the TSA that I've been railing against may make-- not take home-- 25-30k per year. A two year wage freeze is a Texas-style approach.

    Texas still passes two-year budgets, and teachers, et al in Texas get crunched when there's no consideration of a raise.

    Step raises will be in or out of this wage freeze?

    Listened to Morning Joe this AM, and Jon Shadegg from AZ was on. He parrotted the need for tax cuts while belittling continued unemployment. Shadegg had the nerve to say people 'hold on top their unemployment as long as possible." Yeah. For about five days, until it has been spent. Living on unemployment? It's a ticket to the poorhouse.

    Does the current administration take its cues from the Norquist types? It seems so. Kentucky Duck law...

    Parent

    "Step increases" (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    are independent of any yearly increase. (I was wondering when someone would mention step increases. That mechanism is quite helpful in this situation for lower-graded employees.) And, obviously, this is where benefits are so critical. Health care plans (including dental) are a fraction of the cost...my plan--which is high end and covers family--costs about #300 monthly with Kaiser.  

    Also: Consider retirement benefits for us older CSRS types. When I retired after 30 years a few years back--and after adding unused sick leave to the computation plus cashing out annual leave--I started retirement at about 60% plus of my fulltime employment salary. With annual increases, that level is substantially higher now...and, this is so even after deducting for a generous annuity for my husband should I predecease him. Embedded in that package is a guaranteed general insurance payout.

    While I agree that the government shouldn't make civilian employees a scapegoat, it is important to note significant offsetting benefits. Non-tangential rewards kept some of us in the government too...my work for EPA most of my government tenure rarely left me with a sense that I had acted wrongly toward the public. Having a reward of serving your country can be and is very important. (Actually, most of these remarks also reflect my conversations with active EPAers in several phone discussions yesterday.)

    Parent

    I'm glad to read that step (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    increases continue. Makes this unpalatable mess less nauseating.

    Parent
    so, (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by cpa1 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:18:43 AM EST
    having security for middle class government employees is bad?  Who is entitled to live well besides those wonderful stock brokers and bankers who destroyed our economy and destroyed the portfolios of many upper middle and upper middle  class families?

    Maybe we should go after the teachers next.  You know there are some that make over $100,000 after 25 years.  Let's change that to $50,000 and see where it gets us.

    Do you really think that a middle class government worker who earns $75,000 is doing so well?  Cut their salaries and they will cut their spending and that will have a downward effect on economic growth while the fat cats on Wall Street are still raking in their million dollar bonuses for losing trillions of dollars.

    The problem is there is nobody with a brain to talk today, like the person to whom I am responding.  You cannot gouge out the foundation of America and expect the building to remain standing.  Like I predicted many times before, we are going in a direction where will will have a tiny % as the extremely wealthy, 80% poverty and all the rest will be police officers keeping down the rebellions and revolutions.

    Obama is exactly what he portrayed himself to be before the election.  He loved Reagan and put Clinton and Bush in the same hole.  He didn't like the baby boomers who had a memory and instead was able to militarize the stupid children who knew nothing.

    On the Dailykos, you have to sign in blood that you will not criticize Obama because he is all we have and that nobody is listening anyway.  Well, if nobody is listening, why not blast him for the stupid things he does?  They did it with John Kerry too.  Kerry came on there a few times to read their remarks about his campaign.  I blasted him for his Stan Laurel approach to politics and all the rest thanked him like they are thanking Obama now.

    We need stimulus real bad and Obama is not giving it to us.  On the contrary he is taking all of it away and making the Treasury less able to invest in America.  Somebody has to invigorate spending and it's been clearly shown that the Bush tax cuts or even the Reagan tax cuts de-stimulates.  Remember how Bush 41 lost a second term because the Reagan tax cuts dug us in a hole which meant more Wall Street activity but less spending by the American marketplace...so even with the high amt of capital available and incredibly low interest rates, there was no investment in economic activity.  

    You want to shoot the marketplace, like the Republicans do and you are looking for the same results they are, a huge lower class that lives together, buys nothing and has no American dream.

    Parent

    Maybe you should read my post again (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    I didn't say having security for middle class government employees was bad. That's one of the great benefits of a government job and it is something they should be glad for considering their pay is gonna be frozen for two years.

    I didn't say anything about bankers, stock brokers or going after teachers salaries.

    Do I think a government worker making $75,000 is doing well? He better be! I'm doing pretty good on $45,000 a year and if he has a problem getting by on $75,000 I'll be more than happy to swap.

    You don't have to agree with my posts, I don't make many. But don't pull punches with comments like "The problem is there is nobody with a brain to talk today, like the person to whom I am responding". It's uncalled for.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#60)
    by cpa1 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    I should have left out "nobody with a brain."  I am just tired of these fake statistics that get thrown out by Republicans like nobody paid taxes when the tax rates were 91% and 70%.  Did you know nobody did?  Our country grew like wildfire with incredible infrastructure growth etc and nobody paid for it.  It was magic!

    When you compare someone with 25 years experience in the government to someone with 5 years in the private sector, the government employee will earn a great deal more.  Compare a stock broker with a million dollar bonus to how many government workers?  There are many of them earning that and they are by no means anywhere near the executive suite.  

    Besides, I love the way Republicans like to wipe away 50 years of negotiating, bargaining and dedicating of one's life to a specific job like it never happened.  If govt salaries were unfair they could have been rejected hundreds of times before now.

    But look what the Republicans did. They increaased their take home pay to more than double when Reagan became president and that wasn't bargained for over 50 or 100 years it was instantaneous.  Then when Bush was president the 40%ers started paying 15%, a little less than a third.

    Parent

    can we stop pretending (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    that every private sector employee is a stock broker?  Sure there are those in the private sector that make bank.  But for the most part, it's concentrated at the top - kind of like in government.

    Comparing a stock broker to your run of the mill employee is disengenuous.

    There might be "many of them earning that and they are by no means anywhere near the executive suite" - but they do not represent your average "private sector" employee.  There's a lot more to the private sector than finance.

    The field that I work in has similar positions, for similar levels of experience in the private and public sector.  From my experience, the private sector pays a little more up front (a lot for upper management), and allows greater "potential movement" up the ladder.  But it has fewer guaranteed promotions, worse benefits/hours, and less stability.  People in lower level positions tend to get more in gov't, people in higher positions get more in the private sector.

    And no, this is not an argument for a federal pay freeze, it's just a reality check.  I think a federal pay freeze will hurt the economy (and gov't employees) - and if you are gonna do it, 2 years is excessive.

    Parent

    We could be comparing apples to oranges (none / 0) (#62)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    I'm not sure. Someone with 25 years experience will almost always make more money than someone with 5 years experience, whether they are government or private sector. Almost all of my searching (this being my main linked article) for data on federal pay versus private sector pay came up showing federal pay higher. Your linked article earlier being one of the exceptions.

    I don't really equate this to a Republican or Democrat issue. I just don't see the government getting any smaller, regardless of who is charge.

    Parent

    So let's let all salaries sink to the lowest (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:53:38 AM EST
    common denominator? Should we be trying to raise private sector salaries instead of lowering public sector salaries?

    Parent