DISTURBING fact about government workers shows Trump was right on this point all along…

[Kondor3]

Heck with waiting for somebody else to serve-up the data...

Now... there's the complete picture of Employees + Contractors, in a usable form...

Is the Federal Civilian Workforce Really Growing? Some Important Context | Center for Effective Government

 

[Kondor3]

And, assuming that it is reliable, that same website / article had some other highly interesting and useful data on it, including references to where most Federal agencies have shrunk their work forces considerably, whereas three agencies have expanded greatly...

Is the Federal Civilian Workforce Really Growing? Some Important Context | Center for Effective Government

 

[Iceweasel]

...The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...

The head count on the No. of employees is the only one readily available - and it is the baseline by which we have been comparing across the decades.

That's not dishonesty - that's incomplete data - and it can certainly be challenged as incomplete, but, going off on a rant about dishonesty is going to get you nowhere.

...No one here is prepared to look at everything the governments are involved with even it is was available...

That's right.

So let's just look at Contractor FTEs, to add onto the Employee Nos.

Do you have those FTEs?

...I'd rather see evidence that it's something they should be doing in the first place.

If we can't even address the combination of Employees + Contractor FTEs, then factoring-in Mission and Purpose is way off the charts.

You're stuck on retard.

"The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...."

 

[Iceweasel]

Heck with waiting for somebody else to serve-up the data...

Now... there's the complete picture of Employees + Contractors, in a usable form...

Is the Federal Civilian Workforce Really Growing? Some Important Context | Center for Effective Government

A true picture provided by estimates of some guy that doesn't attempt to address the necessity of government getting involved in the first place. LOL

 

[Kondor3]

...The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...

The head count on the No. of employees is the only one readily available - and it is the baseline by which we have been comparing across the decades.

That's not dishonesty - that's incomplete data - and it can certainly be challenged as incomplete, but, going off on a rant about dishonesty is going to get you nowhere.

...No one here is prepared to look at everything the governments are involved with even it is was available...

That's right.

So let's just look at Contractor FTEs, to add onto the Employee Nos.

Do you have those FTEs?

...I'd rather see evidence that it's something they should be doing in the first place.

If we can't even address the combination of Employees + Contractor FTEs, then factoring-in Mission and Purpose is way off the charts.

You're stuck on retard.

"The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...."

We have two (2) choices...

1. dishonest

2. incomplete

Given that I've just remedied the 'incompleteness', we can safely rule-out (1).

 

[Kondor3]

Heck with waiting for somebody else to serve-up the data...

Now... there's the complete picture of Employees + Contractors, in a usable form...

Is the Federal Civilian Workforce Really Growing? Some Important Context | Center for Effective Government

A true picture provided by estimates of some guy that doesn't attempt to address the necessity of government getting involved in the first place. LOL

One cannot gauge the need for X warm bodies until one first defines X.

Hell... YOU couldn't even define X, when challenged to produce a basic number, never mind speak intelligently as to the need.

It took me all of 15 seconds on Google to find serviceable data on the subject.

Now that somebody else has done the leg-work and given your lazy ass the definition of "X", you may now proceed to dazzle us with your intellect, in analyzing the need for "X"...

Your audience is waiting, with quivering anticipation of your forthcoming display of brilliance...

 

[JoeB131]

To put in perspective just how bad things have gotten – there were more Americans employed in manufacturing in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor than there are today, despite the fact that the population then was a fraction of what it is today.

Not sure what that has to do with government workers.

The reality is, Manufacturing is becoming increasingly like agriculture- automation reducing the number of people who engage in it.

So while there are less people employed in manufacturing than there were in 1941, they are producing far more durable goods than their grandfathers did.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ships moving right now between the US and Europe?

zero


"Nothing Is Moving," Baltic Dry Crashes As Insiders Warn "Commerce Has Come To A Halt" | Zero Hedge

 

[Iceweasel]

...The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...

The head count on the No. of employees is the only one readily available - and it is the baseline by which we have been comparing across the decades.

That's not dishonesty - that's incomplete data - and it can certainly be challenged as incomplete, but, going off on a rant about dishonesty is going to get you nowhere.

...No one here is prepared to look at everything the governments are involved with even it is was available...

That's right.

So let's just look at Contractor FTEs, to add onto the Employee Nos.

Do you have those FTEs?

...I'd rather see evidence that it's something they should be doing in the first place.

If we can't even address the combination of Employees + Contractor FTEs, then factoring-in Mission and Purpose is way off the charts.

You're stuck on retard.

"The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...."

We have two (2) choices...

1. dishonest

2. incomplete

Given that I've just remedied the 'incompleteness', we can safely rule-out (1).

You "remedied" the incompleteness huh? So NO government agencies or programs could be canceled and is running as lean as feasible? Riiight.

 

[Kondor3]

...The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...

The head count on the No. of employees is the only one readily available - and it is the baseline by which we have been comparing across the decades.

That's not dishonesty - that's incomplete data - and it can certainly be challenged as incomplete, but, going off on a rant about dishonesty is going to get you nowhere.

...No one here is prepared to look at everything the governments are involved with even it is was available...

That's right.

So let's just look at Contractor FTEs, to add onto the Employee Nos.

Do you have those FTEs?

...I'd rather see evidence that it's something they should be doing in the first place.

If we can't even address the combination of Employees + Contractor FTEs, then factoring-in Mission and Purpose is way off the charts.

You're stuck on retard.

"The point was it's dishonest to only consider the size of government by looking at employment numbers...."

We have two (2) choices...

1. dishonest

2. incomplete

Given that I've just remedied the 'incompleteness', we can safely rule-out (1).

You "remedied" the incompleteness huh? So NO government agencies or programs could be canceled and is running as lean as feasible? Riiight.

Nope...

There are two separate challenges here...

1. provide complete data on the size of the Federal work force

2. analyze the need for a work force of that size, using that data, and taking into account the mission of each agency

I just completed (1)

You are ragging-on about (2), now that I've shut your mouth about (1).

Now that somebody else has given you (1), you are now clear to proceed to analyze (2).

You may proceed, at your discretion.

 

[Iceweasel]

Heck with waiting for somebody else to serve-up the data...

Now... there's the complete picture of Employees + Contractors, in a usable form...

Is the Federal Civilian Workforce Really Growing? Some Important Context | Center for Effective Government

A true picture provided by estimates of some guy that doesn't attempt to address the necessity of government getting involved in the first place. LOL

One cannot gauge the need for X warm bodies until one first defines X.

Hell... YOU couldn't even define X, when challenged to produce a basic number, never mind speak intelligently as to the need.

It took me all of 15 seconds on Google to find serviceable data on the subject.

Now that somebody else has done the leg-work and given your lazy ass the definition of "X", you may now proceed to dazzle us with your intellect, in analyzing the need for "X"...

Your audience is waiting, with quivering anticipation of your forthcoming display of brilliance...

You're full of shit and pounding you tiny chest won't work, sorry Sport. The fact that you need to go off like a menstruating school girl speaks volumes. I told you before that your idiotic post was based on speculations, not facts. I think you need to google 'delusions of grandeur'.

You first tried to make the case government is so much smaller now but you dishonestly ignored the contract work. Now you proceed to try to show how necessary it is because I can't prove the programs aren't needed? LOL you're a ******* retard.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are two separate challenges here...

1. provide complete data on the size of the Federal work force

2. analyze the need for a work force of that size, using that data, and taking into account the mission of each agency

I just completed (1)

You are ragging-on about (2), now that I've shut your mouth about (1).

Now that somebody else has given you (1), you are now clear to proceed to analyze (2).

You may proceed, at your discretion.

The challenge is why should I talk to some stupid lying asshole when you've already been outed for what you are? The fact that you think you fooled anybody and have defeated an argument with infantile bolstering is evidence of your maturity level. You completed a turd in your diaper and are now full of shit.

 

[Iceweasel]

You may proceed, at your discretion.

That was my favorite line, btw. You may proceed to wipe your ass after taking a shit, at your discretion. LOL

 

[Kondor3]

...You're full of shit and pounding you tiny chest won't work, sorry Sport...

You tell 'em, Tiger.

...The fact that you need to go off like a menstruating school girl speaks volumes...

That's a new one; weird, but new.

...I told you before that your idiotic post was based on speculations, not facts. I think you need to google 'delusions of grandeur'...

What 'speculation'? I have just given you facts. Your 'delusions' reference is immaterial to the point at hand.

...You first tried to make the case government is so much smaller...

I first served-up references to the size of the Federal Employee work force; demonstrating that the No. of employees was at its lowest mark since 1966.

...now but you dishonestly ignored the contract work...

Incorrect.

I mistakenly overlooked the contract work.

And even conceded your point, earlier this morning, in one of my posts (#180), despite your name-calling and hostility.

It was an honest mistake - and you were right to point out that I had omitted contractors from the mix.

A mistake that I remedied in full a bit later this very morning.

...Now you proceed to try to show how necessary it is because I can't prove the programs aren't needed?...

Nope.

I invited your to stun us with your brilliant analysis of the NEED for a work force of that size, even if it's only on the macro level.

Without making any assumptions about the degree to which it is - or is not - necessary.

...LOL you're a ******* retard.

True.

My tiny little brain only gets me so far.

But I take comfort from the idea that you cannot even define the basics, never mind analyze their implications, so, perhaps I'm not at the bottom of the food chain, after all.

I am content.

Asswipe.

 

[Iceweasel]

...You're full of shit and pounding you tiny chest won't work, sorry Sport...

You tell 'em, Tiger.

...The fact that you need to go off like a menstruating school girl speaks volumes...

That's a new one; weird, but new.

...I told you before that your idiotic post was based on speculations, not facts. I think you need to google 'delusions of grandeur'...

What 'speculation'? I have just given you facts. Your 'delusions' reference is immaterial to the point at hand.

...You first tried to make the case government is so much smaller...

I first served-up references to the size of the Federal Employee work force; demonstrating that the No. of employees was at its lowest mark since 1966.

...now but you dishonestly ignored the contract work...

Incorrect.

I mistakenly overlooked the contract work.

And even conceded your point, earlier this morning, in one of my posts (#180), despite your name-calling and hostility.

It was an honest mistake - and you were right to point out that I had omitted contractors from the mix.

A mistake that I remedied in full a bit later this very morning.

...Now you proceed to try to show how necessary it is because I can't prove the programs aren't needed?...

Nope.

I invited your to stun us with your brilliant analysis of the NEED for a work force of that size, even if it's only on the macro level.

Without making any assumptions about the degree to which it is - or is not - necessary.

...LOL you're a ******* retard.

True.

My tiny little brain only gets me so far.

But I take comfort from the idea that you cannot even define the basics, never mind analyze their implications, so, perhaps I'm not at the bottom of the food chain, after all.

I am content.

Asswipe.

Oh look, junior is back for more. I said what the basics were and you flipped out and went full retard on us, lied, tried to bluff us with dishonest numbers and now snivel about me being the problem.

 

[Toro]

Most professionals get paid less working for the government.

In my line of business, people make a half to a third what they make in the private sector.

 

[jc456]

Your deductions in part went to pay your wages. Get it?.....

no i dont my check was from the PO not the tax payer....get it?....now if i did not pay taxes,can i get mine back?....

UGH....come on Harry, don't play Captain Obvious.
BTW, you cannot have it both ways.
You claim your PO wages are not funded by taxes. Ok, then leave it alone. Why get involved?
The issue here is federal employment which is painfully bloated and out of control.

you said and i quote...."Your deductions in part went to pay your wages."......which is implying the tax payer pays postal employees which is bull....i got paid by a company that made its own money and i paid taxes like everyone else....AND i was replying to what steph said...public employees don't pay taxes....i sure as hell did...

well technically steph is right. A public employee paid by tax payers money, does not inject new tax dollars into the system. Understand?

then she should have put it that way....but he is still paying taxes....do you understand?...

obviously you don't.

 

[jc456]

this was a comment with the article:
snip:
Gov workers are destroying this country.

They get paid double what their private sector counterparts are paid (benefits), retire earlier (55), get every city, county, state and federal holiday off, never work more than 40 hours a week, complain endlessly, as a group vote for those who raise taxes and then (endlessly) increase their salaries (annual 2% cola plus 2-5% performance), are mostly unionized, and produce absolutely NO wealth for the country.

Any hope for revitalizing this country’s economy begins with massive defunding of gov workers salaries, pensions and benefits.

Otherwise it’s same ole same ole, higher taxes to accommodate the unionized gov workers constant demand for salary increases.

DISTURBING fact about government workers shows Trump was right on this point all along…

They get paid double what their private sector counterparts are paid (benefits)
UPS drivers made $5.00 more an hour than me and had some nice Teamster Benefits
retire earlier (55)
to get full benefits you have to put 30 years in.....and in the line of work i was in you usually have bad ankles or knees,bad back or shoulders,some have scars from dog attacks to show for that time in...
get every city, county, state and federal holiday off
bullshit....i only got federal ones no state or county or city....
never work more than 40 hours a week
oh really?....very seldom did i go 40....usually 50 plus, especially during Christmas and election time....
complain endlessly
some did some didnt but other jobs dont have complainers?.....
and produce absolutely NO wealth for the country.
the PO makes billions.....no other agency can say that....and if congress did not call the shots the PO would turn a profit....

My dear, I knew that would upset you and it wasn't my quote. I'm not against ALL Fed. workers. it's just there is SO many now doing work that could go out to
private sector, be done for cheaper and not have taxpayers paying for it all

steph, technically, it is still taxpayer money paying for it no matter who does the work.

 

[Harry Dresden]

no i dont my check was from the PO not the tax payer....get it?....now if i did not pay taxes,can i get mine back?....

UGH....come on Harry, don't play Captain Obvious.
BTW, you cannot have it both ways.
You claim your PO wages are not funded by taxes. Ok, then leave it alone. Why get involved?
The issue here is federal employment which is painfully bloated and out of control.

you said and i quote...."Your deductions in part went to pay your wages."......which is implying the tax payer pays postal employees which is bull....i got paid by a company that made its own money and i paid taxes like everyone else....AND i was replying to what steph said...public employees don't pay taxes....i sure as hell did...

well technically steph is right. A public employee paid by tax payers money, does not inject new tax dollars into the system. Understand?

then she should have put it that way....but he is still paying taxes....do you understand?...

obviously you don't.

i dont?....i worked for the PO...now why dont you prove i did not pay taxes.....

 

[Kondor3]

UGH....come on Harry, don't play Captain Obvious.
BTW, you cannot have it both ways.
You claim your PO wages are not funded by taxes. Ok, then leave it alone. Why get involved?
The issue here is federal employment which is painfully bloated and out of control.

you said and i quote...."Your deductions in part went to pay your wages."......which is implying the tax payer pays postal employees which is bull....i got paid by a company that made its own money and i paid taxes like everyone else....AND i was replying to what steph said...public employees don't pay taxes....i sure as hell did...

well technically steph is right. A public employee paid by tax payers money, does not inject new tax dollars into the system. Understand?

then she should have put it that way....but he is still paying taxes....do you understand?...

obviously you don't.

i dont?....i worked for the PO...now why dont you prove i did not pay taxes.....

Depends on the era in which you worked, doesn't it? Decades ago, Federal (including Postal) employees did not pay into Social Security, right?