Good work if you can get it: Federal workers making 78% more than private sector counterparts

[Dad2three]

We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?

RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.

I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.

"We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?"


You mean Dubya's REGULATOR FAILURE allowed the Banksters to hose US And Dubya and his policies housed Fannie/Freddie right?

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

>

The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

 

[Dad2three]

We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?

RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.

I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.

 

[OnePercenter]

We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?

RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.

I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.

Unless you can make an argument that people that received loans couldn't initially make a payment, then the fault is with policies of the BushCo and Republicans, and corporate American greed.

 

[Flopper]

Apples-to-Oranges

But any compensation comparison between the average federal civilian employee and average private-sector employee oversimplifies the debate, glossing over the important differences in occupation, skill level, age, and education that determine salaries. The BEA has posted an FAQ on federal pay, providing a number of reasons why the average compensation for federal civilian employees is higher than the average compensation for private-sector employees:

• Federal civilian workers are more educated.
• The federal government has a higher proportion of white-collar jobs.
• “Lower-skilled (and lower-paid) positions have been contracted out to private industries” in recent years, raising the average pay of federal civilian employees.
• Federal civilian workers receive better pension and health insurance benefits on average than private-sector employees, some of whom receive no benefits.

Apples-to-Apples

...To determine the annual adjustment in locality pay, OPM produces a report every year that summarizes a comparison of federal pay — just salaries, not total compensation — with pay levels in non-federal "establishments" based on geographic location and job responsibilities. In the 2009 report, OPM found that federal workers were paid on average 22.13 percent less (Table 4) than their private-sector counterparts. The gap increased to 24 percent this year, the Washington Post recently reported.

Are Federal Workers Overpaid?

Be very careful. You are just taking pay into consideration. Federal employees have generous holiday pay, paid days off, vacation, sick leave, unbelievable job security, etc. You don't get all that in some private sector jobs. Taking that into consideration, federal employees have it very well.

Something else to consider is that advancement opportunities in federal civil service is limited. Regardless of how good you are, you will never get rich working for the government. Most businesses can create new positions and increase pay to reward more productive workers however under civil service this can be difficult and often impossible. When someone decides on a career in civil service they are giving up any possible of ever becoming a 1%er.

 

[airplanemechanic]

But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.

But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.

Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.

 

[JQPublic1]

Where did I come close to saying anything about "access to anyone's house?" In this day and age dome people still don't have cell phones or might be in a "dead" area where there is no signal when their car breaks down or they become involved in an accident.. If, either of those things occur in the dead of night and a house is nearby would you not approach the dwelling?
If there is a fence, I wouldn't open the gate and enter the premises but I would call out for assistance hoping the occupants might be good responsible citizens. If there is no fence I would probably use caution in approaching the door to ring the bell or knock. I would also look for rebel flags or license plates in the vicinity as well as GOP stickers. Those signs raise alarms and increase the odds that a conservative asshole might be waiting behind that door with a fully automatic rifle and three glocks all loaded with hollow points. What would YOU do?

But what are they doing in my house?

The people I am talking about aren't in your house...they are outside looking for help.

Well than why would I shoot em?

Why did THESE people do it in similar circumstances:

Black woman killed while looking for help after car wreck

South Carolina Boy Shot, Killed While Trick-or-Treating; Suspect Feared Robbery | Fox News

Louisiana 'Freeze' shooting tragedy remembered 20 years on ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

dude, it seems the accidents were single car accidents. What was the accident and were they loaded or high? Do you have that information in a link?

And the neighbor on the first link spoke not like a white person. So was it a white person? You do know that blacks live in white neighborhoods now? The article doesn't state the man was white. Also insinuates the man being in jail? So again, was it a white person or not. In any of them?

Hey, dude, it doesn't really matter what race they were does it? But with a little effort on your part (google) it ought to be a breeze to find out. I did my part by using those example to show that innocent people do get shot by home "defenders" who shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[JQPublic1]

Don't government employees spend their monies in the economy?

All money the GOVT employees are paid is removed from the private sector reducing growth potential.

And returned to the economy by spending thus allowing the private sector to gain more profit and grow.

That is absolutely the dumbest thing I have ever heard someone say.

CONSIDER: I take 1 dollar from you, take my cut of 20 cents, then give the other 80 cents to someone else for nothing. They spend the 80 cents, and somehow in your logic, that is better than YOU spending the whole dollar.

Sorry, but it does NOT compute.

I guess you don't know that personal income taxes only make up 47% of Federal revenue.

 

[JQPublic1]

We should know Obama would be up cheerleading for them squashing the rest of us. he only cares about Unions. the rest of us can go to hell.

Well, no, the private sector has done quite well under Obama!

 

[ninja007]

And they wonder why we're going broke...
Between the salaries and pensions of these assholes is it any wonder?

that's part of why Detroit is where it's at. and few other cities is right behind it.
We the people are getting hosed from every direction. Nothing will change until THE majority of the people get FED up.

nice pun!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?

RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.

I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.

"We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?"


You mean Dubya's REGULATOR FAILURE allowed the Banksters to hose US And Dubya and his policies housed Fannie/Freddie right?

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

>

The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

. Black democrat congressmen and women and white liberal members forced congress to relax enforcement of regulations to banking laws. Banks were threatened to lose ability to expand if they didn't give home loans to people who could never make their monthly payments.

In short, progressive democrats crashed the economy and blamed George Bush. You have been shown time and time again on YouTube.

 

[Dad2three]

We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?

RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.

I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.

"We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?"


You mean Dubya's REGULATOR FAILURE allowed the Banksters to hose US And Dubya and his policies housed Fannie/Freddie right?

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

>

The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

. Black democrat congressmen and women and white liberal members forced congress to relax enforcement of regulations to banking laws. Banks were threatened to lose ability to expand if they didn't give home loans to people who could never make their monthly payments.

In short, progressive democrats crashed the economy and blamed George Bush. You have been shown time and time again on YouTube.

Oh right, we forget about the OUT OF CONTEXT 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS WHEN DEMS SAID F/F WERE OK


WHAT HAPPENED?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.




FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?

RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.

I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.

"We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?"


You mean Dubya's REGULATOR FAILURE allowed the Banksters to hose US And Dubya and his policies housed Fannie/Freddie right?

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

>

The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

. Black democrat congressmen and women and white liberal members forced congress to relax enforcement of regulations to banking laws. Banks were threatened to lose ability to expand if they didn't give home loans to people who could never make their monthly payments.

In short, progressive democrats crashed the economy and blamed George Bush. You have been shown time and time again on YouTube.

Sure Bubba sure

Dubya hosed US and you blame Dems


Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Republicans choose to ignore facts and reality and live in a right wing world of delusion and disconnect created by the right wing echo chamber of spin, lies and misinformation.


Wall street banks freed to wheel and deal on main street got into the mortgage business because they could invest 1 dollar in the purchase of a mortgage and then magically change it into negotiable paper that produced 30 dollars of profit.

Available mortgages were quickly absorbed, so in an effort to produce more mortgages, Wall Street banks lowered their standards in order to produce more mortgages to be chopped up and sold as "investment paper" that would continue to produce unsustainable and totally fraudulent profits for the banks.

When investors started to get weary, Wall Street created the credit default swap which was insurance on the investments, this kept the machine rolling - Dubya tried to turn over Social Security funds to keep the pyramid alive, but he was rebuffed by the people.

Greed accompanied by regulator FAILURE OF DUBYA caused the mess, Fanny and Freddie were late comers to the feast they did not cause the mess at all, though they got caught up in it, Thanks to Dubya policies

Anyone that fails to recognize the facts is either ignorant or blatantly cynical.

 

[jc456]

The federal government ain't a employment agency although most liberals think so. Government hiring does not grow the economy. It's a freaking drain especially when government drones enjoy every holiday no matter how obscure and about 60% could call in sick permanently and nobody in the private sector would notice.

Wrong... government employees spend a lot of money and that helps to stimulate the economy,
If their off time is as generous as yo u say (it really isn't) then that gives them more time to spend all that money and help the economy!

but what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.

Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....

I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.

 

[jc456]

But what are they doing in my house?

The people I am talking about aren't in your house...they are outside looking for help.

Well than why would I shoot em?

Why did THESE people do it in similar circumstances:

Black woman killed while looking for help after car wreck

South Carolina Boy Shot, Killed While Trick-or-Treating; Suspect Feared Robbery | Fox News

Louisiana 'Freeze' shooting tragedy remembered 20 years on ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

dude, it seems the accidents were single car accidents. What was the accident and were they loaded or high? Do you have that information in a link?

And the neighbor on the first link spoke not like a white person. So was it a white person? You do know that blacks live in white neighborhoods now? The article doesn't state the man was white. Also insinuates the man being in jail? So again, was it a white person or not. In any of them?

Hey, dude, it doesn't really matter what race they were does it? But with a little effort on your part (google) it ought to be a breeze to find out. I did my part by using those example to show that innocent people do get shot by home "defenders" who shoot first and ask questions later.

well sure it does, there is reason the print stated white neighborhood. It was to show that whites shoot blacks for no reason, and the fact is you have no evidence of that at all since the links don't include the race of the shooter. Does it?

And again, how does one get in a single car accident at 2:30 am? Please explain? Like I also stated, let's see if they were high or drunk.

 

[Flopper]

But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.

But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.

Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.

You're not just giving up the chance of getting rich working for the government under civil service but often the opportunity of any upward mobility. In most of the civil service jobs you get a step pay increase every year for 3 years then a step every 2 years for 3 years, then a step increase every 3 years. Then after 15 years, no more raises except for a cost of living raise.

Probably one the worst things about working for the federal government is that despite the growth in government spending, the number of permanent civil service jobs are not increasing. In 1992, there were 3 million permanent civil service workers, 2.8 million in 1995, 2.6 million in 2000, 2.6 million in 2005, 2.6 million in 2014. This may be good for tax payers but for an employee it means less opportunities for advancement.

The upside of federal civil service is competitive pay, good benefits, and stable employment. The downside is limited chance of advancement and limited employment opportunities compared to the private sector.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I would be willing to guess that most people would take a 50k job that they can't get fired from than a 55K job that if they screw up one time or their boss has a bad day, they're in the unemployment line the next day.

 

[Flopper]

I would be willing to guess that most people would take a 50k job that they can't get fired from than a 55K job that if they screw up one time or their boss has a bad day, they're in the unemployment line the next day.

Yours is a common misconception that a person can not be fired from a federal civil service job for poor performance or misconduct. About 12,000 permanent employees are fired each year.

It's true that federal employees are not as easy to fire as private sector employees because they enjoy procedural protection not present in the private sector. However, when a federal employee receives a poor performance evaluation and no step increase, they usually move on. In rare cases, an employee may file a grievance.

As I said, getting a permanent job working for the government is not that easy. When you hire a person under civil service, you're hiring them for the long haul. Thus you take more pains to make sure you're getting the right person for the job. In additional to meeting educational, experience, and testing qualifications, an applicant will have multiple job interviews. Often a person will be hired into a temporary position before they move into a permanent position. Almost all civil service workers have a 1 year and up to 3 years probation in which they can be removed without going through the normal procedures. Hiring procedures in civil service result in employees better suited for their jobs than in the private sector so you have less turnover and less need to be fire people.

 

[Harry Dresden]

USPS loses money each year (other than few years) . Somebody is subsidizing "it". The link showed.

THE USPS HASN'T GOTTEN GOV'T MONEY IN NEARLY 30 YEARS, If you understand HISTORY, the GOP passed a bill to prefund FIFTY YEARS of retirements in TEN years. Think they MIGHT lose money doing that?

Your link was nothing but ANOTHER right wing "think tank" BULLSHIT PREMISE based on guesses and myths....

the GOP passed a bill to prefund FIFTY YEARS of retirements in TEN years.
the democrats were right there with them passing that....2 of the 3 co-sponsors were dems....so dont try and put this just on the Republicans....

Weird, the Dems have ATTEMPTED to get it fixed, which side IS blocking it again?

Yes, 2 out of 4 sponsors were Dems

AND THEY SUPPORTED THIS TOO:

WASHINGTON, DC (September 13, 2011) - REP. DANNY K. DAVIS JOINS HR 2884 A SHORT-TERM MEASURE TO HELP POSTAL SERVICE WHILE CONGRESS DEVELOPS LONG-TERM PROPOSAL TO RETURN POSTAL SERVICE TO PROFITABILITY

Congressman Danny K. Davis : Statements : REP. DAVIS JOINS HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN MOVE TO GRANT POSTAL SERVICE TEMPORARY RELIEF

Weird, the Dems have ATTEMPTED to get it fixed, which side IS blocking it again?
they should have never backed it to begin with....
the NALC and the other Unions have more Republicans then you think on their side...usually in the monthly mag i get from the union they have a list of congress people who are trying to get this thing shot down....not all republicans are like Issa....

MOST are like Issa


LAMEDUCK CONGRESS, DEMS WERE SNOOKERED BY IT, IMO


H.R. 6407 (109th): Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act

2 days after it was introduced it was passed by both senate and house

Votes: Dec 8, 2006: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote.


Dec 9, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent.



November 16, 2012
An Easy Task for Congress: Save the Post Office

A lame-duck Congress manufactured the current “postal crisis.” This lame-duck Congress could fix it.


An Easy Task for Congress: Save the Post Office



Republicans manufacture a crisis for the Postal Service, and too many Democrats go along


Hold one thought in your mind every time you read about the "crisis" the U.S. Postal Service is in: There is a crisis, but it's a manufactured one. If Congress wasn't busy applying the Shock Doctrine, the postal service would face a challenge, but one it had time to meet. Instead, we're being told by Congress and by high-level management at the post office that the crisis is now and that massive cuts are the only answer—that degrading the services the postal service offers will save it.

LAMEDUCK CONGRESS, DEMS WERE SNOOKERED BY IT, IMO
oh they were tricked....ok that explains it....excuses are easy to make.........

 

[Harry Dresden]

The federal government ain't a employment agency although most liberals think so. Government hiring does not grow the economy. It's a freaking drain especially when government drones enjoy every holiday no matter how obscure and about 60% could call in sick permanently and nobody in the private sector would notice.

Wrong... government employees spend a lot of money and that helps to stimulate the economy,
If their off time is as generous as yo u say (it really isn't) then that gives them more time to spend all that money and help the economy!

but what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.

Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....

I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.

are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the **** you are talking about....

 

[paddymurphy]

Don't government employees spend their monies in the economy?

All money the GOVT employees are paid is removed from the private sector reducing growth potential.

So, government employees don't buy cars, appliances or any other product manufactured by the private sector?

sure they do, with money from the tax payer bucket. Instead of from a private companies venture capital funds. Why is it we need to use tax payer money when a private industry company can do the job without tax payer money? Seems wrong.

Since nearly half of these employees are in the military, how could "private industry" do a better job? Private industry cannot staff courthouses, serve as lawyers and judges, guard prisoners in federal prisons, hunt down fugitives or fight terrorism. You cannot honestly name any thing the federal government does that private industry can or should do.