The new party of no?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I recommend CUTTING their salaries by 20% and their benefits by 75% to simply bring them in line with the public. Freezing their salaries at their present levels is a joke!.

Are you for or against giving those making $250K a year a new tax cut equal to the expiring cuts. Yes or no?

A joke? Sounds good ranting on a website, but there is a real world. These are not imaginary people. Cutting someones salary by 20%, and taking away 75% their health care and pension is a big, big deal. And absolutely the wrong thing to do during a recession, btw. As is not renewing unemployment.

Seems basic Eco 101 policy realities are taking a back seat to disproven trickle-down fantasy nowadays.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you for or against giving those making $250K a year a new tax cut equal to the expiring cuts. Yes or no?
A joke? Sounds good ranting on a website, but there is a real world. These are not imaginary people. Cutting someones salary by 20%, and taking away 75% their health care and pension is a big, big deal. And absolutely the wrong thing to do during a recession, btw. As is not renewing unemployment.

Seems basic Eco 101 policy realities are taking a back seat to disproven trickle-down fantasy nowadays.

Yes if at the same time Dems find cuts of equal value.
Bi-Partisan and a win-win!


Get this clear reducing Federal salaries and beni's by 20 and 75 percent respectively only make them equal to the people paying their salaries. No one loses a job. It's the fair and the right thing to do especially in a recession.


BTW I value the work of a single soldier more than I do the entire cleaning and security staff working and securing the Dirkson Federal Building this evening so I can't even compare the two jobs. Sorry.

[Riot]

salaries and beni's by 20 and 75 percent respectively only make them equal to the people paying their salaries.

Why should they be paid a generalized average of what the private sector pays for similar, and in different states? Go look at the salaries listed for government jobs (yes, they are on websites, there is a jobs.gov website) - they sure are not out of line with the private sector in my eyes.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why should they be paid a generalized average of what the private sector pays for similar, and in different states? Go look at the salaries listed for government jobs (yes, they are on websites, there is a jobs.gov website) - they sure are not out of line with the private sector in my eyes.

Well then enlighten yourself?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...eral-pay_N.htm

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Just because what you see in KY doesn't make things so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Well then enlighten yourself?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...eral-pay_N.htm

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Just because what you see in KY doesn't make things so.

What I see is the salary of jobs listed on the job.gov website versus the cost elsewhere in the country for working in a same-sized city or exurbs of the city: Chicago, Atlanta, Columbus OH, etc. No, I am not comparing the salary received in Washington DC to Kentucky salaries. That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Read your own article. Yes, the government gives outstanding benefits, and that's worth alot of money (outstanding single payer health care being the primary one)

It's a shame the private sector provides next to nothing in benefits, giving only cheap minimal health care according to the USA Today study, and virtually nothing in pensions (must be why we need health care reform!)

The difference in salary between sectors is about 10-12%, but that's comparing to a wide range of jobs in the USA Today article, not just city jobs.

Which makes you wanting to cut government workers salaries by 20%, to put them far BELOW the national average, weird and rather cruel in my eyes.

You can take away people's health care benefit, I suppose, like you want to (you want to take away 75% of their bennies to save money)

Your move would increase our country's deficit in the long run, increase the cost of health care for all the rest of us, and obviously result in less healthy people in our country. That's rather sad and unnecessary, don't you think?