Obama Continues The Surrender

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Truman fired 10 million federal employees between 1945 and 1948, so government can definitely be cut, Pelosi call your office.

Of course he did. Post-war downsizing. Not a situation we're in now.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We could easily fire 10 percent of government bureaucrats. Easily.

Ok NeverEndingMoron..

 

[cowslinger64]

We could easily fire 10 percent of government bureaucrats. Easily.

We could also rid ourselves of the government entitlement of retirement pay for those that served our military, after all when the corporations do it, it's ok. Right?

Think of all that money saved...especially money saved taking care of garbage like you.

 

[JohnnySavage]

We could also rid ourselves of the government entitlement of retirement pay for those that served our military, after all when the corporations do it, it's ok. Right?

Think of all that money saved...especially money saved taking care of garbage like you.

He's not receiving a military retirement. Despite him being a self-proclaimed expert on all things military, he only served a dozen years, 50 years ago.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We could easily fire 10 percent of government bureaucrats. Easily.

Maybe not fire them - just don't hire replacements when people resign or otherwise leave, and freeze wages and salaries as an inducement.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We could easily fire 10 percent of government bureaucrats. Easily.

What would be the point of that?

 

[Boxlicker101]

What would be the point of that?

For openers, saving billions of dollars every year.

ETA:
Here is a table showing federal employment for one month:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

For that month, the federal payroll was 16.5 billion dollars. 10% of that would be 1.65 billion dollars in one month.

 

[KingOrfeo]

For openers, saving billions of dollars every year.

And swell the unemployment rolls, and reduce the manpower available for government functions? What would be the point of that? You do not really know that those federal employees are not doing anything necessary, you are just spouting the party line.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And swell the unemployment rolls, and reduce the manpower available for government functions? What would be the point of that? You do not really know that those federal employees are not doing anything necessary, you are just spouting the party line.

Some of them are doing important work and, when they leave, for whatever reason, pep[le would be transferred from "make work" kind of jobs to doing what is necessary. I'm not advocating mass layoffs in the civil service, which is what would swell the unemployment rolls; I'm calling for slow attrition and for those who can do better to move along and do it. Having been a state employee for many years, I am aware of overstaffing.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Some of them are doing important work and, when they leave, for whatever reason, pep[le would be transferred from "make work" kind of jobs . . .

How do you know there are any?

 

[Boxlicker101]

How do you know there are any?

That's a joke - isn't it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's a joke - isn't it?

It's serious. Do you have some actual list? Not of employees, of course, but of fields of federal employment you dismiss as "makework." If you get specific, you will probably find you are wrong, or at any rate the rest of us will find you are wrong, as we usually do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's serious. Do you have some actual list? Not of employees, of course, but of fields of federal employment you dismiss as "makework." If you get specific, you will probably find you are wrong, or at any rate the rest of us will find you are wrong, as we usually do.

Okay. Here are some examples:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ary-federal-reports-heads-to-president-obama/

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/440/3599661/Are-agencies-doing-enough-to-weed-out-redundant-programs

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...erge-6-government-agencies-cut-2000-employees

I googled "redundant federal employees" and easily found these on the first page.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Okay. Here are some examples:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ary-federal-reports-heads-to-president-obama/

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/440/3599661/Are-agencies-doing-enough-to-weed-out-redundant-programs

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...erge-6-government-agencies-cut-2000-employees

I googled "redundant federal employees" and easily found these on the first page.

Two articles talking about unneeded reports generated for the government and one about federal employees that were already eliminated in 2012.

Rather than spew "facts" then google some articles that MIGHT (but usually don't) support that spew you might want to try backing up your assertions with actual examples.

 

[JohnnySavage]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Public_Sector_Hamilton_Project.PNG

 

[JohnnySavage]

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Per-Capita-Employees-of-U.S.-Government.png

 

[KingOrfeo]

Looks like Obama's already got the federal government running lean and mean, at least as such things go.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Looks like Obama's already got the federal government running lean and mean, at least as such things go.

Especially in light of the massive boondoggle that is Homeland Security.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Bullshit. He has the benefit of RECORD tax revenues and is still spending more than he's taking in. No matter what he takes in, it's never enough for the Democrat Party. The only thing the left knows how to cut is our military, meanwhile the rest of the government grows.

Doesn't Congress control the purse strings, not the President? That's what I was taught in grade school anyway.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fiscal responsibility. Several federal departments ought to be closed down and others trimmed., and their regulation writing authority limited.

See post #189.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . Democrat Party.

Don't. It's lamer than lame.