The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: What is the "End Game" ....Debt Clock is ticking.....

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Bora View Post
    oddly yes
    he said he feels it would be a hardship on older gov. workers close to retire to be moved from office to Arizona border.
    and finding the who would choose would be the hardest. For a hippy, goofball commie who has never owned a hair comb he has a clue or two. I said hardship yes but nothing good is easy. He wants to run, you know?
    I'd be interested in how far you took this discussion - it is apparent that Bernie has a greater interest
    in the blood suckers than the productive. Too many politico's seem to consider employees as an integral
    part of their constituency, for whatever reason.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  2. #12
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    806

    Default

    a 10 % reduction in the federal workforce is a 4% increase in national unemployment and that is before the ripple effect into private sector jobs. How many billions of dollars will that be out of the economy. How many billions more will that cost the government. Then after that everything slows down. I don't think there are as many people sitting around with there thumbs up their buttholes as you all seem to think. If you think about how upset many of you were when they suggested a 8% reduction in the military? Besides it is not labor that we are wasting a lot of money on, it is benefits. If we increased public sector employees salaries up to what private sector is making and then reduced their benefits to what private sector is providing that would help the long term prognosis. Considering the massive pay increases congress would get I would imagine they would pass that law fast.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  3. #13
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    a 10 % reduction in the federal workforce is a 4% increase in national unemployment and that is before the ripple effect into private sector jobs. How many billions of dollars will that be out of the economy. How many billions more will that cost the government. Then after that everything slows down. I don't think there are as many people sitting around with there thumbs up their buttholes as you all seem to think. If you think about how upset many of you were when they suggested a 8% reduction in the military? Besides it is not labor that we are wasting a lot of money on, it is benefits. If we increased public sector employees salaries up to what private sector is making and then reduced their benefits to what private sector is providing that would help the long term prognosis. Considering the massive pay increases congress would get I would imagine they would pass that law fast.
    Henlee...we can have no 'Progress' in cleaning up the mess made by the Democrats without some pain...

    The task of weaning various people and groups from the national nipple will not be easy. The sound of whines, bawls, screams and invective will fill the air as the agony of withdrawal pangs finds voice.
    --Linda Bowles12

  4. #14
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    Henlee, I agree that since there are so many govt workers, they can't be dumped onto unemployment in one swoop.

    Using attrition and early reitrement buy-outs would help ease that. Doing that requires advance planning. Neither of those two methods would increase future benefits, and would also preclude using unemployment benefits. Attrition can begin right away, along with streamlining processes in those departments where attrition occurs to accommodate fewer employees. Early retirement buy-outs should also preclude unemployment benefits for those people.

    The private sector has been fairly successful in planning this kind of thing, but our govt has been pretty bad at planning, since they have always been able to just ask for higher taxes, and never learned how to improve efficiency to compensate for higher costs.

    The whole basis for the initial success of the auto industry was Henry Ford's concept of a production line that could build cars faster for reasonable cost of the end product. Today the auto industry is even more automated, as are many other private sector jobs. Our grocery store has 6 self-check-out stations. Those 6 machines use just one employee to monitor all 6. Most times at least 4 of them are servicing customers. Sometimes there is a line for those check-outs. It would take many more employees to do that job.

    The IRS has been using electronic filing for several years. That had to decrease the # of employees needed for handling paper returns. The tax software companies have made incredible products in about 10 years. Now O-care will cause the IRS to hire thousands and thousands of additional employees. They're wiping out any gains in efficiency from one aspect of operation by adding something else. If the website for sign-ups was nearly still at square one after 3-1/2 years, I can only imagine how long it would take them to bring online automation to the functions of those new IRS jobs.

    Obviously, the fellas who passed O-care had no clue how long it would take to make the program ready to "open" ... or it might have been a political decision? OTOH, they'd be in much better shape election-wise right now if they were not so clueless about planning. How many of them are slapping their foreheads now thinking about how much better it could have been to have scheduled the laws provisions to start in 2016 instead of 2013? They weren't even smart enough to consider the election years in their planning. How can we expect them to be smart enough to choose the vendors who could have provided a workable website?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Regardless if you do it all at once or space it out, there will be a huge economical hit to the system in whole. If you can find substantial waste of government workers then I would suggest redistributing them to other areas where we critically need more, such as in the VA. Even with buyouts and early retirements though you have their pensions and medical benefits to deal with, which I would argue is the much larger culprit in regards to labor costs for public sector workers. Former Sec. Gates described the defense dept. as a the worlds largest benefits provider that occasionally kills a terrorist.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    728

    Default

    Pretty simple. If you treat the govt workers the same as many private sector companies and end their medical benefits when they retire. Lots of money saved. Save a bunch more money by eliminating the lifetime salary for the senators, congress, and the president once they leave office. Let them go out and get a job if they really need a salary. My guess is that they are plenty rich and wouldn't have to worry about a salary anyway and could live much more comfortably than most of us here.

  7. #17
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    a 10 % reduction in the federal workforce is a 4% increase in national unemployment and that is before the ripple effect into private sector jobs. How many billions of dollars will that be out of the economy. How many billions more will that cost the government. Then after that everything slows down. I don't think there are as many people sitting around with there thumbs up their buttholes as you all seem to think. If you think about how upset many of you were when they suggested a 8% reduction in the military? Besides it is not labor that we are wasting a lot of money on, it is benefits. If we increased public sector employees salaries up to what private sector is making and then reduced their benefits to what private sector is providing that would help the long term prognosis. Considering the massive pay increases congress would get I would imagine they would pass that law fast.
    SO what, they suck from the federal taxpayer and make our lives worse! Get rid of them At least half work for useless depts like the dept of ED Keep defense get rid of the rest!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  8. #18
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    Regardless if you do it all at once or space it out, there will be a huge economical hit to the system in whole. If you can find substantial waste of government workers then I would suggest redistributing them to other areas where we critically need more, such as in the VA. Even with buyouts and early retirements though you have their pensions and medical benefits to deal with, which I would argue is the much larger culprit in regards to labor costs for public sector workers. Former Sec. Gates described the defense dept. as a the worlds largest benefits provider that occasionally kills a terrorist.
    If you get rid of them then maybe the taxpayers can keep more of their hard earned money and spend it as they wish rather than paying for stupid federal employees!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,433

    Default

    Just curious, but have any of the folks here typing about the huge number of government employees ever looked at any data to support your presumptions?

    Below are links to several sources of data that clearly show the number of federal, state, and local government employees is at or near recent historic lows especially in terms of per capita numbers.

    I know the right wing entertainment/news shows and radio heads keep telling you that government employment is high but every once in while you ought to question what they feed you.

    https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...nt-since-1962/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...-1980-to-2012/ (note his correction in the comment section)

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ype=blogs&_r=0

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3410

    http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-th...-year-low.html

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Henlee, I agree that since there are so many govt workers, they can't be dumped onto unemployment in one swoop.
    I worked for Boeing when the SST was cancelled - the concern you voice was never discussed when all the private sector folks,
    some with many years with Boeing were dumped onto the street. Somehow no one felt it serious enough to jump out of a
    building -

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    a 10 % reduction in the federal workforce is a 4% increase in national unemployment and that is before the ripple effect into private sector jobs. .
    I would be really interested in your numbers to factually back up this statement .
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •