Also an example of trying to save money.....they are paying a lot less for Gov employees than they were paying for contractors....salary wise

You sure about that? Government employees have some of the best pension and benefit plans. They are also more permanent. The cost of contractors is usually competitive by bidding. But the standard for bidding is dictated not only by the cost to the contractor, but by Federal Gvt. generosity. The government has historically been known to overpay compared to the private sector. That cost can be lowered if government has the motivation and will to do so.

But the real question is, what should the Federal Government be doing--Constitutionally? We are so used to it doing far more than what it has been granted the power to do by the Consitution, that we take it for granted. That it must be so. And when it takes on more tasks, even at the expense of the private sector and the tax payer, we assume that it should be so. We assume by expanding its domain of activity and workforce it's merely saving money. That the national debt keeps rising doesn't seem to connect in our unhistoric minds with the federal expansion. And we have been trained by time and custom that government expansion is right and good.

It was not originally so. And the national debt was not out of bounds before the progressive, big government mentality took hold.

Saving money by expanding government and its power seems to be a contradiction. Even more to the point, it is a consolidation of that power into a central authority, which is a contradiction to individual liberty and to the reason this country was founded.

I can only talk to the Federal Gov but....

The Pension/Benefits are not as good as everybody thinks.....people who have been in the Gov for decades are Grandfathered in to the sweet pension plan but new employees are in TSP which is a form of 401k. and a much reduced pension plan, and the Medical bennies they offer are nothing to write home about either.

The salaries they pay, at least in my field, are lower than what is offered in the private sector too, by about 5%

I'm not saying there aren't some issues with what the governemnt is spending.

I was just pointing out that the job creation that was talked about had somewhat to do w/ the decrease in contractors...the work still needs to get done so as contractors were eliminated, jobs were created

Has any analysis been done to determine how many of the "new" jobs were a result of replacing contractors with federal employees? That might be more enlightening.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, total number of federal personnel rose by 237,000 from 2008 to 2010 which included 148,000 uniformed military personnel and 84,000 executive branch civilians.

The Federal Jobs Network noted as of today that a further expansion of 182,629 workers were added to the federal workforce from 2010 to 2012. They point out in particular possibilities for future federal job expansion created by new health care legislation which calls for the formation of 150 new regulatory agencies and commissions. And many more federal regulators are needed to manage failed banks and TARP funds. They point out that the federal government owns 60% of GM and all of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and have now taken over 100% of the student loan program. They say "There are many more jobs projected and those who start early will have a better chance of success." Jobs are available in the the U.S. and abroad.

Which all begs the question, is the Federal Government doing too much? Has it expanded its mission well beyond constitutional limitations? Is there an end goal to this trajectory?

Agree, and what are we lacking in the current government programs
that we need more of? If the Govt. was serious about getting the debt
under control it would become mean and lean like a corporation that
is failing. Get a budget, 3and1/2 years without one, and put a hiring freeze on until the debt is paid down.
According to an article in USA today Fed Govt retirement plans are almost
as costly and are falling short almost as much as Social Security is falling .
Last year they paid our 168 Billion in pensions.
Farm out what they can to the private sector and let them pay the benefits and pensions.

And therein lies the answer Johnn Boener was giving, about 200,000 Fed jobs added, let alone what was added between 2008 and 2010. Much higher than the 130,000 Zimmy said and the 147,000 I heard.

I checked the fedjobs website. There is no source for the numbers listed on the website. Where did they get the numbers? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are these really people hired to spend taxpayer money. Is a postal worker (who's numbers are decreasing) considered people hired to spend tax payer money. What is the truth and reality of these numbers, as opposed to generalization and misperception?

As Debutch said, The Federal Jobs Network noted it. What ever the reasons
they were hired, as I stated, it means larger Gov't, more taxes to pay and
what more Govt. programs do we need that are not already in place?
How many jobs were granted for political favors?
If you check the Bureau of Labor statistics you will find over 80,000 jobs
were created just between2008 and 2010.

These graphs are pretty self explanatory. Defense, veterans affairs, homeland security increased. Health and human services up a little since 2006. Commerce, state, interior, education, etc decreased or stayed the same. Federal employees as a percent of the total civilian workforce has varied betwee 1.2 and 1.25% for at least 11 years. Can't find the data for before that. So basically, people are being scammed into thinking there is some great growth of government workers who's job it is to spend taxpayer money.

That's where this is going now? How the heck could anyone ever quantify that. Yes, in times of war and terrorism, people were hired to help protect the country. Good.

This is about jobs numbers, not programs. They don't say anything about new programs created that weren't in place. Hiring people for homeland security is not adding a program not in place.

Here is some more about the reality of the numbers:
"Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of [federal] employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008."
Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times

Even the opening paragraph of the Wash. times article shows how the lame stream right wing media will try to incite people. Boehner did a nice job tricking people. At least be angry about facts, not distortions of facts.

Maybe the only place they should increase is in Border Patrol.:)

The numbers of illegal immigrants in the country is down since 2007. I will trust DOD and homeland security experts to put the funds to use based on their expertise, not on what is popular with the tea party.

Population Bulletin Update: Latinos in the United States 2010 - Population Reference Bureau

Tea party??

We spend too much...Do too much. Privatization is still spending the money we don't have. Crazy Tea Party thinking I guess.

I don't understand how the Latino link is directly related. It doesn't give any info on illegal immigration.

Number of illegal immigrants in U.S. is stable: DHS | Reuters

We spend too much sounds good. Secure the border sounds good and gets people riled up. In reality, the new jobs are to protect us and the number of illegal immigrants in the country has declined. The details underscore the difference between the sound bites and reality.

Zim, we will not know the true new Fed employees employed under the current
administration until 2013 when the Dept of Labor posts them. Can't believe the
2011 #s aren't posted yet. I gues they find it hard to count.
No need to worry about hiring freezes, no politician would have the guts to
introduce that, they don't even have the guts to pass a budget.

Buck, you have to come in here more often,
ya crack me up everytime. :hihi:

"I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."



you think you'd want people to make more, particularly those at the bottom rungs, so that they could support themselves without government asistance, secure their futures through savings and investment and provide a better standard of living for their families without having to rely on the government to subsidize different parts of their lives that are "unaffordable" but "necessary", like cell phones and such....

but Pelosi just wants them, you and me to make more so that she(we) can tax more... for most people, "making more" involves "working more"...more hours, weekends, nights, part-time jobs, nice to know that she'll be there.... waiting.... to collect more of what you earn :uhuh: nice people :)

So even though it was determined that the quote was made up your going to use it anyways?

I apologize..her actual quote was completely different....:confused:

"I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."


'I wish they would earn more so they can pay more'


45% of US households paid no federal tax- MSN Money

what was "made up" was her class warfare argument that "the other side" is somehow demonizing low end earners (Pelosi's "they") by pointing out the inequities in the current tax system and the system of government give aways, the inequities are across the board, read the article to find out who "they" are... she would seek to make it even more inequitable(or equitable in her mind) by deamonizing certain tax payers without ever addressing the fundamental issues of spending and the disaster that is the current tax code....fundamentally she can't help but want/wish you(they) to pay more as a result of earning more, her solution to all problems is more Federal Tax revenue...this was simply an opportunity for her to drum up class warfare and further divide Americans:uhuh:


how about this ...

"I wish that we(the federal government) would spend and do less, so that they(Americans) could keep more of what they earn, enjoy greater opportunity and become less reliant on our Federal "charity".... "

Only part of the quote which changes the context.

we're talking about Nanct Pelosi here...essentially, Joe Biden in drag and not nearly as amusing :)

what she said after the "part" of the quote...was laughable....what she said before the "part" of the quote was based on a flawed premise and wildly misleading...the "part" of the quote you refer to was the only honest( and these are hard to come by with Pelosi) thing she said in the entire meaningless, phony divisive and dishonest diatribe...cliche' leftist rhetoric...which, according to you, was taken out of context....

I'm happy to dig my heels in on the side that refuses to raise taxes on anyone until we have meaningful reductions in the size and the spending of government and meaningful changes and simplification of the tax code(Pelosi will be the first one out there bashing anyone proposing either of these)....to raise taxes and ignore the others is to continue down the unsustainable track that we're on currently and would be like giving an alcoholic a hundred bucks because he promised to quit drinking next month....:)

Pelosi simply wants to pit one group of earners against another to try to leverage the political capital to justify raising rates(taxing more) on one group, ostensibly championing the other...it's shameful, but like I said, it's Pelosi we're talking about :)

timely...


"What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills, and a forest of straw men.

Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage."

Divider-in-Chief - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

Your right Scott. Remember when Pelosie denied being told about water boarding when briefed by the CIA back in 2009.
Well, the X CIA Chief, Jose Rodriques, who was at the briefing said water boarding was discussed at the briefing and said Pelosie had no objections.
Selective memory on her part.