samo:

I know you don’t support Obama. Sorry you feel so strongly against Israel. (NO! I’m not an agent of Mossad or AIPAC!)

I’m sure most people are agnostic about government versus a private sector jobs- a job is a job. But, government jobs are paid with MY and YOUR tax dollars so we should have an interest in the effectiveness of those jobs.

You have some ‘splainin’ to do:
“Somewhere it will be a burden on those least able
to afford to pay extra taxes which will be the
situation IF the W tax cuts are not allowed to
expire.” Followed by this, “because to offset that loss of tax income, what else would happen other than taxes being raised on the lower class.”

What you seem to be saying is that “if taxes aren’t allowed to increase, the lower class will pay more taxes(!), so everybody’s taxes should be increased so the lower classes don’t have to pay more taxes!” If the cuts expire, EVERYBODY’S taxes (that is, the 49% of Americans who still pay the category of taxes we’re talking about) will go up.

I’m so confused!

As for your web problem, can’t help. Did you go to your profile page and check your settings?

****************

rico old buddy, I would have thought that by now
your reading my comments would lend you to
know I am not a supporter of o, I did not vote for
him as I found him pledging america’s support,
loyalty and anything else beneficial to corporate
america and the american izraeli public affairs
committee.

I would not mind having a government job but it
would not be any different that the corporation I
once worked for. As for the tax burden,
somewhere it will be a burden on those least able
to afford pay extra taxes which will be the
situation IF the w tax cuts are not allowed to
expire because to offset that loss of tax income,
what else would happen other than taxes being
raised on the lower class, which is something old
douche head o is or has considered.

By the way, for some reason the ‘notify your when
other comment’ check box doesn’t work for me
anymore, have any ideas why?

ocjim:

An article of faith (and I count you among the faithful) here on truthdig is that real wages, for those still lucky enough to have a job, are falling for the vast majority of Americans for the benefit of the wealthy few. So how does a FREEZE on federal wages, already twice the average non-government wage, and in the face of near zero inflation, constitute a “knife in the back” or being treated “unfairly” or “unequally”(!!) in your view? Did Obama promise unconditional annual pay increases to feds during his campaign?

Or are you just suffering a minor Tourettes outburst?

I’ve grown weary of Obama selling out to rich vested interests. He is worse than Republicans. At least you know they will sell out the people at every turn. For Obama his rhetoric and manner raise your expectation of being treated fairly and equally; then he knifes you in the back.

Anderson:

Ok. 9/11. You got me. The airlines should have seen it coming, but it was their own fault due to greed and/or stupidity- exactly like the situation with banks and GM. Sorry, silly me.

You’re right about the post office and again, you prove my point- the government is incompetent when it comes to running a profitable business. I don’t see advertisers screaming bloody murder at Fedex over their shipping rates.

In fact I agree with everything you say about the baleful influence of big business on government. Where I part company with you is my feeling that it’s government incompetence, not plutocratic evil that is responsible. Companies are out to make a buck and to the extent that so many six figure legislators and bureaucrats can’t keep them from the occasional frauds and ripoffs tells me those folks aren’t earning their money. In fact THEY are the fraudsters and ripoff artists in my book.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/rec.congress.airline.deal/

Well there was the little $15 billion bailout to the Airlines, after the WTC attack.

And though I also like Fed Ex, I think that if the Post office charged what Fed Ex charges to deliver a letter they would not have any trouble making a profit.

My point being, that the post office, by order of congress, subsidizes business, by not charging the actual cost of delivering junk mail. Buisness has screamed bloody murder, when it’s been proposed in the past, to stop this practise.

Although conservatives love to bad mouth government, this is hypocritical, because big business actually encourages certain kinds of regulation, to prevent competition.

At one time, in this country the justice department, pursued anti trust regulation against, large corporations. This practise has pretty much disapeared, and it’s one of the reasons why there are only 3 large health care companies.

Despite, conservative crys for deregulation, they don’t really want that, the plutocracy learned how to use favorable regulation to keep their buisness large, protect their profit, and stifle competition.
Thus we have all these companies that are too big to fail.

No matter, how much I may want to start my own insurance company, it would be dificult because of the cost of getting into the buisness, largely because of regulation put into place by the pluotocracy.

`Ugh, rico, naive, here you go again.’

Cato and other sites (USAToday) love to quote those comparisons. Hand it to them (Cato) though they at least, briefly, mention that the comparisons aren’t as valid when comparing equal years on the job. A lot of picking and choosing goes into those comparisons.

When I first entered fed service my peers decried my decision as shortsighted and financially insane. “you could make twice that in the private sector;” “you are trading salary for security;” “with this economy (back when it was boom) you are handicapping yourself.”
Wow how things have changed. Now most of my peers ask if I have heard of any openings/opportunities in fed service. Now I’m the one making too much? Or is the private sector reducing pay/benefits? or firing and then hiring for less? or not hiring at all?

Those “high paying gov jobs”? Mostly medical, technical, legal, managerial. Check out USAjobs.

Sure bash the feds all you want, but look at the truth at least. Every employer incentivizes to get quality employees.

I agreed to work for an agency for X amount of money (less than I made in the private sector), X benefits (more than I made in the private sector), and X amount of yearly pay increases (more than I made in the private sector). There is an agreement there, it could be bad for one side or the other but I agreed to it.

Obviously anyone who would cut someones pay or benefits after hiring them is not a moral person, not a decent human being, not someone to be trusted. Anyone who would support going back on a contract, an agreement, a handshake is just, excuse the sexist use, not a man.

Luckily I work for an agency that will not be touched by the pay freeze. But I feel terribly for those in my office who are touched by it. They all work hard, have families, are good people.

I have run across my share of slackers, private and fed, but they are the minority. The majority, private and fed, work hard and are competent and have families to support.

This pay freeze is obviously a political move to placate some repubs into voting with the dems on a later issue, so I won’t go into what should be cut as it would be pretty useless blather.

``Sink or swim’’ is a trite, bold expression and probably sounds very manly to some. But with me and mine, I don’t mind having a lifeguard around to help relax and enjoy what is really important.

If you (not you rico, the plural you) are godless then sink or swim is a sociopathic mentality.

If you are religious then you are a hypocrite.

Ugh, there I go again ...

jptrthdggr:

That was helpful.

I stand corrected. Average civilian government pay is TWICE the average non-government pay, not a mere 30% higher. How is it possible in the face of 17% un/underemployment to feel sorry for a group of slackers who are immune to being fired, who can retire after 20 years with a nice pension and go through the revolving door into “consultancy” for government contractors?

Anderson:

Your post office example nicely proves my point. They provide a serve at an unsustainable loss, made up for by the taxpayer. Fedex charges what it needs to to make a profit and somehow manages to compete effectively with the Post Office. In fact, during the holidays it has a contract with the Post Office to take up some of its slack. How can that be?

And your airline industry example isn’t about government workers per se, it’s about safety regulations and standards, with which I certainly have no quarrel (with a few exceptions irrelevant to this discussion).

I’m not aware of any airline that has been bailed out in the manner of the banks or GM. Yes, the president has the authority to prevent airline strikes if he thinks a shutdown will hurt the economy too much, but that’s not a bailout.

I assume this applies to Congressmen, their staff and all other White House lackeys.

Yes, postal workers are working people, and they work hard delivering mail. You asked how they add to the economy.

Well, here’s a good example, by delivering those stupid grocery store flyers, and hardware store flyers, to your mail box, that most people throw right away. The do this at much less the cost than it would cost, if those companies that send out those flyers, had to pay the full price of delivery. This in effect is a direct subsidy to those buisnesses that do this. Your grocery store and your hardware store, etc. (Congress should outlaw this, but they won’t because they like subsidizing business at taxpayer expense.)

The government also certifies airline mechanics, and prevents airlines from doing their repairs with uncertified mechanics in countries, where labor is very cheap, say Somalia. Even though some Airlines now have all there servicing done in Guatamala. They also investigate airline crashes, to prevent them from happening again, due to defects in the plane. They also regulate air travel, with air traffic controlers, set rules for pilots consumption of drugs and alcohol prior to duty, and mandate treatment, supervising recovery for pilots found in violation.

All this helps the airline industry function…and in time of emergency, the government even uses taxpayer funding to bail out Airlines…that are going bankrupt…

Hopefully all this government “interference” with private enterprise, helps prevent airlines from paying their pilots minimum wage, or putting in robots, to fly planes when they become available.

Ugh, rico, naive, here you go again.

Anderson:

We’re not talking about “working people” we’re talking about federal employees. To equate the two is an oxymoron. Tell me this- How does one federal employee add to the wealth of this country? I agree with you that Obama and Bush should have let those companies go under- who cares about the thousands of lost jobs? Seriously. That’s the way the free market should work. Sink or swim.

While they’re at it…a pension reform is long overdue where the minimum age to retire from any taxpayer funded pension plan is 55 with a minimum of 30 years service with a diminishing penalty until 65.

Too many 38 year olds with government pensions bankrupting this country.

Working people are not slackers. Then there is the small matter of taxpayer money
being used to bail out wall street. I wonder what would have happened if instead of
saving Wall Street with Taxpayer money, Mr. Obama would have let them go under. I
wonder if they would still be paying bonuses. Part of the reason this country is in
trouble is because of the conservative belief that we don’t need a government. Just let
the corporations run things look where that got us.

samo:

“He is the taxpayer’s worst enemy and the non-taxpayer’s best friend.”

I would think you’d be ecstatic with the guy.

Doesn’t it bother you that average federal pay is 30% higher than average civilian pay? When Wall Streeters get their bonuses, it’s NOT with taxpayer money(despite the bailouts), it’s with company money. The only people who should be pissed are stockholders.

But the feds are being paid with taxpayers’ money! These aren’t cuts either, they’re freezes, in the face of near zero inflation. So spare me the “it will further the tax burden on those who can least afford to pay.” No it won’t! Unless Congress allows the Bush tax cuts to expire! In which case you will be absolutely correct.

Feds even got pay raises while Social Security COLAs and military pensions were frozen for the past two years.

It’s awfully hard to pity so many six figure slackers.

Brave President Obama has finally stood up to the vicious mail carrier lobby that has been bankrupting our nation.  Apparently Wall Street bonuses are now delivered by wire transfer so mail carriers are no longer necessary.  This act of presidential heroism reminds me of brave President Clinton standing up to greedy welfare recipients while he deregulated Wall Street.

****************

Isn’t o just remarkable? See how fast he spotted
the problem with our economy and what the fix
will be. If this actually happens, and I don’t see
why it won’t as the people have not a jot of
anything to say about it except cursing and
moaning and groaning, it will further the tax
burden on those who can least afford to pay.

I just be dogged if I can see any real help this
charlatan in white house has done for the people
who elected him. He is the taxpayer’s worst
enemy and the non-taxpayer’s best friend. And if
this goes down as most of us know it is highly
likely that it will, just how will it be used to win
the 2012 election for w’s protege without any
help from the department of voter fraud. Answer
is, IT WON’T!

President Obama is acting like a conservative. Especially since corporate profits are at
an all time high. Why not instead close tax loop holes on corporations. Those who
benifitted from gutting our economy, should be forced to pay the most for it’s repair. Not
working people, who benefitted the least, and who have been struggling to get by for
decades.