ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
This is exactly like in 2004 when the the fringe of the democratic party urged people to bomb subways, crash airplanes and detonate dirty bombs to undermine Bush and his anti-terrorist stance....
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
None of them are rich though, or even upper middle class, by most of the standards talked about here... especially by the "fiscally responsible" right.
How can you say 250K isn't rich enough to change a tax rate, but $89k is enough for mass firings?
Even the top of the range they're talking about is <200K. Oh and by the way, the feds have been frozen in place a couple of ways in terms of income.
I saw precisely zero complaints during boom times that in private businesses you could make $ hand over fist, but look over there, people who chose security over the high ceiling aren't getting richer fast enough.
Benefit-paying organizations are in the position where the benes that are adjusted for inflation will be going up again. Their workers are looking at yet more political pressure to lose money from their paychecks.
I am sure there are gubmit workers whose absence will not be felt. There are also gubmit workers whose abrupt departure would screw the people that count on them eight ways from Sunday.
It's just such a damned easy, and frankly, sleazy talking point.
It might make sense to you, if you're thinking that the average guy is aimlessly shuffling papers to no perceivable effect on anybody.
Think about a guy who did college and law school, passed the bar, and went into one or another aspect of law within the government, forfeiting an almost certainly superior income because he has a sense of purpose -- at $89K a year in a high-cost-of-living-area.
And that's not a fresh-out-of-law-school number, that's after rising through the ranks for a while (because you're talking averages.)
Think about a guy who oversees budgets of various sizes. I don't do that anymore, but ten years ago I was making a fee-for-service area work through a combination of federal employees and contract work to do about $1.5 million of business a year. The joke was that this shop would "always lose money." I turned it around in 1 year to make $100K in "profit." Why? The model was that once it was shown it could be done, we would lower the intragovernment fees. No profit, no bonus in any kind of proportion. I did it, and worked quite a few nights and weekends to make sure it happened, because that was my purpose -- to save the taxpayer money.
Me personally? I was making well less that that average $89K.
Now I'm not saying a handful of employees and a bunch of micro-contracts is the height of responsibility. But I am saying that if you do the same thing in the private sector, and do it well, you are very likely to be better rewarded. Hell, where else can the guy running the shop actually make less than some of the old hands that report to him?
As I said, there are those that you can very comfortably lose, and there are those who do more of the work and shoulder more of the responsibility.
You ever work somewhere that that isn't true?
But it's worth considering that there aren't feds getting paid that to flip burgers, clean the offices, etc. My current agency has a call center, and it's staffed by contractors. One fed is in charge of it. As it happens our ACSI scores compare well by any yardstick, public or private.
So when you complain about the $89K figure, you're eliminating the majority of occupations, leaving supervisory level, skilled professions, etc., and then complaining that when you compare the apples to the oranges, they're not the same thing.
I know there are aspects of the gubmit workforce, specific people in fact, who are not the strongest of the performers. As I say, I think that's a common enough state of affairs.
Well B5, on my cell on the way home, just so I knew how to hit the ground running this morning, I popped about a half a dozen items onto my to-do list after an 11-hour day.
Right now I am kind of itching to get out of here to knock some of them out, and from the looks of the posting habits here, under quite a bit more pressure than I think a lot of folks here see, have seen, or likely will see.
Meanwhile, you guys sit around during work and post on here how important it is to cut my pay.
Knock yourself out -- I'm late to get in early, and wanted to get a jump on this sh1t today.