Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

Dennis Cauchon
USA Today

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.

"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.

Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.

Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.

"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

What the data show:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

I'm torn on this. On one hand I think that working for the government should be beneficial and that it should come with decent benefits, but on the other hand it should not outdo its private counterpart by that much. The government has the advantage of not having to make a profit which is why it can afford to pay its workers more, but there comes that line when it's just too much.

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm torn on this. On one hand I think that working for the government should be beneficial and that it should come with decent benefits, but on the other hand it should not outdo its private counterpart by that much. The government has the advantage of not having to make a profit which is why it can afford to pay its workers more, but there comes that line when it's just too much.

Nothing wrong with working for the gov't. But it's, as you said, not right to make more than the private sector.

The part of them not making a profit which means they can afford to pay it's workers more isn't right. They can afford anything because they get it from us taxpayers.

But back to the subject at hand, this isn't a good thing. If the private sector isn't above the gov't sector, it can mean only one thing; non-prosperity.

Well, I don't know. I think they should make a bit more than the private sector because if you work for the government, you should be able to live a semi-decent life, even if you only sit at a counter and take pictures for people's drivers licenses.

What I meant is that the private sector slashes as many costs as possible in order to maximize profits, even if it means that the workers have to sacrifice some things. The government on the other hand doesn't have to do those kind of things so it wouldn't be right to subject people to a wage that is the same to a company's wage that has to slash wages, benefits, etc.

How does it mean non-prosperity? There's a limited number of jobs the government gives out on any kind of level and those are mostly filled for a long time. It's not like the government is taking away skilled laborours from the private sector.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, I don't know. I think they should make a bit more than the private sector because if you work for the government, you should be able to live a semi-decent life, even if you only sit at a counter and take pictures for people's drivers licenses.

Unreal. You know, you get tried of people labeling you (or others) as socialists and then you come for with this shit here. Then you wonder hwy some say things like that.

Get a clue. Gov't doesn't produce shit. They take. This is why BamaNomics is failing. Instead of forcing federal, state and local gov'ts to make the hard decisions on gov't worker pay, benefits and pensions, Bama is bailing them out. We the taxpayer foot the bills, the employees union mandates the salary and the benefits.... and we pay..... more. The more gov't employees, the bigger the gov't. The bigger the gov't, the more power and control over the people.

BubbleBliss wrote:What I meant is that the private sector slashes as many costs as possible in order to maximize profits, even if it means that the workers have to sacrifice some things. The government on the other hand doesn't have to do those kind of things so it wouldn't be right to subject people to a wage that is the same to a company's wage that has to slash wages, benefits, etc.

Business is slashing right now to stay IN business. Local and state gov't are slashing to stay viable. Only the federal gov't is expanding. They can't seem to (congress) keep their grubby hands off people's money. They can't seem to cut costs. This WILL be the downfall of the Democrat Party this fall. You would fit right in with this bunch up there because everything you parrot is exactly what they're doing.... and it's pissing off more Americans than you care to admit to.

BubbleBliss wrote:How does it mean non-prosperity? There's a limited number of jobs the government gives out on any kind of level and those are mostly filled for a long time. It's not like the government is taking away skilled laborours from the private sector.

That's pure bullshit. The gov't has been growing in terms of jobs at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, we sink out here waiting for the economy to get going. More of that Hope & Change. All it's left me is change.... in my pocket.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, I don't know. I think they should make a bit more than the private sector because if you work for the government, you should be able to live a semi-decent life, even if you only sit at a counter and take pictures for people's drivers licenses.

Unreal. You know, you get tried of people labeling you (or others) as socialists and then you come for with this shit here. Then you wonder hwy some say things like that.

So now working for the government and asking for a decent wage is Socialism? It seems like the definition of the word changes dailt!

TexasBlue wrote:

Get a clue. Gov't doesn't produce shit. They take.

It takes in order to re-distribute. The whole point of paying taxes is so you receive something back and benefit from it. You don't just give up a good percentage of your earnings and expect nothing in return, even though the giving and returning isn't really on par here.

TexasBlue wrote:

This is why BamaNomics is failing. Instead of forcing federal, state and local gov'ts to make the hard decisions on gov't worker pay, benefits and pensions, Bama is bailing them out. We the taxpayer foot the bills, the employees union mandates the salary and the benefits.... and we pay..... more.

If a gov't is short on cash then sacrifices have to be made, including pay cuts. But if the gov't is doing well and money is flowing in, I don't see why gov't employees shouldn't benefit from that, as long as it's reasonable.

TexasBlue wrote:

The more gov't employees, the bigger the gov't. The bigger the gov't, the more power and control over the people.

I never said more people should work for the government. And the same goes for private corporations. The more workers they have, the more power they have. Corporations already pretty much determine political outcomes in this country, yet you want to give them more opportunities to control people's lives here. Look at how much tuition has gone up over the past decades compared to income. Look at how much medical and insurance cost has gone up compared to income. Certain Corporations know that they offer services and sell goods that everybody needs, no matter how expensive. Competition only drives down prices on certain goods and when there's a limited number of companies offering those goods or services, it's easy for them to keep prices high.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:What I meant is that the private sector slashes as many costs as possible in order to maximize profits, even if it means that the workers have to sacrifice some things. The government on the other hand doesn't have to do those kind of things so it wouldn't be right to subject people to a wage that is the same to a company's wage that has to slash wages, benefits, etc.

Business is slashing right now to stay IN business. Local and state gov't are slashing to stay viable. Only the federal gov't is expanding. They can't seem to (congress) keep their grubby hands off people's money. They can't seem to cut costs. This WILL be the downfall of the Democrat Party this fall. You would fit right in with this bunch up there because everything you parrot is exactly what they're doing.... and it's pissing off more Americans than you care to admit to.

Businesses have always been slashing. Whether it's outsourcing, cutting benefits, saving on bonuses, etc. that stuff is not limited to recessions, it happens all the time.
It's not like the Democrats can do anything to please Conservatives anyways. If they spend money on the private sector and bail out companies to try and save thousands of jobs, the rights screams of meddling gov't and socialism, yet when they sit and let the companies handle themselves, like at BP, the right screams of incompetence. I've voiced criticism of the stimulus bill and the timing of the health care reform time and time again, but you only choose to remember things that fits your image of me.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:How does it mean non-prosperity? There's a limited number of jobs the government gives out on any kind of level and those are mostly filled for a long time. It's not like the government is taking away skilled laborours from the private sector.

That's pure bullshit. The gov't has been growing in terms of jobs at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, we sink out here waiting for the economy to get going. More of that Hope & Change. All it's left me is change.... in my pocket.

If those jobs wouldn't be there there'd be more people on the unemployment list. What else is Obama supposed to do? Spend more money? Economic recovery takes time. It took time under Bush and it'll take time under Obama.
Don't blame the government because you don't have a job anymore. More and more blue collar jobs have been leaving the US for decades now and they won't be coming back, there's nothing the government can do about that. That's what happens when you give companies the opportunity to move their headquarters offshore and end up paying no corporate taxes whatsoever.

Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things... A couple of thoughts - government does not take from the people. Of course they "take" in the form of taxes, but how else are things (that everyone needs) going to get paid for? So people that say that tax cuts "stimulate" the economy are wrong. They eat it up as there is less money being brought in. As for government workers, I disagree that they "deserve" more than everyone else. It's just a job, no matter who your employer is. As for federal versus state, in some cases I think the state knows best but in other cases, the feds should take over. The number one argument for that IMO, is education. As I've said before, states should not be allowed to set their own education standards. That should be done at the federal level - across the board. As it is now, states set their own standards and as a result, there's a large discrepancy in what people know (and in what they can hope to achieve). It knocks people down before they ever get started. That ain't right. As for business, it exists for one reason - to make money. It doesn't give a damn about the workers. It's only interested in its own bottom-line. That's why many of them have outsourced. It keeps their bottom-line up, but it also takes away the jobs.

BubbleBliss wrote:So now working for the government and asking for a decent wage is Socialism? It seems like the definition of the word changes dailt!

Working for the gov't already entails decent wages. Where you come off saying it doesn't is beyond me. Then there's the fact that unions represent more people in the gov't sector than in the private sector.... hence, it's harder to get rid of people who aren't up to the job. I know.... my mom worked for the VA for 22 years before retiring last October.

BubbleBliss wrote:It takes in order to re-distribute. The whole point of paying taxes is so you receive something back and benefit from it. You don't just give up a good percentage of your earnings and expect nothing in return, even though the giving and returning isn't really on par here.

It takes to provide the services that it's supposed to provide. Then when the unions get their way and have higher wages for gov't workers (than in the private sector), we pay for that, too.

BubbleBliss wrote:If a gov't is short on cash then sacrifices have to be made, including pay cuts. But if the gov't is doing well and money is flowing in, I don't see why gov't employees shouldn't benefit from that, as long as it's reasonable.

Gov't revenues are shit right now and that's a documented fact. Yet, we keep spending more and more and more to make people like you jump for joy. This country is going into the shitter due to liberal spending policies in the last 18 months... which is far more than the dopey Republicans ever thought of pending in the 8 years before that. I'm actually very nervous with everything i'm hearing on the news the last couple of weeks... mainstream news even! But let's spend some more like the $26 billion for the teachers. Oh yeahhhhh, we got $400 billion of UNSPENT stimulus dollars yet to be used. Dumb. Just flecking dumb.

BubbleBliss wrote:I never said more people should work for the government. And the same goes for private corporations. The more workers they have, the more power they have. Corporations already pretty much determine political outcomes in this country, yet you want to give them more opportunities to control people's lives here. Look at how much tuition has gone up over the past decades compared to income. Look at how much medical and insurance cost has gone up compared to income. Certain Corporations know that they offer services and sell goods that everybody needs, no matter how expensive. Competition only drives down prices on certain goods and when there's a limited number of companies offering those goods or services, it's easy for them to keep prices high.

Here we go on the corporations rant. Let's stay with the subject here.

BubbleBliss wrote:Businesses have always been slashing. Whether it's outsourcing, cutting benefits, saving on bonuses, etc. that stuff is not limited to recessions, it happens all the time.

Yeah, that's why my former employer laid me off, huh? Happed all thetime before that, huh? Don't think so. They had to cut over 130 of us to stay profitable. No business works in the red..... unless it's gov't.

BubbleBliss wrote:It's not like the Democrats can do anything to please Conservatives anyways. If they spend money on the private sector and bail out companies to try and save thousands of jobs, the rights screams of meddling gov't and socialism, yet when they sit and let the companies handle themselves, like at BP, the right screams of incompetence. I've voiced criticism of the stimulus bill and the timing of the health care reform time and time again, but you only choose to remember things that fits your image of me.

Oh boy. You're something else. It's time to call Bama what he is.... a jobs killer. With his massive spending and tax hikes (rewarding unions, while punishing taxpayers and business owners), he's killed incentive to create new jobs. He's killed the incentive to expand business. He's kept the union workers of GM and Chrysler employed (with taxpayer money). He's made sure that most gov't employee union members got their annual raises for sleeping on the job (with taxpayer money). He made sure that his voters got handouts mislabeled as 'tax cuts' even though they never paid taxes (with taxpayer money). And he made sure that major campaign contributors collected billions off gov't stimulus (with taxpayer money).

BubbleBliss wrote:If those jobs wouldn't be there there'd be more people on the unemployment list. What else is Obama supposed to do? Spend more money? Economic recovery takes time. It took time under Bush and it'll take time under Obama.

You're missing the point. He's done NOTHING to spur economic growth. Economic growth pays taxes. Without that, we stay in the red... while we keep spending money to pay MORE gov't workers. His policies stifle growth.

BubbleBliss wrote:Don't blame the government because you don't have a job anymore. More and more blue collar jobs have been leaving the US for decades now and they won't be coming back, there's nothing the government can do about that. That's what happens when you give companies the opportunity to move their headquarters offshore and end up paying no corporate taxes whatsoever.

Government caused this goddamned recession an if you thin it didn't, you're insane! Lax regulations, turning their cheek the other way on Fannie & Freddie, massive spending prior to the meltdown, etc. The gov't can do a lot to bring jobs back. Unfortunately, it means lowering the corporate tax rate and our socialist will have none of that. That's why they left. It's been proven time and time again that our coprporate tax is one of the highest in the world. Yet you spew the same old tired buillshit over and over.

I swear, i hope the Democrats lose so many seats this fall that Obama will actually have to engage a sane agenda (ie: compromise) instead of this stupid assed liberal bullshit being rammed down our throats.

Am i mad? You damn right i'm mad. Without work for 19 months now... and i have to sit and listen to pipe dream bullshit that has never worke3d here at any time of our country's history.

i_luv_miley wrote:Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things... A couple of thoughts - government does not take from the people. Of course they "take" in the form of taxes, but how else are things (that everyone needs) going to get paid for? So people that say that tax cuts "stimulate" the economy are wrong. They eat it up as there is less money being brought in. As for government workers, I disagree that they "deserve" more than everyone else. It's just a job, no matter who your employer is. As for federal versus state, in some cases I think the state knows best but in other cases, the feds should take over. The number one argument for that IMO, is education. As I've said before, states should not be allowed to set their own education standards. That should be done at the federal level - across the board. As it is now, states set their own standards and as a result, there's a large discrepancy in what people know (and in what they can hope to achieve). It knocks people down before they ever get started. That ain't right. As for business, it exists for one reason - to make money. It doesn't give a damn about the workers. It's only interested in its own bottom-line. That's why many of them have outsourced. It keeps their bottom-line up, but it also takes away the jobs.

Tax cuts eat up revenue? Oh please. In May 2003, Bush tax cuts were implemented......

Tax revenues:
2003 - $1.78 trillion
2004 - $1.88 trillion
2005 - $2.15 trillion
2006 - $2.40 trillion
2007 - $2.56 trillion

Deficit as % of GDP
2003 - -3.5
2004 - -3.6
2005 - -2.6
2006 - -1.9
2007 - -1.2

The deficits from 2003 to 2007:
$378 billion
$413 billion
$318 billion
$248 billion
$163 billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Btw, deficits aren't created by tax cuts and they're not reduced by tax increases. Deficits are created through changes in spending. As the total federal spending continues to climb, deficits will continue to climb regardless of any tax policy. So if spending dictates deficit or surplus, why do Dems continue to want to take the route of depriving the citizens of more money instead of letting us keep what we earn? Don't answer that. I already know the answer.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:So now working for the government and asking for a decent wage is Socialism? It seems like the definition of the word changes dailt!

Working for the gov't already entails decent wages. Where you come off saying it doesn't is beyond me. Then there's the fact that unions represent more people in the gov't sector than in the private sector.... hence, it's harder to get rid of people who aren't up to the job. I know.... my mom worked for the VA for 22 years before retiring last October.

Well I didn't say that the should earn more than they do now, did I? The margin right now is pretty big and a bit of a pay cut wouldn't hurt anybody.

I think Unions in the gov't sector are useless, really. I understand wanting to protect your workers from outsourcing and cost cutting but working for the government doesn't put you under that threat.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:It takes in order to re-distribute. The whole point of paying taxes is so you receive something back and benefit from it. You don't just give up a good percentage of your earnings and expect nothing in return, even though the giving and returning isn't really on par here.

It takes to provide the services that it's supposed to provide. Then when the unions get their way and have higher wages for gov't workers (than in the private sector), we pay for that, too.

Addressed above.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:If a gov't is short on cash then sacrifices have to be made, including pay cuts. But if the gov't is doing well and money is flowing in, I don't see why gov't employees shouldn't benefit from that, as long as it's reasonable.

Gov't revenues are shit right now and that's a documented fact. Yet, we keep spending more and more and more to make people like you jump for joy. This country is going into the shitter due to liberal spending policies in the last 18 months... which is far more than the dopey Republicans ever thought of pending in the 8 years before that. I'm actually very nervous with everything i'm hearing on the news the last couple of weeks... mainstream news even! But let's spend some more like the $26 billion for the teachers. Oh yeahhhhh, we got $400 billion of UNSPENT stimulus dollars yet to be used. Dumb. Just flecking dumb.

Like I said, the government should cut back on some of the worker's salaries, the margin is just too wide.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I never said more people should work for the government. And the same goes for private corporations. The more workers they have, the more power they have. Corporations already pretty much determine political outcomes in this country, yet you want to give them more opportunities to control people's lives here. Look at how much tuition has gone up over the past decades compared to income. Look at how much medical and insurance cost has gone up compared to income. Certain Corporations know that they offer services and sell goods that everybody needs, no matter how expensive. Competition only drives down prices on certain goods and when there's a limited number of companies offering those goods or services, it's easy for them to keep prices high.

Here we go on the corporations rant. Let's stay with the subject here.

Well you say that the more people work for the government, the more control the government has. The same goes for corporations. The bigger they are, the more powerful they are, yet conservatives are perfectly happy to have a company whom they have no sway over control their life instead of a government they elect themselves.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Businesses have always been slashing. Whether it's outsourcing, cutting benefits, saving on bonuses, etc. that stuff is not limited to recessions, it happens all the time.

Yeah, that's why my former employer laid me off, huh? Happed all thetime before that, huh? Don't think so. They had to cut over 130 of us to stay profitable. No business works in the red..... unless it's gov't.

What about NAFTA? What about when Halliburton relocated their HQs in order to pay 0 taxes? In order to keep your stocks climbing, company's will always cut costs wherever they can!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:It's not like the Democrats can do anything to please Conservatives anyways. If they spend money on the private sector and bail out companies to try and save thousands of jobs, the rights screams of meddling gov't and socialism, yet when they sit and let the companies handle themselves, like at BP, the right screams of incompetence. I've voiced criticism of the stimulus bill and the timing of the health care reform time and time again, but you only choose to remember things that fits your image of me.

Oh boy. You're something else. It's time to call Bama what he is.... a jobs killer. With his massive spending and tax hikes (rewarding unions, while punishing taxpayers and business owners), he's killed incentive to create new jobs. He's killed the incentive to expand business.

Got any sources for that?

TexasBlue wrote:

He's kept the union workers of GM and Chrysler employed (with taxpayer money).

Any sources for that as well?

TexasBlue wrote:

He's made sure that most gov't employee union members got their annual raises for sleeping on the job (with taxpayer money). He made sure that his voters got handouts mislabeled as 'tax cuts' even though they never paid taxes (with taxpayer money). And he made sure that major campaign contributors collected billions off gov't stimulus (with taxpayer money).

I don't support any of the above. That kind of corrupt "reward" system is part of everyday life in Washington and as long as corporations can't contribute to campaigns that won't change. Especially since a "no limit campaign contribution" bill was just passed in Congress.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:If those jobs wouldn't be there there'd be more people on the unemployment list. What else is Obama supposed to do? Spend more money? Economic recovery takes time. It took time under Bush and it'll take time under Obama.

You're missing the point. He's done NOTHING to spur economic growth. Economic growth pays taxes. Without that, we stay in the red... while we keep spending money to pay MORE gov't workers. His policies stifle growth.

While most of the Stimulus Plan was a waste, it did create some jobs. I can see it working here in Lexington and when I drove up to PA and down to the Keys, I saw several signs that showed construction was being by funded by stimulus money.

My point was that those government workers that are on the gov't's employment list still have money to spend which does help the economy. If those people didn't have that job, they wouldn't have money to spend which would deepen the economic crisis even more.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Don't blame the government because you don't have a job anymore. More and more blue collar jobs have been leaving the US for decades now and they won't be coming back, there's nothing the government can do about that. That's what happens when you give companies the opportunity to move their headquarters offshore and end up paying no corporate taxes whatsoever.

Government caused this goddamned recession an if you thin it didn't, you're insane! Lax regulations, turning their cheek the other way on Fannie & Freddie, massive spending prior to the meltdown, etc. The gov't can do a lot to bring jobs back. Unfortunately, it means lowering the corporate tax rate and our socialist will have none of that. That's why they left. It's been proven time and time again that our coprporate tax is one of the highest in the world. Yet you spew the same old tired buillshit over and over.

Fannie & Freddie was only part of the reason for the meltdown. Increased gas prices and the collapse of financial institutions due to speculations and derivate trading is what really brought the economy down. Fannie & Freddie caused the housing market to go down, but not the financial sector which definitely had more of an impact on the US economy.

I've said before that the corporate tax needs to be lowered.

TexasBlue wrote:

I swear, i hope the Democrats lose so many seats this fall that Obama will actually have to engage a sane agenda (ie: compromise) instead of this stupid assed liberal bullshit being rammed down our throats.

I doubt it'll change much. Cutting the government to the bones will not benefit the average American one bit, it'll actually hurt him. I thought that the American people figured it out when Obama was elected, but it turns out that the Democrats aren't up to par on making the gov't run efficient, which is what turned the American people off of the things that they voted for. Until a candidate comes along that promises to improve health care, schools, alternative energy, etc. and do it in an efficient way, all you'll have is a change in parties every election. People didn't like what Bush was doing, so they voted for Obama. Now they don't like what Obama is doing, so they'll vote for somebody else. The whole thing is that you have to vote for the opposite because there is no Democratic candidate who promises a more efficient gov't that'll cut spending and waste.

TexasBlue wrote:
Am i mad? You damn right i'm mad. Without work for 19 months now... and i have to sit and listen to pipe dream bullshit that has never worke3d here at any time of our country's history.

That's because you've never tried it the right way. I'd rather give it another shot with a more efficient government than going back to the de-regulation and small gov't times when health care and tuition costs skyrocketed while more women entered the workforce and still wages stayed about the same. But what do I know, I'm just a socialist commie!

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things... A couple of thoughts - government does not take from the people. Of course they "take" in the form of taxes, but how else are things (that everyone needs) going to get paid for? So people that say that tax cuts "stimulate" the economy are wrong. They eat it up as there is less money being brought in. As for government workers, I disagree that they "deserve" more than everyone else. It's just a job, no matter who your employer is. As for federal versus state, in some cases I think the state knows best but in other cases, the feds should take over. The number one argument for that IMO, is education. As I've said before, states should not be allowed to set their own education standards. That should be done at the federal level - across the board. As it is now, states set their own standards and as a result, there's a large discrepancy in what people know (and in what they can hope to achieve). It knocks people down before they ever get started. That ain't right. As for business, it exists for one reason - to make money. It doesn't give a damn about the workers. It's only interested in its own bottom-line. That's why many of them have outsourced. It keeps their bottom-line up, but it also takes away the jobs.

Tax cuts eat up revenue? Oh please. In May 2003, Bush tax cuts were implemented......

Tax revenues:
2003 - $1.78 trillion
2004 - $1.88 trillion
2005 - $2.15 trillion
2006 - $2.40 trillion
2007 - $2.56 trillion

Deficit as % of GDP
2003 - -3.5
2004 - -3.6
2005 - -2.6
2006 - -1.9
2007 - -1.2

The deficits from 2003 to 2007:
$378 billion
$413 billion
$318 billion
$248 billion
$163 billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Btw, deficits aren't created by tax cuts and they're not reduced by tax increases. Deficits are created through changes in spending. As the total federal spending continues to climb, deficits will continue to climb regardless of any tax policy. So if spending dictates deficit or surplus, why do Dems continue to want to take the route of depriving the citizens of more money instead of letting us keep what we earn? Don't answer that. I already know the answer.

Government spending will have to increase as long as tuition prices and insurance prices increase while wages don't increase at all in comparison. The gov't has been having to make up for price increases for decades now.

TexasBlue wrote:Tax cuts eat up revenue? Oh please. In May 2003, Bush tax cuts were implemented......

Tax revenues:
2003 - $1.78 trillion
2004 - $1.88 trillion
2005 - $2.15 trillion
2006 - $2.40 trillion
2007 - $2.56 trillion

Deficit as % of GDP
2003 - -3.5
2004 - -3.6
2005 - -2.6
2006 - -1.9
2007 - -1.2

The deficits from 2003 to 2007:
$378 billion
$413 billion
$318 billion
$248 billion
$163 billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Btw, deficits aren't created by tax cuts and they're not reduced by tax increases. Deficits are created through changes in spending. As the total federal spending continues to climb, deficits will continue to climb regardless of any tax policy. So if spending dictates deficit or surplus, why do Dems continue to want to take the route of depriving the citizens of more money instead of letting us keep what we earn? Don't answer that. I already know the answer.

It's simple math. When there's less money coming in (in the form of taxes - i.e. tax breaks), there is less money that can be spent on things that everyone needs. But since everyone needs those things, the money keeps being spent. Since there's less money being brought in through the tax breaks, the result is whatever surplus there was is quickly squandered. And when you put on top of that even less taxes being brought in (due to all the outsourcing of the American jobs), there is even less money being brought in. Hence, the Bush tax-cuts coupled with the outsourcing of all our jobs, led to a runaway depletion of funds. I'll say it again - the only people that benefited from the Bush tax cuts were the already filthy-rich. Of course, that's what the tax cuts were supposed to do in the first place, right?

i_luv_miley wrote:Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

i_luv_miley wrote:Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things...

It's always a contest of wills between me and Bubbles. It's never ending... kinda like burning in Hell.

One day, the two of us will figure it out somehow. But you guys have to remember, i'm the only con in here. It's hard to make a point stick when everyone else is ganging up on you. At some point, i just give up even if i have more to say (such as now).

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things...

It's always a contest of wills between me and Bubbles. It's never ending... kinda like burning in Hell.

One day, the two of us will figure it out somehow. But you guys have to remember, i'm the only con in here. It's hard to make a point stick when everyone else is ganging up on you. At some point, i just give up even if i have more to say (such as now).

Now you know how I felt when it was you and Guido against me all the time!

Nothing personal, mind you, even though you may take it that way at times.

Everybody takes it personal every once in a while, can't help it.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Everybody takes it personal every once in a while, can't help it.

That's why you like it here. You're a glutton for punishment.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Now now, already... Instead of petty (and that's what it is) arguing, how about trying to see others point-of-view. As I see it, both of you have some points. But at the same time both of you are dead wrong about other things...

It's always a contest of wills between me and Bubbles. It's never ending... kinda like burning in Hell.

One day, the two of us will figure it out somehow. But you guys have to remember, i'm the only con in here. It's hard to make a point stick when everyone else is ganging up on you. At some point, i just give up even if i have more to say (such as now).

Why don't you to just get married and be done with it? You already act like an old married couple

Naw, he's not my type.