Buster
Well-known member
Yeah I know what you mean..seems far fetched that the IRS would ever downsize:suspicious:
-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Republican plan to cut Federal Workers, Pay, Retirement
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
- Status
Elgallo
Member
Certainly isn't a good time to be a Fed. I can only hope that they leave my retirement alone
Exactly! With 32 months max left until retirement (sooner if they keep this BS up) I'm concerned to say the least.
Silverbird
Well-known member
Beware averages and other random statistics with no context. For instance, the office I'm in has been under a hiring freeze for a couple yers. If we actualy had been hiring people entering the work force, our average pay would actually be lower and we'd be spending more on wages. Hiring freeze has actually substantially increased our average pay. There aren't any (GS) 9's or 11's round here no more.
crws
Active member
Shhh you'll give away your offshore tax-haven status.
You know that Tom guy, he gots his peeps.
Silverbird
Well-known member
Republican Study Commitee Proposal, Formal work on budget starts next week...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41192300
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41192300
Boghie
Well-known member
Folks,
There just aint no more money out there. And, the folks don't really want all the government they are getting.
We are spending $584,237 Billion more (2010 dollars) than we did in FY2007
We are borrowing 42% of our daily expenses.
The Feds hired 200,000 more folks.
The voter doesn't see value.
Something's gotta give.
The cuts are coming - and we are going to be cut. It really doesn't matter what we think is fair. There isn't any real money to pay us. And, for one, I will not accept a tax hike to pay me.
There just aint no more money out there. And, the folks don't really want all the government they are getting.
We are spending $584,237 Billion more (2010 dollars) than we did in FY2007
We are borrowing 42% of our daily expenses.
The Feds hired 200,000 more folks.
The voter doesn't see value.
Something's gotta give.
The cuts are coming - and we are going to be cut. It really doesn't matter what we think is fair. There isn't any real money to pay us. And, for one, I will not accept a tax hike to pay me.
david.alan.williams
Member
Here's the biggest cut we can make....SOCIAL SECURITY.
Phase it out. Replace it with a TSP like system.
I'm 48 but would gladly give up my social security if I could put my bi-weekly contribution ($113.71) and the employers contribution ($113.71) from my Social Security Tax into TSP for the next 12 years. That would be about $150,000 at 8% or $237,314 at an aggressive 15%.
A 20 year old making only $20,000 per year for the rest of his life would have at age 60, $200,781 at only 3% earned or have $6,742,692 if he was aggressive (15%).
Just kill Social Security for everyone age 50 and under and the Government would just have to tax us extra until the 51 and over leave the system.
Phase it out. Replace it with a TSP like system.
I'm 48 but would gladly give up my social security if I could put my bi-weekly contribution ($113.71) and the employers contribution ($113.71) from my Social Security Tax into TSP for the next 12 years. That would be about $150,000 at 8% or $237,314 at an aggressive 15%.
A 20 year old making only $20,000 per year for the rest of his life would have at age 60, $200,781 at only 3% earned or have $6,742,692 if he was aggressive (15%).
Just kill Social Security for everyone age 50 and under and the Government would just have to tax us extra until the 51 and over leave the system.
Kaufmanrider
Member
Folks,
There just aint no more money out there. And, the folks don't really want all the government they are getting.
We are spending $584,237 Billion more (2010 dollars) than we did in FY2007
We are borrowing 42% of our daily expenses.
The Feds hired 200,000 more folks.
The voter doesn't see value.
Something's gotta give.
The cuts are coming - and we are going to be cut. It really doesn't matter what we think is fair. There isn't any real money to pay us. And, for one, I will not accept a tax hike to pay me.
How many of those 200,000 new employees are Homeland Security? Federal employees, per capita, are actually far lower today than they were 50 years ago under President Kennedy.
There has to be a tax hike of some kind, on somebody, or everybody. There just isn't enough money coming in, even with draconian cuts, to balance the books, and reduce debt, without more revenue.
Boghie
Well-known member
Kaufmanrider,
that 200,000 person increase has occurred since January 20, 2009.
And, it was permanent salaried staff - not census workers. The Left believes in gubmint action - so they staff it. I haven't seen any benefit.
It is a boondoggle.
Boghie
Well-known member
I'm with you bro...
I'd even offer to leave all my existing contributions, all my employers existing contributions, and all my current earnings that have accrued in my Social Security 'Lockbox' and never receive any Social Security benefit - if they would just let me invest my future Social Security contributions in my own TSP account.
david.alan.williams
Member
I would too! Oh yeah, include in the law that the government cannot ever borrow or touch the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
burrocrat
Well-known member
or just cut it in half.
i am one of the proprosed affected group, but let's get it started aready, something needs done.
alevin
Well-known member
Boghie, SS went in the red last fall. More coming out than going in already. You do know there's no tooth fairy, right? no lockbox, neither. Congress helped themselves to the contents years ago and issued IOUs to you and me both. what's left will be gone before we know it.
Karl had an excellent most enlightening graph today-its in his morning editorial at the link-very very telling. derived from federal data sources publicly available. story is-the national GDP and declining purchasing power problems go back 60 years.
regardless of appearances to the contrary.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177912
Nate
Member
I agree with this one. I also think Military service should be a prerequisite. Political civil service should be more selfless service, and less of a "high earnings" career. Start the trimming with Congress at a GS-5/9 paywage.
On the side, I came across an interesting website a few years ago....Just searched for it again and found it.
http://membership.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2009
-And offtopic, if I hear the media use the words "rhetoric" or "shellacking" one more time, Im gonna drink bleach.
Last edited:
Minnow
Well-known member
Kaufmanrider
Member
Actually, it is since 2002. We have added an entire new department, with vast resources and personnel. I am not saying it is not needed, but the majority of the increase in the number of federal employees is due to 9/11 and "Homeland Security."
The link below has a chart, with numbers from OMB. Per Capita we are at our lowest level. We have far less now than under Bush 1 and Clinton. Since 2002, the Feds have added 200,000. Not since 2009. That is a bloated statement from the far right. Yes Obama has hired a lot, but no where near the 200,000 that is claimed. He is replacing those that were not hired/replaced. How many were Border Patrol Agents? Homeland Security Positions? Etc. All called for not only by Dems, but by Republicans. Most of the oringinaladditional 200,000 came under Bush and the Republican controlled congress. I guess they forgot they originally bloated the federal payroll, and now want to make those same federal employees their scape goats for their lavish spending when they were in power?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
Warrenlm
Well-known member
While not taking this literally, (two residences, travel costs, clothing, etc.) we've already made it almost impossible to have regular people represent us or lead us (especially since we are swayed by TV spots). The more we turn the governing over to wealthy people, the more we continue to get the government we deserve. New mantra is trickle down trickle down? Better: term limits, publicly funded only campaigning, erase K Street and major change in Congressional seniority rules. Ah, where's that dream catcher.
On the subject of hiring.....some must be related to the new realization that contractors cost more than career feds.
Boghie
Well-known member
Re(1): 'Orrin Hatch's Fuzzy Math on Federal Workers', FederalTimes, Steven Losey
Re(2): 'Historical Tables | The Whitehouse', OMB
Re(3): Table 17.1 —TOTAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH CIVILIAN FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) EMPLOYEES: 1981–2011, 'Historical Tables | The Whitehouse, OMB.
Kaufmanrider,
Everybody games statistics. Your source includes the quasi commercial entity known as the Post Office. They are supposed to pay for themselves. Including the Post Office is like including the employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And including their income and expenses. Somehow - and for some mysterious reason - your source includes only the Post Office from a myriad of choices. Here is his source. Why and how did he pick only the Post Office from other like entities?
I very much like the gaming by a clueless lawyer politician on my side. I mean, to subtract DOD civilians pre-Obama just to add them in for Obama is a very special form of lying. And kinda stupid. I don't trust politicians and talking heads. Also, I like the slant of Steven Losey in FederalTimes article. He seems to think one should exclude DOD civilians. Eh...
Anyway, look at the raw numbers provided this year by the OMB.
In 2008 there were:
In 2011 (to avoid census) there is a projected workforce of:
I, however, challenge the removal of we DOD civilian slugs from the numbers. The DOD is bloated and has been on a hiring spree since 2008. And, I don't care where the bloat comes from - its gotta go!!!
So, in two years the gubmint has bloated by 231,000 personnel.
I contend, regrettably, that much of the voter population hasn't seen the benefit of hiring those 200,000 folks concurrant with blowing up the deficit (tripling it annually).
Re(2): 'Historical Tables | The Whitehouse', OMB
Re(3): Table 17.1 —TOTAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH CIVILIAN FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) EMPLOYEES: 1981–2011, 'Historical Tables | The Whitehouse, OMB.
Kaufmanrider,
Everybody games statistics. Your source includes the quasi commercial entity known as the Post Office. They are supposed to pay for themselves. Including the Post Office is like including the employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And including their income and expenses. Somehow - and for some mysterious reason - your source includes only the Post Office from a myriad of choices. Here is his source. Why and how did he pick only the Post Office from other like entities?
I very much like the gaming by a clueless lawyer politician on my side. I mean, to subtract DOD civilians pre-Obama just to add them in for Obama is a very special form of lying. And kinda stupid. I don't trust politicians and talking heads. Also, I like the slant of Steven Losey in FederalTimes article. He seems to think one should exclude DOD civilians. Eh...
Anyway, look at the raw numbers provided this year by the OMB.
In 2008 there were:
Total: 1,875,000
Total excluding DOD: 1,204,000
Total excluding DOD: 1,204,000
In 2011 (to avoid census) there is a projected workforce of:
Total: 2,106,000
Total excluding DOD: 1,348,000
Total excluding DOD: 1,348,000
I, however, challenge the removal of we DOD civilian slugs from the numbers. The DOD is bloated and has been on a hiring spree since 2008. And, I don't care where the bloat comes from - its gotta go!!!
So, in two years the gubmint has bloated by 231,000 personnel.
I contend, regrettably, that much of the voter population hasn't seen the benefit of hiring those 200,000 folks concurrant with blowing up the deficit (tripling it annually).
- Status
Similar threads
