FreeBeacon: When adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes
more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation
last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of
over $52,000, or 78 percent.
Editor's notes: If you think "wealth redistribution" is about transferring wealth to the working poor and the middle class, you are less than simple minded and destined to be one of the many, actually the majority, who are slaves to those in Central Planning and national leadership.
Where in the world do you think salaries and funding for Central Planning, its employees and "top brass" comes from? You.
That's right. ALL funding for Central Planning, whether they call it "salaries," or "legacy programs," or "retirement," or "investment capital" (code for opportunities of graff, theft, and self grandisement), all funding comes from those outside the closed system that is Central Planning. It comes from you. And the above FreeBeacon story, is a perfect example of this fact.
Federal employess live off your dime, and "earn" 80% more than you . . . yet you pay their salaries, legacy programs and give the money they use to pay their taxes.
Again, government employees live off OUR dime. There is no better reason to reject the current Marxist ideology that belongs to Hillary, Obama, Warren, Joe Biden, AFL-CIO leadership, the Teacher's Unions, the SEIU and all progressives currently driving our federal system(s).
None of them earn their money, as you and I do. All of them take from the "taxpayer," living off our dime, without shame and without end. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is wrong with Central Planning at the Federal level.
Need I say more? Seriously. Need I say more ?
Gov't jobs have decreased under Obama
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/14/job-shifts-under-obama-fewer-government-workers-more-caregivers-servers-and-temps/
Govt's jobs increased under Reagan
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/10/ronald_reagan_talked_smaller_g.html
Because of Democrat control of Congress, Reagan failed to reduce the size of government. Because of a failed economy, Obama has not grown the number of federal employees. Neither fact has anything to do with my post, and why? Because the partisan making the comment has nothing to say about the post. My facts are THE facts.
DeleteIn the end, Obama is a Big Government freak, and Reagan was not.
I don't know if the numbers support anonymous' "facts." But I do know that Obama has done more to extend the influence of the Federal government than any president in our history, including Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Icon, FDR. The fact that Obama has not grown the size of the federally employed system is the fault of his own failed economic strategies. and has nothing to do with his ideology . . . . which is pro-government without question. .
DeleteUnder President Obama's leadership, the economy has added private sector jobs for 64 straight months. During this span, 12.8 million private sector jobs have been created. In same period of time, Obama decreased Gov't workforce. Reality is NOT in your favor Smithson, the facts don't support what you say.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=172
DOL stats tell us that Obama has added around 9 million jobs; The economy lost 490,000 jobs in the middle of 2010, so your numbers are wrong on that, also. Biggest population of folks wanting to work but have given up looking since 1978. 2.2 average GDP for the entire 7 year period and he told us things would be back to normal by the end of 2010. Largest population on food stamps in history; highest levels of poverty in decades and a president who does not know his white ass from a can of vanilla.
DeleteSept of 2010, economy lost 490,000 jobs. . . . 56 weeks ago. Per Daily Kos, as of June 2015, economy has created 8,000 jobs. Bush did not add as many jobs as Obama because because he was at full employment for 7 of the 8 years.
ReplyDeleteJust think of what could've been accomplished with the $1.3 trillion GWB spent in Iraq.
ReplyDelete-SS full benefit age to 62
-free college tuition for all
-a stronger military, more advanced weaponry
-a US base on the moon
-a fusion reactor
... the list goes on... and if it were up to the idiots, we'd still be in Iraq spending billions and continuing to destabilize the area.
Problem: your numbers are wrong and Obama would not have sanctioned any of your fantasies. Heck, free college would eat up a trillion bucks in four years.
DeleteObama pulls out of Iraq, calls ISIS the JV team, watches as Iran goes nuclear, promises Putin more flexibility after the 2012 elections, does all he can to put Israel in its greatest danger since 1948, gets rid of Gadaffi and watches as Lybia goes to hell, brags about his policies in Yemen three weeks before our people have to (literally) grab their laptops and run for their lives, promises a red line and then watches as 200,000 Syrians are murdered because of his cowardice, and, now, is being embarrassed by Putin on a daily basis. Soooo, who are the idiots ?????? (Feel free to correct anything I just wrote).
Would you be willing to sacrifice your SS and Medicaid so we can occupy Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt?
DeleteYes. But it is not about "occupying" those countries. Only communist occupiers of the United States would word the question using the word "occupy" in this context. Rather, it is about saving lives. honoring the sacrifices of our troops (to hell with the enemy) and taking leadership in a world devoid of leaders.
DeleteAnd in the process, death -war- destruction, America is bankrupt, our quality of life suffers, and the nation is weakened militarily. That's one helluva vision you have there... what do we gain besides enemies? Some macho pride that you can beat your chest and say "we're winning?" You would think you'd have learned the lessons of history, Afghanistan. Lets put you vision to a vote ... go into 4 middle eastern countries to try and save them. Might as well add Libya, Sudan, Iran and Crimea to that list.
DeleteFool.
Obama has weakened our military. Saving lives when they are begging us to intervene is the right thing to do. Humanitarian intervention is not visionary, it is a matter of moral necessarity and a shared humanity. I thought this is what your side believes. Apparently only true when you give despotic leaders wealth and arms; kiss off shared humanity when it involves standing up to fight for what is right.
DeleteOf course, we should never invade a country for the sake of perceived humanitarian benefit , like Obama did in Egypt, Lybia and Yemen. But we have been asked to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq; have been asked to join Egypt and Jordan in fighting ISIS. Instead Obama promises Putin to be more fexible.
The less money we spend on creating enemies and terrorists in the middle east (like Bush did with ISIS) the stronger our military will be and the better they will be at defending the homeland. Let Russia and Israel do the dirty work, let them spend their money and lives. Obama is doing the right thing by keeping us out of there as much as possible. That is why he is the most admired man in the world - FACT. A great and successful presidency in the face of unprecedented obstruction. One of the most intelligent men to hold the office.
DeleteFirst, Bush did not create ISIS. They came into existence AFTER Obama left Iraq and pronounced it to be strong, stable and sovereign. You deny that he said and did this back in Dec. of 2011?
DeleteAnd, how many times did Obama say Al Qaeda (ISIS is an off-shoot) was dead and GM was alive? Remember those words? I do.
No body in the middle east admires Obama including Russia and Iran . . . and I mean none of the middle eastern leadership.
Obama speaks on an 8th grade level and cannot write a cogent budget proposal. He has tried at aleast 5 times.
Obama speaks on an 8th grade level ? Google the definition of "Bushism"... and what level does Palin speak on?
DeleteBush created ISIS. Whenever a secular dictator is unseated, Islamic radicals fill the void. Are you going ever learn?
8th grade levels ? Yes and your buds over at Politico gave us this fact : http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-8th-grade-reading-level-112236
DeleteBTW, Bush spoke on a 10th grade level and read a book every three days (that's 95 books per year). Obamaq can't even write a cogent budget proposal, having failed five times to do so.