• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

108,000 DoD civilians would lose jobs under sequestration

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
The Federal Government is not a jobs program. If these jobs represent a reasonable choice in cutting government spending then I'm fine with it.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,519
0
0
The Federal Government is not a jobs program. If these jobs represent a reasonable choice in cutting government spending then I'm fine with it.
The problem is that the whole sequestration thing is specifically and intentionally not taking that "if" into account. One hopes that the DoD makes cuts in the programs that can most afford to be cut, but the overall amount of the cuts has basically nothing to do with efficiency or return on our tax dollars.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,647
0
76
www.facebook.com
Not to mention that defense contractors (which represent a lot of the "waste") apparently get a much softer landing than government employees.
I actually agree with you since they pay their CEOs so much and since the govt can actually create jobs if that's what the Reichpublicans/Democraps are out for. However, Federal salaries are still way too high and there are too many jobs.

The contracts to privately owned companies are just corporate subsidies since everything can be provided via voluntary transactions that would be far more efficient than businesses getting tax revenues... however, the govt is the root of the problem because not many people would resist taking stolen money while being shielded from the consequences a free market would impose.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,173
60
91
Well in my family we had to take a pay cut, so I see no reason why the Feds should not make cuts straignt accross the board on SS, Medicare, and Defense. Why do I get a pay cut and the slobs on ss DO NOT HAVE TO Suffer? So if the country is suffering those on the public dole should also have to suffer along with everyone else. I am not a Hindu, and I do not believe in Sacred Cows???
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,173
60
91
Before we fire people we should just consider cutting everyones pay by 10% and start with the President and Congress, and every federal employee making over $100,000 a year.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,173
60
91
Maybe we should fire some prepresentatives and congressmen first. Do we really need over 400 representatives in the house?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,519
0
0
Well in my family we had to take a pay cut, so I see no reason why the Feds should not make cuts straignt accross the board on SS, Medicare, and Defense. Why do I get a pay cut and the slobs on ss DO NOT HAVE TO Suffer? So if the country is suffering those on the public dole should also have to suffer along with everyone else. I am not a Hindu, and I do not believe in Sacred Cows???
That seems silly, if only because there is a difference between YOU having to take a pay cut and "everyone in the country is suffering". And beyond that, you're assuming your pay cut results in less compensation for your efforts than that received by a government employee. That's a popular idea, but if your field is at all tech related or requires more advanced eduction, there is every chance that the equivalent government employee started out with a "pay cut" in the first place.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,519
0
0
I actually agree with you since they pay their CEOs so much and since the govt can actually create jobs if that's what the Reichpublicans/Democraps are out for. However, Federal salaries are still way too high and there are too many jobs.
...
What exactly are you basing that on?
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
Before we fire people we should just consider cutting everyones pay by 10% and start with the President and Congress, and every federal employee making over $100,000 a year.
i agree completely. this happens to everyone else. company starts going red, they tell everyone "you will be getting 10% less pay starting the 1st. you dont like it, youre free to leave". but i would make that figure to anyone in the government making over 50k, which would be much more in line with what normal people make.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,519
0
0
i agree completely. this happens to everyone else. company starts going red, they tell everyone "you will be getting 10% less pay starting the 1st. you dont like it, youre free to leave". but i would make that figure to anyone in the government making over 50k, which would be much more in line with what normal people make.
Plenty of "normal" people make WELL above 50k and have managed to escape pay cuts due to being in a good field or being especially good at their jobs. Why shouldn't government employees have the same opportunity? Well, I suppose realistically they WILL have that opportunity...by leaving government. Which might sound good, until you consider that government still needs employees that they'll have an increasingly hard time attracting.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Except nothing about this process suggests waste will go down or spending will be more efficient. People seem to think undirected spending cuts mean wasteful spending will be cut when it's more likely easy to cut spending will be cut. This means cuts in short term projects while the giant projects everyone things of when they think of wasteful spending will stick around because of the amount of sunk investment. Not to mention that defense contractors (which represent a lot of the "waste") apparently get a much softer landing than government employees.
Well of course waste wouldn't be completely removed, but however you wish to look at it spending 500 billion as opposed to close to a trillion a year would automatically force more efficient means of people spending their set budgets.

Big project or not, effectively cutting your current budget in half would force everyone to make some hard choices on how to spend other people's money.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
Before we fire people we should just consider cutting everyones pay by 10% and start with the President and Congress, and every federal employee making over $100,000 a year.
How about if we start by cutting the take home pay of Mitt & pals by 10% before starting in on others less able to pay painlessly?

It's not like they're actually creating jobs, that buying govt bonds stimulates the economy any more than collecting it as taxes, or that they're not offshoring every dollar as fast as they can get their hands on it...

Sacrifice for the good of the country? Sure- start at the top, with the people who benefit most and can most easily do so. If there's some lifestyle difference between taking home $2M/mo and $1.8M/mo, I guess I'd have to live it to appreciate it. I somehow doubt that there is.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
How about if we start by cutting the take home pay of Mitt & pals by 10% before starting in on others less able to pay painlessly?

It's not like they're actually creating jobs, that buying govt bonds stimulates the economy any more than collecting it as taxes, or that they're not offshoring every dollar as fast as they can get their hands on it...

Sacrifice for the good of the country? Sure- start at the top, with the people who benefit most and can most easily do so. If there's some lifestyle difference between taking home $2M/mo and $1.8M/mo, I guess I'd have to live it to appreciate it. I somehow doubt that there is.
How about we start with obama and his pals by 20%
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,647
0
76
www.facebook.com
What exactly are you basing that on?
I thought it was a widely known fact that public workers make more than their private sector counterparts.
Before we fire people we should just consider cutting everyones pay by 10% and start with the President and Congress, and every federal employee making over $100,000 a year.
How about capping the President's compensation at $39k/yr (that's what Dr. Paul proposed which is a ~91% cut) and capping all Federal workers' compensation at $50k/year while letting them be Federally tax exempt after cutting ~20% of the people currently on the federal payroll off completely? That's not ideal, but it wouldn't be a bad start.
How about we start with obama and his pals by 20%
How about not prohibiting society from enslaving both of those motherfuckers for life? :)
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,219
275
126
While I agree that most government employees could take a pretty substantial pay cut I would like to go even further. Thousands of government jobs could be cut to less than 35 hours a week and become part time jobs greatly reducing the amount of money in retirement benefits as well as others. This would help reduce the number of people wanting to work for the government. Most of the jobs could be performed by the private sector much more efficiently.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Yeah, it's not like we need competent nuclear safety techs, efficient managers who could have excellent private sector jobs, or anyone else in government who cares about earning a living. Let's fill the necessary government jobs with people just absolutely can't find any work elsewhere, that's a surefire way to reduce inefficiency and get the best bang for your tax dollars!

Government jobs need salary and benefit packages competitive with what people with the appropriate qualifications can make in the private sector. Nickel-and-diming salaries is a bad way to save money if it means we only get the worst candidates serving the public good. If you think the private sector should take on some jobs, then argue for that, not warping the compensation model and making government worse.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
While I agree that most government employees could take a pretty substantial pay cut I would like to go even further. Thousands of government jobs could be cut to less than 35 hours a week and become part time jobs greatly reducing the amount of money in retirement benefits as well as others. This would help reduce the number of people wanting to work for the government. Most of the jobs could be performed by the private sector much more efficiently.
Yes- the vaunted "efficiency" of govt contractors, like with the military...
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Yeah, it's not like we need competent nuclear safety techs, efficient managers who could have excellent private sector jobs, or anyone else in government who cares about earning a living. Let's fill the necessary government jobs with people just absolutely can't find any work elsewhere, that's a surefire way to reduce inefficiency and get the best bang for your tax dollars!

Government jobs need salary and benefit packages competitive with what people with the appropriate qualifications can make in the private sector. Nickel-and-diming salaries is a bad way to save money if it means we only get the worst candidates serving the public good. If you think the private sector should take on some jobs, then argue for that, not warping the compensation model and making government worse.
Love the fear mongering and exaggeration
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,641
4,242
136
It just never stops does it liberals. Now look at what all the Democrat bickering during the debt crises has gotten us. At this rate our weapons manufacturer contractors will be out on the streets begging for bread just to get through the day. :rolleyes:
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Sure- make it 20%, with a cap of 35%. Mitt would still be paying less than the maximum...

Glad to see that some Righties agree with raising taxes at the top.
As long as obama and his pals face it too along with anyone else living off the taxpayer such as the MIC
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,983
14,137
136
As long as obama and his pals face it too along with anyone else living off the taxpayer such as the MIC
Heh. Obama paid 26% in 2010, nearly twice what Mitt paid, and Mitt's income was enormously larger.

Most of Obama's income came from royalties on books, not from his Presidential salary.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Heh. Obama paid 26% in 2010, nearly twice what Mitt paid, and Mitt's income was enormously larger.

Most of Obama's income came from royalties on books, not from his Presidential salary.
The income tax should be ended, its only to pay for social programs that dont work and cost the taxpayer way too much money. Anyone that avoids paying income taxes is a decent person
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY