It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamanomics? Almost 500,000 Federal Workers Make Over $100,000

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by darkbake
$100,000 is not that big of a salary. It is well within the confines of fair. For example, what if these federal workers are doctors or engineers or physicists?


Government workers make more than their counter parts in the private sector in the vast majority of cases. Also Government workers have the BEST retirement systems going...all thanks to our tax dollars...


One of my relatives in town works as a doctor at the VA Medical center, and he actually makes a lot less than he would if he was in the private sector... but he does his job there because he feels like it is the best place he can be to help people.

It is true that government jobs provide stable income these days, but how is that bad? Instead of focusing on tearing down something that is providing living wages for people, wouldn't it be better to focus on creating more jobs like that in the private sector?

Also, check out this:



Are you more worried about this, or $100,000 paychecks for government workers?

edit on 22-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

One of my relatives in town works as a doctor at the VA Medical center, and he actually makes a lot less than he would if he was in the private sector... but he does his job there because he feels like it is the best place he can be to help people.

It is true that government jobs provide stable income these days, but how is that bad? Instead of focusing on tearing down something that is providing living wages for people, wouldn't it be better to focus on creating more jobs like that in the private sector?

Also, check out this:



Are you more worried about this, or $100,000 paychecks for government workers?

edit on 22-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



Of course they aren't worried about your chart there. Don't you know Fox and Brietbart blame Obama so it must be true. You are wasting your time trying to show them actual problems. Even the dastardly pirates understood the captain and officers should get a greater share but it shouldn't be a 475:1 share. The crew would throw you overboard. Yet Republicans think this is perfectly ok, and it would be wrong to cast them off.

They like to blame public workers for private sector workers issues. They didn't do anything wrong it was the private sector folks that bought into Ronnie Regan's trickle down theory. It was the private sector workers that bought into the 401k scam, a scam so successful they are out to dupe them again doing it to Social Security. It isn't the public sector workers that decided to adopt "right to work" for less laws. You know who votes for "Right to Work"? The same people that don't understand why they have to pay taxes.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Groups claim data on federal employees’ salaries is misleading


Federal employee groups on Monday questioned the accuracy of a recent news report that claimed from 2007 to 2009 the number of government workers earning more than $100,000 per year spiked.

Based on an analysis of federal data, a Dec. 10 USA Today story, said the number of federal workers earning more than $100,000 per year rose from 14 percent in December 2007 to 19 percent in June 2009. The article attributed several workforce trends, including the easing of federal pay caps, higher salaries at the Pentagon because of its pay-for-performance system and generous annual raises from Congress.

According to federal workforce advocates, the numbers are misleading. "The data presented by USA Today is incomplete in many ways," Jessica Klement, legislative director for the Federal Managers Association, wrote in an e-mail. She said the data did not indicate how or why federal employees earned those salaries, and taken in context, the figures aren't as alarming as they seem at first glance.

"Overall, according to the data, more than 75 percent of federal employees make less than $100,000," said Klement. "This is hardly cause for concern."



I only want to point out, the basis for the WND claim to blame this on "Obamanomics" is bogus - all the data used in the original article came from 2007 to 2009.

Under Bush:
  • Paycaps were eased
  • New pay system installed
  • Pay hikes



John Palguta, vice president of policy of the Partnership for Public Service, said the figures could be attributed to increased hires at the Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs departments. Because of the tasks some of those employees perform -- including medical and sophisticated technology work -- they earn higher salaries than the general population.


I always have to laugh at the readers of WorldNetDaily, at how gullible they must be to not be able to look past a headline and determine the facts of the case for themselves.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
100,000 isnt really that big of a salary. you need to consider the fact that some of the people making this much money could be making millions in the private sector. do you really think that the scientists employed by the government would stay there if they barely made enough money to cover living expenses? This however does not mean there isnt waste in the federal government, cause we all know theres alot. but saying that ALL 500,000 of these people arent deserving of the wage is just ignorant.

Im going to assume that alot of these people also live in D.C and incase you didnt know the living expenses in the capitol are pretty darn high unless you go into the bad neighborhoods surrounding it.


If you want to get angry, get angry at the tax loopholes that the rich use to keep billions of dollars from getting taxed by the government.
edit on 22-8-2012 by MastaShake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Hmmmm.

It seems that good 'ol Obama has actually increased government workers under his control.


But looking only at the federal work force under Mr. Obama’s direct control, then government employment has actually gone up.

He inherited a federal work force of 2,061,700, and it rose slightly through June 2009 to 2,109,700; by May of this year, it had grown further to 2,204,100, a 7 percent increase.

Size of Government



Workforce going down? Is that the U.S. Post Office?

Skip to the end. What's going to happen with the post office?

To the GSA if President Mitt Romney moves into the White House?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I know some of these workers, trust me, they could get paid a lot more somewhere else. There are also plenty of underpaid government employees.

They are specialists, doctors, architects, consultants.


Talk about a silly arguement.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
I could EASILY make $10-15k a year more in the private sector, as could most of my co-workers. I have a 401k type retirement plan and a pension. And, we pay taxes also, so spare me the rhetoric.


Why don't you then? Do you work because you feel you need to give back to your country.....? LOL

I'm retired military and I have 100s of friends in the GS system, so spare me the weak spin... There is no pension in the private sector.... Also your job is extremely secured and you don't need to show a profit or actually be efficient to show profits...you just need to maintain the status quo.....


Job security. It's that simple. Why would I give up job security and a pension for another $15k a year? Money is just money, and I am neither driven by it or obsessed with getting more of it. Am I efficient? I damn sure am. Further, I save taxpayers money every day. I certainly don't need your approval to justify my employment.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
$100,000 in DC or NYC or Philly won't go far.
$100,000 in Alabama would have you doing really well.

Anyways .. Obamanomics = trickle up poverty for most people.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
$100,000 in DC or NYC or Philly won't go far.
$100,000 in Alabama would have you doing really well.

Anyways .. Obamanomics = trickle up poverty for most people.


Obamanomics = Stagnation = the economy in Europe right now.....do you see?

1 piece of Obama puzzle missing for Obama. Just look at Great Britain.

- Obama needs a nationwide Value Added Tax. -

Simpson / Bowles did NOT offer Obama that !


..........so Obama ignored the whole thing.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

One of my relatives in town works as a doctor at the VA Medical center, and he actually makes a lot less than he would if he was in the private sector... but he does his job there because he feels like it is the best place he can be to help people.

It is true that government jobs provide stable income these days, but how is that bad? Instead of focusing on tearing down something that is providing living wages for people, wouldn't it be better to focus on creating more jobs like that in the private sector?


So lets talk CEOs....

Take Boeing, let's say the CEO made 450 times the average for his company of 50k per year. That would be 22 million or so, so he takes a 90% pay cut and decides to make 2.2 million and he split the rest with all his employees... they would all get 181 dollars per year raise...WOOT!! we are out of the recession!!

Take Obama and let's say he got his tax increase he wants on all those rich guys...we can run the Government for 10 more days...WOW!! once again we are fixed!!

Why is it hard for people to realize it is that the Government spends too much , and Obama and crew wants to focus everything on more taxes that mean squat in the real sense of what is actually the problem.

Obama just wants votes.....there is nothing more to this....get you angry at the wrong group and vote Obama so he can really screw things up.


I'm worried about a Greece scenario where everyone wants a nice government job and there isn't enough in the private sector to tax to pay for all of that, and BAM!! we have Greece...



edit on 23-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Job security. It's that simple. Why would I give up job security and a pension for another $15k a year? Money is just money, and I am neither driven by it or obsessed with getting more of it. Am I efficient? I damn sure am. Further, I save taxpayers money every day. I certainly don't need your approval to justify my employment.


You might be efficient but government isn't...every...never...


Old saying "my wife saved me so much money at sales that I went broke"

Government spends and that is it...nothing more nothing less. We need a Government, but we just do not need one so big that it puts us 16 trillion in debt.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Yes, let's follow the money.

Please advise which Obama policies are enriching the wealth of himself or his administration?
Do the same for the Bush presidency?
Do the same for the proposed Romney presidency?
Oh. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Didn't democrats have a majority rule during the last few years of Bush? Pubs take back the house in 2010. Maybe that explains some of the anomalies.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Well, well, well, it seems that this morning news are showing that Obama cuts will no be in the 1 million but close to 2 million people without a job.

So, I guess the welfare state is about to bloom again, this time who will be paying for the benefits.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Now this has me confused !!

How can Obama hire enough people to really make a difference?

He can't even get his political appointees confirmed thruogh the Senate.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I love how people make this an Obama issue when these people have probably worked for the feds for 10 years or more.

Do you really think Obama sits there and calculates salaries for employees?

I think that the job of the HR department.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I love how people make this an Obama issue when these people have probably worked for the feds for 10 years or more.

Do you really think Obama sits there and calculates salaries for employees?

I think that the job of the HR department.


Actually, it's the job of Congress. They vote on issues of Federal pay, raises, etc. as part of each year's budget or continuing resolutions.

This year, Obama recommended a 0.5% raise for Federal workers, as raises have been frozen for a couple years now. It is up to Congress to decide to continue the freeze, adopt the 0.5% raise, or institute another percentage.
edit on 23-8-2012 by usernameconspiracy because: added info



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Read the Brietbart artcile (ugh) - but then saw the brietbart article was based on a much older USAtoday article from 2009.

So all the data from this article was from 2009.

Obama wasn't yet in office. That means "Almost 500,000 Federal Workers Make Over $100,000" is due to his predecessor.

Old article, but revived 3 years later by Brietbart. I guess they sat on this article all this time, so they could pull it out to embarrass the current prez, even though it all happened back when the other guy was still in office.

I hate underhanded tricks like that, I can only conclude Brietbart is a biased, partisan site not really interested in the truth, but only in cheerleading for the GOP and making up lies about the other side.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I love how people make this an Obama issue when these people have probably worked for the feds for 10 years or more.

Do you really think Obama sits there and calculates salaries for employees?

I think that the job of the HR department.


True, BUT Obama wants to expand Government...can't you see that.

Romney wants to cut Government and the headlines is...."Romney wants to put 4 million out of work..."
I don't care about the past right now...I want someone to reduce the Government for the future...Obama is not that guy...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Really? These scumbags get paid under the table....Which is illegal....Duhhhhhh.....




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join