What I see is the salary of jobs listed on the job.gov website versus the cost elsewhere in the country for working in a same-sized city or exurbs of the city: Chicago, Atlanta, Columbus OH, etc. No, I am not comparing the salary received in Washington DC to Kentucky salaries. That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Read your own article. Yes, the government gives outstanding benefits, and that's worth alot of money (outstanding single payer health care being the primary one)

It's a shame the private sector provides next to nothing in benefits, giving only cheap minimal health care according to the USA Today study, and virtually nothing in pensions (must be why we need health care reform!)

The difference in salary between sectors is about 10-12%, but that's comparing to a wide range of jobs in the USA Today article, not just city jobs.

Which makes you wanting to cut government workers salaries by 20%, to put them far BELOW the national average, weird and rather cruel in my eyes.

You can take away people's health care benefit, I suppose, like you want to (you want to take away 75% of their bennies to save money)

Your move would increase our country's deficit in the long run, increase the cost of health care for all the rest of us, and obviously result in less healthy people in our country. That's rather sad and unnecessary, don't you think?

They got together, and said "hi." There's no agreement. Only agreement is to get together, and see how much they can bend this guy over the sink. You think the GOP will agree to have any of the tax cut not be extended for the wealthy? I don't. So, why are they talkin'?

Did you see the photo with Obama having his hand on Cantor's shoulder, and McConnell is glaring so hard his eyes are about to pop out of his face? Man, that guy hates Obama.

Naw, there will be no compromise from the GOP. They are not changing their stripes to do something different now. They were all over the news this morning saying they will not compromise a lick.

I did get some small joy from telephoning McConnell's office this afternoon (he's my senator) and leaving the message with the staff that I consider his actions over the past two years terribly obstructive for the country, and today's historic blockage of extending federal unemployment extensions in the face of 9.6% joblessness was the last straw. Told the staff he obviously doesn't care about the thousands of people here in KY that will be foodless and starving within the next week. And he is responsible for deepening the recession and hurting our economy by taking that spending money away. Asshats. I love democracy! :tro:

But on a serious note, this is a disaster in KY, we have thousands of unemployed, people will literally be starving. I'll do the good deed and drop off a couple bags of grocery contributions at the food bank tomorrow - their contributions have been skeletal, as the recession is so bad, but the need has never been greater. They are now about to be overwhelmed. These are real people that will suffer. Letting our own starve in America. What have we come to?

Yea, well, how about you giving something on the other end of the spectrum? You, of course, didn't tell us what the wealthy are gunna give up to solve this deficit problem. You just want middle class people to give up stuff. You say they're overpaid? Listen, I had a dog that wouldn't eat, or drink. He was getting dehydrated. I knew he had to have an I.V., or he might not make it through the night. So, I took him in. They said leave him etc., and like 8 hours later, they wanted $1100-1200 or so bucks. So, please don't give me this crap about bloated. There is so much more "bloated" going on amongst parasites (like these people.) You're very selective about what's bloated. If it's the middle class that's slightly bloated, then, you're concerned. Otherwise, you aren't bothered by it at all. Before Federal Workers get pay cuts etc., I am 100% sure that I'd rather have that Vet pay more money in taxes. I know who's more bloated. Now, if you really want to cut the deficit, then, why don't you (at least) suggest that both sides give up something. BTW, that event I mentioned (dog) is not the free market in action. There are other people that would be very willing to give that dog an i.v., and anti- nausea meds. In a free market, it would be legal for them to do so. When the wealthy do stuff to inhibit a free market, they get a free pass.

we're the military of the free world but can't afford to be. it needs to change.

the defense budget should be cut... maybe by up to 10-20%. i'm sure if you went through the defense budget line by line, there would be a ton of wasteful spending in there.

& its ridiculous to think people's salaries should be cut by 20%. now as far as those government benefits go.. those should be more in line with the private sector for sure.

hes a lame duck president. he is now bending over for the gop. in the new world order of the us congress..his basketball skills are better than his diplomatic skills..

I would guess that your information is faulty. I say this because there is zero chance that we have any clue what the Chinese or N. Koreans or Iranians are spending on their military. As mater of fact i'd guess there is a great deal of spent on black projects here that is not included

Remember that a great deal of military spending goes to US corps and funds high paying US jobs.

I'm sure his staff was impressed.

http://www.kentucky.com/classified-a...ory/Employment

The recession is SO bad but Obama has done wonderful things..

We can't afford not to be

The point people seem to be missing is that the Federal payrolls are bloated by tens to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary/unproductive employees who arent only increasing our expenses now but will do so into the future with their benefit packages. It isnt that dissimilar to what happened to the auto industry in the US where a disproportional amount of money is spent on people no longer working. It is almost impossible to fire a govt worker without them comitting some kind of felony.

The reason that private sector workers should be better paid than govt workers for similar jobs is because in the private sector, production matters and there is risk that you will be replaced. Not so in the vast majority of govt jobs.

It needs to be visible. They voted for change. Let them see what their change did.

You cant imagine how bad it is here! I drove over at least 12 dead bodies coming home from the barn today. Kroger is under siege from lynch mobs of hungry unemployed people. People are spontaneously combusting. Dogs and Cats are living together...

"If it doesn't affect me, I don't give a shiat. I've got mine" - Typical Republican

I thought the Republican were supposed to be humorless as well as heartless?

That's simply disgusting.

Tell us a joke about a Democrat and prove it's not true.

BTW You got suckered once again. :D

"President Obama spoke of the need for sacrifice last week when he announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees.

But feds won't be too terribly deprived in 2011 and 2012. Despite the freeze, some 1.1 million employees will receive more than $2.5 billion in raises during that period."

So once again we save $1.3 billion by freezing salaries but will give 11 of every 15 employess $2.5 billion in raises? How is this not called out as the utter bullshiat it is??? Somehow everytime this idiot tries to save us money it ends up costing us more money:wf

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/.../12060301/1001

Do you just not read and understand the articles you post? The 1.3 billion saved is still saved. It's money not spent. The total budget will be 1.3 billion less than it would be if they don't do it (if Congress approves it, which I doubt the Dems will)

the sad thing is 1.3 billion to them is like me having three pennies in my pocket that I just saved.

Do you understand 73% of Fed employees receiving raises amounting to almost double what the President said he would save by freezing salaries makes absolutely no sense?

This is true. And that is what infuriated Obama's base, too - he puts out a pay freeze for those least able to afford it (the "average worker"), that won't save all that much, and does it without using it as a negotiating point with the GOP on the whole tax package thing. It was simply bizarre, that he came up with it out of nowhere and announces it. This pay freeze was 100% a GOP suggestion, too, not a Dem one. The GOP got mad he co-opted it when he announced it last week! :D

Then tell the GOP, because this is 100% their idea.

What makes no sense is you taking one value, pay raises, and completely ignoring the rest of the payroll budget. Those are not the only two values contributing to the payroll. The payroll isn't only A- pay raises, and B -COLA freezes.

You do realize that there's a huge "rest of the payroll budget" to consider? For example, what would the normal value of the frozen COLA raises be, that are now 1.3 billion less over two years? The article didn't even consider that.

If you are decreasing a budget by 1.3 billion, pulling out one line item out of that budget that has a greater value, and saying, "Oh, but it's still over 1.3 billion" is just silly.

If your budget is $2000 a month, and your mortage is $1000, and your taxes, insurance, utilities are $500 - if you announce a budget cut of $100 a month in your "taxes, insurance, utilities" category - pulling out a tax bill that is still $300 and making the claim that "Oh, you didn't cut $100, because this is still $300!" doesn't make sense.

He's actually giving 3 out of 4 a raise during the freeze so you should be happy.

In many companies, not only government, COLA and base pay step schedules for positions are separate, and calculated separately in the budget process. See unions.

A starting policeman may get $30,000 a year, after 1 year $33,000, after 5 more $38,000. That is separate from COLA raises (which are variable tied to economy)

Seeing the base pay step schedules stay normal, while the COLA has been taken away, is absolutely a net loss for the employee. If they were hired thinking they would get a 4% raise every year, but now are only getting 3% (their step raise, no COLA) - yeah, they have had part of their pay frozen.

In this case, 1.3 billion is not paid out on the bottom line of the budget. The normal raises going on as part of that budget doesn't change the bottom line, the 1.3 billion was calculated on top of, inclusive, of that.

Later on in the article was a GOP offering,

But Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, called the retention of step increases a hole in Obama's plan. He also said the administration should freeze hiring and reduce the federal payroll from $447 billion to $400 billion.

"Somehow, someway I think this country can survive on just a $400 billion payroll," Chaffetz said. He is the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on the federal work force, and could become chairman when Republicans take control of the House next year."

That's $47 Billion saved per year or like Obama likes to use $470 Billion saved over 10 years. And forget about Cost of Living Adjustments.

I haven't had a COLA since 1982, I believe. We tried to get one on a new contract in '85 and spent 9 weeks on strike Nov/Dec. Beauty,eh?

I havent had a COLA raise or any raise since the economy tanked. Nice to see government workers are exempt from the tough economy.

Well, when you cut thru all the BS, they don't get a COLA, but they'll get the normal step raises for employment...not that the budget is providing that either!

yeah most people in the private sector arent getting either raise type during these times.

If you really cut thru the BS this is another case of do as I say not as I do.

Very few if any private sector jobs come with COLA clauses in a contract unless it's a union contract. Thus is there any wonder why so many union jobs are no longer in existence and those that are needed government bailouts and a government funded rebate program in order to stay afloat?

Wonder if the unemployed steel worker from Cleveland still reminisces of the good old days when he had COLA and thinks that standing up for unrealistic wages and benefits then was worth it despite having to work two crappy jobs, if he can find them, to get by now?

Most people in the private sector are reliant on the profits of their employer for raises and thus have a 'vested' interest in their employers' success, regardless of what the cost of living is at. Call it dedication.