Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Hillary Rodham Clinton for President 2016 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (298)	7/10/2014 12:26:40 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 850

The "Center" appeals to me because I am one of the 60% that is IN the center... First of all, I don't think there are 60% in the center. Where are you getting that stat from? You guys way to the left and those guys way to the right are the ones "out of step" with the country. That's just it.........I am not way to the left. Its you who are way to the right............and not center like you're trying to claim. You forget I am part of the nearly 52% of the population who voted for Obama. Last time I looked that's a simple MAJORITY! We have $17 Trillion Debt in the U.S. and we have a government that can't really fire anybody and actually pays BONUSES to people just for doing the jobs they are already well compensated for. And a lot of times they don't do their jobs at all and STILL get bonus. Gov't employment is hardly the major contributor to the Federal debt, and as for civil service bonuses, you've got to be joking: White House to Halt Civil-Service Bonus Program online.wsj.com There were 278 civil servants out of nearly 3 million federal employees who received bonuses in 2005. There were none in 2013. This is a joke. And let me tell you something I started out in the federal gov't. When I got hired away by the private sector, my salary doubled........and I worked just as hard at my federal job as I did in the private sector. And I never got a bonus in my fed job but lots in the private sector. I'm paying for that CRAP....and you are too..... And you're posting a lot of CRAP too. ;)

To: RMF who wrote (298)	7/10/2014 2:53:40 PM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 850

Barack Obama has shrunk the US federal workforce more than Ronald Reagan The most recent US jobs report highlighted a trend that has defined president Barack Obama’s battle for jobs growth: Even as the private sector expands, reductions in the public workforce are dragging back total job creation—and economic growth. But how does it fit in with the historical picture? Let’s start with what the president has the most control over: There have been three modern episodes in which federal employees have been cut during a presidential administration: the post-World War II demobilization under president Harry S Truman (1945-53); the Cold War peace dividend and budget cuts under president Clinton (1992-2000); and now Obama, who has downsized the federal government during the recession. Here’s a comparison But to get a full picture of the impact public hiring has had on the economy, look at the figures for total public employment, which includes state and local employees like teachers, police officers and firememen. Clinton’s job cuts don’t even show up—the economic boom of the 1990s allowed states to keep hiring and make up the difference—and while Ronald Reagan’s first two years of domestic cuts in 1981 and 1982 resulted in reductions of 66,000 federal workers, by the end of his term he reversed course and hired a net 240,000 federal workers. Even Truman finished his term as a net public job creator despite demobilization, with 540,000 more people publicly employed when he left office. But Obama, five years in, still has a public jobs deficit of 645,000 to make up if he wants to break even as a government job-creator. The problem is that even as federal workers have been downsized, state and local governments haven’t seen enough growth to make up for the recession costs like they did in the 1950s or 1990s, and federal aid to states during the recession has been delivered at levels consistently lower than Obama’s requests. Obama still has three years to hypothetically make up the difference in public job creation between himself and his two federal employee-cutting predecessors, but just to break even government at all levels will need to hire more than 200,000 workers every year until his term ends, a fairly unlikely proposition. If he doesn’t, Obama will be the first modern president to leave office with fewer people publicly employed. http://qz.com/232258/neverending-bank-scandals-are-great-news-for-londons-top-law-firms/