Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 14, 2020

In a move that drew outrage from labor unions and progressives, President Donald Trump this week quietly took steps to slash a scheduled pay raise for millions of federal workers from 2.5% to 1% due to supposed concerns about "keeping the nation on a fiscally sustainable course."

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Doesn't matter. Federal employees are another demonized group for the mouth breathers so the inconsistency will be glossed over or ignored.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-14 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

due to supposed concerns about "keeping the nation on a fiscally sustainable course."

Trump needs to slow down the impact of his massive tax cut for himself somehow.

It does strike me odd that this measure is needed, considering how many Trumpublicans are gloating about how great our economy is.

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Actually Trump hates government workers, this had nothing to do with our economy.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-14 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Just more people,ready to feel the "Bern". He's bringing more in to our side every time he does schitt like this.His base shrinks a little more. Americans are heavily propagandized,but we are not retards,at least not most of us. Trump will overplay his hand and who knows, He may be the one to lose in a LANDSLIDE,Lol.

#4 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-14 08:02 PM | Reply

Gotta pay for Andrea's tax cut somehow... you know, other than his typical Republican Magic Growth that never happened.

Can't buh-lieve some of these indies still think he's not just another Republican.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-14 08:14 PM | Reply

One of the first things he did, way back in '17, was basically destroyed the federal office meant to implement and enforce the the Ethics in Government Act.

#6 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2020-02-14 08:35 PM | Reply

#4

He may lose in a LANDSLIDE, but not against Soviet Sanders. There's no way Americans are going to elect a Bolshevik. I'd bet the farm on it.
Besides, the Dem machine isn't going to let it happen.

#7 | Posted by willowby at 2020-02-14 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7

Only if they are dumb enough to think he is really a Boshevik.... oh, wait, they prolly are.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-14 09:19 PM | Reply

He may lose in a LANDSLIDE, but not against Soviet Sanders. I'd bet the farm on it.

Flashback to 2016 when no one thought Trump could beat Hillary.

I wouldn't bet the farm.

Maybe the rooster...

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-14 09:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

FUGEM!

#10 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-02-14 09:48 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Maybe the rooster...

#9 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2020-02-14 09:30 PM | FLAG:

www.youtube.com

#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-02-14 09:51 PM | Reply

#9

I don't know, clownshack. I think it's more implausible for Sanders to win than it was for Trump. Hillary excited nobody but corky and his ilk. Trump has a larger diehard base than Sanders.

#12 | Posted by willowby at 2020-02-14 09:58 PM | Reply

The amazing thing to me is Trump ends up being the ONE guy that makes socialism, even communism, attractive to the US populace.

I never thought Bernie would be as popular as he is. Especially with a ------- like Bloomberg running just to protect his billions.

The pendulum is swinging back in the direction of the Left far quicker than I anticipated. Even the 'next in line' candidate in Biden is failing miserably.

If there's ever a time for socialistic communism in America, Trump as solidified as that time being now.

Congrats, Republicans, you made that. I hope you deem the federal/SCOTUS judge placements as worth it.

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-02-14 10:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump can't have it both ways. Either the economy is the best it has ever been, and may ever be in the future, or it's so bad that government employees have to sacrifice their financial well-being in order to save the country from going down the toilet. WHICH IS IT?

OCU

#14 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-02-14 10:06 PM | Reply

time for a national socialist party or a mao commie party? great, count me out. I'll take obama again over these clowns

#15 | Posted by mutant at 2020-02-14 10:52 PM | Reply

- Hillary excited nobody but

3 million more voters than your Dear Leader.

And lost by .056 percent of the vote in the EC.

But lie about it as much as you like, Rand.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-14 10:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This sucks. I feel for the people who are serving their country by working to provide services for us all.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-02-14 11:09 PM | Reply

Federal employees are another demonized group for the mouth breathers so the inconsistency will be glossed over or ignored.
#1 | POSTED BY JPW

Yeah because they gloss over their customers when it SHTF...

During the last recession, the only unaffected area was DC.

Did you care? Did they care?

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-14 11:37 PM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY OCUSER

It could be going GREAT but the Federal Government Employees are economically immune from it, so why should they benefit?

So screw them.

#19 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-14 11:38 PM | Reply

Hillary excited nobody but corky and his ilk

True, see above

#20 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-14 11:39 PM | Reply

#16

Holding your nose while casting your vote is hardly being excited, liar.

#21 | Posted by willowby at 2020-02-15 12:53 AM | Reply

Already all Dems. Hand that feeds.

#22 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2020-02-15 02:33 AM | Reply

Virginia starting pay Step 1
GS-11$72,030
GS-12$86,335
GS-13$102,663
GS-14$121,316
GS-15$142,701
Steps up guaranteed

#23 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2020-02-15 02:55 AM | Reply

What about GS-1 to GS-10? Or does everyone start at GS-11?

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-02-15 03:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, GreatAmerican is just posting the numbers that look like "government waste" to people who can't imagine making $72,030 a year.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 04:01 AM | Reply

#23

"for the GS-11 grade (or equivalent) level you need a doctoral degree. At these levels, the advanced degree must be directly related to the work of the job you're applying to."

www.usajobs.gov

"Median weekly earnings for workers with doctorates are $1,623. Annualized, that's $84,396."

smartasset.com

So we are paying folks with doctorates in the federal government 12k less than private sector but they are over paid? Truth is it's even worse than that as the 84k average takes into account the 72k federal folks but yeah screw those government workers.

#26 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-02-15 06:27 AM | Reply

Oh crap #23 you were posting step 10 rates.

step 1 to step 2 52 weeks of creditable service in step 1
step 2 to step 3 52 weeks of creditable service in step 2
step 3 to step 4 52 weeks of creditable service in step 3
step 4 to step 5 104 weeks of creditable service in step 4
step 5 to step 6 104 weeks of creditable service in step 5
step 6 to step 7 104 weeks of creditable service in step 6
step 7 to step 8 156 weeks of creditable service in step 7
step 8 to step 9 156 weeks of creditable service in step 8
step 9 to step 10 156 weeks of creditable service in step 9

So you were talking about folks with doctorates and 18 years of experience on the job.

#27 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-02-15 06:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And Pres Trump's transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy continues...

#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-15 09:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So we are paying folks with doctorates in the federal government 12k less than private sector but they are over paid."

You don't need a doctorate to get a GS-11 job. I don't have a doctorate, and I could have my pick of GS-12 and below. GS-13 would be standard. GS-14 would be pretty difficult, but achievable if I were willing to go where I wanted. GS-15 would be highly unlikely, as those jobs usually go to very senior people with unique experiences and (at least in the military) serve as deputies to General Officers.

I've supervised many GS-13s. Not a one had anything higher than a Masters. I read the article...but I have no idea why it's there. Jeez, my buddy's secretary is a GS-11. I'm pretty sure she doesn't have a doctorate in secretary science.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 10:01 AM | Reply

And I'm not sure why this is a problem. If they're not making enough money at their GS job, go do something different. If these workers start quitting and moving on to greener pastures, it will indicate that the government isn't paying them enough.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 10:09 AM | Reply

"And Pres Trump's transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy continues..."

You can relax. These GS workers got little to nothing from the bottom 47% of taxpayers.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 10:22 AM | Reply

It seems to me that an across the board pay cut of, say, $50,000, for each senator would be a fair and balanced starting place.

#32 | Posted by contrecoup at 2020-02-15 10:25 AM | Reply

Yeah because they gloss over their customers when it SHTF...
During the last recession, the only unaffected area was DC.
Did you care? Did they care?

#18 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

See.

It's no longer about good faith governance, truth, morals and principles.

It's about me me me and who can I hurt in the process.

Yet they're amazed I treat them with contempt and think they don't deserve it...

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It could be going GREAT but the Federal Government Employees are economically immune from it, so why should they benefit?
So screw them.

#19 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Yeah! They SHOULD be in pain.

How dare they take a job that pays a good wage!

-Andreaschitris

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 10:30 AM | Reply

And I'm not sure why this is a problem. If they're not making enough money at their GS job, go do something different. If these workers start quitting and moving on to greener pastures, it will indicate that the government isn't paying them enough.

#30 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Amazing.

People are rationalizing this garbage.

Doesn't matter. Federal employees are another demonized group for the mouth breathers so the inconsistency will be glossed over or ignored.

#1 | POSTED BY JPW

They don't even try to be "compassionate" anymore. It's all about hurting others now.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 10:33 AM | Reply

During the last recession, the only unaffected area was DC.

Did you care? Did they care?

#18 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Government workers were affected too.

Did you care when they stopped paying federal workers during government shutdowns?

Do you care that they were already grossly underpaid? I believe they were ~25% behind the private sector before the recession even occurred.

Don't try to kid us now that you and any deplorable suddenly cares about government employees.

After all that is where the "Deep State" lives.

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-15 10:40 AM | Reply

So screw them.

#19 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Now that's the hateful Deplorable behavior we all know and do not love.

Government employees are Americans. They are not the Others you are looking for to dump your hate on.

This is just another attempt by deplorables to divide us against ourselves.

Time to grow up deplorables and learn the lessons of history.

A House divided against itself cannot stand.

Trump is a hateful revengeful man and his supporters are hateful people.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-15 10:48 AM | Reply

--Do you care that they were already grossly underpaid? I believe they were ~25% behind the private sector before the recession even occurred.

Then why don't they take jobs in the private sector? Are they stupid?

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-15 10:50 AM | Reply

Then why don't they take jobs in the private sector? Are they stupid?

#38 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Maybe the benefits makes up for it.

I could make more money by switching jobs but the benefits wouldn't be nearly as good so it would end up being pretty much a wash.

Or maybe they like feeling like they're serving people in their own way. Something you're apparently so unfamiliar with you can't even fathom it.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- Holding your nose while casting your vote is hardly being excited

Holding your dick and voting for Trump, or not voting at all, is hardly intelligent, dumbarse.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:09 AM | Reply

"It seems to me that an across the board pay cut of, say, $50,000, for each senator would be a fair and balanced starting place."

Are you familiar with the Blues and Royals? It's a British Army cavalry formation. Both Prince Harry and Prince William are members. It's members have always included the Who's who of British society

One of the quirks of the British military is the "mess." in order to be part of the unit, you're required to pay a mess fee. For the Blues and Royals, that fee is the better part of the soldiers income. Most of the officers come from an aristocratic background, and are only there to do a few years. Mostly to be seen. Really, it's kinda of a fraternity for Britain's most important families. The fact that the mess fees are high don't really matter. They're not there to serve, they're there because it's a stepping stone to what comes next. And the 39k-47k British Pounds one earns as a Captain is nothing compared to the family money.

I think the Senate is the same. People aren't there to get rich. You could pay them nothing, and you're still going to attract the same class of people. Because it's more about power.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:10 AM | Reply

- you can't even fathom it.

aka, The Neverending List.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:10 AM | Reply

"Amazing. People are rationalizing this garbage."

Obama cut the planned pay increase for active duty military back in 2009. I thought it was a good move, and I'm in the military.

I guess you and I are just different people.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:11 AM | Reply

Then why don't they take jobs in the private sector? Are they stupid?

#38 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Why don't you? Are you stupid? Don't answer we already know.

Some people want careers. Not "jobs".

Because working at McDonald's is not a career for most people.

Because trumps "best economy ever" is a lie when it comes to middle class jobs.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-15 11:13 AM | Reply

And all of the GS employees I work with could easily find well paying work elsewhere. Virtually all of them are retired military, and just wanted to keep running missions without the hassle of having to deploy or work long hours. Not a one of them could be considered "poor" by any standard.

I take that back. Progressives can make anyone poor.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:13 AM | Reply

Trump cutting a gov worker raise claiming "fiscal responsibility" after giving the store away to moneyed interests...

... is hardly the same as what Obama did while recovering the economy from the last Great Republican Recession.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:16 AM | Reply

--Because working at McDonald's is not a career for most people.

So you're saying government workers are only qualified for McDonald's?

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-15 11:17 AM | Reply

"Obama cut the planned pay increase for active duty military back in 2009. I thought it was a good move, and I'm in the military."

It's was a terrible move. Balancing the budget on the backs of the troops is never a good move. But it is easy pickings. They can't complain and they can't quit.

Obama was attempting to pull America out of the ditch in 2009 that the Republicans drive us into. Obama could have done it different. He could have rescued the People instead of the Banks. The outcome would have been better by 1000%. And Humpy would not be the King today.

And the "best economy ever" would not require that the President cut pay to the troops.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-15 11:20 AM | Reply

#46

No, it's pretty much the same thing.

And giving away money to someone is very different than allowing them to keep the money they've earned.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:21 AM | Reply

#47 |

He was obviously comparing jobs to careers.... well, obvious to anyone but a Trump Troll.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:21 AM | Reply

- No, it's pretty much the same thing.

You saying so doesn't make it so... it's just what people who have no real argument do.

- giving away money to someone is very different than allowing them to keep the money they've earned.

No, really it is not is a society that understands they need a system of progressive taxation because crony capitalism naturally flows money upwards.

SO, wrong on both counts.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:25 AM | Reply

"It's was a terrible move. Balancing the budget on the backs of the troops is never a good move. But it is easy pickings. They can't complain and they can't quit."

Most can. And if the pay cut is deemed onerous by those serving, they can pitch out at the end of their commitment. For enlisted members, that comes pretty quick.

I don't think money is that significant of a motivator though. An O-5 fighter pilot is going to gross around between $150K-$185K per year, depending on location. On top of that, they are (or would have been as major) eligible for a bonus of up to $550K. That's a pretty decent amount of money. Yet the AF is having a very difficult time hanging on to fighter pilots.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:25 AM | Reply

"You saying so doesn't make it so... it's just what people who have no real argument do."

It's literally the same thing you did.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:27 AM | Reply

"No, really it is not is a society that understands they need a system of progressive taxation because crony capitalism naturally flows money upwards."

In any free society money will naturally flow to those who provide the most value to society. Cronyism has nothing to do with.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:28 AM | Reply

No, it literally is not; I literally juxtaposed recovering from a recession to lying about a financial necessity.

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:29 AM | Reply

"He could have rescued the People instead of the Banks."

You mean TARP? As much as I dislike it, it was a success. The borrowers paid their debts.

I'm not sure how you would have created a similar program for your average Joe.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:30 AM | Reply

Cork,

Stop saying "literally."

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-15 11:30 AM | Reply

#54

More rwing BS.

Money flows to money, not to value.

Our system of crony capitalism where the wealthy and corporate write their own tax laws is like a poker game where I have a million dollar stake and you have a hundred dollar stake. In no case do you ultimately win.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:32 AM | Reply

#57

It was intentional. Much like your putting lipstick on that pig Trump every day.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:33 AM | Reply

My comment wasn't serious. I was just giving you a hard time.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-15 11:34 AM | Reply

"Money flows to money, not to value."

Really?

You fling your hard earned dollars at the richest person you can find?

I sure as hell don't. I fling my dollars at whatever provides me with the best benefit per dollar.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:36 AM | Reply

"Our system of crony capitalism where the wealthy and corporate write their own tax laws is like a poker game where I have a million dollar stake and you have a hundred dollar stake. In no case do you ultimately win."

Really?

They wrote the tax laws that allows 47% of the population to avoid paying anything but entitlement taxes?

What a bunch of idiots.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:38 AM | Reply

#61

Now you are just being obtuse. Those who can afford to buy pols to write their own laws fling money to themselves.

- They wrote the tax laws that

Still obtuse. No, they spend their money tearing down the progressive tax laws from FDR's era of leveling the playing field in order to make sure they pay a lesser percentage than do their secretaries.

SO, now that you've bored me near to death with your same old rwing nonsense and utter obliviousness for what goes on in this economy, I think I'll watch Tiger lose again.

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 11:53 AM | Reply

LOL of course the thread turns to justifying Trump's lies.

You guys really are beaten spouses. Seek help.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-15 11:54 AM | Reply

"No, they spend their money tearing down the progressive tax laws from FDR's era of leveling the playing field in order to make sure they pay a lesser percentage than do their secretaries."

That's garbage.

The average tax rate for the top 1% is 23.39%

The average tax rate for the bottom 50% of taxpayers is 2.37%

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 11:58 AM | Reply

#65

Very funny. Confusing tax rates with what people, and corporations, actually pay. Many of which pay nothing... or get refunds on billions in profit.

Even funnier, you might be upper middle class, but you are arguing the interests not of yourself, but of people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, even if they needed to take a leak.

You vote their interests, and it doesn't cost them a penny; the only way the very wealthy stay in power is to divide voters on social and economic interests so the small donor base has a large voter base.

People like you don't grok people like FDR, who had principles beyond his nose; he werked for the good of all Americans, not for his privileged class. Fortunately there are still a few like him.

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-15 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

FDR eh? Try to stay on topic.

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner

#67 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-15 12:10 PM | Reply

Let's us start with this.

taxfoundation.org

"Confusing tax rates with what people, and corporations, actually pay. Many of which pay nothing... or get refunds on billions in profit."

I do my absolute best to pay as little in taxes as I possibly can. And how can you skewer wealthy taxpayers for voiding them when poorer people actually get more from taxes than they pay?

"Even funnier, you might be upper middle class, but you are arguing the interests not of yourself, but of people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, even if they needed to take a leak."

And it's sorta mutual. I don't really care about the top 1% or .1%, ot .01%, or whatever. I'm glad they're here. Without them, my taxes would have to increase. I don't want that.

"You vote their interests"

Which most closely align with my interests. Which is why I vote that way. It has noting to do with them. I couldn't be more different from a Harvard educated socialite. I'm more what our Aussie friends would refer to as a "cashed out Bogan."

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 12:14 PM | Reply

People like you don't grok people like FDR, who had principles beyond his nose; he werked for the good of all Americans,

LOL Like the Japanese he interned?

#69 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-15 12:41 PM | Reply

"The Tax Rate Paid by the Top 1% Is Double the National Average"

Meanwhile, the income earned by the Top 1% is about 6-7x the national average.

So they make six times the income... and pay double the taxes.

Tell us again why that's fair, that the people who make 6-7x the average pay only 2x the income tax?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 01:29 PM | Reply

2014 to 17 1% raise
2011 to 13 0% raise

#71 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2020-02-15 01:52 PM | Reply

Christ the ------- tax lie never dies

the ONLY measure is the total tax burden paid

and that falls predominantly on the lower and middle classes.

#72 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-15 02:35 PM | Reply

Madbomber, is a good Uncle Tom. He always has his massas interests in mind. When he says he's looking after his own interests,he Really means,theirs.

#73 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-15 03:16 PM | Reply

"Tell us again why that's fair, that the people who make 6-7x the average pay only 2x the income tax?"

Let's do this. Let's use math.

If 23.39% is the tax rate of the 1%, and the 1% earns 6x the bottom 50%...if you were to translate that into a rate, the top 1% would pay a proportional tax rate of 139%. Which means that, for every dollar earned, they would owe $1.39.

I'm not sure where your head's at. Should the the top 1% pay everything? Should the bottom 99%, or 90% or 50%, or whatever, simply be given a free ride by those who are successful?

The real question is, what should less rich Americans pay. They pay almost nothing now. So how do you make them pay less? And more importantly, why would those who fund the country every treat those who don't as equal partners at the table?

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 03:29 PM | Reply

#73

My car needs washing.

Don't forget to vacuum the interior.

Do I good job and I'll throw you a fiver.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 03:31 PM | Reply

"Which means that, for every dollar earned, they would owe $1.39."

^
This is where you should have realized there's something wrong with your math.

Especially since your "calculations" started with them owing 23 cents on the dollar.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 03:42 PM | Reply

"Christ the ------- tax lie never dies"

It will never die.
"The Rich Are Being Treated Very Unfairly" is one of the Deplorable Articles of Faith.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 03:47 PM | Reply

"My car needs washing."

Your brain doesn't.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 03:47 PM | Reply

"This is where you should have realized there's something wrong with your math."

It wasn't my math. It was yours.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 03:54 PM | Reply

"The Tax Rate Paid by the Top 1% Is Double the National Average"

Is that true or not?

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 03:55 PM | Reply

"The income earned by the Top 1% is about 6-7x the national average."

Is that true or not?

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 03:56 PM | Reply

"It will never die. The Rich Are Being Treated Very Unfairly" is one of the Deplorable Articles of Faith."

Yeah?

Kind of like saying that the less are being exploited by not having higher negative taxes? I mean, when you're already getting back more than you paid in, the only argument left is that you're not getting even more back than what you paid in.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 03:56 PM | Reply

"The income earned by the Top 1% is about 6-7x the national average."

To be in the top 1% requires an income of greater than $32k per year. Median US household income is ~$62k.

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 03:59 PM | Reply

"Kind of like saying that the less are being exploited by not having higher negative taxes?"

Pretty sure nobody says that, so...
The poor are exploited in many ways; for example, every tax that isn't the income tax is regressive.
However, taxation is not the only way to exploit someone.

In your particular case, perhaps the biggest and wrongest Article of Faith is: Business is not even capable of exploiting labor, since the labor was engaged in voluntarily.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 04:02 PM | Reply

"To be in the top 1% requires an income of greater than $32k per year. Median US household income is ~$62k."

You're comparing global apples to US oranges.
You must think we're stupid.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 04:03 PM | Reply

Yeah...you're stupid.

Are you really a rich kid? Say it ain't so.

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-15 05:00 PM | Reply

"Are you really a rich kid?"

Aren't we all, at $32k/year?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-15 05:22 PM | Reply

Good point.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 05:08 AM | Reply

"The poor are exploited in many ways; for example, every tax that isn't the income tax is regressive."

That's opinion, but no different than saying that the rich are being exploited because taxes are progressive.

Your argument assumes that the poor should pay a lower rate. if that's true, isn't everything regressive? If a lower income person wants to buy a TV, should they pay less than a person making more?

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 05:11 AM | Reply

#89

But aren't you of the opinion that the poor shouldn't own TV's?

I mean whenever there is talk about poor in America you bemoan the fact that globally they are rich and have TV's and microwaves.

#90 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-02-16 06:06 AM | Reply

If these workers start quitting and moving on to greener pastures, it will indicate that the government isn't paying them enough.

Nope. Making life miserable for government employees is a way to degrade the quality, cost and size of the federal workforce. I work closely with a lot of federal employees. By and large, when good experienced employees leave professional federal positions, they are being replaced with amateurs at the bottom of the GS band for their position, if they are replaced at all. Institutional knowledge is being drained from government right now.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-16 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But aren't you of the opinion that the poor shouldn't own TV's?"

I don't care what the poor (or rich) own or don't own. It's none of my business.

#92 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 11:55 AM | Reply

for the GS-11 grade (or equivalent) level you need a doctoral degree. At these levels, the advanced degree must be directly related to the work of the job you're applying to."

A PhD should be pulling better than a GS-11 gig, IMO. Wonder what field it would be in for them to settle on that starting rate

#93 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-02-16 11:58 AM | Reply

#91

I'm not debating your point. In fact you appear to be reinforcing mine. I've supervised numerous GS-12 through GS-14. Every last one of them could find comparable work on the civilian side.

I'm not sure what you do for a job, but for federal employees supporting the military, they're the continuity. As a dude in a flight suit, I'm not going to stay at a job for long. 2-3 years at most. It's really the dudes who traded in the flight suits for business suits that keep the enterprise going. In my opinion, they're invaluable. But if the government doesn't think they're worth it...that's fine too. They'll find work elsewhere.

Right now, an O-5 aviator is going to gross between $150-200k per year depending on location. And most are eligible for a flight bonus of up to $550k ($200k is average-ish). Yet the military still has trouble retaining aviators. Money is only one factor in why people do this. At least on the military side.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 12:04 PM | Reply

"A PhD should be pulling better than a GS-11 gig"

It's wrong...or at least inaccurate. Maybe for a social worker or something like that, but I've supervised GS-14s who didn't have a doctorate.

He was a retired E-9...incredibly qualified...but no doctorate.

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 12:06 PM | Reply

Money is only one factor in why people do this. At least on the military side.
#94 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Geographical stability being another aspect? I feel like if the services offered homesteading to put a person in one general area for more than one PCS period, that would be big

#96 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-02-16 12:15 PM | Reply

"Geographical stability being another aspect?"

I don't think so. The center of gravity for the USAF bomber community is Bossier City (Shreveport) Louisiana.

I don't think anyone has ever wanted to move to Bossier. Certainly not me.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 12:42 PM | Reply

I've supervised numerous GS-12 through GS-14. Every last one of them could find comparable work on the civilian side.

I never said they couldn't. My point is that the government should be doing more to retain its most qualified upper tier employees, and right now they are doing the opposite.

It's really the dudes who traded in the flight suits for business suits that keep the enterprise going. In my opinion, they're invaluable. But if the government doesn't think they're worth it...that's fine too. They'll find work elsewhere.

I don't dispute that these people can find other work. The problem is that government is encouraging them to do so, leaving only the least qualified who can't find anything else behind. That degrades the level of service, harming the agency and the public.

#98 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-16 01:16 PM | Reply

All you need to do is take a look at USAJobs to see how terrible federal compensation is. Starting salary for a physician is sometimes under $100k. Experienced attorney positions sometimes start at GS-11, around $60k.

Yes, these people will have an easier time in government than they would in the private sector, and therefore are making a tradeoff to have more work-life balance in exchange for lower pay. But to freeze the raises they are counting on in an economic boom, using the economy as a rationale, is ludicrous and a thumb in their eye, serving only to alienate those who are good enough to leave.

#99 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-16 01:20 PM | Reply

--Yes, these people will have an easier time in government than they would in the private sector,

Private sector expects results.

www.youtube.com

#100 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-16 01:24 PM | Reply

Not a response to my post, troll.

#101 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-16 01:26 PM | Reply

I don't think anyone has ever wanted to move to Bossier. Certainly not me.

#97 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Ha, good point and probably why it wouldn't happen. The more attractive locations would be full, with a stagnate crew of individuals there for 10 years, meanwhile who would want to homestead in Guam, 29 Palms, or Diego Garcia

#102 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-02-16 01:37 PM | Reply

"Your argument assumes that the poor should pay a lower rate. if that's true, isn't everything regressive? If a lower income person wants to buy a TV, should they pay less than a person making more?:

They probably should pay less tax.

But implementing a progressive sales tax is not that feasible. It puts too much of a burden on the merchant to verify the correct tax, as well as the consumer to document their tax rate. And it would create a market for rich people to use poor people as straw man purchases. More trouble than it's worth.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-16 01:46 PM | Reply

"Are you really a rich kid?"
Aren't we all, at $32k/year?
Good point.
#88 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It's only good at laying bare your tenacious dishonesty.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-16 02:15 PM | Reply

The amazing thing to me is Trump ends up being the ONE guy that makes socialism, even communism, attractive to the US populace.

If there's ever a time for socialistic communism in America, Trump as solidified as that time being now.

Wow. You really do live in a bubble. The rest of the nation really likes Trump. Everyone else other than liberals likes Trump. Some of you people really need to get out of the cities.

#105 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-16 02:28 PM | Reply

"Some of you people really need to get out of the cities."

Oh come on. You much prefer living in the master's house to working in his fields.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-16 02:32 PM | Reply

"The rest of the nation really likes Trump. Everyone else other than liberals likes Trump."

Not even close to true.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

#107 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-16 02:34 PM | Reply

"Ha, good point and probably why it wouldn't happen."

Not necessarily.

I worked with a lawyer who was a speech writer for a three star general. He was a GS-13. He was offered a GS-15 position in D.C. but turned it down. He was from Louisiana...so that was part of it...but he also had a higher standard of living at a GS-13 salary in LA than he would have had with a GS-15 in D.C.

He was also the first person to key me in to the "creepy Joe" stories. Apparently Biden liked his wife.

#108 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-16 05:34 PM | Reply

"he also had a higher standard of living at a GS-13 salary in LA than he would have had with a GS-15 in D.C."

Too bad you won't remember this next time you say $32k a year makes you rich.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-16 08:34 PM | Reply

#106,

Racist. Again, a democrat brings up racism when no one was talking about it.

#110 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-16 09:10 PM | Reply

Boaz, you stay away from the cities, okay?
They're too black, which causes too much crime.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-16 09:53 PM | Reply

In fact don't leave the Master's house... come here and be my Sally Hemings.

Nah that's going too far. I was out of line with my first comment. I apologize.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-16 11:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort