I have nothing for or against any of those mentioned. They had great passion. Some was misgided, some was fueled by intoxicants and some was probably dead on right. Meh. Nothing to get to worked up over. But then again I like watching the japaneese shows where people trip and get hurt by stuff. It makes me laugh.

Fact: most are the very embodyment of being "non-essential"

The only way the goverment could be more inefficient is if they make that their goal.

Governments, by nature, only grow larger.

My sister is a federal employee. She used to be a federal law enforcement agent, and now she's a low-level bureaucrat.

Her recent return to the emply of the federal government, and working with many of these non-essential government employees, has switched my sister's viewpoint from left-leaning to right-of-center...in less than a span of a couple of months.

Many of them would starve to death if they had to work in the real world where competition is king. Nowadays I have to tell her to not relate stores about her workplace "events" to keep my blood pressue below the point where my heart doesn't explode.

Why in God's name my hard-earned tax dollars are paying for some of these these people to waste perfectly good oxygen is a little beyond me.

Meaning no disrespect to YOU but you're mixing apples and guavas. I'm trying to suggest sensible cuts which may prolong the Social Security system which as I said is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that's looted periodically to pay for other programs. The system will be lost for ALL if we don't cut back on SOME of the recipients who use it for walking around money. You want BOTH the destitute and deserving to go without? I say cut or eliminate SS for the wealthy who may have "earned" it (that is questionable) but don't need it. It may not be fair to you but otherwise you condemn the system to an earlier demise. Is that what you want? No system for anyone? Are you going to support your aged relatives, the disabled/infirm, & the poor (through no fault of their own)?

You appear to be repeating the bromides I was taught by rote since youth- we get paid commensurate with our effort. Well, I've got news for you, you're stuck in some sort of 30- 50's time capsule. Life doesn't work that way. One's station in life is controlled by sweat, that's true, but also by his genetics, family wealth, social/business contacts, and LUCK. What you and others seem to be saying is, I've got mine, so now you get yours... The older I get, the more selfish that sounds. We should be here to help each other out. Not give handouts to the exploiters/manipulators ( individual AND corporate) but to those who genuine need it, strive for it, and have failed to achieve the American dream.

No I never got a job from the poor, that's why I'm an entrepreneur, But by giving to the privileged/rich you are not guaranteed yourself a job or any scrap from his table. They'd just as easily outsource the work and give the excess fat ($$$) to their execs.

We will have to agree to disagree, Elkhunter. Your arguments, although mine for decades thanks to a system which drummed it into my head, are now null & void due to my life experiences. There are powers at play here that are much greater than you or I.

Take from the wealthy or rich always sounds neat until when put in practice we find out just what that income range actually is and a bunch of middle class find out they're upper class who need t be taken from at a higher amount.

simple solution: same monthly payment for all to be supplemented by one's initiative- no more $500 to one & $1,500 "pocket change" for another- make it $900/mos for all.

Either that or no payment for anyone if the system breaks.

Maybe they are essential after all; since most Federal employees only work about half as hard as their counterparts in the private sector, the government needs at least twice as many on the payroll to get even a minimum amount of anything done.

That is still income redistribution under government control. The person who pays in the maximum amount gets the exact same as the person who pays in $1 for 40 quarters.

Governmental systems that disincentive work haven't played out too well over the last 100 years. Do you think we'll get it right this time?

The Social Security ponzi will never break as long as the government can just raise the payroll taxes. Of course that will decrease the overall GDP and increase the government's portion of the GDP.

I took a look at the numbers. The federal government, in 2010, spent more on Social Security than Defense. In fact, the federal governnment spends up to double or triple the amount when you factor in Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare than it does on National Defense.

Granted, I think what we spend on National Defense is loaded with pork (in fact, from past experience, I know it is loaded with pork). But the fact is that we spend more on social programs than we do the only explicitly Constitutionally-demanded service the federal government is supposed to perform. The amount we spend on these social programs is obscene, and the nation as a whole receives very little in payback.

And because liberal politicians have, for years, told people that this is a retirement fund (as opposed its original intent), now people feel they are entitled to the money they've paid in. Frankly speaking, they have a right to be mad, and the have a right to demand their Social Security checks. They were told that this was a trust fund, and it included guaranteed payments.

Yes, it is a Ponzi scheme. Frankly speaking, it need to go away.

Anything the gubment runs...turns into a Ponzi scheme.

🐴

[gonzo]

I'll take the Under.

I agree with 98.2% of that.

[sarcasm]

I want to echo these sentiments. I am a public service employee as well (state not federal). I make considerably less than I would were I in the private sector. And agree that one of tradeoffs I made was that I would have more job security. The benefits are roughly the same as what I was receiving in the private sector, btw.

Most of the people I work with are bright and talented individuals that are -a- working very hard at what they do and -b- care very deeply about what we do and -c- make sacrifices to do it. YES - there are lazy and slippery ones in the workforce. I would say it is higher than the percentage of lazy operators I found in the private companies I worked at but not nearly as high a difference as is perceived.

A lot of the inefficiencies and seemingly lazy behavior is in part due to the very nature of the beast we work in. To the non-public service employees, it often comes across as the people being lazy when they are just following the rules in an environment that is particularly harsh to those who break rules. Or comes across as the spoiled entitled public workers....

Change comes particularly slowly in the public sphere and many processes are in place that were based on realities from decades ago.

you know i hate that but its going to be reality for all very soon. its unrealistic to work 20 years then get 30+ years of health benefits and pension. its what bankrupted GM and will bankrupt the US. my family is from greece. i was there this summer and they were all complaining because their pensions were being slashed and they were being charge more for their health benefits. but hey, its reality. i know its a harsh one but if we dont take harsh steps, its going to be a very very abrupt and difficult change (ie we go bankrupt/hyperinflation) there has to be drastic reductions to the unabated government spending and they will affect many peoples jobs, lives or quality of living. that sucks but it is what has to be.

on the news the other day a sanitation worker was bltching about how he makes a lousy $35g's a year and we are trying to take away his collective bargaining, pension, health etc and its unfair and the pay is low etc. reality check bro, you are a garbage man! $35k bones is good and you shouldnt get any kind of pension BS! save for your own retirement.

i have more to say but im done! 🐴

What use facts when you can just talk nonsense. Most governent retirement plans requrie you to work to age 62. The earliest one could "retire" with a full pension is age 50 and only under certain circumstances. That pension would likely be less than $1000 per month.

Lots more.

Your 30+ years of healt benefits is wrong also, as all federal retirees go to medicare at age 65.

But I am just a lowly government worker. Probably a lazy one also.

As an "essential" government employee (Air Traffic Controller) I would not have been furloughed. However the woman who processses our pay was not listed as essential. How long do you think I would work for after I stopped getting paid?

Lots of waste in government, lots of waste in the private sector.

Your pension plans went to China in the form of cheap labor.

First off, there are MANY stories of public workers who do retire from one job at a young age and then move to a different place to get another government job.

And although this may not be the norm, if it happens even once it's too often.

Even with your bias you have to know this to be true.

As for "lots of waste in the private sector", that shouldn't concern you.

If you don't like it, then don't utilize that company's product or service.

In governemnt, I am FORCED to pay, so I DO get to complain about it.

I'll state it again:

The Federal Government is an inefficient and wasteful entity.

The vast majority of positions could be eliminated or combined and streamlined.

If we cut the payroll in half, it would not be enough.

Yet we continue to add more positions without eliminating the waste.