Too Many Government Workers?

[paulitician]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

 

[paulitician]

And now...PAY-RAISES FOR ALL!! YUP, WAT WAT!!!! THERE'S A PARTY OVER HERE, THERE'S A PARTY OVER THERE!! RAISE THE ROOF Y'ALL!!!

 

[Vox]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

it is called feast during famine

 

[Flopper]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

Controlling the cost of government begins with controlling the services that government provides. The cost of employees is secondary.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, my rep is a waste of oxygen. He is a gross ignoramus. That is: he is 144 times as bad as an ORDINARY ignoramus.

thats what i said.....its your rep.....

It's called "gerrymandering"...this has been a one-party state for 60+ years.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Too Many Government Workers?

of course, the gov't is always poorly run and inefficient
just like the Papa Obama administration

 

[paulitician]

Well, it looks like our USMB Poll is showing that most feel there are too many Government Workers at this point. Does this Poll represent sentiment across the Country?

 

[Flopper]

Well, it looks like our USMB Poll is showing that most feel there are too many Government Workers at this point. Does this Poll represent sentiment across the Country?

Dumb questions get dumb answers.

 

[paulitician]

Well, it looks like our USMB Poll is showing that most feel there are too many Government Workers at this point. Does this Poll represent sentiment across the Country?

Dumb questions get dumb answers.

You may not like the question, but that doesn't mean it's dumb.

 

[Vox]

Well, it looks like our USMB Poll is showing that most feel there are too many Government Workers at this point. Does this Poll represent sentiment across the Country?

it does, however, the ones who think so forget about it going to the voting polls.
there is a disconnect in the people's minds, it seems.
or the ones, who think like in the poll are too lazy to vote

 

[Flopper]

Well, it looks like our USMB Poll is showing that most feel there are too many Government Workers at this point. Does this Poll represent sentiment across the Country?

Dumb questions get dumb answers.

You may not like the question, but that doesn't mean it's dumb.

It's a dumb question because everyone knows the answer. Of course people believe there are too many government workers. We write into our laws checks to insure that public funds are being spent for the intended purpose. However, those checks create a large overhead for most all government activities, federal, state, and local.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well, it looks like our USMB Poll is showing that most feel there are too many Government Workers at this point. Does this Poll represent sentiment across the Country?

Someone else posted a thread that had nationwide poll results showing a big majority want the government to spend less money. It might not be an exact duplicate question but I believe the two are so closely related that it's not an illogical jump to say yes - in a rare occurance - a USMB poll come close to reflecting the sentiments of the general public.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

Controlling the cost of government begins with controlling the services that government provides. The cost of employees is secondary.

Only if you assume that 100% of government employees are necessary to maintain the level of services we now enjoy.

I do not believe that the current staffing level is necessary to maintain our current level of services.

 

[Samson]

But of course.

Actually, our Military is far to big.

Which is why we go on fruitless, illegal and dangerous adventures like Vietnam and Iraq.

The founders NEVER intended a professional offensive military that were building an Empire.

I agree with you, except for the ad-hominium anti-war bullshit.

The size of the military has nothing to do with where congress agress to deploy military forces. Of course size ENABLES them to deploy, but the Decision to deploy into a theatre of war like Vietnam or Iraq is not done without congressional approval.

Which is why it should be reduced, so that they're unable to do so.

I don't suppose expecting Congress to behave rationally was a terribly realistic expectation.

Of course reducing the military capabilities of the USA wouldn't necessarily disable congress's ability to deploy them, but it may reduce the possibility of being successfully deployed.

Essentially, the size of our military is functionally directly proportional to the incompetance of our civilian leadership.

 

[Flopper]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

Controlling the cost of government begins with controlling the services that government provides. The cost of employees is secondary.

Only if you assume that 100% of government employees are necessary to maintain the level of services we now enjoy.

I do not believe that the current staffing level is necessary to maintain our current level of services.

As I mentioned above, you can not have government services without a lot of oversight, regulations, audits, and internal reviews. Legislation requires it and where it's not in the legislation, regulatory agencies require it. Government is not profit driven but rather is driven by legislation. Thus workers have no incentive to bypass costly red tape and face possible penalties. This is just the way government works. Unlike private businesses, the first priority of government is following the law and protecting public interest. In short, things must be done by the book and the costs are high.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree with you, except for the ad-hominium anti-war bullshit.

The size of the military has nothing to do with where congress agress to deploy military forces. Of course size ENABLES them to deploy, but the Decision to deploy into a theatre of war like Vietnam or Iraq is not done without congressional approval.

Which is why it should be reduced, so that they're unable to do so.

I don't suppose expecting Congress to behave rationally was a terribly realistic expectation.

Of course reducing the military capabilities of the USA wouldn't necessarily disable congress's ability to deploy them, but it may reduce the possibility of being successfully deployed.

Essentially, the size of our military is functionally directly proportional to the incompetance of our civilian leadership.

The problem is that it's naive to assume that the Congress would reduce the size of the military to limit their, and the President's, ability to send them abroad. Asking the government to limit its own power is ridiculous.

 

[protectionist]

In light of the current Government Shutdown, this is an interesting and important topic to discuss. We all know our Government has expanded to a previously unthinkable gargantuan status. With that, so many Millions of Americans are now employed by our Government. They are solely dependent on Taxpayers for their survival. Are there too many Government Workers now. Can this trend be reversed, or should it be?

There are nowhere near enough ICE agents, CBP officers, construction workers on the Mexican border fence, immigration court judges, attorneys, bailiffs, court reporters, immigration jail guards, and people working on infrastructure projects that pose DANGERS to Americans.

 

[FA_Q2]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

Controlling the cost of government begins with controlling the services that government provides. The cost of employees is secondary.

That’s only half true though. There are a LOT of things that the government does that it really does not need to be doing but there is also a ton of waste in the system itself that both bloats the number of employees and costs a lot of money.

You could reduce spending by a significant margin if you controlled some of that waste and eliminated many of the bureaucratic BS, rules and managed items that are unnecessary. In truth, this is where we need to be making the largest reforms in but the one area that is almost never looked at seriously. Too many people are now interested in nothing more than justifying their positions rather than actually adding to our processes.

 

[Flopper]

Each individual Government Worker costs the Taxpayers quite a bit. It's a lifetime Entitlement commitment. The 'Stimulus' showed that. These Workers rely solely on Taxpayers for their survival. And that creates all sorts of conflicts of interest and more problems.

Controlling the cost of government begins with controlling the services that government provides. The cost of employees is secondary.

That’s only half true though. There are a LOT of things that the government does that it really does not need to be doing but there is also a ton of waste in the system itself that both bloats the number of employees and costs a lot of money.

You could reduce spending by a significant margin if you controlled some of that waste and eliminated many of the bureaucratic BS, rules and managed items that are unnecessary. In truth, this is where we need to be making the largest reforms in but the one area that is almost never looked at seriously. Too many people are now interested in nothing more than justifying their positions rather than actually adding to our processes.

What seems like bureaucratic BS is administrator's attempt at following legislation. So many of our laws are filled with language such as, "the ... agency shall determine the most effective means to....". Most environmental regulations doesn't say much at all but rather it empowers the administration to make the decisions. Those decisions become regs, functions, and procedures which forms the basis for staffing.

There is just no simple solution.

 

[paulitician]

Dumb questions get dumb answers.

You may not like the question, but that doesn't mean it's dumb.

It's a dumb question because everyone knows the answer. Of course people believe there are too many government workers. We write into our laws checks to insure that public funds are being spent for the intended purpose. However, those checks create a large overhead for most all government activities, federal, state, and local.

Well, you still haven't effectively shown it's a dumb question. So far, you've only shown you don't like the question being asked.