• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump cancels pay raise due to federal workers in January

jonny5 said:
Lowering the deficit caused by spending too much.
Click to expand...

One, raises for federal employees are a drop in the bucket compared to the tax cuts.

Two, the tax cuts are going to result in higher deficits and higher national debt. They always do.

Three, unless you can demonstrate the economic benefit of a lower deficit, you still haven't answered my question.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Three, unless you can demonstrate the economic benefit of a lower deficit, you still haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...

A lower deficit could prevent crowding out of private money with public money.

A lower deficit could prevent overheating of an economy and another boom/bust cycle.

A lower deficit could allow you greater latitude to increase deficit spending in times when necessary..
 
jaeger19 said:
A lower deficit could prevent crowding out of private money with public money.

A lower deficit could prevent overheating of an economy and another boom/bust cycle.

A lower deficit could allow you greater latitude to increase deficit spending in times when necessary..
Click to expand...

A lower deficit could also make me 40 lbs. lighter and change my gray hair back to brown again. See how easy it is to claim things without demonstrating them?

I have written at some length about all of your claims above, and why they are unsupported at best, and flat out incorrect at worst. One-sentence claims hold zero weight with me.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
A lower deficit could also make me 40 lbs. lighter and change my gray hair back to brown again. See how easy it is to claim things without demonstrating them?

I have written at some length about all of your claims above, and why they are unsupported at best, and flat out incorrect at worst. One-sentence claims hold zero weight with me.
Click to expand...

No.. a lower deficit is not going to make you forty pounds lighter.

We have been down this road for a long time. And I have demonstrated my points.

You don't want to believe facts.. that's fine.. you can join conservative in that.

Fact.. people worry about the debt. I have already demonstrated that at times.. the debt becomes of high importance to people. AND that means they will change their behavior in the economy and politically.

so.. debt does matter.


Crowding out.. is a legitimate economic reality.

Boom bust cycles are a legitimate economic reality.

You keep saying.. "well show me proof that it happens"...

Well.. there is a reason that we don't have double blind studies proving that jumping out of a plane at 1000 feet without a parachute will kill you.

(we will see if you understand that point regarding scientific evidence).
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
One, raises for federal employees are a drop in the bucket compared to the tax cuts.

Two, the tax cuts are going to result in higher deficits and higher national debt. They always do.

Three, unless you can demonstrate the economic benefit of a lower deficit, you still haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...

First, every drop counts as less taxes I have to pay. B, taking less money from people is not spending and thus doesnt increase the deficit or debt, and never has. And A: The economic benefit is less debt and thus wastage on interest and more flexibility, and thus more growth, wealth, and success.

The burgeoning federal debt over the coming decades
would have these effects:
• Reduce national saving and income in the long term;
• Increase the government’s interest costs, putting more
pressure on the rest of the budget;
• Limit lawmakers’ ability to respond to unforeseen
events; and
• Increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, a situation in
which the interest rate on federal debt rises abruptly,
dramatically increasing the cost of government
borrowing
Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-06/53919-2018ltbo.pdf
 
jonny5 said:
First, every drop counts as less taxes I have to pay. B, taking less money from people is not spending and thus doesnt increase the deficit or debt, and never has.
Click to expand...

Saying that "taking less money from people...doesn't increase the deficit" is like saying that your financial outlook doesn't improve when your rent goes down, because that's not income. It's a simpleton's answer. We all know that governments need to spend, so what they take in from taxation matters, deficit-wise.

jonny5 said:
And A: The economic benefit is less debt and thus wastage on interest and more flexibility, and thus more growth, wealth, and success.
Click to expand...

The economic benefit of less government spending? Do you understand that our economy is the beneficiary of government spending? That the "wastage" (interest) goes into the pockets of the private sector? Do you understand that the level of today's debt does not affect the government's ability to spend tomorrow?

Explain to me how the government spending less into the economy will result in more "growth, wealth, and success"?
 
MTAtech said:
Trump cancels pay raise due to federal workers in January


Happy Labor Day, federal workers!

Is there any doubt that Trump is not the populist that he claims to be? He lowers taxes on the rich and corporations and then stops an automatic pay increase to federal workers, to try to mitigate the budget gap -- except that freezing these salaries don't come closing the gap.

Oh, and federal employee compensation is dominated by defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security. Spiting those workers means spiting the military and veterans, while shortchanging national security.
Click to expand...

This might actually backfire because this will result in higher turnover and replacing more productive workers with less productive workers. This may actually increase costs overall and make the government even more wasteful and inefficient. A better solution is to eliminate government programs and reduce the size of the government workforce which is now 10% of the entire economy.
 
distraff said:
This might actually backfire because this will result in higher turnover and replacing more productive workers with less productive workers. This may actually increase costs overall and make the government even more wasteful and inefficient. A better solution is to eliminate government programs and reduce the size of the government workforce which is now 10% of the entire economy.
Click to expand...
According to the Federal Reserve, there are 2.7 million federal employees. The population of the U.S. is 320 million. That means that federal employees are 0.84% -- not 10% of the population. Perhaps you meant to include state and local government? If so, those are mostly school teachers and police. Is that really where you want to reduce the size of government?

On the whole topic of reducing the size of government, as I've said many times here, your federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. The vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.

The amounts spent on anything remotely resembling entire programs that are a waste is a rounding error on a rounding error. It’s just not what your government does on any significant scale.

And if you want smaller government, either you’re talking about cuts in the big five, or you have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
MTAtech said:
According to the Federal Reserve, there are 2.7 million federal employees. The population of the U.S. is 320 million. That means that federal employees are 0.84% -- not 10% of the population. Perhaps you meant to include state and local government? If so, those are mostly school teachers and police. Is that really where you want to reduce the size of government?

On the whole topic of reducing the size of government, as I've said many times here, your federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. The vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.

The amounts spent on anything remotely resembling entire programs that are a waste is a rounding error on a rounding error. It’s just not what your government does on any significant scale.

And if you want smaller government, either you’re talking about cuts in the big five, or you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...

So you think its ok that the workers support the other 10% of the population, the old people, and the poor? If we keep this up we will be like Europe where 50% of the economy goes to the government.
 
distraff said:
So you think its ok that the workers support the other 10% of the population, the old people, and the poor? If we keep this up we will be like Europe where 50% of the economy goes to the government.
Click to expand...
Horror! 50% of the economy going to the government -- while the government provides free health care; a strong safety net; free college; maternity or paternity leave, and generous elder care. Sounds like hell.

As I said before, I question your 10% number. I have previous said that federal employees are 0.84% -- not 10% of the population. There are also 15.9 million state and local full-time equivalents. All together, that's closer to 5% not 10%. But the idea that "workers are supporting" the public employee population and not the public employee population is providing useful services to the public, is a bizarre position.

Oh, while you tag yourself as a moderate, that is not a moderate position.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Trump cancels pay raise due to federal workers in January


Happy Labor Day, federal workers!

Is there any doubt that Trump is not the populist that he claims to be? He lowers taxes on the rich and corporations and then stops an automatic pay increase to federal workers, to try to mitigate the budget gap -- except that freezing these salaries don't come closing the gap.

Oh, and federal employee compensation is dominated by defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security. Spiting those workers means spiting the military and veterans, while shortchanging national security.
Click to expand...

It's popular with me to do merit based pay. I'm sure anyone who is not a union slacky, or supports union slackers, agrees.
 
imagep said:
That was due to inflation being almost nothing. Inflation is creeping up.
Click to expand...

And since when are government employees entitled to tax payers dollars over the tax payer?
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's popular with me to do merit based pay. I'm sure anyone who is not a union slacky, or supports union slackers, agrees.
Click to expand...
Civil service was created to oppose corrupt practices, including rewarding pet employees while punishing others. Most employees can't be objectively rated to measure merit and therefore the system will be subjective, encouraging the corruption that I mentioned.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's popular with me to do merit based pay. I'm sure anyone who is not a union slacky, or supports union slackers, agrees.
Click to expand...

I'm in a union. We are measurably better at what we do than non union people doing the same work.

So that would BE merit pay, wouldn't it?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think president Trump wants to replace automatic raises with merit based raises.
Click to expand...
You "think" that? Have you read that, or did that come to you somehow? I have no knowledge of Trump releasing that idea.
 
MTAtech said:
Civil service was created to oppose corrupt practices, including rewarding pet employees while punishing others. Most employees can't be objectively rated to measure merit and therefore the system will be subjective, encouraging the corruption that I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Which is the lesser of two evils?

I think allowing supervisors to decide merit is better than allowing the best to be paid no more than the worse.
 
What if...? said:
I'm in a union. We are measurably better at what we do than non union people doing the same work.

So that would BE merit pay, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Never true in my experience of working since 1975.
 
MTAtech said:
You "think" that? Have you read that, or did that come to you somehow? I have no knowledge of Trump releasing that idea.
Click to expand...

Just my interpretation of what I read. I could be wrong. That's why I said "I think," instead of something like "I know."
 
Lord of Planar said:
And since when are government employees entitled to tax payers dollars over the tax payer?
Click to expand...

You do realize that federal "government" employees pay federal taxes. They are tax payers.
 
mike2810 said:
You do realize that federal "government" employees pay federal taxes. They are tax payers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but would they be able to support their own wages if they were the only tax payers?
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's popular with me to do merit based pay. I'm sure anyone who is not a union slacky, or supports union slackers, agrees.
Click to expand...

Depends on what constitutes "merit".

I have worked where there was merit based pay.. which meant pay went to the workers that were less productive but had the ear of management more than other more productive workers. (I was a manager at that time.. and would watch some of my most pain in the butt workers get raises over my objections versus workers that came in.. did their job.. did it well, and never complained)
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but would they be able to support their own wages if they were the only tax payers?
Click to expand...

You know the answer to that. Of course not.

You are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to govt workers to private sector. How would some of the social programs be paid for if funded and operated in the private sector only? How about the military?

My point was to bring up the fact that federal employees pay taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom