This was actually drawn up and done prior to the elections so how can you say it is because of the election results? Gonna try to claim the unemployment drops in Sept, Oct, and Nov are a result of Republicans next? Their NOT even in their offices yet, LOL

bo

Unemployment hasnt dropped its been 9.6 percent for the past 3 months.. up from 9.5 percent a few 4 months ago

There are several measures of unemployment, Steve. Initial weekly claims of the unemployed (dropped four straight weeks), monthly. Monthly jobs report (positive last month private sector and total but government sector had job losses), this month's will be released in February (expected positive as well). Percentage unemployed which is released with the monthly report is the 9.6% you quote. Why rush to correct without the full context.

IN this case I actually have to agree with John Gage, president of AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees), as stated below:

This proposal is a superficial panic reaction to the draconian cuts his deficit commission will recommend,” stated AFGE National President John Gage. “A federal pay freeze saves peanuts at best and, while he may mean it as just a public relations gesture, this is no time for political scapegoating. The American people didn’t vote to stick it to a VA nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a border patrol agent earning $34,000 per year.

Ricther.

Over 430,000 new claims per week on average over the last 3 months... you do the math. how many new people have started claiming beneifts over the last 3 months.. Oh. just because we have a Temporary hiring spree due to the Christmas Hiring Season. Watch ti go back up after the first of the year to over 450,000 per week..

Just more smoke and Mirrow. the Fed Employees still get their yearly Raises.. they just dont get the Inflationary part of the increase.. If obama was serious. he would actually Freeze all the pay increases

16B is spent on Earmarks each year. This needs to be the next thing that goes. Great start so far.

hard ball....cutting your clothe according to the material you have and not to your size....uh... austerity measure.

That seems pretty shortsighted to me. Sometimes the consequences of a spending cut can be more devastating than the spending. Long term consequences need to be considered as well as short term gains.

.....Or beating fish in a boat-bottom.

Kirby......No, I did not mean the President could have done it months ago, 'cause, he certainly could have.....just like non federal companies can do what they will with their employees salaries!

Betcha' you can't wait for the Mountain Home facility in Idaho to close down! .....save a lot of money!

If that is what it takes, then so be it.

It is time for everybody to share in the tightening of the nations belt.

I ended up in Idaho because the company I worked for closed the facility in Phoenix I was in. They did it to, gasp, save money.

Agree Kirby, that everybody has to share in belt tightening......but so far, it's only the middle and lower income folk who are being squeezed. As for federal employees.....the money is green, and goes into their community....food, housing, clothes, entertainment, etc......

People just want to live a decent life and not be denegrated because they work at a military installation.

Wm.-375815

And he gets what in return from the GOP? Kyl has announced his position on START. Graham has set in stone the GOP's response on DADT. Kirk has nixed the Dream Act. And there has been no public movement on the tax issue from the GOP - it's still all or nothing. Obama has thrown peanuts to the elephant.

LOL...I thought you meant McCain was set in Stone!

I don't care what he gets, I care what we get. We need to rein in our deficit spending. If this helps even a little then I'm for it.

Political horse trading be damned. Obama is coming to the realiztion that the old ways are not going to work.

Be nice to McCain. He is just getting ready for Mount Rushmore.

Obama: Federal gov. needs to tighten its belt.......

Wait, isn't President Skippy the reason the deficit is so high? Is this like a diet plan: first balloon then attempt to lose?

and the latest obie laugh track - federal employees will not receive a pay raise for two years......but they do receive their step increases.

Well said, Larry.

No one disparages police officers, firemen, teachers, government workers, etc. We disparage the corrupt unions that confiscate dues from their members to promote their self serving political power and influence at the expense of the people's interest, the very people who pay their salaries from which the dues are confiscated.

This is 2010, not 1910. The world works just fine without union bosses and thugs. You don't have to be in a union to be "qualified" to land planes, teach 2nd graders, fight a fire, or pick up the garbage. (BTW, why do private schools with non union teachers out perform public union schools?)

Why do CEOs make such a "disproportionate" amount of money? I don't know, why don't you ask one of the muti-millionaire Hollywood leftist/actors that are so concerned about it.

Baloney, Larry.

There are no federal teachers. There are no federal police officers fighting crime in local municipalities- although there are DEA agents, Treasury agents, FBI and CIA agents, they are not your local police. There are no federal firefighters. That whole liberal line is worn thin, and, more importantly, does not work.

There ARE, however, federal file clerks- the government seems to be the employer of last resort for people with totally outmoded skills. There are also five or six people employed to do every job.

So, here is my plan: first, we get rid of every new job since 2006. The government already had more employees than needed, and Obama has made the problem far worse. Then, we freeze the remaining federal workers' salaries at their 2007 level- there has been no appreciable inflation in years, so I am sure that they can struggle along pretty well.

After that, the administrative budget for each and every department gets cut by 20%. That will force some creativity on the part of the top managers- maybe they will have to forego taxpayer provided lunches, and start brown bagging.

There needs to be some oversight on White House expenditures- the Obama's have proved that there are those who take advantage of the lack thereof- so the whole rule about entertainment expenses has to be reworked. Yes, the Obamas abide by the rules, but the rules need to be reworked so that the mere inclusion of a couple of Senators, congressional representatives, or cabinet officers get the taxpayers to foot the bills for private concerts, poetry readings, and a host of other weekly soirees. SOME of this kind of entertaining is necessary and desirable- but, obviously, a hard cap on the amount spent needs to be imposed to prevent the kind of abuse we are seeing with this administration.

Entire programs and the federal workers in charge need to be cut. For the most part, cutting anything leads to howls that 'it only costs x amount, a drop in the bucket!', which totally ignores that many of those drops FILL the bucket. For too long, that kind of thinking has prevailed.

Tell you what: rather than administrations telling congress that they need x amount to fund all these programs, and all these workers, let's change the whole game. Let congress appropriate x dollars, and tell the administrations to make do with the dollars available. Maybe then we will see some real change people can believe in.

Larry.....How many jobs are created by the middle class? Would you rather we tax the wealthy to the point that they leave the USA?

JMT-The upper class cannot create jobs without the middle class. Who do you thinks buys the goods and services that the upper class profits from? The wealthy are making record profits, whereas the middle class struggles to keep up with inflation. Taxing them an extra 3% isn't going to cause them to go anywhere. The income gap in our country hasn't been this big since the 20's.

no joe, no bo, nj

Baloney, Larry.

There are no federal teachers. There are no federal police officers fighting crime in local municipalities- although there are DEA agents, Treasury agents, FBI and CIA agents, they are not your local police. There are no federal firefighters. That whole liberal line is worn thin, and, more importantly, does not work.

No Jo, a portion of your federal taxs dollars goes to states for law enforcement, teachers etc.. you twisted his words once again, to suite your self.

So, here is my plan: first, we get rid of every new job since 2006.

So if a TSA screener was hired in 2007 you would get rid of them, if a kid inlisted in the military in 2007 you would get rid of them, i just hope thier not dead after serving their 2nd tour. you said every new hire, last time i checked military personal are federal workers, Right, or am i twisting your words. Say, that would mean that 50 k would get out of afgan like tomorrow.

the truth is No Jo since 911 we have increased how many federal workers because we created new government agencys because WE HAD TO. we have because of 911, you arguement that we have too many file clerks is false. since you want to get rid of new hires than make the senators and congressmencut thier staffs. no new fact finding mission over seas, lets close all overseas government offices.

the real meat that we can cut from is foreign aid, Lets tell Israel No more 20 billion a year, lets tell the afgans and Iraqies no more money, no more money for developing nations, No More money for natural desastors, lets get real and instead of cutting here at home lets cut the aid nipple to these countries that have more money than us. lets stop handing our money out to forgen cpountrys and keep it at home.

See No Jo your unamerican, you would rather see your own neighbors hungry, at the same time giving to the rich and countrys like Israel that don't need it.

Shame on you No Jo. i can see it now, president No Jo, the great persident that will go down like hoover, instead you will give our tax dollars away instead of helping the 50 million people that put you in office.

Hey did you see last week that senator Kyl pass spending Ie (earmarks) after signing a pledge to get rid of ear marks, No Jo these new republican lawmakers are really lying there asses off to the voters they put in!!!! LOL LOL

Larry

I am sick to death of mis-information on extending the current tax rates --- yes they are tax rates that are currently in effect -- if they are extended no one gets a tax cut ----taxes stay as they are instead f going up for everyone. I hear about the $770B over ten years as the cost (actually non realized revenue) for those above $250K in annual earnings but no one seems to mention the $3.3T in revenue that is lost by keeping hte current rates for those earning under $250K annually. Wouldn't that make a nice dent in the deficit as well.

I will restate my pos from above, just to remind everyone exactly what some feds actually do. They are not all overpaid, lazy congressional staffers, like most on this thread seem to believe. Now I understand why we NEED a government workers union.

This proposal is a superficial panic reaction to the draconian cuts his deficit commission will recommend,” stated AFGE National President John Gage. “A federal pay freeze saves peanuts at best and, while he may mean it as just a public relations gesture, this is no time for political scapegoating. The American people didn’t vote to stick it to a VA nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a border patrol agent earning $34,000 per year

Because when you freeze something for two years, it continues to save years after that.

Math example. If someone earns 50K a year and you increase it by 5K every year. By the fifth year, they make 75K. Now if you freeze it for two years, by the fifth year, the make $65K saving you $10 K that year also from what your payroll would have looked like. Get it? The fact that you stop freezing their pay increase does not translate their pay to what it would have been without the freeze in the first place. (This is the same kind of consideration in bending a cost curve that is frequently discussed in the budget).

It also means those who might retire at 50 or 55 either hang around until the raises return or retire at lower rates. Massive amounts are potentially involved in the long term.

Actually, the government has been losing jobs all year and for most of the past two years. Chcek the monthly jobs report. In anything as the private sector has gained jobs every month all year, the governemtn has lost jobs. Obama is actually presiding over a smaller government (just like Clinton did) than the dolt before him.

Obama actually has fewer vacations than most of the Presidents before him: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days. But why let FACTS cloud your lack of judgement?

I fail to see your point....

Step away from the freeper and you might gain some true knowledge. Go to CBO the non-partisan office that measures such things. The debt of 2009 was from budget of 2008 just as Obama's proposal and budget this year is for next year. The catastrophe in deficits that was 2008 and 2009 was made before Obama. He has actually began to improve the deficit picture since.

You do know that the budget of a year is made the year before right? The huge 2009 budget was Bush's. Obama has since started to bring down the rate of deficit (as Clinton did nealry a decade before). That's why you should read widely and not limit your education to freeper and washpo. That coloring was a trick on those who dont know how things are done. The budget Obama is talking about today is for the next year for instance.

no kidding (the budget is from the year BEFORE)....first of all , the link IS showing CBO numbers of projected DEFICITS nothing to do with the yearly budget numbers..........and you know it....it shows BO's DEFICITS that HE will pile up over the next TEN YEARS.....don't try to spin the facts....btw....Clinton never had a balanced budget...he simply screwed with the numbers by stealing from the trust funds....(and you should know that also)

I guess the Republican congress during the Clinton administration can no longer claim that they had any hand in balancing the budget then either.

So Scarborough and Gingrich will police themselves and stop making that claim. Right?

If they are then YOU are correct.....Clinton raided the trust funds to balance HIS budgets....

http://www.justfacts.com/news.impactSS.asp

In 1999, the Clinton administration devised a plan to "save Social Security."[41] [42] Since then, Al Gore, Joe Liebermann, and the Democratic Party have endorsed and promoted this plan.[43][44] By taking advantage of several of the canards exposed above, they portray it as responsible and painless, but the truth is that it would place an enormous financial burden on younger people. It works like this