It would be literally impossible to run a government where anyone everyone agrees with how every penny is spent. Aside from the fact that $1.5 million = 0.0000006% of US tax revenue for 2012, I don't mind the study. I can see why it would bother Conservatives, though. There might be biological reasons and we can't have that since being gay is a choice.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFire 50% of Federal Employees and make the rest of them earn their pay....and cut their pay in half. AND STOP hiring them under Affirmative Action Rules!
What measures do you propose to improve the efficiency of governance?
Then dismantle half of the Federal Government, period, let the states manage their own affairs like the Founding Fathers wanted.
And tell Obama to go to hell.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15Typical reactionary unthinking right wing tripe.
Fire 50% of Federal Employees and make the rest of them earn their pay....and cut their pay in half. AND STOP hiring them under Affirmative Action Rules!
Then dismantle half of the Federal Government, period, let the states manage their own affairs like the Founding Fathers wanted.
And tell Obama to go to hell.
Just one example, Kilgore is now on record as saying your typical young, frontline Soldier should recieve $850 base pay for risking life and limb.
I'm assuming you have detailed knowledge about literally all federal employment positions, what they do, and conducted a detailed analysis that just happened to take you to a perfectly round number of 50% (not 49.7 or 51.2) for both pay and layoffs? I'm assuming you also assessed that every position is being paid exactly double that of similar civilian positions, and thus can cut all federal employee pay in exactly half while remaining competitive in the labor markets without lowering the prerequisites?
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhen I went into the army 45 years ago my base pay was 100 dollars a month , a whole lot less than the 1.25 minimum wage.
Typical reactionary unthinking right wing tripe.
Just one example, Kilgore is now on record as saying your typical young, frontline Soldier should recieve $850 base pay for risking life and limb.
I'm assuming you have detailed knowledge about literally all federal employment positions, what they do, and conducted a detailed analysis that ju ...[text shortened]... ctly half while remaining competitive in the labor markets without lowering the prerequisites?
Cry me a river.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarWhy is a study into causes of obesity in a minority group a waste?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-15-million-study-why-lesbians-are-fat
Stuff like this is why people don't want to raise taxes. Why give more money to people who waste it?
Does your crystal ball tell you it will be a waste?
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15Would you say you were over or underpaid for what was expected of you? Now that we have an all volunteer service, is it your estimation we would be able to staff our military for such a pittance?
When I went into the army 45 years ago my base pay was 100 dollars a month , a whole lot less than the 1.25 minimum wage.
Cry me a river.
And the part of my post you ignored...?
I'm assuming you have detailed knowledge about literally all federal employment positions, what they do, and conducted a detailed analysis that just happened to take you to a perfectly round number of 50% (not 49.7 or 51.2) for both pay and layoffs? I'm assuming you also assessed that every position is being paid exactly double that of similar civilian positions, and thus can cut all federal employee pay in exactly half while remaining competitive in the labor markets without lowering the prerequisites?
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHey paratrooper get out of the army and see how much you're worth in the real world.
Would you say you were over or underpaid for what was expected of you? Now that we have an all volunteer service, is it your estimation we would be able to staff our military for such a pittance?
And the part of my post you ignored...?
I'm assuming you have detailed knowledge about literally all federal employment positions, what they do, an ...[text shortened]... ctly half while remaining competitive in the labor markets without lowering the prerequisites?
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperStop worrying so much about gay issues parachuter. We accept you as you are choice or not. We don't need to spend money figuring out what makes you tic when we already know. It is obvious the true gays do not have a choice and the bisexuals do. The whole fat part of the study takes away credibility for me as I know a lot of skinny lesbians.
It would be literally impossible to run a government where anyone everyone agrees with how every penny is spent. Aside from the fact that $1.5 million = 0.0000006% of US tax revenue for 2012, I don't mind the study. I can see why it would bother Conservatives, though. There might be biological reasons and we can't have that since being gay is a choice.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarI want a stuy of fat governers like Crispy Cream of New Jersey.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-15-million-study-why-lesbians-are-fat
Stuff like this is why people don't want to raise taxes. Why give more money to people who waste it?
You never know, he might be a lesblian.