Originally Posted by Posh 08

Here are some numbers to ponder.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

I am not sure of what point you make here ?????

Someone posted and alluded to or implied we should not think about reducing the government payroll. I simply responded that I thought we should, which is what Obama said among other things and has not done.

Not a big deal but people take things out of context. Are you guys telling me that wanting to reduce the size of government is not something we should go for ? It sounds like you don't care...just do not blame it on Obama and there were no accusations at all either direct or implied so what is the reason for your defense.

Do we or dont we want to reduce the size of government ?

My point was if making it bigger is the goal, our President is on track which you just validated and if you think it is over...well, talk to me !


PS...sorry I responded to you...will leave this note be, but just realized that you are part of the giddy crowd with the one liners that are just tweets...they are on ignore and thus...making fun of people is not something I feel is for adults

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Here are some numbers to ponder.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

A 6.2% increase in government employment in three and one-half years? That's outrageous in a country that's borrowing 42-cents of every dollar it spends. That's an indication that there is no management oversight of government spending...NONE!

I can tell you from personal experience that at different times, and for several years in total, I worked for companies where the CEO would send down the order...no new employee hiring under any circumstances! No replacements for resignations or retirements or even deaths of employees. None! And he meant it. If somehow someone hired a new employee, it wasn't unusual that the person that hired him was fired!

All this article tells me is that no one in the federal hierarchy has a clue about how to run a business which is unprofitable...spending more than its taking in. Until we get someone in the White House and in Congress who will get serious about ths stuff, we're all in deep doo-doo.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

A 6.2% increase in government employment in three and one-half years? That's outrageous in a country that's borrowing 42-cents of every dollar it spends. That's an indication that there is no management oversight of governments spending...NONE!

I can tell you from personal experience that at different times, and for several years in total, I worked for companies where the CEO would send down the order...no new employee hiring under any circumstances! No replacements for resignations or retirements or even deaths of employees. None! And he meant it. If somehow someone hired a new employee, it wasn't unusual that the person that hired him was fired!

All this article tells me is that no one in the federal hierarchy has a clue about how to run a business which is unprofitable...spending more than its taking in. Until we get someone in the White House and in Congress who will get serious about ths stuff, we're all in deep doo-doo.

\


Point well taken. Here is a political question and quandry I thought of.

Romney knows as we all do that we need to cut down on the federal employee count and budget (and I am being extremely general here to make the question have some sense). He knows that we need to dramatically need to cut spending, as we all do.

WHEN does he tell the voters the reality and HOW does he do it ?

We know that Obama will do as always and lie his way through and perhaps Romney telling the truth would cost him the election because as you can see on here, any sounbite that sounds uncomfortable will be used and voters will be impressed. That scares me...as I said Obama will say whatever it takes.....WHO WILL tell the truth that the only way forward is a step "back" ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I am not sure of what point you make here ?????

Someone posted and alluded to or implied we should not think about reducing the government payroll. I simply responded that I thought we should, which is what Obama said among other things and has not done.

Not a big deal but people take things out of context. Are you guys telling me that wanting to reduce the size of government is not something we should go for ? It sounds like you don't care...just do not blame it on Obama and there were no accusations at all either direct or implied so what is the reason for your defense.

Do we or dont we want to reduce the size of government ?

My point was if making it bigger is the goal, our President is on track which you just validated and if you think it is over...well, talk to me !


PS...sorry I responded to you...will leave this note be, but just realized that you are part of the giddy crowd with the one liners that are just tweets...they are on ignore and thus...making fun of people is not something I feel is for adults

I posted it so some of the folks could get some numbers. So many people post with no numbers to back them up. No hidden agenda. I do note that this may be the time of the day that most posters fade away rather than mix it up with you. My skin is very thick.

The only logical move is a republican President and Congress for 4 years. We can take another look in 4 years and make any adjustment needed.

Just my opinion.

when there is no federal budget or any penalty for creating and continuing to run the organization at an increasing loss, what makes anybody think the employee roles in most likely too many areas have way more people than actually needed to do the work.

It is a guarantee with no criteria or measuring of accountability for the bottom line there are too many people!!!

Another fact is those doing the hiring and the co workers will never ever admit to having too many people.

If the government had a budget and were held accountable to not go into the red, you all know...the same way we have to run our house holds....the first thing the government would realize is there are too many people.

Of course it is a voting block issue and no body wants to lose the votes.

How about a basic example of when the railroads were modernized they still had a class or worker called fireman. The modern trains have no need for a fireman. However the union rules at the time (not picking on the union, just using the example) required every train to have a fireman, one rode in the caboose.....no job to perform.

The easy solution was to show the job eliminated through attrition. The railroads were able to forecast the future savings. Nobody had to double up and worker one lick harder.

There are many examples of this type of employee, co worker protectionism in ailing businesses and I guarantee it is prolific within the federal government.

Simple solution and keeping it as plain vanilla as possible....vote for the candidate who would be more likely to address running the government without a budget. The incumbent has proven he is not the one to get that job done.

Like it or not a "Bain" capital principal does in fact know what to do.....we have no more risk voting to see if he will do anything about fixing the financially broken company called the federal government, than when people voted for Obama because they simply liked what he promised.

I am sure Romney will find that unlike Bain having the support of those who hired his company to fix it allowing them to do what ever it took to fix the problem.....he will find out he has only we the people for support and his arch enemies will be all the other incumbents that will struggle to the end (like Rangle in NY) to keep BUSINESS AS USUAL.

Romney will make an attempt to do what is right for America.

btk

Originally Posted by CMANN

The only logical move is a republican President and Congress for 4 years. We can take another look in 4 years and make any adjustment needed.

Just my opinion.

I agree, but if this happens they'll only get 2 years. The mid-term elections come along to change the course always.

The people are getting really restless, and whoever wins the Presidency has to do great things in a short time or have the proverbial rug pulled out from under him in both houses.