On Dec 12, 3:38*pm, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:41:45 -0800, Jack wrote:
He seems confused. *At first he wanted to blame the pay raises on
Republicans. *When I pointed out to him that position blows the liberal
mantra about how only Dems take care of the working man right out of the
water, he's now changed up to say that it was necessary and the workers
deserve it. *Except evidence shows they don't.

I'm wondering which hole he will start on next. *;-

I seem confused? *You responded to a direct quote from Tom's link. *Since
you have forgotten:

"Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended and Congress approved
across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009.
President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the
smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes
called steps that average 1.5% per year."

To which you accused me of trying "to spin exorbitant union pay into a
Rebublican(sic) president problem?" *If there was any spinning, it was by
the author of the original piece. *I did, however, point out that is was
a Republican president that signed the FEBCA.

You stated that it was a Bush mess. Stop backpedaling.

My reply was:

"A Democrat-controlled Congress put those pay hikes into effect,
under
a lame-duck president. Besides, 7% does not equate to $30,000.
Tom's
point is that the federal *union* jobs are being paid 30k more than
the average, while SS got nothing. You're really going to try to
spin
exorbitant union pay into a Rebublican president problem? Really?"



You then said "parity has been more than acheived(sic)". *I said it
hasn't. *You then post an excerpt from the CATO institute, that says
"government studies have found that federal workers are underpaid", but
also goes on to say they should be underpaid, if you look at the total
compensation package.

Nice selective editing, as they go on to say:

"By contrast, some academic studies have found that
federal workers are *overpaid*. Comparison studies that find a pay
gap
sometimes compare federal workers to those in large businesses. But
many U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, which tend to
have
lower compensation levels. More important, comparison studies
typically look just at wages and don’t consider the *superior
benefits*
paid by the government. Federal workers receive health benefits,
retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection,
and a retirement savings plan with a very generous match. (By
contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have access to
an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically have
generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours,
training
options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits, flexible
spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more relaxed pace
of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important benefit of
federal work is the *extreme job security*. The rate of “involuntary
separations” (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce is just
one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000 federal
nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All
these
federal *advantages* in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs,
federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages."

As you see, that's anything *but* saying that federal employees are
underpaid, but rather that they quite advantaged, and in fact *should*
be underpaid (which they quite convincingly proved they aren't).

Let's see now, you accuse me of stating it was a Republican problem, (you did) but
then you go on to give Republicans credit for "taking care of the working
class". *I guess you are right, I am confused. *Following your line of
thought is quite confusing.

Well, you stated it was "Another left over Bush mess", then you go on
to argue that it is proper and needed, so it would be anything but a
mess, yes? Which side of this issue are you on? Take a stance, man!
Make up your mind! You're making the plum look like a genius.