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 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.

Let's see now, you accuse me of stating it was a Republican problem, 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.