Reply to This is the REAL reason DCUM is in a frenzy

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "This is the REAL reason DCUM is in a frenzy"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the [b]bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide.[/b]  Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more. [/quote]

PP, why are you posting false information?  It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM.  Twice the figure you quoted.   I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service[/quote]

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing.  Thank you for that scientific 15% fact.  It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard.  Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia.  For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public.  There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers.  How do you count them?  Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks.  And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers.  And what season do you count in?  The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available.  To mislead?

[/quote]

BTW, here's the source 
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

[/quote]

You are an idiot.   The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees.  It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

[/quote]

US Census data says 2.7 million federal civilian employees

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics