Washington Math

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by patentesq, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. pennak

    pennak Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is easy. This is not about saving money. I can't imagine that civilian employees are that less costly than members of the military (their civilian salaries are probably, if anything, higher). This is about reducing the size of the military so that the money can be spent on other government programs. It is a redistribution of the cost --a political agenda. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion.
     
  3. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,747
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Having had my first taste of a paycheck that didn't involve..... I don't know, maybe $20,000 of untaxed "allowances" I can't imagine federal employees are that much more expensive than members of the military.

    To me, this is a "give me your vote, I'll cut you, but hey I'm hiring you" move. Having been a recent unemployed vet.... I would believe it when I see it...but I never saw this lovey-dovey investment in veterans by the fed. I certainly didn't see it for 5-point vets, and I can only guess how many 10-point vets will be flooding the market.
     
  4. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    Another "RIF" to save money? We will pay for it in the end!
     

Share This Page