Opposite results

Understand. Point noted.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

@gavinf56

True enough. However, the letter's author commended the proposed hiring freeze legislation and my comments were in response to that commendation.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Well if I had to guess I would say that he voted against the RSC budget.

EGADS, a politician who says one thing and does another. Psssst, don't look at he Presidents record to closely, you might find the same thing.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

@gavinf56

The Ryan Budget does not balance the budget, ever. The RSC budget does balance the budget.

So, did the man who now proposes CHANGING THE LAW TO PREVENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM HIRING until we have a balanced budget, actually VOTE FOR FOR IT when he had the chance?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Yes, Marino voted for the Ryan Budget. If that is your "missing details", um ok.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Which one?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Speaking of "missing details", you don't mention if that budget passed the House with our Congressman Tom's Marino's "yea" vote.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Republican Study Committee’s budget, a more conservative alternative budget than the Rep. Paul Ryan's 2012 Budget which did pass that same day.

Sometimes it's those missing details that put everything into the proper perspective.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

On April 15th, 2011 the House GOP had its chance to pass a balanced budget. That day, every single Democrat voted 'present'. However, the Republican Study Committee’s budget was defeated, not by Democrats, but by 136 Republicans. The RSC's budget went down with all Republican votes.

When it came time for the GOP to walk the walk, we learned all they could do was talk the talk.

Since our Congressman Tom Marino is so worried about the budget, ask him how he voted that day.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

It's called a budget. When you spend more money in one place, you spend less someplace else.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I think you did, mi amigo... off to the gym.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

No.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hi gavin, not when you hear a republican frame it, they generally simply wail about spending as if it is inherently evil. Just a thought but didn't you just make a case for defecit spending, regarding the long tern benefits?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Purchasing technology that reduces the amount of man hours/man power required to accomplish tasks saves money in the long term. The problem is our Government purchases these technologies without the required manpower reductions to offset the costs.

Big difference in the way the argument is presented BuffTrev1.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hi gavin, but purchasing technology to increase efficiency requires spending, something folks on the right decry as the root of all our troubles..

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Why do they need to work overtime?

Online databases require a lot less time than paper files and folders.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Now, imagine the seven people make $30k/year. Replace them with five who now take home $40k/year with over time.

Do you know what the sound bite is going to be? Government workers ARE OVERPAID. Look, here is the PROOF, $40/year. See look how INEFFICIENT government is.

This bill is a SCAM designed to erode your confidence in government.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Example: Seven people work at the Social Security office. One retires. The remaining six must do the work that seven once did. It now takes longer for the six workers to do what seven once did. Imagine another leaves, now five do the work of seven. Maybe now they work overtime. Where is the savings?" = JerryfromRI

That's all fine and dandy as long as long as technology and information resources remain constant. They don't. Technologies provide efficiencies within the workplace allowing for fewer people to do the job of what was previously required.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LOL. Tom Marino.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Maybe if our Congressman Tom Marino could spend a more time trying to get PA's unemployment rate below the national average, and less time crafting laws that PREVENT HIRING, we would all be better off.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The proposed federal hiring freeze is just plain stupid. It does not reduce spending or reduce what government does. It aims to make whatever government does take longer and its goal is to make YOU more frustrated with government.

Example: Seven people work at the Social Security office. One retires. The remaining six must do the work that seven once did. It now takes longer for the six workers to do what seven once did. Imagine another leaves, now five do the work of seven. Maybe now they work overtime. Where is the savings?

It's just plain STUPID and that's why this same bill didn't pass the last Congress.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

2013: Not rising it would be a "self-inflicted wound on the economy." He adds, "To even entertain the idea (of not raising the debt ceiling), it's absurd."

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »