Archive

Can we just shut the government down already?

  • BoatShoes
    gut;1519502 wrote:It's not a caveat. You really don't understand how any of this works, do you?
    I most certainly do. Try to understand my claim my friend. I said most of the government debt is a benefit to the domestic private sector. You just excluded intra-government debt even though the beneficiaries of those obligations in the real world are U.S. citizens. The U.S. "national debt" is both an asset and a liability. What the American people really experience it as in the real world is as an asset. As a burden it is just numbers on a spread sheet at the FED. In the real economy it is safest collateral and avenue for savings that exists in the world. As far as foreigners go who send us all of the real stuff that they make, it is equally an asset for them but unlike an ordinary creditor for us ordinary currency users, they don't have any power over us. No matter what happens, we win. They either send us their product in exchange for putting the dollars they get in our central bank. Or, if they don't want to do that any more, the dollar depreciates and we make our own shit here rather than let them make it for us. If there's upward pressure on interest rates the FED can simply choose not to fail and buy up bonds.

    And so, given that the FED buying up bonds is effectively the same as the treasury having never issued them in the first place, the FED can do this at will any time it wants, (or sell them back any time it wants...effectively the same as the tsy issuing debt), it remains laughably absurd to be so utterly stark raving mad over the "national debt" when it's simply just overly complicated monetary operations and the real beneficiaries are U.S. citizens and they aren't burdened in any real way whatsoever.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    '[LEFT]'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 [/LEFT]US Government[LEFT] can not 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.'

    - Manhattan Buckeye

    Oh wait, maybe not
    [/LEFT]
  • Glory Days
    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/07/21352728-obama-administration-report-details-cost-of-last-months-shutdown

    "President Barack Obama’s budget chief Sylvia Mathews Burwell said Thursday that last month’s 16-day partial shutdown of the federal government cost taxpayers more than $2.5 billion for work that furloughed federal employees never got a chance to do."
    Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is pushing his End Government Shutdowns Act, which would automatically continue spending at the prior year’s level in the event that any appropriations bill for a fiscal year isn’t enacted before the beginning of that fiscal year, or if Congress hasn’t passed a larger catch-all spending bill.
    sooooo now they would have no incentive to pass a budget ever again?
  • gut
    Glory Days;1531804 wrote: sooooo now they would have no incentive to pass a budget ever again?
    Basically what they've been doing with CR's....that's why the huge deficits - essentially rolled all the one-time stimulus and bailout money into the baseline budget. That's why we still had $1T+ deficits in 2011 & 2012 after the stimulus and bailout monies were supposed to be off the books. I mean, it's remarkable with that massive injection of "extraordinary" spending that spending never decreased.
  • Zombaypirate
    IggyPride00;1508494 wrote:Does anyone else agree that we need a good government shutdown to get this out of everyone's system so we can move on to a somewhat more normal governing existance?

    I am so tired of the every 6 month crisis, and I think the rest of the public is as well.

    Let's shutdown the government, blow through the debt ceiling, and let the chips fall where they may.

    If it results in a financial crisis, then voters will blame the party seen as having caused it. If it doesn't, then at least both sides will know and can bargain accordingly in the future.

    The debt ceiling has turned into the weapon of choice now though and until it is either repealed or shown to be inconsequential we are going to not be able to get past this period in history.

    We haven't had a budget in 4 years, and still can't because there is a refusal to convene a conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate budgets which are wildly different.

    This is not even a function of Obama anymore, as Democrats will undoubtedly start using the same playbook when there is a Republican president next. Nancy Pelosi has even joked in the past that if she knew the debt ceiling was such a good weapon she would have demanded an end to the Iraq war in exchange for raising it in 2006 for President Bush.

    The situation as it stands is untenable, and something external needs to intervene to break the gridlock.
    In all seriousness, understand that anarchy is the only answer. Please do not let the chimps on this site persuade your thinking.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1531804 wrote:http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/07/21352728-obama-administration-report-details-cost-of-last-months-shutdown

    "President Barack Obama’s budget chief Sylvia Mathews Burwell said Thursday that last month’s 16-day partial shutdown of the federal government cost taxpayers more than $2.5 billion for work that furloughed federal employees never got a chance to do."
    Primarily because they still got paid for it after the shutdown, yes?

    However, as we were told, the employees furloughed were "non-essential." So why are we so concerned about the non-essential work that wasn't getting done?

    Moreover, if the work didn't get done, why is anyone paying for it?
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1539285 wrote:Primarily because they still got paid for it after the shutdown, yes?

    However, as we were told, the employees furloughed were "non-essential." So why are we so concerned about the non-essential work that wasn't getting done?

    Moreover, if the work didn't get done, why is anyone paying for it?
    Maybe because it still had to get done eventually?

    haha and I someone was butt hurt over the term "non-essential" so they changed it haha
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1539388 wrote:Maybe because it still had to get done eventually?
    So, if they "had" to get done, they were not "non-essential?" They just weren't time sensitive?

    Seemed that things ran okay while they weren't getting done.
    Glory Days;1539388 wrote:haha and I someone was butt hurt over the term "non-essential" so they changed it haha
    What did they change it to? I hadn't heard that.
  • gut
    Somewhat related...I had a good laugh at govt "efficiency" a few weeks ago.

    When I went to the DMV to renew my license, of the 20 people I could see working...probably 5 of them were "information services" people that should be unnecessary and could be eliminated.

    After I paid the cashier, she gave me a receipt and told me "go to Line 2". And immediately around the corner a guy at a desk stops me, checks my paperwork, and tells me "Line 2". Then into the next room and an information services person stops me to check my paperwork, then tells me "Line 2". And when I had first walked in, an info services guy validated my docs and then gave me the forms I needed.

    I've been to plenty of other DMV's and they don't have those unnecessary and redundant info services people. To answer Sleeper's question, yes it was in the ghetto and yes I imagine a fair % of the clientele doesn't speak or read English.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1539392 wrote:So, if they "had" to get done, they were not "non-essential?" They just weren't time sensitive?

    Seemed that things ran okay while they weren't getting done.



    What did they change it to? I hadn't heard that.
    Things only ran ok because people worked for free. The federal gov't doesn't effect the day to day lives of most people, that is why its easy to say "things ran ok" over a 3 week period.

    its now "excepted" employees.
  • Glory Days
    gut;1539397 wrote:Somewhat related...I had a good laugh at govt "efficiency" a few weeks ago.

    When I went to the DMV to renew my license, of the 20 people I could see working...probably 5 of them were "information services" people that should be unnecessary and could be eliminated.

    After I paid the cashier, she gave me a receipt and told me "go to Line 2". And immediately around the corner a guy at a desk stops me, checks my paperwork, and tells me "Line 2". Then into the next room and an information services person stops me to check my paperwork, then tells me "Line 2". And when I had first walked in, an info services guy validated my docs and then gave me the forms I needed.

    I've been to plenty of other DMV's and they don't have those unnecessary and redundant info services people. To answer Sleeper's question, yes it was in the ghetto and yes I imagine a fair % of the clientele doesn't speak or read English.
    I was at the DMV here in California and was doing some work related stuff inside before they officially opened for business. While I was there, there was a morning meeting before they opened. it involved motivational speeches and stretching exercises...yup, they made sure to stretch before going to work at the DMV. luckily I wasn't in their direct line of sight so they couldn't see me laughing at them.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1540873 wrote:Things only ran ok because people worked for free. The federal gov't doesn't effect the day to day lives of most people, that is why its easy to say "things ran ok" over a 3 week period.

    its now "excepted" employees.
    People worked, yes. Others, as I understand it, did not. Those whom did not appear to not be indispensable. Would you not agree?
  • cbus4life
    My work brings me into contact with quite a few "non-essential" US government employees. Things weren't terrible over the few weeks they were gone, but it would have gotten pretty rough if the shutdown had lasted any longer. Lots of worry amongst my community about when they would be back. In my line of work, they absolutely were essential.

    And, i give a MASSIVE amount of credit to the numerous US federal employees i know who did tons of work during those 2 weeks in whatever way that they could, because they care about their job and service they provide to the US and numerous countries around the world. A credit to their department and country.

    Of course, not all are like this, but just wanted to say, in my personal field, US federal employees are vital and incredibly important members of the international community, and are as good as it gets in the field. A bargain to the federal tax payer, considering what they are paid.

    US federal employees are world leaders in a variety of different fields and disciplines, and when they can't work...it quite frankly makes us look like shit.

    So much good comes out of what our government does. It isn't all bad and pointless. Allow folks to do their job, and the US will be just fine. Sure, regulation and proper checks and the like are needed, and cutting dead weight is necessary, but shutting the entire place down was just absurd. Lazy and selfish, to be blunt.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1540887 wrote:People worked, yes. Others, as I understand it, did not. Those whom did not appear to not be indispensable. Would you not agree?
    Not necessarily. Some of the databases and systems I use for my job are monitored and run by non essential employees. We didn't have money to hire contractors to sift through thousands of sheets of data we needed processed. All of the people who coordinate travel and operating expenses weren't working, so no travel etc. Thus causing my productivity to go down.

    So yeah, the guy standing on the wall defending freedom etc was still there, but he only had one magazine in his rifle and couldn't move from that wall to get more if needed.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1540901 wrote:Not necessarily. Some of the databases and systems I use for my job are monitored and run by non essential employees. We didn't have money to hire contractors to sift through thousands of sheets of data we needed processed. All of the people who coordinate travel and operating expenses weren't working, so no travel etc. Thus causing my productivity to go down.

    So yeah, the guy standing on the wall defending freedom etc was still there, but he only had one magazine in his rifle and couldn't move from that wall to get more if needed.
    If I may ask, why is such specialization necessary? Why could you not coordinate your own travel or run your own expenses?
  • WebFire
    O-Trap;1540903 wrote:If I may ask, why is such specialization necessary? Why could you not coordinate your own travel or run your own expenses?
    Probably takes too much time away from what he is actually supposed to be doing. There is a reason the hire people and pay them less to do those tasks.
  • wkfan
    WebFire;1540965 wrote:Probably takes too much time away from what he is actually supposed to be doing. There is a reason the hire people and pay them less to do those tasks.
    That is an hourly employee, union member mentality.

    I worked for one of the worlds largest and most repected corportions back in the lat 80's and early 90's. When finances got tight, all exempt employees were to make all of their own travel arrangements, fill out expense reports themselves, etc. These tasks were completed in addition to completing the requirements of their position....not in place of competing the requirements of their position.

    That's how it works in the free-enterprise system....
  • O-Trap
    WebFire;1540965 wrote:Probably takes too much time away from what he is actually supposed to be doing. There is a reason the hire people and pay them less to do those tasks.
    Travel plans are not that time-intensive to organize. I've done those things for my own business for enough time to know that they don't take up so much time as to require someone else to do them, and they also don't significantly impede my ability to do everything else associated with the company. If I'm planning a business trip, and I know about it ahead of time, it doesn't take much to schedule a flight, book a hotel, arrange for transportation if necessary, and schedule meetings with anyone I need to meet with. If I work just a half-hour extra per day over the course of a few days, I can have it done.
  • O-Trap
    wkfan;1541063 wrote:That is an hourly employee, union member mentality.

    I worked for one of the worlds largest and most repected corportions back in the lat 80's and early 90's. When finances got tight, all exempt employees were to make all of their own travel arrangements, fill out expense reports themselves, etc. These tasks were completed in addition to completing the requirements of their position....not in place of competing the requirements of their position.

    That's how it works in the free-enterprise system....
    Shoot. I didn't need to say much. This essentially covers it.
  • WebFire
    wkfan;1541063 wrote:That is an hourly employee, union member mentality.
    Interesting, considering I am neither.
    wkfan;1541063 wrote:I worked for one of the worlds largest and most repected corportions back in the lat 80's and early 90's. When finances got tight, all exempt employees were to make all of their own travel arrangements, fill out expense reports themselves, etc. These tasks were completed in addition to completing the requirements of their position....not in place of competing the requirements of their position.

    That's how it works in the free-enterprise system....
    Then why did you have people doing it for you in the first place? That was exactly my point. I didn't mean just during the shutdown. I meant all the time.
  • WebFire
    O-Trap;1541154 wrote:Travel plans are not that time-intensive to organize. I've done those things for my own business for enough time to know that they don't take up so much time as to require someone else to do them, and they also don't significantly impede my ability to do everything else associated with the company. If I'm planning a business trip, and I know about it ahead of time, it doesn't take much to schedule a flight, book a hotel, arrange for transportation if necessary, and schedule meetings with anyone I need to meet with. If I work just a half-hour extra per day over the course of a few days, I can have it done.
    Your single experience applies to every job in the world. Got it.
  • gut
    Takes 15 minutes to book car, flight and hotel. EVERYONE can easily find that time.

    If you are fairly senior and doing 3+ trips a week, then it probably makes sense to have your admin do it.
  • O-Trap
    WebFire;1541164 wrote:Your single experience applies to every job in the world. Got it.
    There are things that translate virtually universally. Since hotels, airlines, and car rentals don't warrant additional intensity from one type of patron to the next (at least from an employment-related perspective), it stands to reason that my time setting all that up should be about the same as anyone else's. The steps are the same. The checkout is the same. What is it about someone else's job that would make doing those things so much more difficult?

    I will say this: I can see your point if someone is, quite literally, a jet-setter for a living, and they go to a new place every day, or sometimes more than once a day. THAT seems like it could justify an assistant position to handle the booking (who could also do the expense-tracking). However, if you're not traveling more than twice a week, there is absolutely zero justification for saying you don't have the hour or so to book the flight.
  • WebFire
    O-Trap;1541175 wrote:There are things that translate virtually universally. Since hotels, airlines, and car rentals don't warrant additional intensity from one type of patron to the next, it stands to reason that my time setting all that up should be about the same as anyone else's. The steps are the same. The checkout is the same. What is it about someone else's job that would make doing those things so much more difficult?

    I will say this: I can see your point if someone is, quite literally, a jet-setter for a living, and they go to a new place every day, or sometimes more than once a day. THAT seems like it could justify an assistant position to handle the booking (who could also do the expense-tracking). However, if you're not traveling more than twice a week, there is absolutely zero justification for saying you don't have the hour or so to book the flight.
    I don't think that's all these hourly people do. It's just one part of the job they do for these people.

    You asked why someone would need an assistant to do that type of work. I answered it. I'm pretty sure it's common for people to have assistants to do the little day-to-day stuff so that a high level person doesn't spend their day on trivial tasks.

    Why do you make it so difficult?
  • O-Trap
    WebFire;1541176 wrote:I don't think that's all these hourly people do. It's just one part of the job they do for these people.

    You asked why someone would need an assistant to do that type of work. I answered it. I'm pretty sure it's common for people to have assistants to do the little day-to-day stuff so that a high level person doesn't spend their day on trivial tasks.

    Why do you make it so difficult?
    I'm not making anything difficult. Glory implied that without those essential employees (or whatever we're calling them now), the travel plans and expenses couldn't get done. My point was, and is, that that's ridiculous, as those things are not that time-intensive, and that there are too many examples of people who are able to keep a full plate AND do those things on top of it.

    As for the justification of a person to do those things, whoever is paying them should be the one to determine if they're necessary or ideal. If I hire one, even though I may not need it, that's my prerogative. The risk is my own.