The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[Statorama]

Since the shutdown was about delaying Obamacare until it was ready, shouldn't the thread title be changed to the Tea Party is proven right?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Since the shutdown was about delaying Obamacare until it was ready, shouldn't the thread title be changed to the Tea Party is proven right?

I think the Shutdown is what broke the Obamacare website. Thanks a lot, Tea Party.

 

[moleculo]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

 

[timschochet]

Since the shutdown was about delaying Obamacare until it was ready, shouldn't the thread title be changed to the Tea Party is proven right?

No.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

When the economy booms, do all those gov't workers get bonuses like the private sector dolls out?

 

[moleculo]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

When the economy booms, do all those gov't workers get bonuses like the private sector dolls out?

in my 15 year career in the private sector, I've gotten a bonus maybe three times.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

 

[RCon]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

 

[DrJ]

If I were Tim, I'd have tried to get this deleted rather than bump it so my ignorance continues to be on full display. But that's just me.

 

[TobiasFunke]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

We've had this debate before, and we're not gonna settle it here. I'm not saying every public sector employee deserves 100% job security. All I said here was that it's a #### move to celebrate it. If McDonald's cut wages, and as a result my Quarter Pounder was a nickel cheaper, I wouldn't post every two weeks praising McDonald's decision regardless of how excited I was about saving a nickel.

 

[Sand]

This deal is horrific and makes me feel like Sasha Grey about ten minutes into a shoot

I see what you did here...

 

[Sand]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

 

[TobiasFunke]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

 

[Sand]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

The voice of naivete. Leadership PACs, insider trading, etc. It can and is being done.

 

[Slapdash]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

Probably so. Since I have to deal with people in some agencies, I'd gladly pay more taxes to get some bodies in there with a clue.

 

[TobiasFunke]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

The voice of naivete. Leadership PACs, insider trading, etc. It can and is being done.

Yeah, you're right, I probably don't have any idea what goes on in Congress

You know what's a good way to make sure stuff like that happens more often? Slash funding to the FEC and SEC, cut their employees' pay, and endanger their job security.

 

[timschochet]

If I were Tim, I'd have tried to get this deleted rather than bump it so my ignorance continues to be on full display. But that's just me.

Why should I be concerned about your ignorance being on display?

 

[Slapdash]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

The voice of naivete. Leadership PACs, insider trading, etc. It can and is being done.

Insider trading is huge in Congress

 

[shader]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Insider trading is huge in Congress

Getting a little far afield when we're talking about profits of a maybe a hundred already rich people via private investments. The point was that job security is part of the package when you take a job in the public sector and it compensates for the lack of upside. Given that members of Congress don't really have job security, they're not really relevant to that conversation in the first place.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, Congressmen can get rich. But what percentage of public sector employees are Congressmen?

And in fact, what percentage of private sector people are millionaires, self made or otherwise?

IMO, this whole comparison is silly. Trying to compare public vs. private based upon the ceiling doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because in both cases you're talking about a very very small minority.

 

[Don Quixote]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

In addition to the affected employees and contractors, there are also those who received government benefits out of pocket too. WaPo has an article up today about HeadStart and the 57,000 children whose benefits were eliminated, and, essentially, kicked out preschool due to the sequester.

 

[timschochet]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

In addition to the affected employees and contractors, there are also those who received government benefits out of pocket too. WaPo has an article up today about HeadStart and the 57,000 children whose benefits were eliminated, and, essentially, kicked out preschool due to the sequester.

Yeah, well, Joe T thinks that's a good deal for us.

 

[shader]

“Embrace the suck,” House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats Thursday morning, a source told Politico.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

In addition to the affected employees and contractors, there are also those who received government benefits out of pocket too. WaPo has an article up today about HeadStart and the 57,000 children whose benefits were eliminated, and, essentially, kicked out preschool due to the sequester.

Yeah, well, Joe T thinks that's a good deal for us.

Rich Conway prefers kicking kids out of preschool to the current budget deal because the cuts made by the latter "are even less meaningful."

 

[timschochet]

“Embrace the suck,” House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats Thursday morning, a source told Politico.

Putting philosophy aside, Nancy Pelosi is a remarkably astute politician, one of the most impressive in my lifetime. Compare her to John Boehner. Among the Democrats, Pelosi has as many potential rebels as Boehner does, yet unlike him, she somehow manages to always keep them in line.

 

[timschochet]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

In addition to the affected employees and contractors, there are also those who received government benefits out of pocket too. WaPo has an article up today about HeadStart and the 57,000 children whose benefits were eliminated, and, essentially, kicked out preschool due to the sequester.

Yeah, well, Joe T thinks that's a good deal for us.

Rich Conway prefers kicking kids out of preschool to the current budget deal because the cuts made by the latter "are even less meaningful."

I don't think that's fair. Unlike Joe T, Rich doesn't celebrate other peoples' pain.

 

[Slapdash]

“Embrace the suck,” House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats Thursday morning, a source told Politico.

Putting philosophy aside, Nancy Pelosi is a remarkably astute politician, one of the most impressive in my lifetime. Compare her to John Boehner. Among the Democrats, Pelosi has as many potential rebels as Boehner does, yet unlike him, she somehow manages to always keep them in line.

Pelosi is a really good leader of her caucus.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think that's fair. Unlike Joe T, Rich doesn't celebrate other peoples' pain.

No, he just disregards it as a consideration and focuses only on the bottom line.

You're right, of course. Rich's position just struck me as a strange one- the notion that the only variable to consider when comparing options was the "meaningfulness" of the cuts.

 

[moleculo]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

I hear ya, but this discussion has kind of gotten away from my general premise, which is this: it's not the government's mandate to provide employment. The argument that some program should not be cut or reduced has no sway with me because governmental employment is not the aim. I'm all for complaining about a reduction in services - 57,000 kids losing pre-school is compelling to me, a few thousand daycare workers being forced to find new employment isn't. The pain caused by the sequester to governmental workers is irrelevant.

Again - I understand that this is a cold, calloused position and we are talking about peoples livelyhoods and I do feel bad about that, but there it is.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

I hear ya, but this discussion has kind of gotten away from my general premise, which is this: it's not the government's mandate to provide employment. The argument that some program should not be cut or reduced has no sway with me because governmental employment is not the aim. I'm all for complaining about a reduction in services - 57,000 kids losing pre-school is compelling to me, a few thousand daycare workers being forced to find new employment isn't. The pain caused by the sequester to governmental workers is irrelevant.

Again - I understand that this is a cold, calloused position and we are talking about peoples livelyhoods and I do feel bad about that, but there it is.

The discussion got away from that premise because I don't think anyone disagrees with it. They might disagree with whether it's the right cut to make, but that's a different, more complicated matter. The simpler matter is that people losing wages or jobs is not something to be celebrated.

 

[Gr00vus]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

The voice of naivete. Leadership PACs, insider trading, etc. It can and is being done.

Insider trading is huge in Congress

Isn't that still illegal?

 

[moleculo]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

I hear ya, but this discussion has kind of gotten away from my general premise, which is this: it's not the government's mandate to provide employment. The argument that some program should not be cut or reduced has no sway with me because governmental employment is not the aim. I'm all for complaining about a reduction in services - 57,000 kids losing pre-school is compelling to me, a few thousand daycare workers being forced to find new employment isn't. The pain caused by the sequester to governmental workers is irrelevant.

Again - I understand that this is a cold, calloused position and we are talking about peoples livelyhoods and I do feel bad about that, but there it is.

The discussion got away from that premise because I don't think anyone disagrees with it. They might disagree with whether it's the right cut to make, but that's a different, more complicated matter. The simpler matter is that people losing wages or jobs is not something to be celebrated.

well, technically all JoeT was cheering was spending cuts. You are the one who came in and equated spending cuts with people losing their jobs.

 

[timschochet]

John Boehner getting tough! Says the Tea Party has "lost all credibility."

The vote on the budget is coming up a little later today. Expected to pass narrowly. If it fails, all hell's gonna break loose.

 

[TobiasFunke]

well, technically all JoeT was cheering was spending cuts. You are the one who came in and equated spending cuts with people losing their jobs.

Not to get technical, but it was a particular set of across the board spending cuts that cost people jobs and wages and preschool enrollments and did other not great stuff as a result of Congressional failure to agree on (IMO) better, more targeted cuts. And all I said was that it's kind of dooshy to post celebrating that every couple weeks and to trumpet the fact that it's having very little impact in your opinion, when for some people it's having a significant negative impact.

I also think it's wrong to celebrate what I see as a failure, but again that's another question.

 

[RCon]

“Embrace the suck,” House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats Thursday morning, a source told Politico.

Putting philosophy aside, Nancy Pelosi is a remarkably astute politician, one of the most impressive in my lifetime. Compare her to John Boehner. Among the Democrats, Pelosi has as many potential rebels as Boehner does, yet unlike him, she somehow manages to always keep them in line.

I'm not sure this bit makes much sense, though:

Pelosi told Democrats — many of whom had expressed unhappiness with the lack of unemployment benefits being included — that there were better fights to have with Republicans. She argued that by allowing the budget deal to move forward, Democrats could turn their attention to the “do-nothing GOP message” that her party has been pushing, according to someone in the meeting.

If the message is supposed to be "do-nothing GOP", then allowing the GOP to very visibly do something would seem counter-productive, wouldn't it?

 

[RCon]

I don't think that's fair. Unlike Joe T, Rich doesn't celebrate other peoples' pain.

No, he just disregards it as a consideration and focuses only on the bottom line.

You're right, of course. Rich's position just struck me as a strange one- the notion that the only variable to consider when comparing options was the "meaningfulness" of the cuts.

With ANY cut, someone will be hurt. Are these cuts better because they hurt someone different? My goal is the most gain / least pain for the country as a whole in the long run. I'm willing to accept short term pain for some in return for long term gain for all, although I recognize that the short term pain still sucks.

 

[RCon]

Insider trading is huge in Congress

Isn't that still illegal?

Raj Rajaratnam is going to be pissed if it's legal now.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think that's fair. Unlike Joe T, Rich doesn't celebrate other peoples' pain.

No, he just disregards it as a consideration and focuses only on the bottom line.

You're right, of course. Rich's position just struck me as a strange one- the notion that the only variable to consider when comparing options was the "meaningfulness" of the cuts.

With ANY cut, someone will be hurt. Are these cuts better because they hurt someone different? My goal is the most gain / least pain for the country as a whole in the long run. I'm willing to accept short term pain for some in return for long term gain for all, although I recognize that the short term pain still sucks.

Yes. Some cuts are better than others based on who they hurt, because the loss of a dollar hurts some more than others. I'm surprised that you even phrased that in the form of a question.

 

[RCon]

I don't think that's fair. Unlike Joe T, Rich doesn't celebrate other peoples' pain.

No, he just disregards it as a consideration and focuses only on the bottom line.

You're right, of course. Rich's position just struck me as a strange one- the notion that the only variable to consider when comparing options was the "meaningfulness" of the cuts.

With ANY cut, someone will be hurt. Are these cuts better because they hurt someone different? My goal is the most gain / least pain for the country as a whole in the long run. I'm willing to accept short term pain for some in return for long term gain for all, although I recognize that the short term pain still sucks.

Yes. Some cuts are better than others based on who they hurt, because the loss of a dollar hurts some more than others. I'm surprised that you even phrased that in the form of a question.

OK, fair enough, although I'm not necessarily convinced that these specific cuts are "better" than the previous specific cuts. The rest of my post remains.

 

[Schlzm]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

So when accessing the costs and benefits of the Auto bailout, the only number you look to is the return on the stock?

Heads up! Lawndart incoming!Schlzm

ETA: In that specific case I looked at a lot of things, however the end result is that a ton of money was once again thrown at a problem to provide support for a tiny group at the expense of everyone else and still had a negative ROI while supporters cheer how great it is.

What specifically did you look at? What was your calculation of the unemployment benefit savings due to those folks not losing their jobs?

I looked at the reinvestment of a failing company into a successful company as actually benefitting the economy through new jobs and more efficient markets. I looked at reducing largesse of the untennable promises to the unions. I looked at taking skilled workers and realigning them into an efficient business model. At the time unenmployment hadn't been turned into a disgraceful monetary blackhole therefore those individuals would have no choice but to find themselves in a position where they would, hopefully, reinsert themselves into the workforce and actually add something to the local economy instead of taking from the national, puffing their chests out with pride while their communities crumble around them.Those are things I looked at. What were you looking at? Oh and also the feds didn't "take over" the auto-industry. Also please answer my question above since I took the time to answer yours when I generally feel most of the drivel typed by you as pointless at best, yes please feel free to take this as some sort of personal attack and feel incensed over it. #### happens.

Schlzm

ETA: Just because I can, it's assessing not accessing. If I was accessing the money spent on that crap, I probably wouldn't be spending time posting about this, I would be affecting it.

Cool. Can you share the results from you analysis, i.e. numbers? Again, I'd be specifically interested in how much you calculated we saved in unemployment insurance, since that seems like a very important part to include when coming to the "we lost over $10bn" conclusion you claimed was not based on simply the stock sale.

I don't even know what to say to this. You are asking for actual numbers for a scenario that didn't happen? Based on my recollection thanks to all the bailouts Detroit is now bankrupt and unemployment has saved the country somewhere around $-673.8bn. That what you were looking for? I'm going to go back to shaking my head sadly at your posts now.Schlzm

I think I see what happened. I wrote why I was against the bailout and the things I took into consideration concerning that. You are coming from the angle that the bailout saved more than the 10bn stock loss? If that's not correct then I am just moving on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

SchlzmI think I see what happened. I wrote why I was against the bailout and the things I took into consideration concerning that. You are coming from the angle that the bailout saved more than the 10bn stock loss? If that's not correct then I am just moving on.

You chided me for citing the auto bailout as a success, specifically stating that "we the people lost $10bn on that deal". I questioned your accounting, since the analysis I've read suggests that your $10bn loss is not even close to accurate, in large part b/c you're failing to consider all of the other factors that would have occurred had those million jobs disappeared, even temporarily. It seems silly to point to the $10bn loss on the stock sale as the number we "lost" on the deal w/o considering the alternative and all of the costs that the tax payer would have been on the hook for - UI, loss of tax revenues, etc.

 

[Statorama]

Geez, are we still rehashing Obamas bailout of the UAW?

Oh, and spoiler alert, it cost taxpayers way more than 10B

Edit to add: Ford didn't seem to have any trouble navigating the waters without deep pockets Obama taking over their business

 

[Sand]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

You'd be amazed at how many congressmen go in with not a whole lot and come out multimillionaires.

Not unless they break the law or do work in the private sector they don't.

The voice of naivete. Leadership PACs, insider trading, etc. It can and is being done.

Insider trading is huge in Congress

Isn't that still illegal?

No, some things that these guys can do are considered legal.

 

[Courtjester]

John Boehner getting tough! Says the Tea Party has "lost all credibility."

The vote on the budget is coming up a little later today. Expected to pass narrowly. If it fails, all hell's gonna break loose.

And if it does pass, it will be a very bad thing for the Dems IMO.

The only way democrats could have distracted the public away from the disaster that is the ACA would have been a government shut down and I think alot of Republicans realized this. (maybe I am giving them waaayyy too much credit there).

But a bipartisan agreement at this point is pretty much the last thing the Democrats needed. It fends off the narative about the do-nothing, evil GOP. It allows the GOP to say we reached across the aisle and got things done for the "good of the American people" And it keeps the Dems on the defense for the ACA.

It may not be a fiscally smart move, but I think as far as getting more votes come mid-terms, it fits the bill.

 

[TheIronSheik]

John Boehner getting tough! Says the Tea Party has "lost all credibility."

The vote on the budget is coming up a little later today. Expected to pass narrowly. If it fails, all hell's gonna break loose.

And if it does pass, it will be a very bad thing for the Dems IMO.

The only way democrats could have distracted the public away from the disaster that is the ACA would have been a government shut down and I think alot of Republicans realized this. (maybe I am giving them waaayyy too much credit there).

But a bipartisan agreement at this point is pretty much the last thing the Democrats needed. It fends off the narative about the do-nothing, evil GOP. It allows the GOP to say we reached across the aisle and got things done for the "good of the American people" And it keeps the Dems on the defense for the ACA.

It may not be a fiscally smart move, but I think as far as getting more votes come mid-terms, it fits the bill.

Neither side is stupid. They may do dumb things, but they aren't stupid.

 

[Schlzm]

Schlzm

I think I see what happened. I wrote why I was against the bailout and the things I took into consideration concerning that. You are coming from the angle that the bailout saved more than the 10bn stock loss? If that's not correct then I am just moving on.

You chided me for citing the auto bailout as a success, specifically stating that "we the people lost $10bn on that deal". I questioned your accounting, since the analysis I've read suggests that your $10bn loss is not even close to accurate, in large part b/c you're failing to consider all of the other factors that would have occurred had those million jobs disappeared, even temporarily. It seems silly to point to the $10bn loss on the stock sale as the number we "lost" on the deal w/o considering the alternative and all of the costs that the tax payer would have been on the hook for - UI, loss of tax revenues, etc.

This makes a lot more sense now. The only numbers available are worse case scenario and fluctuate depending on the source. Using the worst possible outcome numbers, bailing out GM and Chrysler theoreticaly saved the country $105.3bn in payouts and lost tax revenue. The only problem here is that it was pure speculation that allowing the two companies to go under would cause an unstoppable ripple across the country initiating the collapse of multiple sectors. The fact that Chrysler was purchased by FIAT shortly after the bailout should be an indicator that those numbers are much higher than what the reality would have been. Of course we'll never know so I guess YAY BAILOUT!

Schlzm

 

[Dr Oadi]

Since the shutdown was about delaying Obamacare until it was ready, shouldn't the thread title be changed to the Tea Party is proven right?

No. Yes.

Fixed.

 

[Joe T]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Because people are getting hurt and i don't like that. /Tim

 

[Joe T]

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government. I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if they lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

The vast majority of the private sector doesn't really see much in the way of bonuses either.

But they can get rich in that sector. You cant really get rich in the public sector.

We've had this debate before, and we're not gonna settle it here. I'm not saying every public sector employee deserves 100% job security. All I said here was that it's a #### move to celebrate it. If McDonald's cut wages, and as a result my Quarter Pounder was a nickel cheaper, I wouldn't post every two weeks praising McDonald's decision regardless of how excited I was about saving a nickel.