Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 235
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We have to produce a different result, because we can't afford what we are doing, evidenced by the spending deficite.
    I'm not sure where you get that we can't afford it - is the money being magicked from somewhere?


    Well, that part has already happened. Not the ideal way to start the conversation.. but now we should have it.
    No conversation starts with blackmail. They end with it. It's largely why the Republican attempts to bring spending back piecemeal was soundly rejected (except for the military spending).


    Put it like this. While I do like a smaller gov, I am not arguing for any particular cuts, I'm starting the conversation.
    Sure, but your leaning towards a not smaller government from what I can tell thus far. And I agree!


    Well,at this point I'm not sure. If every suspended Job couldn't be justified (which I don't think is the case) then I would be for
    it staying at "emergency levels".
    Except that you haven't suspended a single job yet.


    See, I don't have a pre-conceived idea of how it should turn out only that it must be less due to income levels.
    Since you have no ideas then letting this idea move forward makes even less sense; you don't know the harm this route has wrought so continuing down this road is really about teaching you about the government. And you can learn that without having to shutdown everything and bring it back.


    I am not laying down a principle for unlimited gov. If you construe it as if I am, it is a straw-man, and I will not address it further.
    What I am saying is that in a gov that is short on money, it doesn't make sense to cut programs that are profiting. I don't think that is a good reason for their sole existence, but it should be art of the equation right?
    Well, if it doesn't make sense to cut something profitable then surely it also makes sense to do more 'profitable things'. Sounds to me like we should grow government more. Or tax more.


    Right, you know my politics in general.. but you can't assume other threads all the time in our discussions.
    I am not certain what question I have answered.
    Whether it is worth asking for those jobs to be re-evaluated. You answer for the ones we discussed, yes, they should be brought back; you admit you have no pre-conceived idea about how it should turn out which speaks to a general lack of knowledge - surely you can come up with a large number of important programs that you'd have a preference on. So the answer to your question, is no, jobs shouldn't have to be re-evaluated by those people who can't take the trouble to figure out why they were justified in the first place, and then ending up agreeing that some jobs should be kept when challenged! Sounds to me, with all due respect, that you're not qualified for making such determinations and I doubt that any other members of Congress are either.

    I would say top down. First the department.
    Well, and ... do you have this list of departments?


    Why should we offer some criteria for the size of gov?
    Right now, the reality facing us is that there is no money and something has to go.
    We have to prioritize.
    There's plenty of money - they're calling government bonds. And there are plenty of rich people with excess money too that aren't paying their taxes. Perhaps we should do France's 50% tax for a while and get rid of the deficits and debt altogether.


    JJ:How is it that you have touch a hot stove to determine the harm done? Can you not use reasoning skills or history or even a bit of research?
    I don't see how that is an issue. It isn't like reevaluating things is inherently foolish, or unreasonable.
    No, but to bring jobs back only if they can be justified is inherently foolish and unreasonable. That's what you are proposing.

    Well, I'm not proposing to shut down the gov in order to ask these questions.
    No you are suggesting that since it is already shutdown then bringing them back should be done on a case by case basis.

    second, yes.. we can already take a second look.. that's why I propose doing it now...
    It can be done any time - but stopping them being brought back until that evaluation is done makes no sense.

    Third, as for research for the OP. The shut down has already labeled a lot of programs "non-essential", which means they are exactly the ones we should start with.
    So.. we have a starting point.. time for the conversation.
    Yet, earlier, you added back security and maintenance for America's national treasures. Similar arguments could be made across the board for a good first pass. So that's likely half the jobs returned if only you had already done your homework. It just doesn't sound realistic even as a conversation piece. And you also neglect the fact that some effects won't be felt for a long while; some of the sequester pain is only beginning to be noticed as money is running out (http://www.independent.com/news/2013...flicting-pain/).

    No, because the first question must be answered.. should we?
    We would have to agree on that before we start yes?
    In that case, the answer to the first case is a definite 'no'.

    Unfettered by actual income produced by it?
    To some extent yes, in that we can keep rolling over bonds to China. To another extent, no, in that we can raise taxes.


    So we shouldn't bother with this discussion that the OP proposes?
    Not if our little dialog about American heritage is any indication.

    Re-above with the exception of the otherwise "essential" area of the military, which is can have pork.. but not the "nonessential" areas?
    Do they not have pork?
    Sure. But I'm not saying that we should stop funding the military and bring it back piece meal either.


    That doesn't make it moot, in fact that we CAN have the discussion at any time means that we CAN discuss it now.
    Sure, as a ODN thing but not as a national thing or as a way to bring services back bit by bit.

    b) you've ended up agreeing in the short discussion we had that jobs could justified if they can show value or profitable, which is largely how the jobs were justified to begin with.
    This makes the faulty assumption that because they exist they should continue to exist.
    No, it means that because they exist, there is justification already.

    We can hardly move to that point without agreeing on some basics.
    This is true but it is largely a non-productive and directly harmful way to run the country.


    It may or may not be a real job (I know they have people that measure cracks in it.. not sure if that's all they do).
    But it wasn't an example of a specific job, but of the process.
    Sure, but by that measure then most jobs should be in the medical field but there aren't enough skilled people to do so. Plus, most of the jobs are clerical or administrative and non-technical so they're not going to measure up well to the more advanced jobs either. So who is going to keep the country clean and maintained. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

    So all women are like your sister, and we shouldn't even consider cutting back on the program?
    Sounds like a hasty generalization.
    No, those programs for not for all women - they are for women that need it: i.e. they cannot breast feed for whatever reason and they cannot afford the food for their baby. Harming the weakest among us is not what America is about (for some).

    So, the idea of woman breast feeding is ignorant, because that isn't how the world works. Women are not generally capable of breastfeeding. (Here capable is not to be confused with "easy", only possible).
    And you are educating me that woman can not breastfeed.
    No, I am saying you are ignorant of the reasons as to why those feeding programs exist. Or you don't care. Either one disqualifies you from making a decisions as to who gets to keep their jobs or not.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Basically, the gov shuts down and the sky doesn't fall. The stock market doesn't crash. The world doesn't end. What does occur is that we are generally one step further towards balancing our budget (as far as actual expenditures) and shrinking the size of gov. Maybe we should re-think about how the gov is applied to our lives, after all if we can live without them.. why do we need them?
    The sky is not falling and the stock market is not crashing because everyone know that the government is not gone anywhere, it's mearely closed and will reopen at worse within a few weeks. Thus, your argument based on the superficially perceived effects of the shutdown, as being a good representation of the usefulness of governement is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What does occur is that we are generally one step further towards balancing our budget (as far as actual expenditures)


    Why do you only outline expenditures if your concern is balancing the budget since the shutdown is actually costing hundreds of millions a day in a whole range of ways?

    Are you rooting for these workers not to be payed and if yes, why do you feel they should be penalized?
    In all previous modern shutdowns, workers did get payed thus I fail to see where money is being saved.
    Last edited by Vandaler; October 3rd, 2013 at 04:28 PM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  3. Thanks GoldPhoenix thanked for this post
  4. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not the topic of the OP. Thanks for the sarcasm, can you try a serious answer so we can forward a discussion?
    What MT? Please read the title of your thread. Please read your statement. You claimed the purpose of the houses action, I rebutted with the real purpose of the houses action. It is not sarcasm, it is accuracy.

    It seems the house is at some kind of consensus.. hence the bill they sent to the senate yes?
    They need to have consensus with the senate as well, obviously.

    So the rest of Washington is not doing exactly that? Is the senate standing on principle as well, or just "holding their breath and stomping their feet?"
    It isn't a matter of standing on principle, its a matter of legislating effectively. To legislate you need consensus and agreement. If you can't get it you can't make law. Pushing an agenda you can't get consensus on is not constructive. The affordable care act passed both bodies and the president. Trying to kill it through the back door is childish, especially when you don't have enough support to actually make it happen. To then hold the whole of the government hostage for that is extra childish and irresponsible.

    So you were saying that the entire shut down doesn't save any money at all, or not a significant amount?
    Not a significant amount. We have had numerous shut downs before, none of them resulted in a balanced budget or reduced deficit so far as I could tell.

    Would you agree that putting gov workers on vacation and shutting the gov down for no good reason is foolish and purposely hurtful to the nation?
    If it goes on long enough, yes. In the short term its more just disruptive and wasteful, but if it went on long enough it would be genuinely harmful.

    I hope that I have addressed this in the thread. If there is a question of clarity still let me know, I'll try to address it.
    Yes, if you want to be clear, you should divorce your thread from the shutdown and simply address if you feel that certain agencies are justified or not. Otherwise the shutdown is quite a relevant topic.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm not sure where you get that we can't afford it - is the money being magicked from Somewhere?
    “Can’t afford it” is in reference to the idea of spending more than one takes in. This occurs in any budget. If you take in $10 and spend $12, you (by definition) “can’t afford” the $2 over. This doesn’t change by adding zeros.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No conversation starts with blackmail. They end with it. It's largely why the Republican attempts to bring spending back piecemeal was soundly rejected (except for the military spending).
    The power of the purse is not “black-mail” it is inherent to having the power of the purse.
    It is also a stop gap for a fiscally irresponsible gov. If anything the house is at fault for not expressing it’s power of the purse to bring about a fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Sure, but your leaning towards a not smaller government from what I can tell thus far. And I agree!
    Yay

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Except that you haven't suspended a single job yet.
    Focus.. we are talking about the ground work first 

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Since you have no ideas then letting this idea move forward makes even less sense; you don't know the harm this route has wrought so continuing down this road is really about teaching you about the government. And you can learn that without having to shutdown everything and bring it back.
    I don’t see how that is true.
    We have to establish some agreed upon foundation, you haven’t agreed to anything, even the idea of re-evaluating.. then you criticize the lack of progress. That isn’t a very well thought out approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, if it doesn't make sense to cut something profitable then surely it also makes sense to do more 'profitable things'. Sounds to me like we should grow government more. Or tax more
    If that was the only principle at play, then I would agree with you. It isn’t the only principle at play, but if we agree on that one then we should agree that the jobs that already exist for the gov and produce income (such as parks) should not be cut.
    .. Now we find out how many jobs that generally can be said to apply to and subtract it from the 900k. .. sounds reasonable?

    The idea of growing those jobs that make money, may be a good idea.. maybe not, but that is outside of the scope of this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Whether it is worth asking for those jobs to be re-evaluated. You answer for the ones we discussed, yes, they should be brought back; you admit you have no pre-conceived idea about how it should turn out which speaks to a general lack of knowledge
    I think that is just a very bad assumption on your part, but as it isn’t a valid rebuttal to anything I have forwarded so far.. I’ll ignore it in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So the answer to your question, is no, jobs shouldn't have to be re-evaluated by those people who can't take the trouble to figure out why they were justified in the first place, and then ending up agreeing that some jobs should be kept when challenged! Sounds to me, with all due respect, that you're not qualified for making such determinations and I doubt that any other members of Congress are either.
    Straw-man. Honestly you are not being very generous with your assumptions.
    First of all, we are interested in what the original justification for jobs was, however those need to be weighed in relation to our current situation. The idea that even congress isn’t qualified means that they should all be cut.
    If congress isn’t qualified to oversee it, then they should not be authorized to run it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, and ... do you have this list of departments?
    Considering your objection that I am not qualified, I see no reason to go deeper into the subject until you concede that we are qualified to discuss the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    There's plenty of money - they're calling government bonds. And there are plenty of rich people with excess money too that aren't paying their taxes. Perhaps we should do France's 50% tax for a while and get rid of the deficits and debt altogether.
    Challenge – Support that a loan increases income
    Challenge – Support that the rich generally do not pay their taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, but to bring jobs back only if they can be justified is inherently foolish and unreasonable. That's what you are proposing.
    That is what I’m proposing.. how is it foolish? How is it unreasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No you are suggesting that since it is already shutdown then bringing them back should be done on a case by case basis.
    That is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It can be done any time - but stopping them being brought back until that evaluation is done makes no sense
    Well, as long as the gov is shut down, I think it makes sense to have the conversation, that way you don’t bring back wasteful jobs, or unjustifiable jobs for the fallacious reason that their existence be continued


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yet, earlier, you added back security and maintenance for America's national treasures.
    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Similar arguments could be made across the board for a good first pass.
    Challenge – Support that a similar argument can be made.
    Your basically ASSUMING the conclusion in a thread about the discussion that leads to that conclusion. That makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So that's likely half the jobs returned if only you had already done your homework.
    JJ, do you understand what a “debate” is? Do you understand how a discussion progresses naturally? Why are you repeatedly denying starting premises, then turning around and criticizing the lack of progress?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It just doesn't sound realistic even as a conversation piece. And you also neglect the fact that some effects won't be felt for a long while; some of the sequester pain is only beginning to be noticed as money is running out
    I’m not clicking on your link to see your support.. that is LINK WARS.
    Please don’t engage in link wars, as some drive by point.

    As to your actual point. Your claim of “realistic” is rhetoric, however you are correct that some things won’t have their effects felt for a long time.
    How/why should that keep us from re-evaluating these jobs?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    In that case, the answer to the first case is a definite 'no'.
    Could you please condense your support for this point, as there really is no point in discussing the rest of this until this is addressed. Being the starting point and all.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    To some extent yes, in that we can keep rolling over bonds to China. To another extent, no, in that we can raise taxes.
    I’m confused as to why you think bonds are “income”.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Sure. But I'm not saying that we should stop funding the military and bring it back piece meal either.
    Right, because it is “essential” and too important to be doing that with.
    The rest of the gov is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Sure, as a ODN thing but not as a national thing or as a way to bring services back bit by bit.
    Your changing context and not applying the point properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, it means that because they exist, there is justification already.
    No, it means they were justified when they started… new budget, it’s time again to see if that justification holds to current situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    This is true but it is largely a non-productive and directly harmful way to run the country.
    How is it harmful to establish common ground?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Sure, but by that measure then most jobs should be in the medical field but there aren't enough skilled people to do so. Plus, most of the jobs are clerical or administrative and non-technical so they're not going to measure up well to the more advanced jobs either. So who is going to keep the country clean and maintained. It just doesn't seem to make sense.
    So you think that because medical field jobs would be highest on our priority list, then we would have no maintenance jobs? How does that follow?
    You seem to be going to the extreme with any idea that is forwarded.

    [QUOT=JJ] No, those programs for not for all women - they are for women that need it: i.e. they cannot breast feed for whatever reason and they cannot afford the food for their baby. Harming the weakest among us is not what America is about (for some). [/QUOTE]
    Challenge – Support that WIC is only for woman that can not breast feed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, I am saying you are ignorant of the reasons as to why those feeding programs exist. Or you don't care. Either one disqualifies you from making a decisions as to who gets to keep their jobs or not.
    My ignorance (if any) is not a valid rebuttal to the point I made. I proposed that programs that provide formula to newborns who’s mothers could produce milk, should be cut.
    If there is information missing then you should provide it, otherwise you are only arguing from ignorance. (Ironic, that you would be guilty of such a fallacy while claiming I am ignorant)
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. Likes Someguy liked this post
  7. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    “Can’t afford it” is in reference to the idea of spending more than one takes in. This occurs in any budget. If you take in $10 and spend $12, you (by definition) “can’t afford” the $2 over. This doesn’t change by adding zeros.
    But we sell government bonds to get the money - so what are you talking about? We can totally afford it.


    The power of the purse is not “black-mail” it is inherent to having the power of the purse.
    It is also a stop gap for a fiscally irresponsible gov. If anything the house is at fault for not expressing it’s power of the purse to bring about a fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.
    Spending money that they themselves requested? Really?

    I don’t see how that is true.
    We have to establish some agreed upon foundation, you haven’t agreed to anything, even the idea of re-evaluating.. then you criticize the lack of progress. That isn’t a very well thought out approach.
    It's all very well saying that you wanted a foundation first after I pointed out that you failed to provide one. It's your idea you come up with the foundation!

    JJ:Well, if it doesn't make sense to cut something profitable then surely it also makes sense to do more 'profitable things'. Sounds to me like we should grow government more. Or tax more
    If that was the only principle at play, then I would agree with you. It isn’t the only principle at play, but if we agree on that one then we should agree that the jobs that already exist for the gov and produce income (such as parks) should not be cut.
    .. Now we find out how many jobs that generally can be said to apply to and subtract it from the 900k. .. sounds reasonable?
    Go ahead - I can't do the work for you.

    The idea of growing those jobs that make money, may be a good idea.. maybe not, but that is outside of the scope of this discussion.
    It's entirely within the scope because you want to take this as an opportunity to trim government but within a couple of posts you posited growing it with no limit!


    JJ:Whether it is worth asking for those jobs to be re-evaluated. You answer for the ones we discussed, yes, they should be brought back; you admit you have no pre-conceived idea about how it should turn out which speaks to a general lack of knowledge
    I think that is just a very bad assumption on your part, but as it isn’t a valid rebuttal to anything I have forwarded so far.. I’ll ignore it in the future.
    That was a description of how easily you agreed to probably get the jobs for managing national treasures more or less back to where they were. All I'm proposing is that you do some homework first and come back with those jobs that you have found don't qualify rather than having everyone get bogged down with all the boring details. It's your claim that it's a good idea but you haven't done basic homework to demonstrate it in anyway.


    JJ:So the answer to your question, is no, jobs shouldn't have to be re-evaluated by those people who can't take the trouble to figure out why they were justified in the first place, and then ending up agreeing that some jobs should be kept when challenged! Sounds to me, with all due respect, that you're not qualified for making such determinations and I doubt that any other members of Congress are either.
    Straw-man. Honestly you are not being very generous with your assumptions.
    First of all, we are interested in what the original justification for jobs was, however those need to be weighed in relation to our current situation. The idea that even congress isn’t qualified means that they should all be cut.
    If congress isn’t qualified to oversee it, then they should not be authorized to run it.
    Not at all a straw-man. I am pointing out that your OP is weak out of the gate. That it would be better to restart government to give you time to get your facts in order rather than bringing it back piecemeal, which thus far looks like getting things back to the levels they were and indeed, ever further if profitable.

    Not at all, I am saying the people (e.g. you) haven't done the homework to justify not having the jobs. Other people have already done their homework to bring the jobs into existence so it is up to you to rebut it and fire them. However, since you haven't done your homework, you can very well sack everyone and cost the country $300,000 a day whilst you figure things out.


    Considering your objection that I am not qualified, I see no reason to go deeper into the subject until you concede that we are qualified to discuss the matter.
    This is true. You do need to prove that you know what departments you are talking about first. That's why I'm asking and why it should be in the OP. I've already demonstrated that an ignorant (no offense) approach is not an effective one.

    Challenge – Support that a loan increases income
    Challenge – Support that the rich generally do not pay their taxes.
    A loan by definition brings in more money now to be paid back in the future at some interest rate. It's how bonds work. All the off-shore accounts support that rich people are hiding their money.

    JJ:No, but to bring jobs back only if they can be justified is inherently foolish and unreasonable. That's what you are proposing.
    That is what I’m proposing.. how is it foolish? How is it unreasonable?
    Well, it took us three rounds to get museum jobs back to where they were. I have no idea how many times we'd have to do this but I reckon that at a cost of $300,000 a day to the economy, harm to health of children either directly through lack of food or health care, of indirectly by their parents not earning money, is not an effective way to do this.

    It's foolish because in the three days that it took you to concede that national treasures should be maintained properly, those people have lost three days of pay and they likely live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford that loss. Are you prepared to pay them back with interest when they get their jobs back?

    Meanwhile, all the children that aren't getting food or health care are being directly harmed. And that is another foolishness: not prioritizing anything.

    Well, as long as the gov is shut down, I think it makes sense to have the conversation, that way you don’t bring back wasteful jobs, or unjustifiable jobs for the fallacious reason that their existence be continued
    Those jobs haven't gone away - people have just been furloughed! They haven't been fired and they don't have to reapply for their jobs. Now you're really not making sense!

    JJ:Yet, earlier, you added back security and maintenance for America's national treasures.
    So what?
    It means that we're back to where we started and the exercise is moot. That is your idea doesn't hold water.

    JJ:Similar arguments could be made across the board for a good first pass.
    Challenge – Support that a similar argument can be made.
    Your basically ASSUMING the conclusion in a thread about the discussion that leads to that conclusion. That makes no sense.
    Well, I don't want to do your work for you. It's clear that your lack of detail in the OP means the idea is poorly thought out and not planned. But you have already conceded that maintenance should be provided to national treasures: that should apply across the board for every department for every building: you need people to keep the places running. And other horizontals could be found too but you don't get that for free.

    JJ:So that's likely half the jobs returned if only you had already done your homework.
    JJ, do you understand what a “debate” is? Do you understand how a discussion progresses naturally? Why are you repeatedly denying starting premises, then turning around and criticizing the lack of progress?
    I do understand. I instantly saw the idea wouldn't work and could see the Republicans trying to do the same for politically expedient programs that were roundly rejected by Reid. I took a couple of rounds to show that jobs for one section of government would likely come back and you agreed and even offered the possibility of even more jobs.

    Here I'm merely pointing out that if you had prepared the OP a bit better then we could have a proper debate about something more specific. Instead, we have to go through all the obvious stuff first. I'm defeating the OP by showing it is an inefficient and harmful means to approach the problem; mainly because a blank slate approach is just not efficient but also because this could be done after the government starts back up.


    As to your actual point. Your claim of “realistic” is rhetoric, however you are correct that some things won’t have their effects felt for a long time.
    How/why should that keep us from re-evaluating these jobs?
    Because when you actually get around to a program that's important (since you have done no homework, you haven't prioritized anything but even if you do, the point stands because you could still miss something) it may well have done a great deal of damage. Whereas letting everything start back and then doing your evaluations would be a better approach and much cheaper.


    In that case, the answer to the first case is a definite 'no'.
    Could you please condense your support for this point, as there really is no point in discussing the rest of this until this is addressed. Being the starting point and all.
    1. Blank slate approach is inefficient - you have no plan here and are just taking advantage of an opportunity to make these judgements.
    2. In initial foray as shown that you agree that jobs should come back and you proposed even more potential jobs. This immediately indicates that you haven't thought this out at all and we'd just all be wasting time whilst you figure out how the world works. ('you' being the GOP House - I doubt the Democrats would waste their time).
    3. I have supported at least one horizontal - that of maintenance - that should come back. So that's one big slice of jobs. Again showing that this is a worthless exercise.
    4. I have also supported that harm is being done whilst things are being figured out. Again due to the ad hoc nature of this approach there is no prioritization in place along the the lack of plan or even criteria or principles; this is a very poorly thought out idea.
    5. You also didn't even have a required budget in place to work from and you don't have a time frame or the resources to achieve this.

    I’m confused as to why you think bonds are “income”.
    They bring money in now. If we earn more value as a country than what we pay out in interest then we got free money.


    Right, because it is “essential” and too important to be doing that with.
    The rest of the gov is not the case.
    But you have already agreed that we don't want to keep government at an 'essential' level. Right? Are you backtracking on the jobs you'd agreed to for national monuments?


    JJ:Sure, as a ODN thing but not as a national thing or as a way to bring services back bit by bit.
    Your changing context and not applying the point properly.
    Well, as a pretend thing there is no harm done. As a real thing its a very poor idea.

    No, it means they were justified when they started… new budget, it’s time again to see if that justification holds to current situation.
    What new budget? So even before we start on your poor unplanned idea, someone has to come up with a budget too! This is sounding worse and worse with every post!

    JJ:This is true but it is largely a non-productive and directly harmful way to run the country.
    How is it harmful to establish common ground?
    In this political climate? Where the Democrats have already given the Republicans the budget sacrifices they wanted, they're rewarded with a shutdown?


    So you think that because medical field jobs would be highest on our priority list, then we would have no maintenance jobs? How does that follow?
    You seem to be going to the extreme with any idea that is forwarded.
    This is your scenario that doesn't make sense, not mine.

    [QUOT=JJ] No, those programs for not for all women - they are for women that need it: i.e. they cannot breast feed for whatever reason and they cannot afford the food for their baby. Harming the weakest among us is not what America is about (for some).
    Challenge – Support that WIC is only for woman that can not breast feed.
    [/QUOTE]
    I didn't say it was just for that. That was your incorrect reading of what the program did.

    My ignorance (if any) is not a valid rebuttal to the point I made. I proposed that programs that provide formula to newborns who’s mothers could produce milk, should be cut.
    If there is information missing then you should provide it, otherwise you are only arguing from ignorance. (Ironic, that you would be guilty of such a fallacy while claiming I am ignorant)
    Of course it is! It proves that you have no idea what you area talking about even for a single program. You throwing out a poor idea and having me do the hard work of teaching you is not how this debate is going to go.

    I have already shown that your blank slate approach is largely my work of persuading you of stuff you should already know. If it's going to be like that then you don't deserve the right to make these decisions in the first place and hence your OP is defeated. Don't forget you are haven't planned this out - you're just jumping on a situation and trying to trim some jobs. But because you haven't planned, time is being wasted while you figure everything out.

    My ignorance on any of these matters is irrelevant because it's not me making the claim that it's a good idea. I've shown to be capable of working with you to get programs back so those jobs shouldn't be cut or delayed in the first place. You are making all those people that would end up getting the jobs back suffer, and the country suffer just to get rid of a few jobs. And because you don't even have a plan or knowledge about the departments at hand (or rather in the OP), you don't even really know how many jobs you'd think you'd shave and how much money you'd end up saving.

    In short, it's a complete disaster of an idea and would only delay the restoration of our country should it ever be implemented, with no time frame as to when you expect it to be done by, no budget to work off, no plan, no idea of a plan since it was me that brought it up, and no sense of priorities. There is so little thought other than "let's bring the jobs back bit by bit" that to call it an idea would be a stretch.

    I think I've pretty much covered most of the reasons why this is a bad idea. I still have to hear a single good reason for it!

  8. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    But we sell government bonds to get the money - so what are you talking about? We can totally afford it.
    Government bonds operate on the principle that they pay out more than what they are sold for!

    Its EXACTLY like using a credit card and accruing interest.

    Since when did having a credit card mean you could actually afford something?
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  9. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028, Someguy liked this post
  10. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Government bonds operate on the principle that they pay out more than what they are sold for!

    Its EXACTLY like using a credit card and accruing interest.

    Since when did having a credit card mean you could actually afford something?
    Yes, but if you can make more money with the borrowed money than you're paying out then you have a net gain. Plus having money is better than not having money because of other opportunity costs that you cannot take advantage of.

    It's a mistake to think of it as credit cards because the government (no government) is a person. They have many resources that can be used as collateral for the loans. And the bonds roll over at set intervals so the interest doesn't accrue forever.

    So long as there are people willing to buy bonds that will never default we will be fine. It's why we must never be seen doing so and why it's so lovely to see Rand Paul try and argue that not raising the debt ceiling is not a default because:

    Paul argued that the House has passed a bill, the Full Faith and Credit law, that mandates payments on debt interest, Social Security, Medicare and soldier’s salaries go out first. He said that if the debt ceiling is breached, other government function wouldn’t get financed, but that no default would occur.

    “I’m for taking default completely off the table and for promising to the American people and the markets, to Wall Street, that we will always pay the interest on the debt as a priority,” he said. “You know how we do that? We bring in $250 billion in tax revenue every month. The debt payment is about $30 billion. We just promise that we’ll always pay it. “

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326265-paul-theres-no-reason-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling

  11. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    Yes, but if you can make more money with the borrowed money than you're paying out then you have a net gain.
    And how are they going to do that? The government does not "make money". Its source of revenue is taxes and fees. Borrowed money is not used as capital for increased production, but in order to continue expenditures that do not return a profit.

    Its exactly like an individual using a credit card.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  12. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    And how are they going to do that? The government does not "make money". Its source of revenue is taxes and fees. Borrowed money is not used as capital for increased production, but in order to continue expenditures that do not return a profit.

    Its exactly like an individual using a credit card.
    The government is not there to make a profit for itself. It is there to ensure the smooth running of the country and the decisions it makes is for the entire country on behalf of the country with the authority vested in it.

    So if we borrow $$$$ to fix a road then that money isn't recouped directly via tolls but in ensuring that actual revenue generating deliveries can be made. Without the road then there'd be no business, the country suffers and there is less tax revenue.

    And it may not happen immediately and it make take decades to recoup money on large projects. But a country lives forever so it can borrow forever. So long as they are credit worthy I don't see a problem. It's nothing like a human except in a very narrow sense.

  13. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Indeed, repeal the Reagan tax cuts. Problem solved.

    This is a wealthy nation, completely capable of paying its bills yet one faction is unwilling to do so. Let's just hope our credit rating is too wrecked by this.
    Would this "faction" be the 47% that do not pay taxes?

    This is also a nation that is operating way outside its Constitutional authority.
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  14. Likes PatriotDani91, Someguy liked this post
  15. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The government is not there to make a profit for itself. It is there to ensure the smooth running of the country and the decisions it makes is for the entire country on behalf of the country with the authority vested in it.

    So if we borrow $$$$ to fix a road then that money isn't recouped directly via tolls but in ensuring that actual revenue generating deliveries can be made. Without the road then there'd be no business, the country suffers and there is less tax revenue.

    And it may not happen immediately and it make take decades to recoup money on large projects. But a country lives forever so it can borrow forever. So long as they are credit worthy I don't see a problem. It's nothing like a human except in a very narrow sense.
    That's delusional. No country lives forever. And we have been borrowing money for decades and all we have done is go deeper in debt. By your logic, our investments made decades of go should be paying off and reducing our debt, but that is not what happens. We only increase our expenditures, so even if there was increased revenue, it is irrelevant. You can't keep piling on more expenditures like Obamacare and hope to work your way out of debt. As for our credit, it is delusional to think that it will remain high forever simply because it is now. Our credit rating was downgraded a few years ago for the first time in our history. There is no inherent reason why we cannot ruin our credit and simply run ourselves into the ground. Your argument amounts to a delusional and blind belief that "It just can't happen here".
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  16. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The government is not there to make a profit for itself. It is there to ensure the smooth running of the country and the decisions it makes is for the entire country on behalf of the country with the authority vested in it.
    Considering that we are 17 trillion in debt, I would say that the "Purpose" that you assigned the government, has failed utterly.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    But we sell government bonds to get the money - so what are you talking about? We can totally afford it.
    Chad has addressed this very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Spending money that they themselves requested? Really?
    If “they themselves” is in reference to past houses… yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's entirely within the scope because you want to take this as an opportunity to trim government but within a couple of posts you posited growing it with no limit!
    False, I have not asked for anything new and thus not asked to grow gov in any way.
    Your simply twisting any idea to fit your per-concieved notion. You seem to be so focused on what you want it to say, that you have ignored my correction of your perception.



    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    A loan by definition brings in more money now to be paid back in the future at some interest rate. It's how bonds work. All the off-shore accounts support that rich people are hiding their money.
    -Loans-
    Bringing in more money in that way is not “income” anymore than a credit card is income.

    -Taxes-
    Your idea of “Hiding” money is not illegal, and is encouraged by the tax code. That doesn’t support that the rich do not pay taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I have no idea how many times we'd have to do this but I reckon that at a cost of $300,000 a day to the economy, harm to health of children either directly through lack of food or health care, of indirectly by their parents not earning money, is not an effective way to do this.
    Challenge – support that we lose $300,000 a day for the economy.

    The negatives are the result a shut-down.. not the result of re-evaluation.
    We already have the shut down.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's foolish because in the three days that it took you to concede that national treasures should be maintained properly, those people have lost three days of pay and they likely live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford that loss. Are you prepared to pay them back with interest when they get their jobs back?
    Again, you need to separate the idea of the shut down with what we are doing here.
    The shut down is going down even if we don’t re-evaluate these jobs. If we only bring back the few thousand museum jobs. 20,500 – 22,000 Paid jobs (There are 145,000 volunteers) http://usparks.about.com/od/usnation...l-Park-Faq.htm

    So yes, we quickly re-established the reasonable justification for 22k jobs of 900k .. Progress indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Those jobs haven't gone away - people have just been furloughed! They haven't been fired and they don't have to reapply for their jobs. Now you're really not making sense!
    It wasn’t a very complicated idea, yet you seem to be twisting it beyond recognition.
    I have already said that whatever job isn’t justifiable should be fired properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It means that we're back to where we started and the exercise is moot. That is your idea doesn't hold water.
    That is a hasty generalization to think that because we can agree on 22k jobs that the other 880K are thus also justified.



    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    But you have already agreed that we don't want to keep government at an 'essential' level. Right? Are you backtracking on the jobs you'd agreed to for national monuments?
    I didn’t “backtrack” because I didn’t start by saying the parks should not be funded.
    Why do you keep trying to use agreement as a tool for bludgeting your opponents in a discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, as a pretend thing there is no harm done. As a real thing its a very poor idea.
    What context are we talking about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    What new budget? So even before we start on your poor unplanned idea, someone has to come up with a budget too! This is sounding worse and worse with every post!
    Yes, a budget sounds like a terrible idea.. I see your point. It’s much better that we don’t have a gov budget ever.

    Or…or..
    I was talking about the fact that the gov is basically having a budget battle, and that means it is time to discuss budget issues, and this is a budget issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    This is your scenario that doesn't make sense, not mine.
    Not really, what you keep referencing is nothing like what I have said.

    [QUTOE=JJ] I didn't say it was just for that. That was your incorrect reading of what the program did. [/QUOTE]
    You seem to be having trouble with context here. If we cut out the service of giving formula to newborns who’s mothers can breast feed.. then we will have cut spending in that department.. which is exactly what we are trying to do.
    You keep switching from general to specific and back again without any proper application.

    ----summary—
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    1. Blank slate approach is inefficient - you have no plan here and are just taking advantage of an opportunity to make these judgements.
    2. In initial foray as shown that you agree that jobs should come back and you proposed even more potential jobs. This immediately indicates that you haven't thought this out at all and we'd just all be wasting time whilst you figure out how the world works. ('you' being the GOP House - I doubt the Democrats would waste their time).
    3. I have supported at least one horizontal - that of maintenance - that should come back. So that's one big slice of jobs. Again showing that this is a worthless exercise.
    4. I have also supported that harm is being done whilst things are being figured out. Again due to the ad hoc nature of this approach there is no prioritization in place along the the lack of plan or even criteria or principles; this is a very poorly thought out idea.
    5. You also didn't even have a required budget in place to work from and you don't have a time frame or the resources to achieve this.
    1) Blank slate approach.. I assume this a reference to the idea of evaluating all the jobs that were deemed as “non-essential” by each department. First of all it is efficient because it is taking advantage of what is already occurring(gov shut down), and taking advantage of the internal evaluation from each department has submitted in declaring what jobs are “non-essential”. It may be inefficient to propose a shut down and then a re-evaluation, but that is not being done here.

    2) You idea of an “initial foray” is a hasty generalization. Implying that because we agree on 22k jobs, that all 900k jobs are thus equivalent. It seems based on your general unwillingness to even consider the discussion and your eagerness to dismiss your opponent.

    3) Your horizontal line was not very big at all, as I supported in the thread it’s only 22k jobs.

    4) Any “harm” is already being done by the shut down, not by the idea of re-evaluation.

    5) The time frame would be, while the shut down lasts. But your position has been that the idea of re-evaluation doesn’t have any merit. Based on your 5 points, that idea is poorly based, and we should evaluate these jobs. If you concede that should and agree to engage in that debate we can move forward.


    6) Your objection's regarding lack of planning, lack of understanding, lack of a budget etc. Are all irrelevant to the core question in the OP, which is the ground work that must be accepted before anything like that is even worth while. As long as you disagree that we should have the discussion, there is no reason to develop a plan for such a discussion. Your criticism on those lines is nothing more than rhetoric which should be ignored by people serious about the topic.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  18. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    That's delusional. No country lives forever.
    Then in that case it's an even better idea! You've just defeated your own point.

    And we have been borrowing money for decades and all we have done is go deeper in debt. By your logic, our investments made decades of go should be paying off and reducing our debt, but that is not what happens. We only increase our expenditures, so even if there was increased revenue, it is irrelevant. You can't keep piling on more expenditures like Obamacare and hope to work your way out of debt.
    That's just an argument for spending the money better. It. Doesn't mean we shouldn't borrow. It is still not like a credit care loan.

    As for our credit, it is delusional to think that it will remain high forever simply because it is now. Our credit rating was downgraded a few years ago for the first time in our history. There is no inherent reason why we cannot ruin our credit and simply run ourselves into the ground. Your argument amounts to a delusional and blind belief that "It just can't happen here".
    Well, if it happens then we just won't be able to issue more debt at a rate that we can spend. It's hardly delusional, it's how things are supposed to work. This is just another chicken little argument with no basis in reality; it is certainly no reason not to borrow so it doesn't support your argument at all. Still not like a credit card.

    ---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Considering that we are 17 trillion in debt, I would say that the "Purpose" that you assigned the government, has failed utterly.
    It's worked perfectly. That we are able to honor the bonds as they expire builds confidence in them. And because people continue to buy more then clearly it is working in every sense of the word. I don't see the problem.

  19. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Chad has addressed this very well.
    He's arguing that all debt is the same; that government borrowing is just like a personal credit card. But I'll complete the point with him.

    If “they themselves” is in reference to past houses… yes.
    What are you talking about - it's the same house that worked on the budget that they themselves rejected!


    False, I have not asked for anything new and thus not asked to grow gov in any way.
    Your simply twisting any idea to fit your per-concieved notion. You seem to be so focused on what you want it to say, that you have ignored my correction of your perception.
    You said " it doesn't make sense to cut programs that are profiting." if "gov that is short on money". I'm not twisting anything at all. I'm saying that as we reason through your idea, we haven't shed a single job.

    -Loans-
    Bringing in more money in that way is not “income” anymore than a credit card is income.

    -Taxes-
    Your idea of “Hiding” money is not illegal, and is encouraged by the tax code. That doesn’t support that the rich do not pay taxes.
    Consider it dropped - it's irrelevant to your OP being defeated.

    Challenge – support that we lose $300,000 a day for the economy.

    The negatives are the result a shut-down.. not the result of re-evaluation.
    We already have the shut down.
    Consider it dropped - it's irrelevant to your OP being defeated.


    Again, you need to separate the idea of the shut down with what we are doing here.
    The shut down is going down even if we don’t re-evaluate these jobs. If we only bring back the few thousand museum jobs. 20,500 – 22,000 Paid jobs (There are 145,000 volunteers) http://usparks.about.com/od/usnation...l-Park-Faq.htm

    So yes, we quickly re-established the reasonable justification for 22k jobs of 900k .. Progress indeed.
    2% in one week - at this rate it's going to take a couple of years to get this done.

    It wasn’t a very complicated idea, yet you seem to be twisting it beyond recognition.
    I have already said that whatever job isn’t justifiable should be fired properly.
    Wrong, you have said that jobs that can't be re-justified. Stop changing the scenario - the jobs have already been justified - what we are doing here is getting you to learn this. It's not quite the same process as justifying jobs - it is educating you.


    JJ: It means that we're back to where we started and the exercise is moot. That is your idea doesn't hold water.
    That is a hasty generalization to think that because we can agree on 22k jobs that the other 880K are thus also justified.
    Sure, but I suspect that we could spend a couple of weeks going through jobs that I think we should keep and still not even be much further along. As I'm going to continuing saying, there are better ways to do this, and the justifications you are talking about have already been done: this is just a public spectacle, which is why Reid didn't go along with the ludicrous mini-bills that the Republicans are pushing.


    MT:Right, because it is “essential” and too important to be doing that with.
    The rest of the gov is not the case.

    JJ:But you have already agreed that we don't want to keep government at an 'essential' level. Right? Are you backtracking on the jobs you'd agreed to for national monuments?

    I didn’t “backtrack” because I didn’t start by saying the parks should not be funded.
    Why do you keep trying to use agreement as a tool for bludgeting your opponents in a discussion?
    Please keep track of what is being discussed. It helps if you do as I have to do - put your comments in context.

    I am not accusing you of backtracking that 'parks should not be funded'. I am accusing you on backtracking that they should.

    I am not using agreement to bludgeon you. I am using your agreement to show that your idea is a bad one, and that for each job you agree to bring back is a validation that it is a worthless exercise. To bring make the point even more stark, you have yet to dismiss a job, which is your stated goal.


    JJ:Sure, as a ODN thing but not as a national thing or as a way to bring services back bit by bit.
    Your changing context and not applying the point properly.

    What context are we talking about it?
    Whether this is a theoretical discussion or whether you are advocating and supporting the republicans doing the same thing.

    JJ: No, it means that because they exist, there is justification already.
    No, it means they were justified when they started… new budget, it’s time again to see if that justification holds to current situation.
    JJ: What new budget? So even before we start on your poor unplanned idea, someone has to come up with a budget too! This is sounding worse and worse with every post!
    MT: Yes, a budget sounds like a terrible idea.. I see your point. It’s much better that we don’t have a gov budget ever.
    I'm not complaining about a budget, I'm complaining that you are proposing a new one. Hence your even before we can even discuss your OP, we need to figure out the budget first - the 'new budget' you mention. So yet again you defeat your own OP.


    Or…or..
    I was talking about the fact that the gov is basically having a budget battle, and that means it is time to discuss budget issues, and this is a budget issue.
    No, the disagreement is whether defunding ObamaCare should be added on an already agreed upon budget. Either way, that we need to come up with a new budget means that we're not even ready to begin discussing your OP.



    JJ: Sure, but by that measure then most jobs should be in the medical field but there aren't enough skilled people to do so. Plus, most of the jobs are clerical or administrative and non-technical so they're not going to measure up well to the more advanced jobs either. So who is going to keep the country clean and maintained. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

    MT:So you think that because medical field jobs would be highest on our priority list, then we would have no maintenance jobs? How does that follow?

    MT: You seem to be going to the extreme with any idea that is forwarded.

    JJ:This is your scenario that doesn't make sense, not mine.

    Not really, what you keep referencing is nothing like what I have said.
    I am trying to draw conclusions from what you've been saying and figuring how you are trying to implement this and what your principles are. But given that you haven't even decided what the budget should be (above) then discussing even this is way to early.





    [QUTOE=JJ] I didn't say it was just for that. That was your incorrect reading of what the program did.
    You seem to be having trouble with context here. If we cut out the service of giving formula to newborns who’s mothers can breast feed.. then we will have cut spending in that department.. which is exactly what we are trying to do.
    You keep switching from general to specific and back again without any proper application.
    [/QUOTE]
    That seems to stem from your OP not having much detail to be honest. But in this case your ignorance on the matter means that it will be a long struggle to get you to understand each program.


    1) Blank slate approach.. I assume this a reference to the idea of evaluating all the jobs that were deemed as “non-essential” by each department. First of all it is efficient because it is taking advantage of what is already occurring(gov shut down), and taking advantage of the internal evaluation from each department has submitted in declaring what jobs are “non-essential”. It may be inefficient to propose a shut down and then a re-evaluation, but that is not being done here.
    No, by blank slate, I mean that you're approaching this knowing nothing about how to approach the problem. It is taking advantage of a situation to do something that has already been done and is therefore redundant, assuming we even get to the point of evaluating the jobs in the first place since you don't seem to have basics, such as a budget, in place. It's the biggest weakness about the whole idea.

    2) You idea of an “initial foray” is a hasty generalization. Implying that because we agree on 22k jobs, that all 900k jobs are thus equivalent. It seems based on your general unwillingness to even consider the discussion and your eagerness to dismiss your opponent.
    Well, I'm certainly eager to dismiss the OP so that we can move into more realistic discussions. Especially since it took only one post to get you to admit the first jobs that came to my mind that wasn't obviously important. But more so because you keep defeating your own OP - even to the point of not even operating under an existing budget!

    3) Your horizontal line was not very big at all, as I supported in the thread it’s only 22k jobs.
    I didn't make any claim on how large that slice just that there was one. The point being that you have to look horizontally and vertically. It was to help you determine quickly that it's likely most of those jobs make sense and that there is no need for evaluation. That your OP is defeated.

    4) Any “harm” is already being done by the shut down, not by the idea of re-evaluation.
    So wait, so in determining that the jobs are to be kept, you are not actually proposing to bring them immediately back but you are going to wait until the government starts up again? This is sounding worse and worse with every post. (Or less and less clear)

    5) The time frame would be, while the shut down lasts. But your position has been that the idea of re-evaluation doesn’t have any merit. Based on your 5 points, that idea is poorly based, and we should evaluate these jobs. If you concede that should and agree to engage in that debate we can move forward.
    Yes, but what happens when the shutdown ends? Does this program stop or do we carry on? If we carry on then why not wait until the government has been restored and do it. Plus, given that there is no government, who exactly are you going to pay to do this job for sorting out who keeps what? Even if you manage to bring back some people to do it, everyone you'd have to talk to in order to justify the jobs to begin with have been furloughed!

    6) Your objection's regarding lack of planning, lack of understanding, lack of a budget etc. Are all irrelevant to the core question in the OP, which is the ground work that must be accepted before anything like that is even worth while. As long as you disagree that we should have the discussion, there is no reason to develop a plan for such a discussion. Your criticism on those lines is nothing more than rhetoric which should be ignored by people serious about the topic.
    Well, actually, they're not irrelevant points. It is because you have done no groundwork that you have had to agree to keep all the jobs we have discussed and dismissed zero jobs. It isn't me saying that we shouldn't have a discussion but you that keep showing that there are things we need before having it; just in this last round you said that there should be a new budget: so how exactly are we to do this without a budget in mind first?

    Finally, and I know this isn't important to you, but it is important to me. I know people who have been furloughed and they're not having a great time - this isn't a vacation, it is not being able to feed their children. On top of this you want to add the additional stress that their jobs might not exist. So what is a furloughed employee supposed to do? Start looking for another job? It isn't their fault that they took a job that could not be at risk because someone thought it was a good idea to 'take advantage' of the downtime to tell people not to bother returning.

    As per usual, right-wing 'economic' solutions to human problems fail on a human level. By the way, you have yet to state anything positive about this idea.

  20. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    By the way, you have yet to state anything positive about this idea.
    Here's one positive idea: The House has already voted and re-voted several times to keep the government running, while putting a one-year hold on Obamacare. President Obama can end the shutdown immediately. He can choose to have a serious conversation with congressional leadership and discuss the real issue driving the shutdown.

    He has already delayed or repealed about 14 provisions in his health care bill.
    Last edited by eye4magic; October 4th, 2013 at 10:14 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  21. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Wrong, you have said that jobs that can't be re-justified
    yes, that is what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Stop changing the scenario - the jobs have already been justified - what we are doing here is getting you to learn this. It's not quite the same process as justifying jobs - it is educating you.
    Yes they were justified in the past, now we should discuss if it is still justified, or if the previous reasons still hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I am not accusing you of backtracking that 'parks should not be funded'. I am accusing you on backtracking that they should.
    You seem more concerned about me conceding a point so that you can beat me over the head with it, then in actually discussing the issues or principles by which we should evaluate those jobs.

    If you think I am going back and forth on the departments it is because I am not set on any given decision. As such you should read to much into me changing my mind or rethinking any specific department. I could say, yes we should keep X department. Then say, no.. no we shouldn't, not because that department is bad, but because this other one is more important.

    You seem to be coming from a zero sum approach and don't seem to be grasping the concept of what it means to evaluate and prioritize spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm not complaining about a budget, I'm complaining that you are proposing a new one. Hence your even before we can even discuss your OP, we need to figure out the budget first - the 'new budget' you mention. So yet again you defeat your own OP.
    That doesn't make any sense, nor follow from anything that I have forwarded so far.
    It's just more rehtroric.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, the disagreement is whether defunding ObamaCare should be added on an already agreed upon budget. Either way, that we need to come up with a new budget means that we're not even ready to begin discussing your OP.
    So now your back to the position that we shouldn't have the discussion.
    Seriously, I am not addressing any of your complaints/objections regarding cutting a single job until you agree to start discussing it.
    Whatever you respond to in your next post that is not relevant to a defense of your position that we should not have this discussion is going to be ignored, unless you concede that we should discuss it. I'm not going to subject myself to your constantly falling back to a fundamental objection, then jumping forward and complaining about the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I am trying to draw conclusions from what you've been saying and figuring how you are trying to implement this and what your principles are. But given that you haven't even decided what the budget should be (above) then discussing even this is way to early.
    Any budget would be the end product of applying the principles. You are putting the cart before the horse.

    But you can consider that a non-issue if you are going to continue to maintain that we shouldn't start.

    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, by blank slate, I mean that you're approaching this knowing nothing about how to approach the problem.
    You are confusing my lack of moving forward(for reasons I have explained) for actual lack of knowledge.
    You are confusing coming to the table without pre-concieved notions of any particular department or job, as a lack of knowledge.

    I will be skipping any further reference by you of a "clean slate".

    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, I'm certainly eager to dismiss the OP so that we can move into more realistic discussions. Especially since it took only one post to get you to admit the first jobs that came to my mind that wasn't obviously important. But more so because you keep defeating your own OP - even to the point of not even operating under an existing budget!
    So you concede that you are not approaching this in a fair minded way then.

    3
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I didn't make any claim on how large that slice just that there was one. The point being that you have to look horizontally and vertically. It was to help you determine quickly that it's likely most of those jobs make sense and that there is no need for evaluation. That your OP is defeated.
    So your not rebutting the "hasty generalization" point at all.

    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So wait, so in determining that the jobs are to be kept, you are not actually proposing to bring them immediately back but you are going to wait until the government starts up again? This is sounding worse and worse with every post. (Or less and less clear)
    The ones that would be deemed justifiable would come back when the gov does, and the ones that don't would be fired properly.
    What is bad about that?


    5
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes, but what happens when the shutdown ends? Does this program stop or do we carry on?
    I would say that until the budget is balanced we should continue to prioritize and evaluate our spending against what we have to spend.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If we carry on then why not wait until the government has been restored and do it.
    Because there is no reason to wait, and waiting costs money.


    6
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, actually, they're not irrelevant points. It is because you have done no groundwork that you have had to agree to keep all the jobs we have discussed and dismissed zero jobs.
    You put far to much weight on a single example (an extension of your hasty generalization fallacy).
    You also forget that after that we discussed another and were not in agreement. So it is false that we have agreed on ALL the jobs we considered so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It isn't me saying that we shouldn't have a discussion but you that keep showing that there are things we need before having it; just in this last round you said that there should be a new budget: so how exactly are we to do this without a budget in mind first?
    Again, the budget is the end product of this process, you are putting the cart before the horse. Do you understand what a budget is and it's purpose?



    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Finally, and I know this isn't important to you, but it is important to me. I know people who have been furloughed and they're not having a great time - this isn't a vacation, it is not being able to feed their children. On top of this you want to add the additional stress that their jobs might not exist. So what is a furloughed employee supposed to do? Start looking for another job? It isn't their fault that they took a job that could not be at risk because someone thought it was a good idea to 'take advantage' of the downtime to tell people not to bother returning.
    Already addressed in the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    *Counter point - The shut down is harming all those that are not working because of it. This is bad and should be avoided.
    -Answer- This is invalid because if we accept that as a bases for maintaining a gov agency, then we would never be allowed to shut down any gov job/agency no matter how useless or counter productive they become. That point is inherently flawed as a "principle" and should not be used.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    *Counter point - The shut down is harming all those that are not working because of it. This is bad and should be avoided.
    -Answer- This is invalid because if we accept that as a bases for maintaining a gov agency, then we would never be allowed to shut down any gov job/agency no matter how useless or counter productive they become. That point is inherently flawed as a "principle" and should not be used.
    What do you mean "positive"?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  22. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Here's one positive idea: The House has already voted and re-voted several times to keep the government running, while putting a one-year hold on Obamacare. President Obama can end the shutdown immediately. He can choose to have a serious conversation with congressional leadership and discuss the real issue driving the shutdown.

    He has already delayed or repealed about 14 provisions in his health care bill.
    Not sure how putting a one-year hold onto a law that just came into effect is supposed to be positive. I think there are millions of people wanting medical insurance; so much so that they ended up killing the websites. So are they all supposed to get a refund and not have insurance any more?

    ---------- Post added at 12:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    MT: It wasn’t a very complicated idea, yet you seem to be twisting it beyond recognition. I have already said that whatever job isn’t justifiable should be fired properly.
    Wrong, you have said that jobs that can't be re-justified.
    yes, that is what I mean.
    So you admit that you this exercise is to repeat something that is already been done?

    Yes they were justified in the past, now we should discuss if it is still justified, or if the previous reasons still hold.
    So what's changed between the last budget and now? Remember, the budget has already been agreed upon; the ObamaCare rider was only added later.


    You seem more concerned about me conceding a point so that you can beat me over the head with it, then in actually discussing the issues or principles by which we should evaluate those jobs.
    Not at all. I was pointing out that the principles we would end up with would just end up with getting all the jobs back. So the exercise isn't really worthwhile.


    If you think I am going back and forth on the departments it is because I am not set on any given decision. As such you should read to much into me changing my mind or rethinking any specific department. I could say, yes we should keep X department. Then say, no.. no we shouldn't, not because that department is bad, but because this other one is more important.
    That's a little bit of a short-sighted approach because you'd probably end up deciding to dump FEMA or the National Hurricane Center. Only now, because there actually is a hurricane bearing onto us, that it might be a better idea to keep it. Any jobs shed now would probably end up coming back as new situations that you hadn't considered come up. So whatever money you save, would end up costing us more by having bring back and set up the department again. Not to mention, in the case of the NHC, that you wouldn't be able to restore potential lives lost.

    Like I said, it seems to me that you are going about this entirely backwards. You should do this when restoring government and since you haven't suggested this before (you as the the GOP) when the government was actually running, this is just a spectacle of an exercise as opposed to any real attempt to 'slim' the government down.


    You seem to be coming from a zero sum approach and don't seem to be grasping the concept of what it means to evaluate and prioritize spending.
    Not at all. I am saying that it is you that don't have the facts at hand and this is just an exercise for you to learn what evaluation and prioritizations in spending have already occurred. I am saying that this information is already available.


    That doesn't make any sense, nor follow from anything that I have forwarded so far.
    It's just more rehtroric.
    Of course it makes sense - you're the one that brought up that this is about a new budget. Without the budget or an idea of savings nor any idea how long the OP would cost or take to implement you are truly offering no indication of any savings whatsoever. Who knows, we might even just end up shedding 1 job and you've spent how much money to do that? Guess what, you don't know.

    So now your back to the position that we shouldn't have the discussion.
    Seriously, I am not addressing any of your complaints/objections regarding cutting a single job until you agree to start discussing it.
    Whatever you respond to in your next post that is not relevant to a defense of your position that we should not have this discussion is going to be ignored, unless you concede that we should discuss it. I'm not going to subject myself to your constantly falling back to a fundamental objection, then jumping forward and complaining about the end.
    You brought up the idea that certain things should't be discussed. I'm just follow your lead that you are putting the cart before the horse. That you haven't offered any hard numbers as to whether this is even worth pursuing.

    Any budget would be the end product of applying the principles. You are putting the cart before the horse.

    But you can consider that a non-issue if you are going to continue to maintain that we shouldn't start.
    So now this is to get a new budget before being able to restore government? You're proposing we wait until you've been educated as to how the government is run before it is allowed to start up again!



    You are confusing my lack of moving forward(for reasons I have explained) for actual lack of knowledge.
    You are confusing coming to the table without pre-concieved notions of any particular department or job, as a lack of knowledge.

    I will be skipping any further reference by you of a "clean slate".
    Not at all. I am suggesting that the lack of upfront knowledge inherently makes this a poor exercise. I'd say that first step is to learn what is going on and gather the information you need. Then determine what principles already exist. Coming up with principles and then applying them to existing jobs is why the blank slate is such a poor idea.


    So you concede that you are not approaching this in a fair minded way then.
    I think it is you being unfair by not doing your homework first.

    So your not rebutting the "hasty generalization" point at all.
    It would only be hasty generalization if you don't understand how government works, why the departments are there and why they need to be staffed at the levels they are. Since I am operating under the assumption that the existing justifications are completely valid for a functioning country, I expect all the jobs to come back.

    You on the other hand, want to start from first principles: or rather no principles since that is what you want to discuss. From there, then you can begin justify the jobs based on those principles and then somehow juggle the jobs based on some prioritization scheduled based on some criteria you have yet to reveal.

    If 100% of what we have discussed end up with zero jobs shed then it's not a hasty generalization at all: I am using the principle that whatever has been justified will continue to be justified. With that in mind, that will likely restore nearly all the jobs. Hence making this exercise pointless since the money you might save is offset by the cost of doing the project. Though even that is hard to tell because you haven't done much homework in determining how long this would take.

    Either way, not hasty at all.

    The ones that would be deemed justifiable would come back when the gov does, and the ones that don't would be fired properly.
    What is bad about that?
    What happens if the government is restored tomorrow?


    I would say that until the budget is balanced we should continue to prioritize and evaluate our spending against what we have to spend.
    That's easy then - we just raise taxes until our spend is balanced. Simple. No need to lose any jobs at all.

    Because there is no reason to wait, and waiting costs money.
    How much money?


    You put far to much weight on a single example (an extension of your hasty generalization fallacy).
    You also forget that after that we discussed another and were not in agreement. So it is false that we have agreed on ALL the jobs we considered so far.
    Nope, you agreed to bring back 22K jobs.

    You have not addressed that there is no government, who exactly are you going to pay to do this job for sorting out who keeps what? Even if you manage to bring back some people to do it, everyone you'd have to talk to in order to justify the jobs to begin with have been furloughed!


    Already addressed in the OP.
    Rubbish, if departments are to shed jobs then departments are given plenty of time to organize themselves and prepare the people ahead of time. You are randomly dumping jobs on a whim. Nevertheless, your failure to understand the human aspect of this approach is enough to kill the idea.


    What do you mean "positive"?
    Exactly my point: you don't have a point for this exercise other than as a way to learn how government really works.

  23. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So you admit that you this exercise is to repeat something that is already been done?
    Yes, I am assuming that when each of the departments were created they were justified.
    I don't agree that they have been justified every time a budget came up.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So what's changed between the last budget and now? Remember, the budget has already been agreed upon; the ObamaCare rider was only added later.
    First see above. While budget time is when we should have this conversation(not to the exclusion of all other times), congress doesn't re evaluate it just adds, and adds.

    P.S. When is the last time Obama submitted a budget?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not at all. I was pointing out that the principles we would end up with would just end up with getting all the jobs back. So the exercise isn't really worthwhile
    You really haven't shown that, you assumed it and jumped to the end of the train.
    Hence the hasty generalization fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That's a little bit of a short-sighted approach because you'd probably end up deciding to dump FEMA or the National Hurricane Center
    Probably??


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Only now, because there actually is a hurricane bearing onto us, that it might be a better idea to keep it. Any jobs shed now would probably end up coming back as new situations that you hadn't considered come up. So whatever money you save, would end up costing us more by having bring back and set up the department again. Not to mention, in the case of the NHC, that you wouldn't be able to restore potential lives lost.
    Your not only assuming an argument, but a conclusion as well. Your simply not approaching this with a very cheritable POV. You are not even willing to hear an argument before you make up your own for me.

    I'm not interested.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Like I said, it seems to me that you are going about this entirely backwards. You should do this when restoring government and since you haven't suggested this before (you as the the GOP) when the government was actually running, this is just a spectacle of an exercise as opposed to any real attempt to 'slim' the government down.
    You are confusing this as a GOP suggestion. This is an idea that if true all parties should embrace.
    YOu are making this into a partisan debate needlessly.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course it makes sense - you're the one that brought up that this is about a new budget. Without the budget or an idea of savings nor any idea how long the OP would cost or take to implement you are truly offering no indication of any savings whatsoever. Who knows, we might even just end up shedding 1 job and you've spent how much money to do that? Guess what, you don't know.
    That isn't a possible or allowable outcome given the paramaters of the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It would only be hasty generalization if you don't understand how government works, why the departments are there and why they need to be staffed at the levels they are. Since I am operating under the assumption that the existing justifications are completely valid for a functioning country, I expect all the jobs to come back.
    Right, you made an assumption, found a small example where it may be true, then applied it to the larger population without good reason.
    that is the definition of the fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You on the other hand, want to start from first principles: or rather no principles since that is what you want to discuss.
    Yes. But not "no principle", because we have the most basic one that is based in the reality of our income.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If 100% of what we have discussed end up with zero jobs shed then it's not a hasty generalization at all: I am using the principle that whatever has been justified will continue to be justified. With that in mind, that will likely restore nearly all the jobs. Hence making this exercise pointless since the money you might save is offset by the cost of doing the project. Though even that is hard to tell because you haven't done much homework in determining how long this would take.
    Your principle is fundementally flawed.
    According to your principle no change in reality can change the fact that a program was once justified, thus no job can ever be ended.

    Given that our financial situation demands that we decrease spending, it is an inherently flawed principle and should not be followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That's easy then - we just raise taxes until our spend is balanced. Simple. No need to lose any jobs at all.
    So that is one of your reasons that we shouldn't discuss cutting spending.
    We should be discussing that objection instead of your rehtoric based objections.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Nope, you agreed to bring back 22K jobs.
    Yes, and we disagreed on the WIC point,which represents other jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You have not addressed that there is no government, who exactly are you going to pay to do this job for sorting out who keeps what?
    It is not true that there is no gov.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Rubbish, if departments are to shed jobs then departments are given plenty of time to organize themselves and prepare the people ahead of time.
    That should be assumed in the "firing them properly" point that I said.
    Straw-man on your part and thus invalid reason to reject OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Exactly my point: you don't have a point for this exercise other than as a way to learn how government really works.
    There is no reasonable way one can reach this conclusion.
    I'll chalk it up to more of your rhetoric.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  24. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, I am assuming that when each of the departments were created they were justified.
    I don't agree that they have been justified every time a budget came up.
    Why do you think that is? Perhaps because redoing work that's been done each already is a waste of time. Hence your OP is defeated on those terms already.


    First see above. While budget time is when we should have this conversation(not to the exclusion of all other times), congress doesn't re evaluate it just adds, and adds.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide an understanding of what you believe the budget process is and how things are funded and evaluated.

    I think you are working off an assumption that you haven't shown to be true: that there is no evaluation involved. Just because departments keep getting funding it doesn't mean that it's a free pass. Also, there have been budget cuts and re-evaluations all the time: have you not been following Farm bill which sought to reduce SNAP funding. Where is your evidence that this is not being done for jobs too?

    If you cannot answer this question then your OP is moot and defeated.

    P.S. When is the last time Obama submitted a budget?
    Since it is Obama's budget, then surely this OP makes no sense at all. Is he supposed to do this re-evaluation now?


    You really haven't shown that, you assumed it and jumped to the end of the train.
    Hence the hasty generalization fallacy.

    ...

    Right, you made an assumption, found a small example where it may be true, then applied it to the larger population without good reason.
    that is the definition of the fallacy.
    It's not just an "assumption" unlike your assumption no considerations have been done (that you're now being challenged on proving). Mine is based on facts that

    a) every department has been justified to exist already and they continue to be justified.
    b) within each department, each section head is in charge of their own budget and it filters down all the way to local managers.

    So there are at least 5 levels of approvals that have been done already for every single job: Presidential, Congressional, Department-Level, State-Level (maybe) and local level.

    You on the other hand seem to be saying that none of this is being done.

    So it's certainly not hasty but quite well informed with the real world. Yours on the other hand, doesn't seemed to be informed and indeed is contingent on not being informed.

    Probably??

    Your not only assuming an argument, but a conclusion as well. Your simply not approaching this with a very cheritable POV. You are not even willing to hear an argument before you make up your own for me.

    I'm not interested.
    Yes, because I can't see into your mind I don't know your particulars; but since you haven't made clear what the scenario is - congress doing this re-evaluation or you then I have to cover both. Again, your lack of clarity isn't helping but I know that you're testing an idea out - all I'm really saying is that as it stands it is not a good idea. Now if the debate is to turn your bad OP into a good one then I'm on board but you haven't conceded the original OP yet. That's all I ask.

    I'm just going off usual right-wing politics to get rid of the DOE, FDA, and err, the other one which I can't recall right now. Since you haven't done some initial filtering, I have to go off what I know. It's a POV that's already on record or do you forget those Republicans that voted against disaster relief until it came to their own states.

    JJ:Like I said, it seems to me that you are going about this entirely backwards. You should do this when restoring government and since you haven't suggested this before (you as the the GOP) when the government was actually running, this is just a spectacle of an exercise as opposed to any real attempt to 'slim' the government down.
    You are confusing this as a GOP suggestion. This is an idea that if true all parties should embrace.
    YOu are making this into a partisan debate needlessly.
    The Democrats have already agreed to a budget then ObamaCare rider was added at the last minute. The Right can't seem to yes for an answer - so to move further is just a waste of time because there will be more blackmail until everything is all gone.

    That isn't a possible or allowable outcome given the paramaters of the OP.
    What parameters?


    JJ:You on the other hand, want to start from first principles: or rather no principles since that is what you want to discuss.
    Yes. But not "no principle", because we have the most basic one that is based in the reality of our income.
    ...
    Given that our financial situation demands that we decrease spending, it is an inherently flawed principle and should not be followed.
    Agreed but this "reality of our income" doesn't hold water but I'm working through that with chad737. Perhaps we should pick this up again once that's done since it seems foundational to your OP.

    Your principle is fundementally flawed.
    According to your principle no change in reality can change the fact that a program was once justified, thus no job can ever be ended.
    Well, I'm sure that if humans stopped being sick we can get rid of all the health care stuff; or if we have World Peace, then we won't need the military; and so on. So I'm all for supporting that reality can change.

    But even then your entire approach is wrong because at the higher levels of government you are proposing that do these piecemeal decisions, the lower level stuff will just take an unrealistically long time.


    So that is one of your reasons that we shouldn't discuss cutting spending.
    We should be discussing that objection instead of your rehtoric based objections.
    I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss spending. I'm saying that this is the wrong approach; i.e. the answer to the question in the OP whether the government shutdown is a good time to do this is "no!". It should be done continuously not as a big 'event'. It shouldn't be done as a hostage taking position - that's why this approach is so terrible and harmful and largely inefficient and purely political showmanship.


    Yes, and we disagreed on the WIC point,which represents other jobs.
    Oh, I didn't realize that. It was because you didn't seem to know what the program was rather than saying it shouldn't happen. Nevertheless, this is the kind of micro-managing of the situation that makes this exercise pointless. There there thousands of such programs.


    It is not true that there is no gov.
    Challenge to support a claim. You need to support who is going to do this work. We already know that the government that we have now is the skeletal crew of essential personnel - i.e. they have no time to work on other things. So who exactly is supposed to do this? And more importantly - where is the funding for this program coming from!? I don't think the OP is implementable as it stands.


    JJ: Rubbish, if departments are to shed jobs then departments are given plenty of time to organize themselves and prepare the people ahead of time.
    That should be assumed in the "firing them properly" point that I said.
    Straw-man on your part and thus invalid reason to reject OP.
    Then in that case, you are defeating your own OP again: doing it properly would be using existing procedures to decide what jobs should remain - i.e. not during government shutdowns.

    It remains the case however, that you are not considering the individual people particular situations in this - turning a GOP disaster into a national disaster (or rather more of one).

    JJ: Exactly my point: you don't have a point for this exercise other than as a way to learn how government really works.
    There is no reasonable way one can reach this conclusion.
    I'll chalk it up to more of your rhetoric.
    Of course there is:

    1. You haven't supported that these jobs are not being justified.
    2. You haven't shown much understanding of the inner workings of government (and nor do I - I had to google around to learn) and the idea doesn't make sense because you're solving a problem that doesn't seem to exist.
    3. You already admit that the OP is to address the underlying principal of income - yet you deferred to chad's thread. Thus it doesn't quite make sense to continue until that has been resolved to both our satisfaction (or rather mine, since its your claim). So we can't even begin to talk about the idea yet because we haven't agreed on the problem it is purported to solve.
    4. It is me coming up with the programs not you so it seems to me that I'm doing all the graft work. I don't really have time to do that and nor should it be my job to lay out your OP properly to discuss - that's all I really intended to point out and your concessions on a horizontal and a vertical is enough for me to see that we have a long slog.

    Now, if you want to discuss how we'd go about such a program of re-evaluation, then that would be interesting in of itself. But this is not what you're suggesting - you are using the fact that there is no government to institute this. That's a second problem. In short you have no proven principles (income), no evidence of a problem, no plan, and no people to implement this. I think the OP doesn't make sense in the form it is written.

 

 
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 10:18 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 08:34 AM
  3. Mind Trapped in a dream #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •