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 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 235
  1. #41
    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
    What does occur is that we are generally one step further towards balancing our budget (as far as actual expenditures)
    Since it's now voted (Unanimously) that all workers will be payed I ask for the second time!
    How does the shutdown a step towards balancing the budget when on the contrary, it's costing hundreds of millions every day?
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  2. Likes GoldPhoenix liked this post
  3. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Since it's now voted (Unanimously) that all workers will be payed I ask for the second time!
    How does the shutdown a step towards balancing the budget when on the contrary, it's costing hundreds of millions every day?
    Well, I guess NOW the shut down is not moving us towards a balanced budget, unless we examine the jobs that are "non-essential" and start actually cutting them.
    Instead of giving them a paid vacation.
    We can still use the opportunity as a starting point to move towards fiscal responsibility.

    ---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide an understanding of what you believe the budget process is and how things are funded and evaluated.
    What claim are you asking me to support? You seem to be challenging my understanding, not a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. You need to support who is going to do this work.
    What claim are you challenging?
    That the gov exists? Or that the gov is tasked with budgeting and spending?


    You seem to be making random challenges.
    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.

  4. #43
    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
    Well, I guess NOW the shut down is not moving us towards a balanced budget, unless we examine the jobs that are "non-essential" and start actually cutting them.
    Instead of giving them a paid vacation.
    This is why the stock market nor the sky is falling... because everyone knows that the government is merely on (forced) vacation.

    But yet, you want to measure the government effectiveness on the lack of consequence from this vacation.
    Maybe you would like to apply this wacko management style to the private sector as well??? If the sky doesn't fall when someone takes a vacation, we fire them.

    Your argument is simply horrible.

    Now, everyone would agree that each department should be evaluated on a cost/benefit basis, but the way you use the shutdown, and the perceived effect of the shutdown as written in the OP is just scandalously wrong.
    Last edited by Vandaler; October 5th, 2013 at 10:33 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  5. #44
    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
    What claim are you asking me to support? You seem to be challenging my understanding, not a claim.
    That "congress doesn't re evaluate it just adds, and adds". Your OP is contingent that congress doesn't do any thinking regarding existing spending.

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support it or retract the OP claim that there is no evaluation for existing programs.

    Without that support your OP is a solution looking for a problem.


    MT:It is not true that there is no gov.
    JJ: Challenge -- You need to support who is going to do this work.
    What claim are you challenging?
    That the gov exists? Or that the gov is tasked with budgeting and spending?
    Your OP claims that it is a good idea to do this re-evaluation due to the government shutdown. Yet, you have not supported that there are people to do so. If there are no people to do this (since everyone is essential for other tasks) then your OP is defeated.
    Challenge to support a claim.Please provide an explanation as to where you are getting the people from to do this re-evaluation. And also, how long you expect it to take.

    You need to do this at a minimum before we can even address the idea.

    You seem to be making random challenges.
    Nope - they're there because in addition to the other weaknesses found in your OP (which you haven't defended), and the lack of a starting principle (the income one that you have deleted chadn737 to support) the core question of how it is actually going to work in practice doesn't seem to be there. It seems a bit circular, you are using the government shutdown, which has no spare staff, to justify bringing back the rest of government.

  6. Likes GoldPhoenix liked this post
  7. #45
    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?

    And of course, the elephant in the room, is that you blatantly ignore that the government shutdown has negative impacts, and barely any positive that you can point out. So the shutdown, actually shows the usefulness of government.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  8. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    This is why the stock market nor the sky is falling... because everyone knows that the government is merely on (forced) vacation.
    Good... and?

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    But yet, you want to measure the government effectiveness on the lack of consequence from this little vacation.
    Not those effects. Rather the effect of services being stopped and re-evaluating how much we need the gov to run those services.
    That the stock market isn't falling means that the lack of those services being provided by the gov is not going to have a negative effect on that level.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Maybe you would like to apply this wacko management style to the private sector as well??? If the sky doesn't fall when someone takes a vacation, we fire them.
    Ummm.. private companies DO exactly that. If you are gone and they realize they don't need you to do your job but can incorporate it in other areas, or drop it completely.. then yes, you can lose your job that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Now, everyone would agree that each department should be evaluated on a cost/benefit basis, but the way you use the shutdown, and the perceived effect of the shutdown as written in the OP is just scandalously wrong.
    The OP notes that the shutdown is not having the massively negative effects that were predicted by those who argue for the essential role of gov in the areas that are being shut down.

    The OP asks that if we should re-evaluate based on the effects.

    For example while many parks are being shut down, the ones that are being run by the states are staying open. Because the state has a responsibility in running it administratively. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-funded-parks/

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    "However, after close review and legal consult, [the Department of Natural Resources] has clarified areas where the federal procedures are over-reaching by ordering the closure of properties where the state has management authority through existing agreements."
    So we should ask, do we need the fed to manage these properties, why can't the states do it?
    The OP asks that we re-evaluate the way we interact with the gov. Using some of the effects of the shut down as an example to learn from (see above example).


    There doesn't seem to be anything scandalous or wrong about that approach.
    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.

  9. #47
    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
    Instead of giving them a paid vacation.
    MT: You may not like government or government workers but this is personally offensive. I know people who have dedicated their lives working to keep the country running smoothly. They are not at fault. They are not getting paid. This is literally not a vacation. Those people living paycheck to paycheck are having an extremely hard time right now. Please find a different way to project your hatred of government that isn't morally outrageous. I know you're probably going to weather this (and so will I) but some respect is in order here.

  10. #48
    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?

    The shutdown is not that bad as a whole. What it shows is how many jobs in the government are not essential, and that the federal government can certainly slim down without detrimental effects. Unfortunately, Obama, who certainly is no leader, is trying to play games by closing memorials, cemeteries, etc. in order to maximize the drama associated with this shutdown. Obama and the Dems have no interest in resolving this, or they would have given the House the time of day with their legislation that would have opened parts of the federal government back up.
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  11. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That "congress doesn't re evaluate it just adds, and adds". Your OP is contingent that congress doesn't do any thinking regarding existing spending.

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support it or retract the OP claim that there is no evaluation for existing programs.
    Would you agree that the process congress tends to do is one based on partisanship and pork projects. Where one pork project is passed with the compromise that another from the other party is passed as well (or enough to pass the spending)?

    What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs/departments with an eye to examining how the people interact with the gov(see example given to van) and an eye to balancing the budget and prioritizing.

    We can pretty much support that the gov does not do a sufficient job of prioritizing and eliminating, because it has shown itself willing to run a deficit instead of doing that.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Your OP claims that it is a good idea to do this re-evaluation due to the government shutdown. Yet, you have not supported that there are people to do so
    No, I did not. Because I though it too obvious that the pres/house/senate are all still around.
    Further you and I are present.

    So in both senses of the OP there is someone to discuss this topic.

    ---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    MT: You may not like government or government workers but this is personally offensive. I know people who have dedicated their lives working to keep the country running smoothly. They are not at fault. They are not getting paid. This is literally not a vacation. Those people living paycheck to paycheck are having an extremely hard time right now. Please find a different way to project your hatred of government that isn't morally outrageous. I know you're probably going to weather this (and so will I) but some respect is in order here.
    Take it up with Van, I was conceding his point.
    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.

  12. #50
    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
    Would you agree that the process congress tends to do is one based on partisanship and pork projects. Where one pork project is passed with the compromise that another from the other party is passed as well (or enough to pass the spending)?
    There are certainly pork projects but that's not what we're talking about. Plus those projects are discussed and evaluated.

    You haven't shown the problem yet; in fact you have brought up the opposite. The OP remains defeated in terms that you have not supported there is a problem to solve.

    What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs/departments with an eye to examining how the people interact with the gov(see example given to van) and an eye to balancing the budget and prioritizing.
    So now we need a body independent of government to evaluate government? That's just compounding the problem that the OP is unrealistic.

    We can pretty much support that the gov does not do a sufficient job of prioritizing and eliminating, because it has shown itself willing to run a deficit instead of doing that.
    No, that is rubbish: no-one has forced the government (or any government) to run on a balanced budget. This is why the OP also fails - it depends on a non-existent financial scenario.


    JJ: Your OP claims that it is a good idea to do this re-evaluation due to the government shutdown. Yet, you have not supported that there are people to do so
    No, I did not. Because I though it too obvious that the pres/house/senate are all still around.
    Wait: from your OP --

    Basically, the gov shuts down and the sky doesn't fall. ... 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?
    Further you and I are present.
    Sure, but I reject that there is even a problem to solve.

    So in both senses of the OP there is someone to discuss this topic.
    Agreed, it's why you're losing. Just admit that it's a weak OP and move on!


    ---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

    Take it up with Van, I was conceding his point.
    Wrong. It was you through brought up the idea first that this is a vacation:

    Well, I guess NOW the shut down is not moving us towards a balanced budget, unless we examine the jobs that are "non-essential" and start actually cutting them.
    Instead of giving them a paid vacation.
    My point is made - just be respectful is all I ask.

  13. #51
    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
    That the stock market isn't falling means that the lack of those services being provided by the gov is not going to have a negative effect on that level.
    I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion. If the stocks aren't crashing, it only means that investors don't see any reasons to change their investment in XYZ company and that they have faith the crisis will fix itself before it starts to negatively affect the economy. Anything else you read into the stock market reaction requires a better analysis if you want to be taken seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There doesn't seem to be anything scandalous or wrong about that approach.
    There is nothing wrong with asking good questions about Gov. effectiveness and it's in fact what bright people do all the time. It also was a kept promise of Obama in 2008 to create a performance team, and chief performance officer which has done alot since it's beginning.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nd-chief-perf/

    I object to the notion that the shutdown provides any new insights about the governments usefulness.
    Last edited by Vandaler; October 5th, 2013 at 12:08 PM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  14. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    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.
    Sorry bro, but you haven't been hit nearly hard enough on this comment.


    1.) I Challenge to support a claim. you to support the bare assertion that "government shutdowns" necessarily leads to "balancing our budget."


    2.) The last time Republicans (And Democrats) attempted to stall the government under the guise of "fixing the budget" using this nonsense about the debt ceiling as a political toy (It was this January, I'm sure you remember all the bloviating over whether or not we should pay for things we've already bought, "debt ceiling", etc), the result was a bill put into effect a set of bills that will end up costing the US government (i.e. "us") 4 trillion dollars by the end of the decade, mostly in the form of corporate and upper class tax cuts. In fact, because of that bill, over the course of this year we will spent an extra ~68 billion dollars towards that extra 4 trillions dollars in this decade. So that's the people you're banking on to "fix" the financial situation that America's in.


    My advice: Don't have any delusions about the Republican Party ever trying to "balance the budget" for this country. You want to balance the budget? There's only one effective way to do this: Make the rich pay their fair share and decrease military spending. That's the s*** that's actually sinking us.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  15. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    1.) I [IMG]file:///C:\Users\BRENDA\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image001.jpg[/IMG]you to support the bare assertion that "government shutdowns" necessarily leads to "balancing our budget."
    First of all, I did not claim that gov shut downs necessary LEAD to balancing our budget.

    I forwarded the idea that if the jobs were all truly not paid for/eliminated, that that would count towards balancing our budget, because we would be spending less. That was changed and became false when it was forwarded that everyone agreed to pay for all the time missed (so the shut down is not actually saving us money)

    Unless you are objecting to the idea that spending less is a step towards balancing our budget, then you really have no reason to challenge such an assertion.

    The second aspect is that when the gov stops performing it's tasks we can really evaluate what is missing in our lives and if we can do it another way, such as the parks being managed by the states.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    2.) The last time Republicans (And Democrats) attempted to stall the government under the guise of "fixing the budget" using this nonsense about the debt ceiling as a political toy (It was this January, I'm sure you remember all the bloviating over whether or not we should pay for things we've already bought, "debt ceiling", etc), the result was a bill put into effect a set of bills that will end up costing the US government (i.e. "us") 4 trillion dollars by the end of the decade, mostly in the form of corporate and upper class tax cuts. In fact, because of that bill, over the course of this year we will spent an extra ~68 billion dollars towards that extra 4 trillions dollars in this decade. So that's the people you're banking on to "fix" the financial situation that America's in.
    So your point is that because past attempts were terrible.. we should just not try at all?
    Really, I donít see the connection other than to committed the hasty generalization fallacy that because the last attempt failed, then the conversation I am starting here is some how fundamentally flawed.
    If anything you are supporting my point that the gov has not done true evaluations in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    My advice: Don't have any delusions about the Republican Party ever trying to "balance the budget" for this country. You want to balance the budget? There's only one effective way to do this: Make the rich pay their fair share and decrease military spending. That's the s*** that's actually sinking us
    So, we shouldnít consider things like gov wasting our money on programs like giving milk to women who produce their own for their NEWBORNS. Because the rich need to pay more money, and we shouldnít spend so much on the military?

    That doesnít follow at all, and is thus not a valid objection to anything in this thread.
    Your position can be valid AND my position can still be valid. They are not mutually exclusive. And as that is not the topic of this thread it is irrelevant to if we should re-evaluate gov departments and jobs deemed Ďnon-essentialĒ.



    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion. If the stocks aren't crashing, it only means that investors don't see any reasons to change their investment in XYZ company and that they have faith the crisis will fix itself before it starts to negatively affect the economy. Anything else you read into the stock market reaction requires a better analysis if you want to be taken seriously.
    You just repeated what I said.
    The assertion was that the gov shut down would negatively effect the market. It hasnít
    That is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    There is nothing wrong with asking good questions about Gov. effectiveness and it's in fact what bright people do all the time. It also was a kept promise of Obama in 2008 to create a performance team, and chief performance officer which has done alot since it's beginning.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nd-chief-perf/

    I object to the notion that the shutdown provides any new insights about the governments usefulness.
    Iím glad there is nothing wrong with it.. so we should J


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    There are certainly pork projects but that's not what we're talking about. Plus those projects are discussed and evaluated.

    You haven't shown the problem yet; in fact you have brought up the opposite. The OP remains defeated in terms that you have not supported there is a problem to solve.
    The problem is the deficit, that problem has not been solved in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So now we need a body independent of government to evaluate government? That's just compounding the problem that the OP is unrealistic.
    Straw-man
    I did not suggest a body independent of the gov.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, that is rubbish: no-one has forced the government (or any government) to run on a balanced budget. This is why the OP also fails - it depends on a non-existent financial scenario.
    Right, it hasnít been forced to by the people and has shown itself unwilling to do so on itís own. Thatís why itís evaluations are not to be trusted because it hasnít done a good job of it. If it had done a good job it would have a balanced budget, because that is what fiscally responsible people and gov do.
    Thatís not rubbish, that is good finance 101.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Sure, but I reject that there is even a problem to solve.
    That is not related to the context of that discussion.
    You originally were chasing after the idea that the gov is gone and that there is no one to judge these programs or evaluate them. That was shown to be false.
    Now you are switching to claiming there is no problem to be judged. All your doing is skipping around in order to confuse the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Wrong. It was you through brought up the idea first that this is a vacation:
    I called getting paid without going to work a vacation, because that is what it is.
    If you object to the idea that they are getting paid, then take it up with van because that was his claim. I will be interested to see the exchange.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    My point is made - just be respectful is all I ask.
    I have not been disrespectful, you have used a fallacious appeal to emotion in order to distract. Just more rhetoric from your position. It will be ignored in the future.


    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    My advice: Don't have any delusions about the Republican Party ever trying to "balance the budget" for this country. You want to balance the budget? There's only one effective way to do this: Make the rich pay their fair share and decrease military spending. That's the s*** that's actually sinking us.
    Sorry to quote this twice, but I think I may have a different/better way to make my point here.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politi...html?hpt=po_c2
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The Pentagon may announce as soon as this weekend a plan to bring up to 400,000 furloughed civilian employees back to work, according to two Defense Department officials.
    I don't understand why there is so many partisan assumptions when addressing this topic. GP your suggesting to me to focus on military spending, yet my suggestion for the OP would target 400K jobs in specifically that area. Yet your objection implies that I'm ignoring it or not giving it an adequate consideration.

    That kind of assumption has zero merit, and to me is really a good example of how much baggage people have been bringing into this thread causing them to miss a real opportunity to have a meaningful discussion.

    Question to opponent.
    So my question is.
    If I agree with you that in order to balance the budget we would have to target the military spending.
    Wouldn't it be a good idea to re-evaluate the 400K jobs in that department that were deemed "non-essential"?
    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.

  16. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First of all, I did not claim that gov shut downs necessary LEAD to balancing our budget.
    Your OP:

    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.

    You said it. If that's not what you meant, that's another story, but that's what you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I forwarded the idea that if the jobs were all truly not paid for/eliminated, that that would count towards balancing our budget, because we would be spending less. That was changed and became false when it was forwarded that everyone agreed to pay for all the time missed (so the shut down is not actually saving us money)
    It's been argued elsewhere what the error in this statement is. I'm also not super-interested in speculating about what jobs we're willing to cut. I've already said the only fiscally responsible things that the federal government and Congress can do are increase taxes back to an appropriate amount (Frankly, I'd like pre-Reagan thirty cent dollars, but at this point I'd settle for just Reagan's taxes, which were 60 cent dollars for those who are in the top income bracket) and decrease our military spending (By this I mostly mean stop spending 40 billion dollars on jets we won't use, uselessly rebuilding nuclear missiles, no bid contracts for products that never get made, stop giving colossal amounts of money to DoD contracts to build another redundant set of devices that kill people, losing crates with 4 billion dollars, sending drones out on any suspicion, and creating huge amounts --I'm not anti-military, but I am pro-being reasonable about sh**). The US government needs to take care of its people first, not its rich and its corporations.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Unless you are objecting to the idea that spending less is a step towards balancing our budget, then you really have no reason to challenge such an assertion.

    The second aspect is that when the gov stops performing it's tasks we can really evaluate what is missing in our lives and if we can do it another way, such as the parks being managed by the states.
    I am against us spending less if it can only be done upon the condition that we also convert that into further tax cuts and loop holes for corporations and the rich, which so far has been the only line that Congress can only agree upon. Frankly, I'd rather we have the government spend the money on it's middle-class employees where the money can cycle back into the economy than have it go back into the vaults of the rich, sit in Panama or Cayman bank accounts, or be put into granite counter tops, which has no economic effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    So your point is that because past attempts were terrible.. we should just not try at all?
    Really, I don’t see the connection other than to committed the hasty generalization fallacy that because the last attempt failed, then the conversation I am starting here is some how fundamentally flawed.
    It's not like this is a different Congress. This is literally the exact same Congress that was in session in January of 2013. Now, 10 months later you're telling me they're going to see the error of their ways? And instead of doing what Congress usually does (Which is write laws to make rich people more rich -i.e. their donors, the people that actually keep them in office-, pander to some part of their constituents -the people they pretend to care about-, or lower taxes -only occasionally for the lower classes), you're telling me you think this time, out of the many others, this time will be different? In spite of that the fact that it's the same voters, same leadership, same interests?

    Again, you made the claim that a government shut down is the thing that puts us "generally one step further towards balancing our budget (as far as actual expenditures) and shrinking the size of gov". I'm still asking you to substantiate that claim or rescind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    If anything you are supporting my point that the gov has not done true evaluations in the past.
    The following are completely separate issues:

    1.) The government holding its programs accountable.
    2.) The US Congress dropping the ball on writing any effective laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    So, we shouldn’t consider things like gov wasting our money on programs like giving milk to women who produce their own for their NEWBORNS. Because the rich need to pay more money, and we shouldn’t spend so much on the military?
    Well, over the next decade the continued tax breaks to the rich are going to cost us 4 trillion dollars. You let me know how many decades it takes fake breast milk for mothers comes anywhere f***ing close to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    That doesn’t follow at all, and is thus not a valid objection to anything in this thread.
    Your position can be valid AND my position can still be valid. They are not mutually exclusive. And as that is not the topic of this thread it is irrelevant to if we should re-evaluate gov departments and jobs deemed ‘non-essential”.
    That was more commentary than a rebuttal. Republicans annoy me when they make a mountain out of a mole hill on some particular, irrelevant fiscal issue while continuously ignoring the actual laws (Both the children of the Republican Party) that have been made that have been the most significant factor in causing the US government to be in the level of debt that it's in. The fact that Republican presidents spend just as much as Democrats, if not more, they got us into huge military expenditures, and then they lower the costs of the rich. And then they have the audacity to turn around and blame poor people for why America's in debt, it's frankly despicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Sorry to quote this twice, but I think I may have a different/better way to make my point here.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politi...html?hpt=po_c2


    I don't understand why there is so many partisan assumptions when addressing this topic. GP your suggesting to me to focus on military spending, yet my suggestion for the OP would target 400K jobs in specifically that area. Yet your objection implies that I'm ignoring it or not giving it an adequate consideration.

    That kind of assumption has zero merit, and to me is really a good example of how much baggage people have been bringing into this thread causing them to miss a real opportunity to have a meaningful discussion.

    Question to opponent.
    So my question is.
    If I agree with you that in order to balance the budget we would have to target the military spending.
    Wouldn't it be a good idea to re-evaluate the 400K jobs in that department that were deemed "non-essential"?
    To be honest, I don't believe that people should sit around and speculate on the jobs that people perform that we don't fully understand (At least, anything more substantial that "We spend 666 billion dollars on the military, not including all the costs of active engagements, home land security, the NSA, the CIA, etc. That's way too much."). There should be people in the government who's delegated task is to understanding how the systems of the government work, and work to make them more efficacious, reduce paper work, and simplify. Frankly tough, comparing HMOs to Medicare and Medicaid, I think that our government actually has a surprisingly decent level of effectiveness over the private sector --and there are other examples, the post office (before Congress decided to apply their grubby hands on the 4 billion dollar surplus) is an extremely effective part of the government.

    But I'll also be honest, I think that the sector of the government associated to scientific exploration, academic studies, and education (NASA, NSF, some of the DOH, some of the DOE, ED) should have drastically increased budgets. I'd rather the debt be paid off slowly than losing the powerful economic stimuli provided by these things.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  17. #55
    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


    MT: What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs/departments with an eye to examining how the people interact with the gov(see example given to van) and an eye to balancing the budget and prioritizing.

    JJ: So now we need a body independent of government to evaluate government? That's just compounding the problem that the OP is unrealistic.

    Straw-man
    I did not suggest a body independent of the gov.
    So given that we don't have the government available unless we give up essential functions (which means you have another problem to resolve) then who are these other 'we' the people if not another body to do this re-evaluation. In fact right there, you have grown government already! And not for the first time in this thread have you contradicted your own OP.

    You continue to fail to support the specific people to do this action, how they are supposed to do this re-evaluation given that the people they need to are furloughed, and you continually end up with arguments that result in more people to run the government than less.

    Challenge to support a claim.Please specify the people that will do this, how you are going to get this information from the thousands of individual departments.

    You OP is defeated due to the lack of people to do it, the lack of people to get the information needed and at the you end up having more people than you started off with.

    I will address the other points later but these points seem to me as a fundamental problem with the OP.

  18. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    You said it. If that's not what you meant, that's another story, but that's what you said.
    Right, but I didn't mean it in a "logically necessary" way.
    It was taking a step towards a balanced budget, until they said they would not spend less money because of it.
    That doesn't take us anywhere but away from a balanced budget.

    I was just trying to communicate the idea that spending less is a step towards a balance budget, and that the gov shutdown represented spending less.. that is of course until it didn't (which was after the OP was written).

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    I am against us spending less if it can only be done upon the condition that we also convert that into further tax cuts and loop holes for corporations and the rich,
    I'm not proposing the later.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Again, you made the claim that a government shut down is the thing that puts us "generally one step further towards balancing our budget (as far as actual expenditures) and shrinking the size of gov". I'm still asking you to substantiate that claim or rescind it.
    I recanted as soon as the facts changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mt POST 42
    Well, I guess NOW the shut down is not moving us towards a balanced budget, unless we examine the jobs that are "non-essential" and start actually cutting them.
    I hope your happy Perhaps if you were omniscient and not blinded by your glowing in the darkness, nor too busy being awesome or solving complex mathematical problems, you would have noticed that concession, which I put in plain view next to Waldo. *J*


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    The following are completely separate issues:

    1.) The government holding its programs accountable.
    2.) The US Congress dropping the ball on writing any effective laws.
    I agree.
    Which one does debt ceiling and balancing the budget that the congress was using the guise of and ended up increasing the deficit through?

    I think it is the first, that they did a piss poor job of holding programs accountable because they ended up allowing an increase in deficit spending.
    Indicating that they are not or have not been reasonably prioritizing spending.

    It is one thing to say "we should increase the income so we can afford cable"
    and making the hard choice of saying "we can't pay for cable until we make the money for it".
    The way it works right now is that they refuse to make the hard choice of actually working within their current income levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Well, over the next decade the continued tax breaks to the rich are going to cost us 4 trillion dollars. You let me know how many decades it takes fake breast milk for mothers comes anywhere f***ing close to that.
    Something tells me you don't pick up pennies when you see them laying on the ground

    On the other hand, how can one justify giving women who produce their own milk.. gov paid for milk.

    If the gov is stupid enough to give people what they are capable of doing for themselves then there is never going to be any such thing as responsible spending.
    It is the little things that count up to the big things.

    Further if we can't stop spending on something like that.. how can we hope to stop spending on anything? Sure it's small.. that should make it easy. If that seems to be too hard for our rep.. then what about programs that are like you say, aimed at Crony capitalism?

    It is really a small thing for you and I to simply say "Yes I agree that we should cut X small and obviously useless waste of gov money".
    An objection of "that's too small" is not a reason to continue the program or the spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    That was more commentary than a rebuttal. Republicans annoy me when they make a mountain out of a mole hill on some particular, irrelevant fiscal issue while continuously ignoring the actual laws (Both the children of the Republican Party) that have been made that have been the most significant factor in causing the US government to be in the level of debt that it's in. The fact that Republican presidents spend just as much as Democrats, if not more, they got us into huge military expenditures, and then they lower the costs of the rich. And then they have the audacity to turn around and blame poor people for why America's in debt, it's frankly despicable.
    As we are exchanging what makes us angry.. When we went to war under Bush(and I was for it when I though this) I said "self... once the gov increases it's spending on war.. it will never lower it's spending. That raised level will become the new norm, and people will say "we could spend the X amount a month we spend on the war on Y other great program".
    .. sure enough that is exactly what the political discussion became.
    It was no longer on the table to lower spending or stop the spending.. there was nothing temporary about the spending, only the object of the spending.
    Same thing will happen in the next war.. then the next.
    Should we decrease military spending and put it all into the middle class, then the next war will become "new" spending. There won't be any trade off or prioritization of the current income to the current responsibilities of the gov.


    That IMO is a real problem with gov, and spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    To be honest, I don't believe that people should sit around and speculate on the jobs that people perform that we don't fully understand (At least, anything more substantial that "We spend 666 billion dollars on the military, not including all the costs of active engagements, home land security, the NSA, the CIA, etc. That's way too much."). There should be people in the government who's delegated task is to understanding how the systems of the government work, and work to make them more efficacious, reduce paper work, and simplify. Frankly tough, comparing HMOs to Medicare and Medicaid, I think that our government actually has a surprisingly decent level of effectiveness over the private sector --and there are other examples, the post office (before Congress decided to apply their grubby hands on the 4 billion dollar surplus) is an extremely effective part of the government.

    But I'll also be honest, I think that the sector of the government associated to scientific exploration, academic studies, and education (NASA, NSF, some of the DOH, some of the DOE, ED) should have drastically increased budgets. I'd rather the debt be paid off slowly than losing the powerful economic stimuli provided by these things.
    Trimming waste and improving effeciency is one thing.
    However what we are discussing is a little larger than that.

    For example, take the post office.
    If our current expectation is "Is the post office efficiently delivering Mail 6x's a week"
    Then the answer can be yes.
    However if we say, You know our relationship with the gov should change in regards to mail.
    We should have the gov provide the absolute minimum mail service required for a fundementally necissary
    aspect of gov(this the idea that a national postal service is important to national cohesion), thus we should be asking
    "Is the post office efficiently delivering mail once a week"?

    Here the key issue we would be arguing is not "efficiency" but fundemental function and expectation.

    Same with WIC, I'm not questioning if they are effectivly providing formula to new borns, but asking if we need the gov to provide formula
    to mothers with new borns who have the ability to produce milk themselves.


    So the two questions (both relevant in it's own way)
    1) Is the gov being efficient (allready being addressed, and I agree may require the inimate knowledge you speak of)
    2) Should we change the interaction of the gov with the people, and what we expect.



    ------
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So given that we don't have the government available unless we give up essential functions
    ... what are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You continue to fail to support the specific people to do this action, how they are supposed to do this re-evaluation given that the people they need to are furloughed, and you continually end up with arguments that result in more people to run the government than less.
    Not at all. I only expect our representatives to be able to understand the laws they have passed, the programs they have started, and the things which are under their controll.
    So when we discuss WIC, or the post office, or defense. Our representatives are there, and are the ones that we should reasonably expect to fulfill that task.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim.Please specify the people that will do this, how you are going to get this information from the thousands of individual departments.
    Our elected officials.

    I'm not sure why that isn't obvious to you.
    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.

  19. #57
    ODN Community Regular

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

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

    I find it ironic that the one part of our government that operates the least like a government entity, the post office, should be held up as a model of efficiency.

    The entire USPS is structured as a business, not a government agency. Of course, unlike real businesses, the USPS is exempt from taxes and is intended to be profit-neutral. That it is often out-competed by truly private entities like UPS and FedEx who must both pay taxes and make a profit says something. Never mind the fact that by Federal Law, only the USPS can charge postage for handling letters. It would be interesting to see what would happen if UPS or FedEx were allowed to compete with the USPS in this area as they do so well in packages.

    Perhaps if the rest of the government were required to have a neutral or "balanced" budget, we wouldn't be in this mess.
    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.

  20. #58
    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

    JJ:So given that we don't have the government available unless we give up essential functions
    ... what are you talking about?
    I am pointing out that there are no people to perform this task because they have been furloughed. So are you intending to bring a bunch of people back to perform this task? And what if those people need further people that have been furloughed too?


    JJ:You continue to fail to support the specific people to do this action, how they are supposed to do this re-evaluation given that the people they need to are furloughed, and you continually end up with arguments that result in more people to run the government than less.
    Not at all. I only expect our representatives to be able to understand the laws they have passed, the programs they have started, and the things which are under their controll.
    So when we discuss WIC, or the post office, or defense. Our representatives are there, and are the ones that we should reasonably expect to fulfill that task.
    The people that are furloughed are now non-furloughed? Is that what you are no suggesting?
    Secondly, what about those laws they didn't pass, or the programs they didn't start or have been in existence for a long time? Who is supposed to re-evaluate them?

    JJ:Challenge to support a claim.Please specify the people that will do this, how you are going to get this information from the thousands of individual departments.
    Our elected officials.

    I'm not sure why that isn't obvious to you.
    The same people that you complain that "Would you agree that the process congress tends to do is one based on partisanship and pork projects. Where one pork project is passed with the compromise that another from the other party is passed as well (or enough to pass the spending)?" are not supposed to produce a different outcome?

    Goodness me. I'm seriously losing track of the number of times that you have contradicted yourself, opened up holes in how you'd implement this and generally continuing to fail to support the challenge with a realistic answer that doesn't go against your own case.

    Challenge to support a claim. Please be specific who is to lead this effort, how many people you expect to bring back from furlough to do this and how you would handle programs that don't have a direct representative. This is not a new challenge - you still haven't supported that there are people to perform this task within the shutdown scenario you are taking advantage of.

  21. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I am pointing out that there are no people to perform this task because they have been furloughed
    And on that point you are mistaken, evidenced by the presence of our elected officials who’s job it falls on.

    From that mistake you extrapolate wild and fanciful absurdities that have no relation to reality, such as a new second gov, or a misconstrued idea of contradiction. Which makes the rest of your post a straw-man.

    You may find that you are not nearly as confused by my position if you stick to my actual argument and not the forest of straw-men you keep growing.
    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. #60
    Registered User

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

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

    (Apologies for the challenges, it's the only mechanism I have to get you to answer specific points - you seem to be ignoring specific questions which challenge the plausibility of your OP.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    JJ:I am pointing out that there are no people to perform this task because they have been furloughed
    And on that point you are mistaken, evidenced by the presence of our elected officials who’s job it falls on.
    The problem is that you haven't specified which elected officials:

    1. The furloughed ones
    2. The non-furloughed ones performing emergency jobs
    3. The people that you have already accused of pushing pork.

    Challenge to support a claim. Please be specific about exactly who these elected officials are.

    And this still doesn't address the problem that in this re-evaluation, there is a great deal of research needed. You & I have both had to hunt down information and if you multiply this out to the thousands of individual programs, we would need to bring back people from all levels of government.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that there are sufficient people to perform this task in a furloughed government. Either admit that you will have to recall staff (and if you do, how many) or that this task is impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    From that mistake you extrapolate wild and fanciful absurdities that have no relation to reality, such as a new second gov, or a misconstrued idea of contradiction. Which makes the rest of your post a straw-man.
    That was from your own words! You said "WE(the people) and the gov":
    MT: What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs/departments with an eye to examining how the people interact with the gov(see example given to van) and an eye to balancing the budget and prioritizing.

    JJ: So now we need a body independent of government to evaluate government? That's just compounding the problem that the OP is unrealistic.

    Straw-man
    I did not suggest a body independent of the gov.


    So clearly, you're not talking about elected officials or people currently working in government. You are explicitly talking about a new set of people drawn. And since you also challenged that Congress & The Senate are not the right group because of the pork issue, then who else is there? Obama?

    Challenge to support a claim. Admit that you said that "WE(the people)" would perform this task. And in doing so, withdraw that it is an invalid point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You may find that you are not nearly as confused by my position if you stick to my actual argument and not the forest of straw-men you keep growing.
    I am answering the question from your OP:
    Should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?

    I am answering "no", because the scenario is on shaky foundations, it is an unrealistic scenario; and I haven't been able to get you to tell me how it would even work, who would perform such tasks and what benefits you expect; and more importantly why. Thus far, you haven't shown a single benefit, most our discussions has been keeping the jobs, some challenges (including this one) result in adding more jobs thus going against the OP, and you already have to recant one of the benefits that brought you to this scenario in the first place!

    The latter showing how poor such an idea is in the first place - taking advantage of a fluid situation to perform a task that risks the livelihood of Americans mainly to push a poorly understood economic problem under a weak political idea.

    PS. I have actually read the OP a few times - I understand where you want to lead the discussion (re-evaluating the jobs) but I disagree that a furlough period is the time to do it. I also doubt that it is going to get you the results you're expecting and will likely spend more money on the task than you'll save. And I'm not even convince that we have a problem to begin with (i.e. you still haven't supported that this re-evaluation isn't already) or that this is the solution (vs raising taxes). Finally, you have yet, beyond the OP, with anyone, specified a single good thing to come out of this (taking food from babies doesn't count) !

 

 
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 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
  •