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

[MindTrap028]

The gov shut down for various political reasons. This thread is not about those reasons. Here I want to discuss another aspect/effect of the shut down.
Currently "non-essential" gov workers are not working. My question is.

Given our current financial situation, specifically the fact that the gov spends more than it takes in, should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?

--Expanded
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?

DISCUSS!!


*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.

[JimJones8934]

I think you're largely missing the point of what non-essential means. From http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...-furloughs.pdf, the government's own guidelines:

Excepted employees include employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing certain other types of excepted work.

Those 900,000 other employees that are being furloughed may well be non-essential in the short term but how much of America's culture (museums, tours, parks, etc.) do you wish to see shutdown and for how long?

There were stories of children with cancer being turned away from clinical trials because there is no one to run them:

At the National Institutes of Health, nearly three-quarters of the staff was furloughed. One result: director Francis Collins said about 200 patients who otherwise would be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center into clinical trials each week will be turned away. This includes about 30 children, most of them cancer patients, he said.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ing-treatment/)

NASA is gone:

"Due to government shutdown, we will not be posting or responding from this account," the crew responsible for the Voyager 2 space probe wrote late Monday on Twitter. "Farewell, humans. Sort it out yourselves."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/tech/s...ment-shutdown/

And I'm sure the coming days will show what the other 900,000 employees were up to as this and the Sequester really begins affecting the country.

So while you may well be fine, since you're not being furloughed, nor wanting to visit museums or other American cultural centers, nor having a kid with cancer or any other medical treatment affected by this, nor perhaps not even caring about space; there are plenty of others who don't want to live in a bare essentials country. Glorify the small government while you can but don't forget that behind every non-essential department are people and their families about to go into financial hardship.

In answer to your question: there is no need to re-defend their positions - they do so already on a continual basis annual for their budgets.

[CowboyX]

specifically the fact that the gov spends more than it takes in

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.

[MindTrap028]

I think you're largely missing the point of what non-essential means. From http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...-furloughs.pdf, the government's own guidelines:
Excepted employees include employees who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing certain other types of excepted work.

No I accept that definition.

Those 900,000 other employees that are being furloughed may well be non-essential in the short term but how much of America's culture (museums, tours, parks, etc.) do you wish to see shutdown and for how long?

If there is long term negative effect that we don't like.. wouldn't that be a valid justification for their existence?
Should we ask those questions of each job? Or do you wish to lump all 900K jobs in with the parks and museums?
Why can't we make some parks have zero workers and remain open? Such as the national monuments? In other words no workers =/= no access. That is a false delima.

Glorify the small government while you can but don't forget that behind every non-essential department are people and their families about to go into financial hardship.

I specifically addressed this in the OP.

So while you may well be fine, since you're not being furloughed, nor wanting to visit museums or other American cultural centers, nor having a kid with cancer or any other medical treatment affected by this, nor perhaps not even caring about space; there are plenty of others who don't want to live in a bare essentials country.

That is not what I said, and is thus a straw-man.
Please try to address the topic of the thread and my specific position in the future.

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.

In answer to your question: there is no need to re-defend their positions - they do so already on a continual basis annual for their budgets.

Right now we are having a very national conversation about the merits of funding Obama care.
We do not have a similar discussion about each of the "non-essential" government workers each time a budget is passed.
I talking about having a much more in depth national discussion, and about those jobs being justified to the people not simply in the private budget meetings.

[Someguy]

So while you may well be fine, since you're not being furloughed, nor wanting to visit museums or other American cultural centers, nor having a kid with cancer or any other medical treatment affected by this, nor perhaps not even caring about space; there are plenty of others who don't want to live in a bare essentials country. Glorify the small government while you can but don't forget that behind every non-essential department are people and their families about to go into financial hardship.
.

If this is really the position you hold, then for sake of the dear old cancer patients, tell your boy Dirty Harry Reid to negotiate.

[JimJones8934]

If this is really the position you hold, then for sake of the dear old cancer patients, tell your boy Dirty Harry Reid to negotiate.

I believe the the Democrats already have negotiated the original bill to appease the right-wing but the GOP won't take yes for an answer. Continual blackmail like this should never be rewarded otherwise, what is the point of winning elections. Besides, to give the GOP what they want would cause an even greater harm.

[Someguy]

Delaying this horrible bill for a year would cause more harm? How exactly?

Sounds like YOU are willing to sacrifice "America's culture" and "Little Sally the cancer patient" for pride.

[JimJones8934]

If there is long term negative effect that we don't like.. wouldn't that be a valid justification for their existence?
Should we ask those questions of each job? Or do you wish to lump all 900K jobs in with the parks and museums?

I'm not sure whether waiting and seeing what happens is an appropriate way to run things. We already know those jobs are needed because they have already been budgeted for.

Why can't we make some parks have zero workers and remain open? Such as the national monuments? In other words no workers =/= no access. That is a false delima.

So who guards the artifacts? Who gives the tours? Who studies the artifacts so that we can learn and maintain our history? Who runs the restaurants and cafés and who cleans the place? Who runs IT? Who manages the various day to day operations and who so they report to? Who thinks of new ideas to attract more people? Who maintains the gardens?

I'm not clear specifically what world you are imagining but it sounds like a crumbling one. Maybe it might survive a generation with nonhuman love and care but I doubt it.

I specifically addressed this in the OP.

]
Actually you didn't you just reworded the OP with a false equivalence. Reviewing 900,000 jobs is nothing like reviewing one job.

That is not what I said, and is thus a straw-man.
Please try to address the topic of the thread and my specific position in the future.

I think even in this thread you show that you haven't really considered what these non essential jobs actually are. I'm assuming therefore that you don't really care. But let's stick with your own example of national monuments - which jobs do you think should be kept?

Right now we are having a very national conversation about the merits of funding Obama care.

Actually, right now, as of yesterday, people are beginning to truly see the benefits of ObamaCare. So much so that the websites couldn't even cope. This is just a last ditch attempt to try and ensure its failure.

We do not have a similar discussion about each of the "non-essential" government workers each time a budget is passed.

Well that's because non-essential means barebones and running a barebones country is not what we are about. We, some of us anyway, are proud of our institutions and artifacts and history and scientific acumen. We believe those should be funded and believe there is sufficient oversight to ensure that our tax dollars are well spent. We also believe that the accrual of these jobs to be in fair keeping to maintain those things we deem precious. A do-over to rebuild the last few decades, assuming those artifacts haven't crumbled away in the meantime isn't quite the way to do it.

I talking about having a much more in depth national discussion, and about those jobs being justified to the people not simply in the private budget meetings.

Honestly, I couldn't think if anything more boring but it is wrong to say it is private - all the governments' spending is out there for all to see. If you want to pick something to discuss then do so. It sounds as if you're complaining about something rather non specific and non researched here.

---------- Post added at 04:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------

Delaying this horrible bill for a year would cause more harm? How exactly?

Sounds like YOU are willing to sacrifice "America's culture" and "Little Sally the cancer patient" for pride.

Well it's actually already gone into effect so the time trying to delay is long past. Everything is ready to go.

The harm would be that all those systems and jobs would either still have to be paid for or we pay a shutdown/startup cost thus wasting money for no real gain.

And I think you're going to start seeing more and more stories of people getting affordable insurance; each story there - each purchase, each question for more information , each website visit is a validation of the system. A few months down the road, there will be real stories of people whose lives have been saved, or diseases detected early because those people now have access to care. Eventually, there will be a healthier country, no families devastated through medical bankruptcy and we, as a country, are going to be better for it. Those are some examples of harm if the act is delayed.

I'm not clear what a delaying is even supposed to achieve. All questions should have been answered by now. Systems are ready to go and people are eager to get insurance. I really don't see any justifications for delay at this point now.

That horse has bolted, the milk spilled, and the cat is out of the bag. Sounds like poor planning on the part of the GOP.

[MindTrap028]

I'm not sure whether waiting and seeing what happens is an appropriate way to run things. We already know those jobs are needed because they have already been budgeted for.

So by definition because they exist.. they should exist?
How can we question any gov job then?

So who guards the artifacts? Who gives the tours? Who studies the artifacts so that we can learn and maintain our history? Who runs the restaurants and cafés and who cleans the place? Who runs IT? Who manages the various day to day operations and who so they report to? Who thinks of new ideas to attract more people? Who maintains the gardens?

First, would you agree that not all need that level of involvement to be maintained?

Such as national parks like Yellow Stone. You don’t need a tour to maintain them.
.. The point, to be clear, is that not all jobs are equal even in this area.

Actually you didn't you just reworded the OP with a false equivalence. Reviewing 900,000 jobs is nothing like reviewing one job.

How is it a false equivalence? In the Op I pointed out that the principle was flawed.
You are appealing to that principle. It doesn't change because of the number being considered.

I think even in this thread you show that you haven't really considered what these non essential jobs actually are. I'm assuming therefore that you don't really care. But let's stick with your own example of national monuments - which jobs do you think should be kept?

I think especially the ones that actually produce a profit. I’m guessing many of them pay for themselves. In which case it doesn’t make sense to cut them. *NOTE that would probably include Yellow Stone*

Actually, right now, as of yesterday, people are beginning to truly see the benefits of ObamaCare. So much so that the websites couldn't even cope. This is just a last ditch attempt to try and ensure its failure.

Not the point of this thread.

Well that's because non-essential means barebones and running a barebones country is not what we are about. We, some of us anyway, are proud of our institutions and artifacts and history and scientific acumen. We believe those should be funded and believe there is sufficient oversight to ensure that our tax dollars are well spent. We also believe that the accrual of these jobs to be in fair keeping to maintain those things we deem precious. A do-over to rebuild the last few decades, assuming those artifacts haven't crumbled away in the meantime isn't quite the way to do it.

You seem to be assuming an argument against that stuff. Why are you making that assumption and then addressing it to me?

Honestly, I couldn't think if anything more boring but it is wrong to say it is private - all the governments' spending is out there for all to see. If you want to pick something to discuss then do so. It sounds as if you're complaining about something rather non specific and non researched here.

Really… complaining.
Could you quote that line for me?
You seem to be reading something that isn't there.

[evensaul]

There were stories of children with cancer being turned away from clinical trials because there is no one to run them...

Our current national debt is $16,738,183,526,697, and current population is about 317 million. That's more than $52,000 in debt per person.

Why is it essential for the government to spend money we don't have on these clinical trials? Why can't such trials be done by drug companies and/or university research departments, or other non-governmental organizations?

[JimJones8934]

So by definition because they exist.. they should exist?

No. I'm saying if the job is already justified then the information is already there. Certainly not via your idea in the OP!

How can we question any gov job then?

Through the existing channels.

First, would you agree that not all need that level of involvement to be maintained?

Ah, so we are going from a 'minimal government' of bare essentials to maintenance now? Which is it that you are arguing for. I'm confused?

Such as national parks like Yellow Stone. You don’t need a tour to maintain them.
.. The point, to be clear, is that not all jobs are equal even in this area.

I'm not saying all jobs apply to all monuments. I am suggesting that all jobs have a function to keep the place maintained and attractive and safe.
YS should certainly have tour guides if only to ensure that people safely visit the place.

How is it a false equivalence? In the Op I pointed out that the principle was flawed.
You are appealing to that principle. It doesn't change because of the number being considered.

The principle no longer makes sense when applied to 900,000 in one go.

I think especially the ones that actually produce a profit. I’m guessing many of them pay for themselves. In which case it doesn’t make sense to cut them. *NOTE that would probably include Yellow Stone*

So now we are not taking about a minimal government large enough to maintain these structures but also we can grow them without limit so long as they can pay for themselves!

Sounds like your minimal government is growing by the paragraph. When does it ever stop?

Not the point of this thread.

Agreed. I have requested that the SG section be moved to another thread.

You seem to be assuming an argument against that stuff. Why are you making that assumption and then addressing it to me?

Your OP is taking advantage of the furloughs as a way to reduce the size of government . Thus far it seems almost as if your growing it right back to where it was.

Really… complaining.
Could you quote that line for me?
You seem to be reading something that isn't there.

It's the idea that non essential jobs haven't already been justified. The implication seems to me is that you are saying they aren't justified or that you do not know the justification. Which is it?

You haven't really specified which and indeed it seems to me your criteria for government jobs is quite open ended. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by 'shrinking government' in the OP and where you propose it should be shrunk.

[chadn737]

The government shutdown does indirectly affect me in a couple of ways:

1) Delays my ability to complete grants/fellowships. Actually I have a NSF fellowship due on the 8th and unless the shutdown ends before then, I will not be able to submit on time. I really have no idea if the deadline will be changed to account for this fact or not.

2) It has shutdown the labs of collaborators in the USDA.

3) Slows down/stops a lot of websites essential for research, like the NCBI.

4) Delays funding we have already been awarded.

[Someguy]

Well it's actually already gone into effect so the time trying to delay is long past. Everything is ready to go.

Reality seems to, as I find is pretty typical in most Liberal positions, disagree with you.

There are NUMEROUS reports, even from the most Liberal of "news" sites of crashes, failures, and glitches. Hardly indicative of something "ready to go". Despite that, even if it was "Ready to go" it is still a horrible law that will increase healthcare spending by around 7,500 a year for a family of four. and add over 1.4 trillion dollars of cost to the tax payer. But, who cares, right? Just increase the taxes on the evil rich!

The harm would be that all those systems and jobs would either still have to be paid for or we pay a shutdown/startup cost thus wasting money for no real gain.

I'm failing to see the harm. The system being up and running would cost more and create a negative gain by many estimates. And these "Jobs" that you speak of are government positions that is leeching more money for the tax payers (evil rich) and giving it to people to perform a government job that is going to destroy the economy as we know it. No, no I'm not seeing the negative here at all.

And I think you're going to start seeing more and more stories of people getting affordable insurance; each story there - each purchase, each question for more information , each website visit is a validation of the system. A few months down the road, there will be real stories of people whose lives have been saved, or diseases detected early because those people now have access to care. Eventually, there will be a healthier country, no families devastated through medical bankruptcy and we, as a country, are going to be better for it. Those are some examples of harm if the act is delayed.

I think you are going to see stories of more and more families experiencing financial ruin because of the Liberals and their Great Leader imposing their will on the American people. But, as long as it is the evil rich (AKA anyone NOT on a government program for "assistance") who cares, right?

I'm not clear what a delaying is even supposed to achieve.

It's suppose to achieve a compromise. The thing that Liberals NEVER want to do. But, it is the thing that they sure love to complain about not happening when they aren't in power.

All questions should have been answered by now.

Common man, you can't really think that.

Systems are ready to go and people are eager to get insurance.

..............are you serious? Was insurance not available before hand? Is this some super new insurance program that only Great Leader can offer? There are hundreds of millions of American who are not, in the slightest, "eager" for this law to ever come into effect. But, they don't count, I guess.

I really don't see any justifications for delay at this point now.

You wouldn't =] No follower of Great Leader ever would. =]

That horse has bolted, the milk spilled, and the cat is out of the bag. Sounds like poor planning on the part of the GOP.

Just because something is, doesn't mind it should be. Don't tell any black person that at least. They might think you would have opposed Civil Rights like other Democrats did.

[JimJones8934]

Here is another 'bad' thing that is happening due to the furlough:

From Arkansas' Governor Beebe:

If the federal government shutdown occurs and funding stops, it will greatly hinder the ability of the Arkansas Department of Human Services to investigate claims of child abuse and neglect. More than 85,000 meals for Arkansas children will not be provided and protection for nursing-home residents will be reduced. Two-thousand newborn babies will not receive infant formula through the Department of Health’s WIC program. That number includes the more than 300 special-needs babies who soon run out of special formula they can only receive through a certified program like WIC.


http://governor.arkansas.gov/newsroo...1&news_id=4133

--------------
While you TP'ers gloat over your now minimal governments made real, there is actual harm about to be done.

[evensaul]

Here is another 'bad' thing that is happening due to the furlough:

From Arkansas' Governor Beebe:

If the federal government shutdown occurs and funding stops, it will greatly hinder the ability of the Arkansas Department of Human Services to investigate claims of child abuse and neglect. More than 85,000 meals for Arkansas children will not be provided and protection for nursing-home residents will be reduced. Two-thousand newborn babies will not receive infant formula through the Department of Health’s WIC program. That number includes the more than 300 special-needs babies who soon run out of special formula they can only receive through a certified program like WIC.


http://governor.arkansas.gov/newsroo...1&news_id=4133

--------------
While you TP'ers gloat over your now minimal governments made real, there is actual harm about to be done.

The federal government shouldn't be taking tax dollars from residents of other states and sending them to Arkansas. Let Arkansans fund their own welfare programs. Putting an end to that kind of wealth redistribution is a "good" result of the federal government shutdown.

[Sigfried]

Given our current financial situation, specifically the fact that the gov spends more than it takes in, should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?

Yes and no.

Yes, all government spending should be justified.
No, you don't do it by sabotaging your cash flow and then holding court on who gets paid before you agree to turn it on.

If you want to change the way things are, you need to form agreement on how to change them. If you can't form agreement you are stuck with what we have.

--Expanded
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?

We've done it before, it didn't balance the budget. I doubt there will be any serious financial impact for our debt. It is more just a waste of time and money.

*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.

There is a difference between planing to eliminate a job and simply not paying people for the work any more. The principle is a straw man.

[MindTrap028]

No. I'm saying if the job is already justified then the information is already there. Certainly not via your idea in the OP!

If we assume that it had to be justified to come into existence, then you are not saying anything more than… It exists, thus it should.
The OP is about Re-valuating those jobs.

Through the existing channels.

How is a budget debate not the proper and existing channel?

Ah, so we are going from a 'minimal government' of bare essentials to maintenance now? Which is it that you are arguing for. I'm confused?

I’m haven’t argued for any. I’m trying to have a conversation on if they should be justified and if so, what are some of the justifications.
You seem to be making blanket assumptions and arguments, both of which I have not been a part of. Please try to stick to what is being forwarded.

I'm not saying all jobs apply to all monuments. I am suggesting that all jobs have a function to keep the place maintained and attractive and safe.
YS should certainly have tour guides if only to ensure that people safely visit the place.

Well, if you assume all jobs have a valid function, then you aren’t really willing to have them justify themselves.
I think we should make them justify themselves, and that we should not make the kind of assumption you make here.

The principle no longer makes sense when applied to 900,000 in one go.

Why not?

So now we are not taking about a minimal government large enough to maintain these structures but also we can grow them without limit so long as they can pay for themselves!

Sounds like your minimal government is growing by the paragraph. When does it ever stop?

Straw-man.
I have not appealed to some “minimal gov”. This has been in the context of income not being enough to pay for spending. That is what has dictated the “size” of gov.

Your OP is taking advantage of the furloughs as a way to reduce the size of government . Thus far it seems almost as if your growing it right back to where it was.

Well, I do think this is an opportunity to have this discussion. I mean may be easier to realize that we don’t’ need something, when it is gone and we are not negatively effected, or if some private thing takes it’s place.

It's the idea that non essential jobs haven't already been justified. The implication seems to me is that you are saying they aren't justified or that you do not know the justification. Which is it?

It is a Reivaluation. It is to take a second look. I’m not claiming that they were not justified when they started, but that we should take a look again given our financial situation.

I have had to do this on a personal level several times.

You haven't really specified which and indeed it seems to me your criteria for government jobs is quite open ended. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by 'shrinking government' in the OP and where you propose it should be shrunk.

Well, I would like to shrink gov in general, but the OP doesn’t hinge on it. A person who wants the largest gov possible should still agree with me on the balancing budget aspect.

So if you reject the general goal of shrinking the gov so that it is less intrusive in our lives, then you should discuss this topic from the POV of having the most useful and productive jobs the gov can afford.


A good example would be for the guy that cleans MT rushmore… Sure he does something “great”, but we don’t have the money for that and cancer research.
So you should agree that he lose his job, because you are able to reasonably weigh the benefits of cancer research, and the usefulness of cleaning a Granit mountain face that will out-last the existence of the human race regardless if it is cleaned or not.

The government shutdown does indirectly affect me in a couple of ways:

1) Delays my ability to complete grants/fellowships. Actually I have a NSF fellowship due on the 8th and unless the shutdown ends before then, I will not be able to submit on time. I really have no idea if the deadline will be changed to account for this fact or not.

2) It has shutdown the labs of collaborators in the USDA.

3) Slows down/stops a lot of websites essential for research, like the NCBI.

4) Delays funding we have already been awarded.

Sorry to hear that chad.

If you had to lose one of those things because the gov simply can’t afford all of them.. which one would/should it be?

Here is another 'bad' thing that is happening due to the furlough:

From Arkansas' Governor Beebe:

If the federal government shutdown occurs and funding stops, it will greatly hinder the ability of the Arkansas Department of Human Services to investigate claims of child abuse and neglect. More than 85,000 meals for Arkansas children will not be provided and protection for nursing-home residents will be reduced. Two-thousand newborn babies will not receive infant formula through the Department of Health’s WIC program. That number includes the more than 300 special-needs babies who soon run out of special formula they can only receive through a certified program like WIC.

Correct me if I’m wrong.. but woman are equipped to feed their new born babies.
So not giving them free formula is not the end of the world. Agree?
In fact.. it seems to be a very reasonable cut that we should consider.

Yes and no.

Yes, all government spending should be justified.
No, you don't do it by sabotaging your cash flow and then holding court on who gets paid before you agree to turn it on.

If you want to change the way things are, you need to form agreement on how to change them. If you can't form agreement you are stuck with what we have.

It seems to me it is the purpose of the house to FORCE this conversation to move forward. That is why they were given the power of the purse.

What do you think? Was the house given the power of the purse for the purpose of effecting change in spending, or was it just an “advisory” roll that was intended?

We've done it before, it didn't balance the budget.

Is it a zero sum game? Should we not even try to move towards a balanced budget, if we aren’t going to get it all done in one go? Why?

I doubt there will be any serious financial impact for our debt. It is more just a waste of time and money.

What do you mean “serious”? If we cut 1/100th of the gov programs because they were not justifiable anymore.. you wouldn’t be for that? We should’t even try?
That doesn’t make sense to poo-poo the significance of even small changes, or given the climate in Washington ANY change.

There is a difference between planing to eliminate a job and simply not paying people for the work any more. The principle is a straw man.

I’m confused on what you mean.
Certainly we don’t want to just quit paying people, they should be fired if they are not justifiable. The “principle” being referred to was the idea that no one should be fired, because that would mean they lose their job, and losing your job is bad.

It also can’t be a straw-man because I am not forwarding that anyone forwarded it, only that it is invalid. So you can’t call it a straw-man. You can call it valid, or invalid.
At best IMO you can maintain that it is valid but not applicable. Yet, JJ has already appealed to this principle. So it is applicable, and not a straw-man.

I think maybe your are confusing the idea that the shut down has occurred, with it being advocated by the OP.
The OP is simply saying that the shut down occurred, and that it may be a good time to re-evaluate the jobs.
The "principle" is a reference to the re-evaluation, not the shut down. Thus your distinction is not relevant.

[JimJones8934]

If we assume that it had to be justified to come into existence, then you are not saying anything more than… It exists, thus it should.
The OP is about Re-valuating those jobs.

How would re-evaluating them produce a different set of results?

How is a budget debate not the proper and existing channel?

It's not but shutting down government is not debating, it's blackmail.

JJ:Oh, so we are going from a 'minimal government' of bare essentials to maintenance now? Which is it that you are arguing for. I'm confused?
I’m haven’t argued for any. I’m trying to have a conversation on if they should be justified and if so, what are some of the justifications.
You seem to be making blanket assumptions and arguments, both of which I have not been a part of. Please try to stick to what is being forwarded.

Hmm, you're not arguing for any government at all or no particular size?

Either way you have answered your own questions:
- keeping government size in emergency levels is something you don't want.
- but then you also don't want to keep it at a barebones level either and that some jobs are required to maintain operating levels of certain treasures.
- then you yourself forward that so long as jobs can pay for themselves in value or are otherwise profitable then it's fine too: hence you don't posit a limit on the size of the government at all.

I know your politics are towards a small/limited government yet you come to your own conclusions that there should be no size, that the criteria for justification is profitability or some other financial justification. In short, and the reason why I bring up this point, you have answered your own questions.

Well, if you assume all jobs have a valid function, then you aren’t really willing to have them justify themselves.
I think we should make them justify themselves, and that we should not make the kind of assumption you make here.

So you are proposing that someone has to go through 900,000 individual justifications for their own jobs? Exactly how does this make sense? Or are you suggesting that the managers probably another few hundred thousand? Or are you suggesting that each department justifies itself? I'm not clear logistically how you expect this to work. If you can't figure that out then the question is entirely pointless.

The principle no longer makes sense when applied to 900,000 in one go.
Why not?

See above. How would you implement this?

JJ: Sounds like your minimal government is growing by the paragraph. When does it ever stop?
Straw-man.
I have not appealed to some “minimal gov”. This has been in the context of income not being enough to pay for spending. That is what has dictated the “size” of gov.

No directly, but from the OP you are suggesting that it should be smaller than it is. And you are arguing that the best way to make it smaller is to examine all 900,000 jobs in some unspecified way. At the same time though you offer no real criteria as to the size of government at all.

JJ:Your OP is taking advantage of the furloughs as a way to reduce the size of government . Thus far it seems almost as if your growing it right back to where it was.
Well, I do think this is an opportunity to have this discussion. I mean may be easier to realize that we don’t’ need something, when it is gone and we are not negatively effected, or if some private thing takes it’s place.

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?

It is a Reivaluation. It is to take a second look. I’m not claiming that they were not justified when they started, but that we should take a look again given our financial situation.

You can already take a second look! That's my point about your proposal - it makes no sense to question anything unless you've done some basic research to show that you understand where the problems even are! What you are proposing can be done at any time and I'd argue that it is done continuously at all levels of government. And in a way that is mostly open and transparent. There's no need to wait for a government shutdown for these questions.

I have had to do this on a personal level several times.

And?

JJ:You haven't really specified which and indeed it seems to me your criteria for government jobs is quite open ended. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by 'shrinking government' in the OP and where you propose it should be shrunk.
Well, I would like to shrink gov in general, but the OP doesn’t hinge on it. A person who wants the largest gov possible should still agree with me on the balancing budget aspect.

Well, your statements seem to belie that wish of shrinking government. When questioned, you seem to lean towards keeping things as they are - you haven't fowarded a single job that isn't necessary yet! Balancing a budget is easy - just raise taxes or make sure that everyone pays their fair share - it's not that hard. Or pull out of wars, not start new ones or plan better: that's not hard either.

So if you reject the general goal of shrinking the gov so that it is less intrusive in our lives, then you should discuss this topic from the POV of having the most useful and productive jobs the gov can afford.

I'm saying that we should have a right-sized government for the country we wish to live in. I believe that everything has been justified when it's transparent. I think that our military spending could be curtailed given that some of the projects are really pork.

As to the topic at hand, I'm at a loss as to the point of it: the information is already out there. I don't understand how you intend to implement it.

So the OP is made moot by:

a) your own words and discussions show that you don't need to shutdown government nor argue piecemeal for each job in order to get it back: you have shown that you can reasons can be developed at any time.
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.
c) and indeed have you have failed to discard any jobs whatsoever.

So it might take a while but I suspect that likely you'll agree that most of the jobs should come back.

A good example would be for the guy that cleans MT rushmore… Sure he does something “great”, but we don’t have the money for that and cancer research.
So you should agree that he lose his job, because you are able to reasonably weigh the benefits of cancer research, and the usefulness of cleaning a Granit mountain face that will out-last the existence of the human race regardless if it is cleaned or not.

I don't agree that we don't have the money. I don't agree that this is a realistic scenario. I'm not even sure that's even a job.

Correct me if I’m wrong.. but woman are equipped to feed their new born babies.
So not giving them free formula is not the end of the world. Agree?
In fact.. it seems to be a very reasonable cut that we should consider.

You are wrong - my sister was not able to breast feed at all and spent weeks in pain before giving up on it. So no, I don't agree in starving the poor.

But it's this kind of ignorant reasoning that seems to make me wonder if this isn't really about educating you about how the world works. And that's fine, it's an interesting topic and I don't claim to be any kind of expert either. But that's us individuals members not members of Congress who are supposed to know better (this is just in theory, I know that members of Congress are largely clueless too).

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

The federal government shouldn't be taking tax dollars from residents of other states and sending them to Arkansas. Let Arkansans fund their own welfare programs. Putting an end to that kind of wealth redistribution is a "good" result of the federal government shutdown.

In a way this makes sense - since it is those that complain most about big-government and handouts are those receiving the most. But in this great experiment we call America, wealth redistribution and social care is deep within our history. It is only the recent Koch-funded hate group, the Tea Party, where it is a good thing to let the poor and needy starve. Once that experiment is over and people come to their senses I think we will be better for it: at least we will have many examples to point to.

[Sigfried]

It seems to me it is the purpose of the house to FORCE this conversation to move forward. That is why they were given the power of the purse.

No MT clearly the purpose of the house was to kill the affordable care act. It is the only point of contention in the spending appropriation that has caused this problem.

What do you think? Was the house given the power of the purse for the purpose of effecting change in spending, or was it just an “advisory” roll that was intended?

Of course they can affect spending, but not by being a bunch of children and not coming to some kind of consensus.

Is it a zero sum game? Should we not even try to move towards a balanced budget, if we aren’t going to get it all done in one go? Why?

They should do it in the way that is prescribed, not by holding their breath until they get their way.

What do you mean “serious”? If we cut 1/100th of the gov programs because they were not justifiable anymore.. you wouldn’t be for that? We should’t even try?
That doesn’t make sense to poo-poo the significance of even small changes, or given the climate in Washington ANY change.

I thought you were referring to the shut down, aka the money saved by not paying people while it continues.

I’m confused on what you mean.
Certainly we don’t want to just quit paying people, they should be fired if they are not justifiable. The “principle” being referred to was the idea that no one should be fired, because that would mean they lose their job, and losing your job is bad.

That is not clear in your OP. Just look at the title of it for goodness sake.

[MindTrap028]

How would re-evaluating them produce a different set of results?

We have to produce a different result, because we can't afford what we are doing, evidenced by the spending deficite.

It's not but shutting down government is not debating, it's blackmail.

Well, that part has already happened. Not the ideal way to start the conversation.. but now we should have it.

Hmm, you're not arguing for any government at all or no particular size?

Put it like this. While I do like a smaller gov, I am not arguing for any particular cuts, I'm starting the conversation.

- keeping government size in emergency levels is something you don't want.

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".

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.

- then you yourself forward that so long as jobs can pay for themselves in value or are otherwise profitable then it's fine too: hence you don't posit a limit on the size of the government at all.

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?

I know your politics are towards a small/limited government yet you come to your own conclusions that there should be no size, that the criteria for justification is profitability or some other financial justification. In short, and the reason why I bring up this point, you have answered your own questions.

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.

So you are proposing that someone has to go through 900,000 individual justifications for their own jobs? Exactly how does this make sense? Or are you suggesting that the managers probably another few hundred thousand? Or are you suggesting that each department justifies itself? I'm not clear logistically how you expect this to work. If you can't figure that out then the question is entirely pointless.

I would say top down. First the department.

No directly, but from the OP you are suggesting that it should be smaller than it is. And you are arguing that the best way to make it smaller is to examine all 900,000 jobs in some unspecified way. At the same time though you offer no real criteria as to the size of government at all.

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.

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.

You can already take a second look! That's my point about your proposal - it makes no sense to question anything unless you've done some basic research to show that you understand where the problems even are! What you are proposing can be done at any time and I'd argue that it is done continuously at all levels of government. And in a way that is mostly open and transparent. There's no need to wait for a government shutdown for these questions.

Well, I'm not proposing to shut down the gov in order to ask these questions.
second, yes.. we can already take a second look.. that's why I propose doing it now...
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.

Well, your statements seem to belie that wish of shrinking government. When questioned, you seem to lean towards keeping things as they are - you haven't fowarded a single job that isn't necessary yet! Balancing a budget is easy - just raise taxes or make sure that everyone pays their fair share - it's not that hard. Or pull out of wars, not start new ones or plan better: that's not hard either.

No, because the first question must be answered.. should we?
We would have to agree on that before we start yes?

I'm saying that we should have a right-sized government for the country we wish to live in.

Unfettered by actual income produced by it?

I believe that everything has been justified when it's transparent.

So we shouldn't bother with this discussion that the OP proposes?

I think that our military spending could be curtailed given that some of the projects are really pork.

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?

a) your own words and discussions show that you don't need to shutdown government nor argue piecemeal for each job in order to get it back: you have shown that you can reasons can be developed at any time.

That doesn't make it moot, in fact that we CAN have the discussion at any time means that we CAN discuss it now.

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.

c) and indeed have you have failed to discard any jobs whatsoever.

We can hardly move to that point without agreeing on some basics.

I don't agree that we don't have the money. I don't agree that this is a realistic scenario. I'm not even sure that's even a job.

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.

You are wrong - my sister was not able to breast feed at all and spent weeks in pain before giving up on it. So no, I don't agree in starving the poor.

So all women are like your sister, and we shouldn't even consider cutting back on the program?
Sounds like a hasty generalization.

But it's this kind of ignorant reasoning that seems to make me wonder if this isn't really about educating you about how the world works. And that's fine, it's an interesting topic and I don't claim to be any kind of expert either.

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 MT clearly the purpose of the house was to kill the affordable care act. It is the only point of contention in the spending appropriation that has caused this problem.

Not the topic of the OP. Thanks for the sarcasm, can you try a serious answer so we can forward a discussion?

Of course they can affect spending, but not by being a bunch of children and not coming to some kind of consensus.

It seems the house is at some kind of consensus.. hence the bill they sent to the senate yes?

They should do it in the way that is prescribed, not by holding their breath until they get their way.

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?"

I thought you were referring to the shut down, aka the money saved by not paying people while it continues.

So you were saying that the entire shut down doesn't save any money at all, or not a significant amount?

Can you support that assertion, because if it is true then that answers the thread IMO.
But it is hardly an assumption we should accept. I mean, if it didn't save any money or have any monetary impact.. then why were the jobs shut down and by who?
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?

That is not clear in your OP. Just look at the title of it for goodness sake.

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.