If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Government Accountability Office counts up the number of federal jobs cut by the devastating evil budget sequester, and finds...one   (reason.com) divider line 255
    More: Followup, Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, Stephanie Cutter, evils, austerities, federal employees, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

1067 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-08 11:53:46 AM
So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

cloudfront-media.reason.com

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.
 
2014-05-08 11:57:23 AM

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


Yeah, this.
 
2014-05-08 12:03:08 PM

Clent: No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.
 
2014-05-08 12:21:12 PM
FTFA "As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) explains:..."

I see where this is going.

Also from TFA: "19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and 7 reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from 1 to 7 days. "

Gee, Tom (R-at bastard), please 'splain to me again how it didn't affect the Gov or the economy at all.
 
2014-05-08 12:26:08 PM
We hurt job and GDP growth because the party that ran up our deficit/debt all of sudden gave a damn about it.
 
2014-05-08 12:31:48 PM
See the sequestration was perfectly fine.  The government can run forever on nothing, you evil Dems just want to punish the successful, that is the only reason for taxes, as we can see they don't actually pay for vital services.
 
2014-05-08 12:35:21 PM
And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?
 
2014-05-08 12:37:21 PM
19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.
 
2014-05-08 12:37:36 PM
WE WANT MORE PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED, GODDAMNIT!

/and cut off their food stamps while we're at it
 
2014-05-08 12:38:45 PM
That... He couldn't even read the chart he put up... I am astounded.
 
2014-05-08 12:41:16 PM
Why doesn't Reason employ people who aren't either liars or completely stupid or some combination of the two.
 
2014-05-08 12:45:05 PM

dr_blasto: Why doesn't Reason employ people who aren't either liars or completely stupid or some combination of the two.


There must be a good Reason.
 
2014-05-08 12:51:34 PM
No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013. 
 
2014-05-08 01:11:16 PM
Reason is trying really hard to be more disingenuous than Investors Business Daily.

Keep trying, guys. You've still got a way to go, but you're gaining on them.
 
2014-05-08 01:23:59 PM

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


but, not so fast:

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013.


yep.  still just one federal employee.

good work there, farkers.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-08 01:33:04 PM
Probably that's because the sequester was dealt with by furloughing employees, not by eliminating them so it's not too surprising that something that no one thought was going to happen didn't happen.
 
2014-05-08 01:39:11 PM
A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.
 
2014-05-08 01:40:09 PM

WhiskeyBender: A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.


Sorry, the plant was shut down in western Kentucky.
 
2014-05-08 02:46:02 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.


Which, much to the chagrin of government haters, is exactly where most government cuts start.

REASON: LESS SPENDING!

Gov't: We have left positions vacant which has resulted in significant salary savings

REASON: BUT WE WANT TO SEE ACTUAL PEOPLE FIRED!!

Gov't: This saves money and doesn't reduce our ability to provide services

REASON: GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS INCOMPETENT!!
 
2014-05-08 02:48:34 PM
Reason's figure is only off by 5 orders of magnitude. I must admit, they're getting more honest.

The funny thing is, one could argue the following numbers are small. But that raises the point, "why do Republicans always have to lie?"

From the Report:
SBA completed an early retirement offering, through which nearly 200 employees retired.
SBA also achieved $9.5 million in savings by implementing a partial hiring
freeze


DOE officials also estimated that
contractors reduced or left vacant approximately 1,000 positions in fiscal
year 2013, including laying off or voluntarily separating more than 300 of
their employees.
These figures do not include subcontractor employees,
university researchers, and others who do not have a direct contractual
relationship with DOE.

however, as of March 2013, the hiring freeze no
longer allowed for the automatic backfilling of such personnel. DOJ
reported that it lost over 3,500 employees between January 2011, when
the hiring freeze was implemented, and September 21, 2013,
the last pay
period in fiscal year 2013. This loss equals almost 3 percent of DOJ's
workforce, including almost 400 agents, almost 200 intelligence analysts,
and over 400 attorneys. DOJ stated that the largest losses-of over 2,000
employees-were among support staff, such as paralegals, chemists,
accountants, and contract specialists.

Implemented a hiring freeze, with only minimal hiring in critical frontline
areas. SSA reported that this action resulted in the loss of about
11,000 employees since 2011,
including about 1,875 federal and state
employees from March 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.83
 
2014-05-08 02:54:23 PM
research.stlouisfed.org
 
2014-05-08 03:19:00 PM
Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.
 
2014-05-08 03:19:49 PM

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.


So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:28 PM

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.


My farts cause uncertainty too.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:51 PM

MrBallou: FTFA "As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) explains:..."

I see where this is going.

Also from TFA: "19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and 7 reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from 1 to 7 days. "

Gee, Tom (R-at bastard), please 'splain to me again how it didn't affect the Gov or the economy at all.


I just used Dr. Tom's house as a Comparable Listing on an appraisal I did in Muskogee, Ok.

I think it is for sale for about $840K.     Which would mean it would sell for $4mil+ on either coast.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:55 PM

DamnYankees: Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.

Yeah, this.

Since when have facts meant shiat to these farking idiots.
 
2014-05-08 03:21:06 PM
more lying liars with lies from those upstanding good people over at the GOP.
 
2014-05-08 03:22:17 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


Yeah, but the guy is technically correct.  So good for him.
 
2014-05-08 03:23:07 PM
who left all these jobs lying around
 
2014-05-08 03:23:22 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


And I'm fairly certain everyone was talking about the sequester in its entirety, something like 10 budget years, n'est-ce pas?

And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?
 
2014-05-08 03:24:08 PM
1. Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
2. Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
3. Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?
 
2014-05-08 03:24:39 PM

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


And a lot of people weren't hired for projects that were scheduled to start.

But none of those jobs count. So in the conservative (unskewed) reality, the sequester had very little economic ramifications.
 
2014-05-08 03:24:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: 1. Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
2. Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
3. Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?


Oops...wrong thread.
 
2014-05-08 03:25:24 PM

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


So I came into here wondering "Hmmm I wonder, how is this 100% complete bullshiat" - Thanks for pointing it out in the very Weeners.

To me it's amazing how these people still keep going back to the same BS even if it's proven wrong again and again.
 
2014-05-08 03:26:37 PM
They found one because they stopped looking after that.
 
2014-05-08 03:26:44 PM
CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

Oh look. The CBO calls BS on the sequester doesn't destroy jobs talking point.

Reason is good when they write about protecting privacy. On other fronts, they often sound identical to the GOP outlets they purport to be better than.
 
2014-05-08 03:26:52 PM

Dr Dreidel: And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?


Yep, the GOP mindset seems to be:

"Unemployment is bad...unless those people who are getting laid off are government workers, then in that case, fark them!"
 
2014-05-08 03:27:10 PM

kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?


Not enough.
 
2014-05-08 03:27:40 PM

DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.


Why do you want higher unemployment?
 
2014-05-08 03:28:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.

And I'm fairly certain everyone was talking about the sequester in its entirety, something like 10 budget years, n'est-ce pas?

And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?


No, they're upset that the sequester didn't make Obama look bad.
 
2014-05-08 03:28:17 PM
Well in that case it looks like we can cut military funding again without any issues.
 
2014-05-08 03:28:24 PM

fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

Oh look. The CBO calls BS on the sequester doesn't destroy jobs talking point.

Reason is good when they write about protecting privacy. On other fronts, they often sound identical to the GOP outlets they purport to be better than.


I always figured that Reason was "Libertarian" in the same sense that Rand Paul and Cato are libertarians.

Which is that they'll pay lip service to the libertarian wing of the GOP but for the most part just recite GOP talking points.
 
2014-05-08 03:29:13 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Well in that case it looks like we can cut military funding again without any issues.


"But if we don't have a budget that's larger than China and Russia's combined, then the terrorists win"
 
2014-05-08 03:29:32 PM

fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014


1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.
 
2014-05-08 03:30:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Dr Dreidel: And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?

Yep, the GOP mindset seems to be:

"Unemployment is bad...unless those people who are getting laid off are government workers, then in that case, fark them!"


They seem to believe that the money that government workers make is somehow either a. not real (that is, it can't be used to pay for things like 'real' money that's made by a worker in the private sector) or b. isn't deserved by that worker, since they have the audacity to work for the government, of all things (conveniently forgetting that they themselves also work for the government...which makes them, government workers).
 
2014-05-08 03:31:40 PM

qorkfiend: DrPainMD: kxs401: And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?

Not enough.

Why do you want higher unemployment?


Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.

A better question is: why do you want to have a lower standard of living?
 
2014-05-08 03:32:25 PM

DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.


a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?
 
2014-05-08 03:32:50 PM
plenty of contractors, actually.
 
2014-05-08 03:33:10 PM

DrPainMD: Give the saved money back to the taxpayer to spend and there won't be any increased unemployment. People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs) instead of having that money taken and spent on things that have no value to them, and our overall standard of living increases.


Aren't you precious:

www.zoom-comics.com
 
2014-05-08 03:34:23 PM
Hey subby, I knew that guy.  And basically, he was a slacker. On fark all day long. Never put cover sheets on his TPS reports.  Drank the last cup of coffee and didn't make more. Used speakerphone in a cubicle field. Flossed his teeth at his desk.

Basically, we are better off since he left.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report