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 04:14:18 PM

DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)?


How much more efficiently? Give me a number.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.

So you are successfully able to name a lot of things that the government is useful for, and nothing that it isn't.

Aren't you sort of contradicting your argument here?


No. It would help if you actually understood my argument. I keep assuming that farkers have the reading comprehension skills of a garden slug; I should have learned by now.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:49 PM

DrPainMD: Hayek


 

DrPainMD: Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country.


You sound confused.
 
2014-05-08 04:14:58 PM

DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.


I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.
 
2014-05-08 04:15:27 PM

DrPainMD: The mall may have 10 security guards, but hiring 1000 more won't cut the malls losses due to theft by 100 times.


And what does that have to do with anything?
 
2014-05-08 04:15:58 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.

Silly me for reading the complete works of Nobel Prize winner Hayek (who, unlike Krugman, won his prize for monetary theory).

Do you think that the money paid to federal employees is imported from some alternate universe. It's coming out of YOUR pocket. It's lowering YOUR standard of living. You seem to think that if you work all day for a buck, and the government takes that buck and gives it to someone else, who then gives it back to you ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU WORK ANOTHER DAY, that you're better off. Well, you're not... you've just been conned into feeling good about working two days and only getting paid for one.


It makes sense that you cite the works of someone proven wrong by history in your quest to be consistently wrong in this thread
 
2014-05-08 04:16:35 PM

beakerxf: Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.


When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.
 
2014-05-08 04:16:43 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.

What you are describing is a VERY small percentage of government spending. End the drug war, which is an extreme negative-sum game, and we could cut the number of cops, judges, prison guards, prosecutors, etc. in half. That would give the economy a big boost. Cut the military down to just what is needed to repel a foreign invasion, and not a penny more (we have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. we could cut the military by 90%), and our economy would start a real recovery (instead of this debt-financed fake recovery we're currently in).


You're adorable. Don't ever change.
 
2014-05-08 04:16:47 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.

So you are successfully able to name a lot of things that the government is useful for, and nothing that it isn't.

Aren't you sort of contradicting your argument here?

No. It would help if you actually understood my argument. I keep assuming that farkers have the reading comprehension skills of a garden slug; I should have learned by now.


You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.
 
2014-05-08 04:17:32 PM

Corvus: So you think pulling money out of the economy could somehow create jobs?


Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!

Corvus: Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.


Ad hominems and personal attacks don't really add much to your argument.
 
2014-05-08 04:17:56 PM

DrPainMD: beakerxf: Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.

When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.


Show your work.
 
2014-05-08 04:18:34 PM

GoldSpider: Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!


No, that's why supply-side economics doesn't work. You have to put the money into the hands of people who will buy things.
 
2014-05-08 04:18:56 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.

Ad hominems and personal attacks don't really add much to your argument.


To be fair, the guy he was addressing is very simple-minded.
 
2014-05-08 04:19:35 PM
I know for a fact that some hiring was cancelled or pushed back for a year at at least one agency.
 
2014-05-08 04:19:41 PM

odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.


If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.
 
2014-05-08 04:19:45 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: So you think pulling money out of the economy could somehow create jobs?


Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!


Some professional deflection here. How about answering the question? Do you think pulling money out of the economy creates jobs?
 
2014-05-08 04:21:08 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.

If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


Outlawing which drugs? Because gangs would just shift from one drug to another.
 
2014-05-08 04:21:47 PM
The sequester was good because the War on Drugs in bad.

...
..
.
 
2014-05-08 04:21:56 PM

DrPainMD: odinsposse: DrPainMD: Who said anything about disbanding law enforcement? End the drug war and we could cut law enforcement in half. Do try to keep up.

I'm keeping up. I think you don't have much of a grasp of what you're arguing. The DEA combats crime associated with drug smuggling in America. There is, in fact, quite a lot of crime associated with drug smuggling. Including theft, murder, and enabling criminal organizations by funding them with drug money. Crime is bad for the economy generally. Since we don't want cartels running roughshod over civilians a la Mexico we have the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to deal with that crime.

Yes, it would be silly to have an agency combating drug crime if we ended the drug war. That's obvious. But you didn't say that. You said the job the DEA was doing was hurting the economy which is incorrect. There are a lot of problems with drug-related crime and that crime can be a major detriment to the economy. So as our drug laws stand now the DEA adds positively to the economy. The drug war itself is a separate matter.

If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


Every penny? So keeping the cartels from reaping chaos and destruction hurting the economy? Stopping them from decapitating people here is hurting the economy? How much money is there in unlawful decapitation? Do you work for a cartel and that is why you hate the government?
 
2014-05-08 04:22:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.


Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.
 
2014-05-08 04:22:50 PM

DrPainMD: If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


You still don't seem to be following. I'm not arguing for the drug war. The part I bolded is a separate argument from the argument about the drug war. Do you actually think that ending the DEA and allowing drug associated crime to flourish would be good for the economy?
 
2014-05-08 04:23:01 PM

DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value


And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)
 
2014-05-08 04:23:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

How is that not relevant? I think the grocery store owners would be very glad to get $100 extra a week. How is that not relevant to the economy? How does that not add anything to the economy? How does ensuring that people don't die from unsafe drugs not contributing to the welfare of workers in the economy?

You can't just repeat the same thing over and over and expect us to just believe it without some sort of evidence.


Oh, but in his scenario, the Department of Labor is parasitic as well.   So teh grocery store owners can cut their worker's wages below minimum and they'll pocket more profit.   So they won't miss the $100 from government workers.

Oh, and without the USDA, grocery store owners could get cheaper cuts of meat since meat packers won't have to keep diseased meat out of the food supply.   And farmers can switch to cheap DDT to handle pests.   Oh, and they could use all the undocumented labor they want because we didn't need those parasitic Border Patrol agents.

Man, getting rid of government workers is going to be great!   Well...not for me. I work for a hospital system and we treat a lot of Medicare and Medicaid patients.  We'd probably go bankrupt without government workers.

But hey!   It'll be great for that Dr.Pain fella and that's all that matters, isn't it?
 
2014-05-08 04:24:00 PM

DrPainMD: If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be the associated crime (notice how the alcohol industry was very violent during prohibition, but not so much any more). Almost every argument for outlawing drugs would disappear if drugs were legal.

And, no, there is absolutely no economic benefit to having the DEA. Every penny spent on it is wasted and hurts the economy.


I have little argument there. But that's just one agency.
 
2014-05-08 04:24:18 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.

Ad hominems and personal attacks don't really add much to your argument.


It's the only argument he has.
 
2014-05-08 04:24:57 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


From the wikipedia: In Say's view, a rational businessman will never hoard money; he will promptly spend any money he gets "for the value of money is also perishable."

Sounds like the government employees are the right side of the equation.
 
2014-05-08 04:25:22 PM

impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)


You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.
 
2014-05-08 04:26:34 PM
I don't understand why you people can't seem to comprehend what DrPlain is trying to explain to you.  Cutting dollars to the federal government will create a net GAIN in jobs, not a net LOSS.

Consider:
Eliminating the EPA will create increases in employment for workers constructing toxic waste dumps, water filtration centers, disaster recovery organizations, air cleaner manufacturers, and more.
Eliminating the FDA will create increases in employment for hospital workers, ambulance drivers, CDC poison hotline workers, undertakers, and more.

And so on.

Come on people, try and use your brains.
 
2014-05-08 04:26:50 PM
but like

what even IS a job?

makes u think

#wow #woah
 
2014-05-08 04:26:52 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?
 
2014-05-08 04:27:02 PM

DrPainMD: When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.


Oh, I see.  You're arguing from a POV that exists outside of objective reality.

Carry on, then.
 
2014-05-08 04:27:33 PM

qorkfiend: Do you think pulling money out of the economy creates jobs?


Of course not, but then I didn't suggest that it did.

DrPainMD: It's the only argument he has.


In his case, yeah, but you aren't doing yourself any favors with your line of reasoning either.
 
2014-05-08 04:28:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Headso: 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?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?


That seems to be the GOP's perception of government spending; it has no impact on the economy and is tantamount to being put in a pile and set on fire.
 
2014-05-08 04:28:59 PM

fenianfark: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Headso: 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?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.

Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?

That seems to be the GOP's perception of government spending; it has no impact on the economy and is tantamount to being put in a pile and set on fire.


They haven't been to DC or Northern Virginia lately.
 
2014-05-08 04:29:15 PM

Isitoveryet: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.

are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?


I guess then he is morally opposed to restaurants, since he can get the same materials from a store and make them himself.
 
2014-05-08 04:29:44 PM

udhq: Oh, I see.  You're arguing from a POV that exists outside of objective reality.


True, they don't actually cut the necessary services, they just threaten to do it.  Like when the Pentagon warns of the dire national security threats that will go unanswered if they don't get their $600 billion this year.
 
2014-05-08 04:29:57 PM
If you count contractors, I know at least 20 or so personally.

Although more than half of them ended up on new contracts in the same agency within a few weeks.
 
2014-05-08 04:30:11 PM
Yeah, this is sad. Railing against the government backpedaling to railing against the DEA.

Chicago School derp will only take you so far.
 
2014-05-08 04:30:52 PM

DrPainMD: Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


The "minus" column in a spreadsheet is always counterbalanced by a "plus" one somewhere else.

HOPE THIS HELPS.
 
2014-05-08 04:31:46 PM

DrPainMD: impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)

You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.


BTW, have you started reading those two books that I posted the links to?

Here are two more free epub books, written by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek (who actually won his prize for monetary theory, unlike Krugman, who merely provided an explanation for why a country would import and export the same item... not really worth a Nobel Prize if you ask me).

Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge
 
2014-05-08 04:32:13 PM

GoldSpider: udhq: Oh, I see.  You're arguing from a POV that exists outside of objective reality.

True, they don't actually cut the necessary services, they just threaten to do it.  Like when the Pentagon warns of the dire national security threats that will go unanswered if they don't get their $600 billion this year.


Or when mean ol' Barack shuts down the park just because we want him to repeal his signature reform even though we don't have the votes?
 
2014-05-08 04:33:26 PM

msqualia: DrPainMD: Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.

The "minus" column in a spreadsheet is always counterbalanced by a "plus" one somewhere else.

HOPE THIS HELPS.


stenglelaw.com

Ummm... no, there is no "plus" somewhere else. Just a minus.
 
2014-05-08 04:33:47 PM

Fenstery: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: beakerxf: Yet the sequester has not done much to affect the War of Drugs or the military.   It has, however, put pressure on those same agencies that help public safety and that are a "small" part of the government spending.   That's what happens when spending is cut across the board and not carefully targeted.

When faced with cuts, the government will always cut the most needed and the most productive jobs first. It's called extortion. That's not an economic issue.

Show your work.

Extortion.

During the budget battles, do you think the cost of putting up barriers at the Lincoln memorial outweighed the savings? And where exactly were the savings since you can walk up to it at 3am and there is no one there?


Because even though its guarded and maintained 24/7, it should've stayed open so the GOP didn't look bad during the sequester.
 
2014-05-08 04:35:47 PM

DrPainMD: Headso: 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?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Ya and people without jobs costs taxpayers even more:unemployment benefits, food stamps, lost gov't tax revenue and tax benefits for dependent care etc that kick in at very low income levels.  You have no farking clue how the economy works and you're an asshole.
 
2014-05-08 04:36:57 PM
The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.
 
2014-05-08 04:37:15 PM

Isitoveryet: are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?


Where did I say that?

Why is everybody arguing what I didn't say, and acting as if they're arguing what I did say.

I shouldn't expect anything more from fark.

You can all take my lack of further posts to mean that you won the argument. I have a life to get to, and watching the monkeys throw poo isn't as fun as it used to be.
 
2014-05-08 04:37:59 PM

DrPainMD: DrPainMD: impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)

You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.

BTW, have you started reading those two books that I posted the links to?

Here are two more free epub books, written by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek (who actually won his prize for monetary theory, unlike Krugman, who merely provided an explanation for why a country would import and export the same item... not really worth a Nobel Prize if you ask me).

Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge


Hayek's prize was for something loftier that in retrospect he was wrong about. Do you recomment people read Fibiger for mental health issues? He won a Nobel Prize!
 
2014-05-08 04:38:41 PM
DrPainMD:Ummm... no, there is no "plus" somewhere else. Just a minus.

I'm not sure you'd cut it in the glamorous world of accounting.
 
2014-05-08 04:38:59 PM
Fenstery:

Extortion.

During the budget battles, do you think the cost of putting up barriers at the Lincoln memorial outweighed the savings? And where exactly were the savings since you can walk up to it at 3am and there is no one there?


Stupid following the Antideficiency Act when there were more efficient, if illegal, ways to go about things!
 
2014-05-08 04:39:05 PM

DrPainMD: Corvus: DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.

But they are being productive. You are lying. Making infrastructure contributes,  making a safe drugs and food contributes to making a safe market for those items. Federal law enforcement keeps down corruption which helps commerce.

Just because you are too simple minded to understand what they do doesn't mean they do nothing.

What I've written and what you've read seem to be two totally different things.

Where did I say that infrastructure shouldn't be built, or that assuring safe food and drugs isn't valuable (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)? Half of all law enforcement is taken up with drugs (and now an increasing share is being taken up "fighting" non-existent terrorism). I don't think you realize just how little of your tax dollars go to anything that provides a return on the investment.


No, I think you are.

Tell us how much of the total federal budget is fighting drugs? 80%? 70%? 60%?

Guess what Not even close.
 
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