Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, Stephanie Cutter, evils, austerities, federal employees, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

1124 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-08 04:39:50 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.


Bingo.
 
2014-05-08 04:40:12 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)


I had him labeled as a 9/11 Truther. It's nice to see he's expanded the routine.
 
2014-05-08 04:42:28 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.


So buying $500,000 of drugs from Mexico adds how much exactly to the US government economy?

So are you saying there is zero economic costs for people being hooked on heroin?
 
2014-05-08 04:42:42 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.


I'm not going to jump into the legalize drug argument because I haven't read up on it much.   I saw the logic of legalizing marijuana and had no issue with it.   I'm reserving judgement on harder drugs.

However, the DEA is not just about enforcing the drug war.   They do regulate doctors and their ability to prescribe.   Trust me, this adds value to our society.   You don't any regular Joe Q Public to have easy access to prescription drugs.   I'd much rather that doctors, who have been trained in drug interaction and safe dosing, to be the gateway to drugs.   And I also want doctors who misuse their prescriptive authority, to have that privilege taken away.   So the DEA is not completely without value.
 
2014-05-08 04:42:48 PM  

DrPainMD: Where did I say that?


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

that's like your 4th comment in this thread & you've pretty much stayed the course with the "they produce nothing" stance.

again, i will just accept your idea that services (that produce no tangible goods) are not real goods & stop asking you your opinion on economics, jobs & supply and demand.
 
2014-05-08 04:51:23 PM  

Isitoveryet: that's like your 4th comment in this thread & you've pretty much stayed the course with the "they produce nothing" stance.

again, i will just accept your idea that services (that produce no tangible goods) are not real goods & stop asking you your opinion on economics, jobs & supply and demand.


I wonder what his thoughts are on Endogenous Money Theory

http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/bank-of-england- en dorses-post-keynesian-endogenous-money-theory/

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulle ti n/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
 
2014-05-08 04:55:34 PM  

DrPainMD: Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge


Today the Austrian tradition is kept alive by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank financed entirely by wealthy business donors. It is part of a broader phenomenon, the explosion of far-right think tanks in the last 20 years, funded by such conservative and libertarian donors as the Bradley, Coors and Koch family foundations. These foundations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the creation of an "alternate academia" of right-wing think tanks, after the failure of mainstream academia to support right-wing dogma. This alternate academia comes complete with extensive media ties to publicize their research, which is why Austrians are so frequently found on conservative talk radio. Austrian economist Israel Kirzner describes the critical role that their primary backer, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), has played in the "revival" of Austrian economics:

"It was their vision which brought Ludwig von Mises to FEE at a time when he was, to put it mildly, all but ignored on the academic scene. It was through the resources of FEE, its skilled use of the tools of communication and public education, which ensured that Mises' message would survive." (6)

Link
 
2014-05-08 04:58:14 PM  

Flargan: Isitoveryet: that's like your 4th comment in this thread & you've pretty much stayed the course with the "they produce nothing" stance.

again, i will just accept your idea that services (that produce no tangible goods) are not real goods & stop asking you your opinion on economics, jobs & supply and demand.

I wonder what his thoughts are on Endogenous Money Theory

http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/bank-of-england- en dorses-post-keynesian-endogenous-money-theory/

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulle ti n/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf


will read those in a few, i actually have some work to do here, producing nothing of value and being a drag on our economy.
 
2014-05-08 05:03:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.

Do you think those ten DEA agents did that work for free? Or that they don't spend the money they earned doing that job?

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.


The money to pay the federal
Employees comes from somewhere. Do you think it was saved from a fire and spent on DEA agents or other useless govt spending?

Or was it pulled (via taxation or borrowing) from more efficient purposes?

Do you think the money the govt spends is free? Do you even know how money works?
 
2014-05-08 05:03:23 PM  

Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

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.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.


Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.
 
2014-05-08 05:12:55 PM  

Fenstery: Btw. IIRC there were more guards looking to make sure people didn't go past the barrier than there were ever hanging out at the memorial.

It certainly seemed it was done to make a point, not to save money.

I am not arguing whether or not they should have done it or why they did it.


That's just what happens. Memorial and park shutdowns also happened in the 95 and '96 shutdown, which are the most recent ones.
 
2014-05-08 05:12:57 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Or was it pulled (via taxation or borrowing) from more efficient purposes?


But it isn't possible to borrow your own currency you can only borrow the productive capacity of another entity.

//"Borrowing" is a weird term when it comes to a nation's monetary system.
 
2014-05-08 05:16:57 PM  

impaler: DrPainMD: 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.

Actually it mostly comes from rich people who horde it AND PRODUCE NOTHING WITH IT. Rent seeking PARASITES.

By taxing them, we reduce speculative bubbles, and parasitic rent seeking, while giving it to people whose jobs keep an economy running on track, we further increase economic yield.


Utter bullshiat. That is terrible Marxist rhetoric- I'm surprised.

If anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market. People on public assistance (not SS for the most part as they've paid for that), receiving rent subsidies, EITC, etc. Also those earning lower amounts who pay disproportionately little in tax to pay for govt due to our very progressive tax code.

These people enjoy a benefit from society that they haven't earned or paid for. It might not be their fault (it's not necessarily their fault if they were born stupid), but if the term "parasite" applies to anyone its them.
 
2014-05-08 05:21:07 PM  

Flargan: Debeo Summa Credo: Or was it pulled (via taxation or borrowing) from more efficient purposes?

But it isn't possible to borrow your own currency you can only borrow the productive capacity of another entity.

//"Borrowing" is a weird term when it comes to a nation's monetary system.


What? The treasury borrows dollars all day long. It's how we finance our outrageous spending habits.

"Sure, let's extend unemployment for another 6 months and undo the very modest sequester cuts or permanently extend 7/8ths of the Bush tax cuts. We'll just put it on the grand kids tab."
 
2014-05-08 05:22:22 PM  

DrPainMD: Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.


Ah, the Bobby Jindal volcano monitoring school of thought.

The government is around to do things "the market" can't or won't. We ask them to.
 
2014-05-08 05:22:34 PM  

beakerxf: Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

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.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.

Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.


Anybody who's worked at an underfunded museum can tell you that. Take away collections funding an eventually the carpet beetles will take over. Take away educational funding and the local schools will lose interest. Take away facilities funding and mold will move in.
 
2014-05-08 05:24:34 PM  
I want to know how many state and local government jobs were lost, and will be in the coming years. We are just now starting to feel the effects of this. Many of our grants are getting cut to the bone or eliminated. The 2 fed grants that I worked on which were axed: The feds kept all their program staff, and only eliminated funding to the states and locals. The feds also expressed some surprise that state and local folks wouldn't be picking up that funding, and the feds were going to lose their data sources.
 
2014-05-08 05:24:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.


Right, investors.
 
2014-05-08 05:27:36 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.


Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?
 
2014-05-08 05:32:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?


One thing we really skimp on is dealing with the inherent corruption and inside ball going on in our totally free and fair market.
 
2014-05-08 05:33:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?


are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?
 
2014-05-08 05:35:22 PM  

Fenstery: rebelyell2006: beakerxf: Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

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.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.

Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.

Anybody who's worked at an underfunded museum can tell you that. Take away collections funding an eventually the carpet beetles will take over. Take away educational funding and the local schools will lose interest. Take away facilities funding and mold will move in.

Yes. The key word you used is "eventually"

Is that one month? One year? One decade?

Besides it isn't the take everything away, it is do with less. And when times are flush again you can do with more.

I rather feed more kids than clean more museum carpets.


Unfortunately the "carpet" in carpet beetles does not mean they limit themselves to carpets. They eat just about everything, reproduce quickly, and will rapidly skeletonize mounted animals and completely shred everything else in collections storage and on exhibit. That leaves out clothes moths that are also fast eaters. If neglected for a month, they will completely destroy a few objects. If neglected for a year, say goodbye to everything. But you seem knowledgeable, so I do not know why I am reminding you about something you already understand.

The loss in prestige for a museum from budget cuts takes time, perhaps a decade to undo everything the original founders started.
 
2014-05-08 05:37:18 PM  

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?


I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.
 
2014-05-08 05:39:32 PM  

Fenstery: odinsposse: Fenstery: Btw. IIRC there were more guards looking to make sure people didn't go past the barrier than there were ever hanging out at the memorial.

It certainly seemed it was done to make a point, not to save money.

I am not arguing whether or not they should have done it or why they did it.

That's just what happens. Memorial and park shutdowns also happened in the 95 and '96 shutdown, which are the most recent ones.

Did they spend the money and people time to put up barriers and patrol them in 95 and 96?

And even if they did, it doesn't mean it was right or economically sound.


Yes, they did. And no, it isn't economically sound. Even if they put up no guards or roadblocks they still lose a significant amount of revenue. But government shutdowns don't really seem to be about doing the economically smart thing.
 
2014-05-08 05:43:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".


Mmhmm, mmhmm.

How about asset managers like Bain Capital? Put a business in to hock and pay themselves with the proceeds, fire everyone on account of the debt they created and dump the money offshore to further their parasitic tendencies.
 
2014-05-08 05:49:39 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

Mmhmm, mmhmm.

How about asset managers like Bain Capital? Put a business in to hock and pay themselves with the proceeds, fire everyone on account of the debt they created and dump the money offshore to further their parasitic tendencies.


I see you get your investment knowledge from the "Robert Reich Upstairs Economic College".

Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

PE firms have losers from time to time but the vast majority of LBO debt is paid back in full.
 
2014-05-08 05:51:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?

I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.


you're right.

it's unfortunate, we've become this great society not from striving for it but as a byproduct of self interest. imagine what we could accomplish if we let profit be the byproduct and instead focused on the welfare of our society & the betterment (I like that word) of the human race.
 
2014-05-08 05:51:38 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: 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.


Correct.  In our 20 person group we have had 3 people retire in the last 18 months and none are getting backfilled any time soon.
 
2014-05-08 05:54:39 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?


Are you contending that this doesn't happen?
 
2014-05-08 05:58:02 PM  

rebelyell2006: beakerxf: Fenstery: odinsposse: DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

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.

Meh

The government is still working, right?

We fired one person, didn't hire some replacements and cut back on hours for some other workers.

Sounds like any other responsible organization that is not dealing with an unlimited budget.

Not all issues will be immediately apparent.  Think of budget cuts as cutting back on upkeep on a building.   It saves money in the short term and the building will still be usuable for a while, but eventually it will fall into disrepair and will cost even more to fix than if you had done preventable maintenance along the way.

But some issues are starting to show themselves.   We're having increased food poisoning outbreaks because of reduce USDA oversight and Congress didn't properly budget for VA medical care and we're seeing our Veterans suffer for it now.

Anybody who's worked at an underfunded museum can tell you that. Take away collections funding an eventually the carpet beetles will take over. Take away educational funding and the local schools will lose interest. Take away facilities funding and mold will move in.


And we've seen in in our infrastructure.   We have a vulnerable power grid and crumbling bridges.

Though, Colorado is doing a good job of tackling the bridge issue.  Had to add an annual $25 fee to vehicle registration to do it though.   But I consider my $25 a year well spent.
 
2014-05-08 05:59:36 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy?

Now try it with 10 fire fighters who spend all day putting out a fire, preventing it from spreading across an entire city. Or 10 FDA inspectors who observe unsanitary practices at a factory and save a couple hundred thousand people from getting sick and dying. Or 10 CDC scientists who notice a trend early and stop an outbreak of infectious disease, saving tens of thousands of lives.

If you only choose scenarios that fit your view that the government and its workers are useless, you'll only ever end up thinking government and its workers are useless. It's a self-fulfilling mindset that reaffirms your world view. Safe. Unchangeable. Juvenile.


If you fire the 10 DEA agents, you can hire 7 more CDC scientists.

// The only reason not to fire 90% of the DEA is that I don't want a bunch of disgruntled, violent, unemployed guys running around.
 
2014-05-08 06:00:57 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?


I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.
 
2014-05-08 06:08:41 PM  

BMFPitt: If you fire the 10 DEA agents, you can hire 7 more CDC scientists.


No resistance here.
 
2014-05-08 06:24:58 PM  

msqualia: I know for a fact that some hiring was cancelled or pushed back for a year at at least one agency.


And as the shut down was done at beginning of the fiscal years, which naturally coincides with a lot of contracts, it did in fact affect contractors. I know personally of a number of privately employed airplane mechanics that were furloughed.  I was about 3 days from getting furloughed because one of my contracts ended on the 7th of October, and another contract forbade me even entering the facility when no government employees were on site.  There was work to do, I couldn't do it.
 
2014-05-08 06:28:50 PM  
Sequestration was never about federal employees being fired/furloughed/what have you, it was about billions of dollars in actual money (grants, credits, etc.) and services that were no longer going to people whose jobs and survival depended on them.

The  Shutdown of the Federal Government was about federal employees and their employement status. These wackos are getting their fiscal crises mixed up.
 
2014-05-08 06:31:46 PM  

Fart_Machine: I had him labeled as a 9/11 Truther. It's nice to see he's expanded the routine.


Well, shiat, that would have been nice to know before I read the first word he typed in this thread.
 
2014-05-08 06:44:59 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.


Exactly.
 
2014-05-08 07:12:23 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.


Unless it goes to their district, then it is sacrosanct.
 
2014-05-08 07:33:21 PM  

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?

I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.

you're right.

it's unfortunate, we've become this great society not from striving for it but as a byproduct of self interest. imagine what we could accomplish if we let profit be the byproduct and instead focused on the welfare of our society & the betterment (I like that word) of the human race.


Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society. Believing that a society where community interest completely replaces self interest is possible is the error the communists made.
 
2014-05-08 07:35:17 PM  

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?

I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.


What? If they don't need lenders, how would they leverage up their target companies.
 
2014-05-08 07:47:03 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

Are you contending that this doesn't happen?


No, like I said PE has some losers that might cause losses to lenders but it's not the business model or plan, or nobody would farking lend to them.
 
2014-05-08 07:52:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?

I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.

What? If they don't need lenders, how would they leverage up their target companies.


by limiting borrowing to affiliate groups & using existing capital.
this also allows them to disregard or minimize profit lost to interest AND funnels profit into fewer hands.

I think.
 
2014-05-08 09:27:57 PM  
LOL WUT on DoD not implementing a Reduction in Force?  Uhhh
 
2014-05-08 09:39:26 PM  

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: why would anyone lend to them?

I don't think they need or care for lenders, they've acquired hired enough capital.

What? If they don't need lenders, how would they leverage up their target companies.

by limiting borrowing to affiliate groups & using existing capital.
this also allows them to disregard or minimize profit lost to interest AND funnels profit into fewer hands.

I think.


Using existing capital is not leverage. Leverage is borrowing funds to amplify the returns on existing capital. Like buying a stock on margin - if a stock doubles and you've invested your own $100 and $100 you borrowed from your broker, your gain is $200 (less interest on your margin loan). If you only invested existing capital, you would
 
2014-05-08 09:45:40 PM  
Only make $100.
 
2014-05-08 09:56:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society.


Remember how great the 40s 50s and 60s were? With little government regulation. No unions. And low tax rates. Those were the days.
 
2014-05-08 10:18:06 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.


And they fired a gazillion contractors, many of whom will no longer work for the gov because they are shifty bastards.
 
2014-05-08 10:36:05 PM  

impaler: Debeo Summa Credo: Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society.

Remember how great the 40s 50s and 60s were? With little government regulation. No unions. And low tax rates. Those were the days.


And fewer immigrants as a percentage of the population. And those silly brownish/yellow people stayed in the rice paddies where they belonged before they got all uppity and decided they could take part in the industrial revolution too.
 
2014-05-09 02:13:46 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: Just ask yourself: if the business model of Bain Capital was to leverage up the companies, dividend the proceeds to themselves, then default on the debt leaving a worthless carcass of a company, why would anyone lend to them?

Are you contending that this doesn't happen?

No, like I said PE has some losers that might cause losses to lenders but it's not the business model or plan, or nobody would farking lend to them.


Whether the company sinks or swims isn't what makes money with PE.  It's whether the PE firm made money on the deal.  That they sucked the company dry and discarded it is irrelevant.
 
2014-05-09 03:20:31 AM  

DamnYankees: DrPainMD: Really, this is freshman-level economics.

Serious question - do you believe charity is an economically worthless activity, and should only be engaged in for purely moral reasons?


I wouldn't bother engaging him. I don't know where he learned economics, but apparently wherever it was, they have an extremely superficial grasp of the subject.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report