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 19
    More: Followup, Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, Stephanie Cutter, evils, austerities, federal employees, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

1066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-08 03:34:38 PM
3 votes:

Mrtraveler01: 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.

I don't vote for the Republicrats or the Democans.  I'm a Libertarian.  I'm my own man.  I'm a loner... a rebel.

So vote Republican.
2014-05-08 03:57:19 PM
2 votes:

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? Show your work.

That's about 10,000 quarter ounces of weed. If one figures a marijuana user will use 1/8 ounce of weed to get high and stay home from work, the DEA agents have added 20,000 man days of labor to the economy. At median income, that's about $3,070,000 at the small cost of $3,000 in agents.
2014-05-08 04:40:12 PM
1 votes:

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:
(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 04:38:41 PM
1 votes:
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 04:21:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:47 PM
1 votes:
The sequester was good because the War on Drugs in bad.

2014-05-08 04:06:25 PM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: You can verify it for yourself. Hire a guy to spend all morning digging a hole in your yard, and all afternoon filling the hole back in. Pay him a living wage. See where it gets you.

Tomorrow, hire a guy to build you a table. Pay him a living wage and put the table in your dining room, to use for years to come. Which job added to the economy and which job didn't.

If you think that both jobs added to the economy evenly, show your logic.

So uh, which job in the economy is equivalent to hiring a guy spending all morning digging a hole and then all afternoon filling the hole back in?

It's teachers isn't it?
2014-05-08 04:00:03 PM
1 votes:

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).

1.Cut jobs
3. Profit
2014-05-08 03:59:18 PM
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant.

DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)

2014-05-08 03:55:22 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-08 03:52:03 PM
1 votes:
DrPainMD becomes Emperor.

Day 1:
DrPainMD: "There are no longer any government jobs."
Day 2:
DrPainMD: "Hey, were did all my money in my bank account go! You can't do that!
Banks: "We took it and bought a boat."
DrPainMD: "You can't do that!"
DrPainMD: *calls the authorities*
DrPainMD: "Why isn't anyone picking up?"
2014-05-08 03:34:58 PM
1 votes:

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.

Congress is concerned about vacant jobs? So that means we'll have more judge confirmations this week, right?
2014-05-08 03:33:10 PM
1 votes:

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:

2014-05-08 03:24:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:19:00 PM
1 votes:
Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.
2014-05-08 01:11:16 PM
1 votes:
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 12:51:34 PM
1 votes:
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 
2014-05-08 12:45:05 PM
1 votes:

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 11:53:46 AM
1 votes:
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.


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.
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »