Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well done USA, you have a government even more incompetent than ours http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21638727.

Its good to see that entrenched party politics can triumph in the face of disaster.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
just share the workload, but amazingly enough, there's always management positions available

I've noticed this too. Recently someone covering for one of our managers who was on maternity leave had a management position invented for them when this other manager came back, while whenever someone who actually does the work retires, leaves, etc, everyone else just has to pick up the work.

It was the same during the last round of "management for change" - all the managers took on loads of extra work and responsibilities from everyone else so they kept their pay banding, then as soon as they were safe started delegating it all back out again.

You also get a lot of horizontal movement of useless people, rather than actually getting rid of them. Hell, you see some people promoted just so departments can get rid of them.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What are we truly arguing about again?

It's a sore spot. I'm a second generation civil servant (with three grandparents serving in WWII, natch), and so I'm keenly aware of the bloat in Federal Personnel. But I just hate getting caught with the same brush. My job was the first legal job I got out of law school, and I do a necessary job quickly and well. In any other field, I'd be able to negotiate my salary, move up, or somehow get recognition over my peers. As it stand, because I came in at the lowest grade, I'm the lowest paid person doing my job, and I've been unable to apply for multiple promotions because of time.

So I get home, and I find half the nation teeing off on lazy, overpaid government workers. To which I say, "I can show you where their desk is, bro."

But the taxpayer gets a lot of bang for his buck outta me.

Polonius, I have to tell you that if you want to make money as a Lawyer why are you working a Govt. Job?

Also, it doesn't always work out the way you described in industry. As an engineer, I can say that the best way to get a raise is to move to another job. I know people that move to another job every few years. They trade immediate benefits over a pension, if you are blessed to find a company that still offers a pension(which I am) you might be willing to take a little less for the security.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

Polonius, I have to tell you that if you want to make money as a Lawyer why are you working a Govt. Job?

It was literally the only job I could find. I graduated in May 2009, was sworn in November 2009, and didn't work a legal job until I started here in October 2010. Oh, I did unload trucks at Target, but was laid off...

It was actually the greatest thing that could have happened to me. I would not have enjoyed litigation, and my salary is still competitive, especially when factoring the benefits and schedule. Few full time lawyers get true 40 weeks, or paid vacation they can actually take, or pension plans. I'd rather have my current job than make six figure at a "eat what you kill" firm.

Also, it doesn't always work out the way you described in industry. As an engineer, I can say that the best way to get a raise is to move to another job. I know people that move to another job every few years. They trade immediate benefits over a pension, if you are blessed to find a company that still offers a pension(which I am) you might be willing to take a little less for the security.

GG

Oh, I totally get that. I've had my fair share of non-straters in compensation negotiations. It's tough to do in the private sector, its impossible in government employment.

My beef isn't that I'm underpaid, it's that so many of my coworkers are paid more than me! The writer that's widely acknowledged to be the worst in the office is making 35% more than me, and that's after my ladder increase. When I started, she was bringing twice what I made.

The good thing is that I'm actually well suited for government work. I have a high BS tolerance, I understand that some sensible rules can be broken while stupid rules can't, and I know that more than anywhere else, patience and a willingness to move will get you ahead. Bureaucracy is made for Type B personalities.

Same for me, although I am probably more type A. I have worked at enough hospitals to know that all have their own politics and that government work is just a different kind of internal politics than other places. Once you figure out the system it's really not hard to work under. Let the BS you can do nothing about roll of your back, and change the things you can. Realize that as a government job you can't just go "hey, this will be easier and have better outcomes!" and think it will happen. You gotta come armed with some research, published studies, and lots of patience.

I got lots of coworkers that always say "nothing will ever change" and who do nothing to change things. They are also the same people who will complain about the useless coworkers, but refuse to write them up and help create a paper trail. So nothing gets done because they don't want to do the work to get anything done.

In the meantime I have written 3 center memorandums, did the research to write and cite them, show up at the board and committee meetings to get them passed and implemented. It's a 4-6 month process for each of them sometimes, but it can be done.

Government work is a different animal, but I do enjoy it.

I find that the key to government work is to quickly find out what the Hard Rules are. Things like time and attendance, and filling out leave slips. things that nobody in local managment can get you out of. Then, follow those to the letter, and cheerfully correct any mistakes you make. Do that, and I've found that managment will be a lot more pleasant when it comes to matters of discretion.

I mean, it's little more than the common sense policy of making it easier for people to help you, but in government more than anywhere else, the people above you have suprisingly litlte authority.

 Palindrome wrote:
Well done USA, you have a government even more incompetent than ours http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21638727.

Its good to see that entrenched party politics can triumph in the face of disaster.

wat?

How is this "incompetent"?

In other news, this is hysterical:

Please do not post such funny pictures when I am drinking red wine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please do not post such funny pictures when I am drinking red wine.

My work is done for tonight!

Dangnabbit Whembly! Made me spill my moonshine!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Dangnabbit Whembly! Made me spill my moonshine!

Next time I'm on CO, you'd better have some 'shine left!

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please do not post such funny pictures when I am drinking red wine.

My work is done for tonight!

A month ago I had a water glass full of wiener dog cabernet, when Rodney decided he wanted to try it. Crashhh...lick lick ugh this tastes bad!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
just share the workload, but amazingly enough, there's always management positions available

I've noticed this too. Recently someone covering for one of our managers who was on maternity leave had a management position invented for them when this other manager came back, while whenever someone who actually does the work retires, leaves, etc, everyone else just has to pick up the work.

It was the same during the last round of "management for change" - all the managers took on loads of extra work and responsibilities from everyone else so they kept their pay banding, then as soon as they were safe started delegating it all back out again.

You also get a lot of horizontal movement of useless people, rather than actually getting rid of them. Hell, you see some people promoted just so departments can get rid of them.

This is also true everywhere I have worked. if you want to be "safe" you need to be management. The higher the level of management, the safer you are.

 whembly wrote:
Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...

That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.

The issue is not the idea of cuts - Obama's own proposal includes cuts, and cuts to the things Republicans love to talk about cutting - entitlement programs.

The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling. Let me repeat, yet again, Ben Bernanke's testimony to congress;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.

However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."

So you have cuts that cause immediate economic harm, while doing nothing to slow the rise of future deficits. Obama offers up an alternative plan built around cuts that will make a long term difference to budget deficits, on things the Republicans say they want (cuts to entitlement spending & reduced tax deductions), but they've backed themselves into a corner where politically they can't accept them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with you on this premise.

You don't get to do that. Government as a % of GDP is the only way in which government can be sensibly measured. Rejecting that simply makes you irrelevant to economic discussion.

Bernanke is a tool. The GAO just a couple of weeks ago had this to say about how things are. "The Federal Budget remains on a unsustainable path."

These measures of his have our debt to GDP ratio blasting past 1:1 in the next 20 years.

http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/gao_022613.pdf

 whembly wrote:
And to me...saying that the most of the spending is in medicare/social security is an easy scapgoat.

Even the GAO in 2011 had a report where cuts could be done!

First up, what in the hell do you mean by 'even the GAO'. It's part of their job, specifically mandated by congress, to identify opportunities for efficiency cuts.

Second up, if you actually read the report you'll find those are system efficiencies. That means spending money now in order to put in place a more efficient system for later on. So in the DoD you put in place a contracting agency with whole of department authority, and over time you replace existing contracts with ones that represent better value for money for the department (and country) as a whole.

That's the kind of thing that sane government can do. Steady, incremental reform over time.

Instead you've the sequester, which can't do any of the above. It just cuts. It means you don't get leaner, cheaper DoD contracts. You just get cancellations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I don't necessarily think that if the population triples, government triples with it is true in this modern age. I think that the efficiency level of many services rendered by government agencies would have to triple, but not their size. If that makes any sense.

It makes sense, but the other issue is that as the economy grows, the nature of how government and the economy interact changes as well.

Think about it like this, centuries ago the government of the day needed to provide roads for trade goods (of which there weren't that many) and defence. That was it.

Move forward to today, and the government plays an integral part in the modern economy. The modern economy is dependant on having a highly educated workforce, and that means massive government involvement in primary, secondary and tertiary education. And even further government involvement in R&D to expand and develop industry. It also needs trade that can shift goods across country and across the world at very low cost, and that means quality roads and ports.

People love to see government as a hindrance on business. But ultimately that's just complete bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry what context again is the deficit not too large?

According to the expert opinion given through testimony to congress... that I've posted several times in this thread, and that I think it would benefit you to finally fething read and fething learn something.

"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.

However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
On an absolute basis our credit rating was lowered and we are under the the threat of another downgrade.

As I explained to you before, that rating cut is entirely for political reasons, and beyond irrelevant to the debt market (after the last ratings cut the US govt's cost of borrowing decreased).

I've already explained that to you before. Only for you to decline to respond, and then just repeat the same nonsense later on.

fething debate whack-a-mole. You post standard GOP talking point. I explain it's wrong. You scurry off. You repeat it again. I explain it's wrong. On and on we go.

Sooner or later I'll get my tokens and claim a big furry bear or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
What is wrong with having a powerful economy with a low to non-existant national debt?

I would be all for everyone paying the same high 35 + % percentage of taxes, after deductions and then slashing government spending down to Military, Law Enforcement and core infrastructure maintenance until we pay the debt down to 25% of the GNP.

Yes, this would hurt the economy, but if it was made clear that these were temoprary austerity measures with a set time limit at the end of which they end(Read can not be extended) I think that the world and the economy would still be there when the country re-emerged from this fasting period.


Really, I just keep thinking that 3-5 years of hardship would be worth the interest payment savings and long term security, I'd much rather that we spend what we currently use on interest to help fund R&D for new technologies and to for training programs to help the disadvantaged become upwardly mobile.

It isn't a terrible idea, but once you account for the nature of the economy as an inter-dependant entity (my spending is your income, your spending is my income) then you realise that the austerity you're talking about needs to be done over a generation, and done with sensible consideration for the economic activity at any given time.

That is to say, right now where economic activity is well below potential, it's a terrible idea. With interest at the zero lower bound and unemployment several points above its natural rate, all you'll get from drawing all that money out of the economy is more unemployment and less production. But as the economy recovers then it becomes, over 20 or 30 years, a really solid solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Bernanke is a tool. The GAO just a couple of weeks ago had this to say about how things are. "The Federal Budget remains on a unsustainable path."

Read better. Read more carefully, read with an intent to understand what is actually being said. Learn to read with an understanding to the greater context. Note what isn't said as much as what is, and think about all that before lurching off on some nonsense conclusion.

Bernanke is talking about the immediate cuts. He makes no comment there about long term cuts, because he is only being asked about the need for more cuts right now, and his answer there is perfectly considered, and just plain fething right - the short term budget is under control.

The long term budget issue is driven entirely by unsustainable health care increases. Which as the GAO report you linked to but probably didn't read says, controlling that depends on whether the cost control measures of the ACA are continued (and probably need to be expanded upon).


Sequester is just stupid, stupid political theatre. And you're believing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here's Alan Binder laying out in plain english exactly what the nature of the deficit problem is;

PROBLEM 1: In the very short run, meaning right now, we probably have too much deficit reduction. The U.S. economy could actually use some fiscal stimulus (to wit, larger deficits) today, rather than more fiscal contraction, because unemployment is still so high. Doesn’t that sound like Krugman?

PROBLEM 2: Over the coming decade, however — which is the focus of Simpson-Bowles, the so-called grand bargain, and most other plans — we do need to bring the deficit down, I argued. And, indeed, Problems 1 and 2 should be linked: by joining together some modest stimulus now with perhaps ten times as much deficit reduction over the ten-year budget window. In Washington-speak, we would thus “pay for” the stimulus ten times over. Furthermore, I argued, we could accomplish that without undue pain and suffering.

PROBLEM 3: The real budget crunch comes well down the line — a decade or two or three from now. The problem is simple to diagnose — healthcare costs are projected to soar — and it looks massive. By the way, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start addressing the healthcare cost problem now.


That's the real, actual problem. The current solution - fix it right now, now now now now! is beyond stupid.

While talking about 'budget cuts', we are paying congress and the president a grand total of $76,962,600

$174,000 for most senators, representatives, and resident commissioner from Puerto Rico.
$193,400 for the majority/minority leader in both the house and senate.
$223,500 for the president pro tempore and house speaker
$400,000 for the president

This is the amount we pay to congress every year.


Considering most of the house or senate have failed to live up to requirements and pass a budget, I feel like a pay cut's in order. No matter how badly it would reduce Nancy Pelosi's "dignity". I bet we could cut that by at least half.

Bernanke is talking about the immediate cuts. He makes no comment there about long term cuts, because he is only being asked about the need for more cuts right now, and his answer there is perfectly considered, and just plain fething right - the short term budget is under control.

This right here just shows how out of touch you are with the whole issue. The budget is under control?

What budget? There hasn't been a budget in 4 years. If there was a budget, none of this situation ever would have happened. We wouldn't be running trillion dollar deficits for the last 4 years. We wouldn't have just had 20% of the DoD budget hacked off in the last year. But hey... budget deficits are supposed to shrink from 1 trillion a year to just 600 billion a year over the next few years. Yeah, only spending 600 billion a year that we don't have is certainly under control.

As I said, Bernanke is a tool, and people who buy this crap are as well.

Sequester is just stupid, stupid political theatre. And you're believing it.

I'm not buying into a damn thing. I welcome massive cuts. I just wish that they would have actually SHRUNK the government, instead of restricting some of the "growth". The only thing I would have changed about this event was where the cuts had come from. Actually attacking real wasteful spending, instead of making the vast majority of the hacking into our defense. An entire Carrier out of comission for who knows how long. As much as a 1/5th of reduction in our force manpower. Civilians work furloughed with the potential of seeing 800,000 people unemployed come September.

I'm sick and tired of the most productive part of the US Government constantly being the first one looked at when the Republicans finally twist the Dem's arms enough to get them to stop spending as much money.

 djones520 wrote:
This right here just shows how out of touch you are with the whole issue. The budget is under control?

What budget? There hasn't been a budget in 4 years. If there was a budget, none of this situation ever would have happened. We wouldn't be running trillion dollar deficits for the last 4 years.

You don't need to formally pass a budget in order for there to still be budgets. I mean, what you're saying would mean that government employees would see there was no budget passed, and immediately start flying about the country on cocaine and hooker filled orgies because hey, no budget.

So please, don't go trying to play all expert on me here. You're going to embarass yourself.


And if you'd read just one of the many things I've posted in this thread, it maybe, just maybe would have entered your head that the trillion dollar deficits you're seeing right now are due to the recession. You maybe, just fething maybe would have learned that in recession tax revenue drops while spending increases. And you'd have learned that the people who do this for a living, as opposed to the people on the internet who see the words 'trillion dollar deficit' and think 'ooh that's a big number', understand that the economic recovery will see the short term deficit problem move back to sustainable levels. So much so that for the next decade you'll see debt as a % of GDP remain static at about 75%.

And then, if you'd been staggeringly attentive in your reading by the standards of the internet, you might have even read that the actual, real, long term threat to budget sustainability is through rising healthcare costs. And then, maybe just maybe, you'd have looked and seen that the sequestration cuts are all short term things that don't address that issue at all.

But you did none of that. So here I am explaining all over again. Because maybe this time you'll read it.

We wouldn't have just had 20% of the DoD budget hacked off in the last year.

Have you actually read what the sequester requires, and what Obama offered?

I'm sick and tired of the most productive part of the US Government constantly being the first one looked at when the Republicans finally twist the Dem's arms enough to get them to stop spending as much money.

If you're concerned about cuts to the DoD then you should be contacting every Republican member of congress and telling them to take Obama's deal, because the sequester cuts DoD budgets massively, but Obama's deal doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

While talking about 'budget cuts', we are paying congress and the president a grand total of $76,962,600

$174,000 for most senators, representatives, and resident commissioner from Puerto Rico.
$193,400 for the majority/minority leader in both the house and senate.
$223,500 for the president pro tempore and house speaker
$400,000 for the president

This is the amount we pay to congress every year.


Considering most of the house or senate have failed to live up to requirements and pass a budget, I feel like a pay cut's in order. No matter how badly it would reduce Nancy Pelosi's "dignity". I bet we could cut that by at least half.

And here is the GOP talking point #32, when trying to justify their refusal of a deal that most people want, just blame everyone equally.

 sebster wrote:

You don't need to formally pass a budget in order for there to still be budgets. I mean, what you're saying would mean that government employees would see there was no budget passed, and immediately start flying about the country on cocaine and hooker filled orgies because hey, no budget.

You mean like the GSA?

We can dial it down a notch or two please, no need for hostility, the and language and so on.

Thank you.

 Seaward wrote:
You mean like the GSA?

Oh, I thought you might link to the Secret Service actually using hookers. As far as pointless little asides that completely miss the point being made, that would have been way better.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
You mean like the GSA?

Oh, I thought you might link to the Secret Service actually using hookers. As far as pointless little asides that completely miss the point being made, that would have been way better.

Anytime you can slip in a slick Willie joke you should totally go for it.

 d-usa wrote:
Anytime you can slip in a slick Willie joke you should totally go for it.

Now that's funny!

I swear you can almost hear a laugh track on that photo.

I don't see the issue with Colombian prostitutes myself, have you seen the women that come out of South American in general? (image spoilered to save your souls from the sight of a gorgeous woman, from Colombia, in a tasteful bikini.)


As I understand it the Clinton Whitehouse had them on tap.

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
You mean like the GSA?

Oh, I thought you might link to the Secret Service actually using hookers. As far as pointless little asides that completely miss the point being made, that would have been way better.

Anytime you can slip in a slick Willie joke you should totally go for it.

I miss President Clinton so much now. You never kinow what you have until you lose it.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And to me...saying that the most of the spending is in medicare/social security is an easy scapgoat.

Even the GAO in 2011 had a report where cuts could be done!

First up, what in the hell do you mean by 'even the GAO'. It's part of their job, specifically mandated by congress, to identify opportunities for efficiency cuts.

They're a reporting agency Seb... that have NO power to do anything.

Second up, if you actually read the report you'll find those are system efficiencies. That means spending money now in order to put in place a more efficient system for later on. So in the DoD you put in place a contracting agency with whole of department authority, and over time you replace existing contracts with ones that represent better value for money for the department (and country) as a whole.

can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O

That's the kind of thing that sane government can do. Steady, incremental reform over time.

are they sane now? NOW?

Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".

Instead you've the sequester, which can't do any of the above. It just cuts. It means you don't get leaner, cheaper DoD contracts. You just get cancellations.

Not cuts... a reduction of growth. Get it straight.

Sequestration was the Obama's administration's idea. It was an attempt to insert a perbervial POISON PILL to force actions on both side of the aisle. In this case, both parties couldn't agree on anything. Which really makes you think that the proposals to avoid it were much worse.

You're awfully touchy today... o.O



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...
-snip-

That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.

Um... okay, if you feel that way.

The issue is not the idea of cuts - Obama's own proposal includes cuts, and cuts to the things Republicans love to talk about cutting - entitlement programs.

Wait... where?

The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling.

Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...

Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.

Let me repeat, yet again, Ben Bernanke's testimony to congress;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.

Um... wut? How will he know this happens? I seemed to remember like two years ago (maybe during the stimulus programs?) he said that we'd be roaring back by this time.

However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."

Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.

So you have cuts that cause immediate economic harm, while doing nothing to slow the rise of future deficits. Obama offers up an alternative plan built around cuts that will make a long term difference to budget deficits, on things the Republicans say they want (cuts to entitlement spending & reduced tax deductions), but they've backed themselves into a corner where politically they can't accept them.

There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with you on this premise.

You don't get to do that. Government as a % of GDP is the only way in which government can be sensibly measured. Rejecting that simply makes you irrelevant to economic discussion.

Wanna bet...

oh... I just did.

 whembly wrote:
They're a reporting agency Seb... that have NO power to do anything.

Well, yeah.

You said (paraphrasing) 'now even the GAO is releasing a report on potential government savings

can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O

There's lot of possible solutions, lots of debate to be had about the best way forward. Unfortunately there's also a lot of crazy noise and nonsense that people with absolutely no understanding of the basic numbers of the economy keep shouting.

As an anecdote, assume we're all a bit drunk, and are walking home from the bar and have gotten a bit lost. I'm saying we've gone the wrong way, but that turn we made back there looks to have put us on the right path and if we keep going this way we should be alright. Other voices are saying yes we've done a lot of the work, but we should move a block to the left or right before heading on.

The Republicans are saying we're absolutely lost, we'll never get home, and there's nothing else for it but to draw straws on who we start eating first.

are they sane now? NOW?

They can be. When people stop electing crazies, and stop following crazy ideologies government is just as sane as any other organisation.

Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".

You know the point of those stories is that they're myths, or wildly misleading at best. The bullets thing was the number of rounds contracted to be purchased over many years. The MRAP thing, near as I can tell, is just total made up bs.

Sequestration was the Obama's administration's idea. It was an attempt to insert a perbervial POISON PILL to force actions on both side of the aisle. In this case, both parties couldn't agree on anything. Which really makes you think that the proposals to avoid it were much worse.

All of which works as an argument, as long as we pay no attention to the proposals put forward to make sequestration unecessary. Obama put up exactly what the Republicans said they wanted, and they rejected it out of hand, because since the deficit deal they've reverted back to the position of absolutely refusing any kind of revenue growth. And then they played this little game where they pretended all sides were to blame... because the alternative was to actually have to defend their policy of continuing tax deductions that are unpopular, even with a majority of their own party's voters. And they're even willing to sacrifice entitlement reform (something that's wildly popular with Republican voters) to get that.

I mean, just read this link, where Ezra Klein finally starts to understand the game that's being played;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

You're awfully touchy today... o.O

How would you be when you explain something in common sense language, time and again, only for other posters to simply ignore that and continue repeating nonsense.

Wait... where?

You seriously don't know the contents of Obama's proposal?

"Mr. Obama has continued to call for a broader $1.5 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package that would be roughly split between new tax revenues from the wealthy and corporations and reduced spending for the fast-growing entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/28/us/politics/proposals-to-avoid-sequestration.html?_r=0

Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...

Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.

No, it isn't about government being the only one able to get you out. You're getting out, slowly but steadily right now, as the private sector recovers.

But the point is that private sector recovery depends on overall aggregate demand (the total of all goods bought in the economy in a given year). Drop any part of that demand suddenly and it reverberates through the economy, causing decline elsewhere and threatening that recovering private sector investment.

Now, there are times when such cuts don't matter much (when the economy is at or near full capacity). But this is not one of those times, right now you are well below full capacity.

Um... wut? How will he know this happens? I seemed to remember like two years ago (maybe during the stimulus programs?) he said that we'd be roaring back by this time.

Yes, the expectations of the recovery were overstated in several places. This is due in part to people not yet having a full understanding of the scope of the crash (I think most people today still don't understand the severity of the crisis) and expectations that the recovery package would do more - they believed the package that would be delivered was going to be bigger, and focused on more useful forms of stimulus than the politically compromised final package we saw.

But, if you want to question the value of good old Keynesian stimulus, let's look at Europe, led by Germany's call for austerity.



See how unemployment is just getting worse, even now? That's because austerity in the midst of recession is fething stupid.

Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.

That's not me, that's Bernanke. And that's basic economics. If you want to encourage private sector investment to move back to somewhere near full economic capacity, don't make sudden cuts that drop aggregate demand.

There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.

I am by no means an Obama fanboi. It's just that compared to the behaviour of the other side, he ends up looking pretty good.

And why would his own party vote on a bill designed to be acceptable to the Republicans? The point is that, assuming the Republicans are trying to be adults for a brief moment, they see that Obama is offering up the things they've said they really want - removal of deductions (rather than a raise in the tax rate) and entitlement reform. But the Republicans are playing stupid games again, because they seem to actively refuse the idea of governance.

Wanna bet...

oh... I just did.

And doing so makes you irrelevant to economic discussion. It's like wanting to talk about Warhammer, but refusing to accept the existance of dice. It's such a marked difference from the basic reality of the situation that it means you have absolutely nothing to offer.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They're a reporting agency Seb... that have NO power to do anything.

Well, yeah.

You said (paraphrasing) 'now even the GAO is releasing a report on potential government savings

Right...so, we're both throwing the GAO's report around. Just so that you understand, they're a reporting agency.

can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O

There's lot of possible solutions, lots of debate to be had about the best way forward. Unfortunately there's also a lot of crazy noise and nonsense that people with absolutely no understanding of the basic numbers of the economy keep shouting.

As an anecdote, assume we're all a bit drunk, and are walking home from the bar and have gotten a bit lost. I'm saying we've gone the wrong way, but that turn we made back there looks to have put us on the right path and if we keep going this way we should be alright. Other voices are saying yes we've done a lot of the work, but we should move a block to the left or right before heading on.

The Republicans are saying we're absolutely lost, we'll never get home, and there's nothing else for it but to draw straws on who we start eating first.

And Democrats... both party is at fault. It's the nature of the political environment now...

are they sane now? NOW?

They can be. When people stop electing crazies, and stop following crazy ideologies government is just as sane as any other organisation.

Both parties man... throw Mr. I won't floor a budget bill Reid into that mix... would ya!

Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".

You know the point of those stories is that they're myths, or wildly misleading at best. The bullets thing was the number of rounds contracted to be purchased over many years. The MRAP thing, near as I can tell, is just total made up bs.

No... I get that. What I'm asking is why spend ALL that money right now? Again... priorities.

Sequestration was the Obama's administration's idea. It was an attempt to insert a perbervial POISON PILL to force actions on both side of the aisle. In this case, both parties couldn't agree on anything. Which really makes you think that the proposals to avoid it were much worse.

All of which works as an argument, as long as we pay no attention to the proposals put forward to make sequestration unecessary. Obama put up exactly what the Republicans said they wanted, and they rejected it out of hand, because since the deficit deal they've reverted back to the position of absolutely refusing any kind of revenue growth. And then they played this little game where they pretended all sides were to blame... because the alternative was to actually have to defend their policy of continuing tax deductions that are unpopular, even with a majority of their own party's voters. And they're even willing to sacrifice entitlement reform (something that's wildly popular with Republican voters) to get that.

I mean, just read this link, where Ezra Klein finally starts to understand the game that's being played;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

First of all... "Erza Klein"... REALLY? Look him up some more would ya.

Again... Paul Ryan was brave enough (took some hits politically) to table is budget plans... heck even the Simpson-Bowles proposal that Obama fething commissioned was NOT even considered by Obama nor Reid.

But, no... just keep on blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans... go ahead.

You're awfully touchy today... o.O

How would you be when you explain something in common sense language, time and again, only for other posters to simply ignore that and continue repeating nonsense.

Well... to be honest... we all do that.

Wait... where?

You seriously don't know the contents of Obama's proposal?

"Mr. Obama has continued to call for a broader $1.5 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package that would be roughly split between new tax revenues from the wealthy and corporations and reduced spending for the fast-growing entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/28/us/politics/proposals-to-avoid-sequestration.html?_r=0

Yeah.. I've seen it. It's full of gak.

Let me repeat it for you again. EVEN is own PARTY won't vote for it. So what does that tell ya?

Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...

Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.

No, it isn't about government being the only one able to get you out. You're getting out, slowly but steadily right now, as the private sector recovers.

But the point is that private sector recovery depends on overall aggregate demand (the total of all goods bought in the economy in a given year). Drop any part of that demand suddenly and it reverberates through the economy, causing decline elsewhere and threatening that recovering private sector investment.

Now, there are times when such cuts don't matter much (when the economy is at or near full capacity). But this is not one of those times, right now you are well below full capacity.

I actually agree with... up to a point.

Where's the incentive for private businesses to expand/grow? I can't always be strictly from government growth... in addition, some tweaks need to be done to encourage more investments from the private sector.

Um... wut? How will he know this happens? I seemed to remember like two years ago (maybe during the stimulus programs?) he said that we'd be roaring back by this time.

Yes, the expectations of the recovery were overstated in several places. This is due in part to people not yet having a full understanding of the scope of the crash (I think most people today still don't understand the severity of the crisis) and expectations that the recovery package would do more - they believed the package that would be delivered was going to be bigger, and focused on more useful forms of stimulus than the politically compromised final package we saw.

True dat... it was the classic case of "their heart was in the right place"... but, in practice, it was a boondogle.

But, if you want to question the value of good old Keynesian stimulus, let's look at Europe, led by Germany's call for austerity.



See how unemployment is just getting worse, even now? That's because austerity in the midst of recession is fething stupid.

Sure... so what?

Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.

That's not me, that's Bernanke. And that's basic economics. If you want to encourage private sector investment to move back to somewhere near full economic capacity, don't make sudden cuts that drop aggregate demand.

You... of all people should understand that it isn't that simple... because it CAN'T last.

There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.

I am by no means an Obama fanboi. It's just that compared to the behaviour of the other side, he ends up looking pretty good.

You sure look like it... that's okay.

Obama is starting to get ding'ed here.

And why would his own party vote on a bill designed to be acceptable to the Republicans? The point is that, assuming the Republicans are trying to be adults for a brief moment, they see that Obama is offering up the things they've said they really want - removal of deductions (rather than a raise in the tax rate) and entitlement reform. But the Republicans are playing stupid games again, because they seem to actively refuse the idea of governance.

You're missing the point... the House Republicans can pass the fething BEST budget bill concieved, but Reid (and Senate Democrat) won't have anything to do with it... cause, ya know... Republicans.

It's the nature of politics these days.

Wanna bet...

oh... I just did.

And doing so makes you irrelevant to economic discussion. It's like wanting to talk about Warhammer, but refusing to accept the existance of dice. It's such a marked difference from the basic reality of the situation that it means you have absolutely nothing to offer.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Right...so, we're both throwing the GAO's report around. Just so that you understand, they're a reporting agency.

Yeah, I know what they are. I've worked in a state level equivalent here (sort of, long story).

Point being, you were saying that even they were pointing out ways for government to save money. I commented that was funny, because finding ways for government to make money is a stated role of the organisation.

"Now even the EPA is trying to put environmental controls in place"
"Now even Games Workshop is trying to increase profits"

No... I get that. What I'm asking is why spend ALL that money right now? Again... priorities.

They're not spending any more money. The bullet contract is an on-going, regular course of business thing. And the acquisition of MRAPs is a thing that isn't actually happening.

First of all... "Erza Klein"... REALLY? Look him up some more would ya.

I read him regularly. Enough that I even know how to spell his name

And I'm sure you've got him pegged as a leftie and you used that to excuse you from reading the link, but you really should. It's just twitter feeds from Republicans showing that they simply will accept accept no compromise from Obama, and if Obama offers them exactly what they want they'll pretend he didn't offer it.

Again... Paul Ryan was brave enough (took some hits politically) to table is budget plans... heck even the Simpson-Bowles proposal that Obama fething commissioned was NOT even considered by Obama nor Reid.

Simpson Bowles is a fething shambles. It pays absolutely no attention to the actual numbers in place defining the issue. Their claims on projected SS numbers would make a grad student blush.

At this point I suspect the only reason they have any legitimacy is because a lot of Washington worships at the altar of bi-partisanship, and Simpson plays the role of a grumpy old man with a nice turn of phrase (as long as you don't look at the substance of his actual claims).

But, no... just keep on blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans... go ahead.

Not everything. But this is definitely all their fault. The deal is there, it's what they said they wanted. They didn't take it, and there's only two possible reasons why.

1) What they said they wanted was lies. They said 'oh no, we don't need to raise tax rates on the wealthy, we just need to get rid of those deductions and loopholes'... but when that's actually offered up they reject it. Because that line was grade a bs, just a means to sidestep rejecting a tax increases on the rich. Now they're being called on it.
2) They backed themselves in to a corner where a deal, and deal at all, with Democrats will cost them with the true believers in their party. They fear the hard liners will throw them out in the primary if they're seen doing a deal, even a deal that gives them what they want, with the Democrats.

Pick one.

Well... to be honest... we all do that.

Yeah.. I've seen it. It's full of gak.

Let me repeat it for you again. EVEN is own PARTY won't vote for it. So what does that tell ya?

Oh, so state what you want in a deal. Get offered it. Reject it because 'its full of gak'. What the hell, man? With that kind of bargaining strategy, fething what could Obama do to actually get a deal?

I actually agree with... up to a point.

Where's the incentive for private businesses to expand/grow? I can't always be strictly from government growth... in addition, some tweaks need to be done to encourage more investments from the private sector.

Of course it isn't purely from government. In time, as the recovery continues, the economy gets close to full capacity then you roll back government. That's the point to stimulus - it's a short term measure, for when the economy is in recession, and dropping interest rates isn't enough by itself (because they've reached the zero lower bound, ie you can't have interest rates below zero).

True dat... it was the classic case of "their heart was in the right place"... but, in practice, it was a boondogle.

Oh don't get me wrong, the stimulus did a lot of good. It didn't do as much as was advertised, and should have been probably twice as big to properly offset the GFC.

Sure... so what?

Look at Europe's climbing unemployment. Note that austerity doesn't in fact spark an economy back to life through the magic of 'confidence'.

Then consider how much attack there is on the US government's deficits. Realise those attacks are stupid, and pay no attention to the realities of macroeconomics.

You... of all people should understand that it isn't that simple... because it CAN'T last.

It can last until recovery is achieved.

You're missing the point... the House Republicans can pass the fething BEST budget bill concieved, but Reid (and Senate Democrat) won't have anything to do with it... cause, ya know... Republicans.

It's the nature of politics these days.

No, seriously, don't just talk in vague generalisations. That's just running away from the specifics of this issue. And with this issue we see Republicans doing everything they can to avoid a deal that's offering them what they were apparently asking for.

And seriously, I thought you liked removing deductions? And aren't you in favour of steadily reducing the size of the welfare spend?

Fine... let's talk Warhammer... what army do you play?

Empire. And if recent games are any guide, I play Empire badly