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.

 Polonius wrote:
I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)

Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)

Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.

In either case, the raw numbers aren't appropriate to look at. Even if it is way too big, looking at the raw numbers out of context STILL gives the wrong idea.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)

Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.

In either case, the raw numbers aren't appropriate to look at. Even if it is way too big, looking at the raw numbers out of context STILL gives the wrong idea.

But that is the correct context.
Absolute numbers - way to big as evidenced by the fact our credit rating has fallen and is still falling.
Relative too population
Relative to GDP growth

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

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)

Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.

In either case, the raw numbers aren't appropriate to look at. Even if it is way too big, looking at the raw numbers out of context STILL gives the wrong idea.

But that is the correct context.
Absolute numbers - way to big as evidenced by the fact our credit rating has fallen and is still falling.
Relative too population
Relative to GDP growth

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

Raw numbers are meaningless. Countries of different sizes have different points where the government becomes "too big", I'm sure you would agree. The raw size of government where you get nervous is higher in the US than it is in the UK, since the UK has a smaller economy and less GDP.

Absolute numbers without relative positions of other numbers are not helpful at all. A 1 trillion dollar cut today means a lot less than 1 trillion dollar cut in 1950 and it means more than a 1 trillion dollar cut in 2060.

Meaning is derived from context. This is not a hard idea.

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

On a relative basis we are the highest level of debt to GDP since WWII.

On a relative basis government is the largest its ever been.

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

On an absolute basis the "cut" is not a cut. Its just less GROWTH in the deficit. There is no cut.

Cut the govenrment to 2007 levels.

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

On a relative basis we are the highest level of debt to GDP since WWII.

On a relative basis government is the largest its ever been.

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

On an absolute basis the "cut" is not a cut. Its just less GROWTH in the deficit. There is no cut.

Cut the govenrment to 2007 levels.

Ok?

Again, I'm not arguing about the conclusions. I'm arguing about the chart. making a chart with absolute values is pointless. Make the chart with relative values. You may still come to the same conclusions, but you got there with better data. We should agree that you want better data, right?

This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!

Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.

All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.

 Polonius wrote:
This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.

and vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

Everyone has made sacrifices...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?

Not sure how's that is relevent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!

Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.

I wanna see citations too... I think there's plus/minus for working for the govmint. Oh... and Polonius, that statement is quite the opposite in DC.

All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.

Yeup.

Really no different than the private sector.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.

and vice versa.

To a lesser extent. For being a far left communist, Obama is talking, at most, of a marginal tax increase. On this particular issue, the Left is willing to talk difference of degree, while right is still arguing differences of kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?

Not sure how's that is relevent.

Because private sector salaries have increased (though less than inflation). Government salaries have generally remained static, and explicitly so for the last two years. Most people would rather take a small drop in real income over a larger drop.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.

and vice versa.

To a lesser extent. For being a far left communist, Obama is talking, at most, of a marginal tax increase. On this particular issue, the Left is willing to talk difference of degree, while right is still arguing differences of kind.

Yeah... I'll buy that. I think any current party will do that. (see Bush's term w/ Democratic Congress).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?

Not sure how's that is relevent.

Because private sector salaries have increased (though less than inflation). Government salaries have generally remained static, and explicitly so for the last two years. Most people would rather take a small drop in real income over a larger drop.

Um... citation please? If anything, its dropping. (workers in private industry that is)

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.

and vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

Everyone has made sacrifices...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?

Not sure how's that is relevent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!

Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.

I wanna see citations too... I think there's plus/minus for working for the govmint. Oh... and Polonius, that statement is quite the opposite in DC.

Well, here's a reproted 2011 showing governmental job losses while the private sector added jobs:

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2011/07/08/public-sector-job-cuts-threaten-recovery

All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.

Yeup.

Really no different than the private sector.

Except not really. I know federally, or at least in my agency, we can't hire. At all. Not because we don't have money, or work, but because we are prohibited by law.

But, my point is that it's not like government employees have made out like bandits.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

I hear someone fell on his sword over releasing the illegals ahead of the sequester, but thats about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.

You really think there have been no sacrifices?

Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!

Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.

All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.

Please show me the mass layoffs the federal government workforce has endured since 2009.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?

Most studies are showing federal employees now get paid more. PLus they get full on benefits.

FIre half of them, give the rest a 20% raise and see if anyone would notice.

 whembly wrote:

Because private sector salaries have increased (though less than inflation). Government salaries have generally remained static, and explicitly so for the last two years. Most people would rather take a small drop in real income over a larger drop.

Um... citation please? If anything, its dropping. (workers in private industry that is)

What are we truly arguing about again?

 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.

You would be surprised how little resistance the idea of merit based firings would have. Of course, the odds of them being actually being merit based are low, but whatever.

Now that is a true statement.

I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.

Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.

 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.

Let me first say that I appreciate what you do and if I gave any indication of using the big brush... I apologize.

I'm for alot of government services and even advocated expansion on some existing ones... like, the VA. In my mind, the VA should be given fundings/resources to make it THE.BEST healthcare organization on the planet. I believe we owe it to our Armed Services to do that. (and yeah, that'll be spendy).

I think people lose site of how ginormous the Federal Government is and that the 1% of overpaid/lazy Govmint folks are NOT indicative to everyone in Government.

The conversation we should be having is what services do we need and are we willing to pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.

Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.

Aren't they protected by the SIUE Union? Or, am I mixing things up here. ?

 whembly wrote:

Let me first say that I appreciate what you do and if I gave any indication of using the big brush... I apologize.

I'm for alot of government services and even advocated expansion on some existing ones... like, the VA. In my mind, the VA should be given fundings/resources to make it THE.BEST healthcare organization on the planet. I believe we owe it to our Armed Services to do that. (and yeah, that'll be spendy).

I think people lose site of how ginormous the Federal Government is and that the 1% of overpaid/lazy Govmint folks are NOT indicative to everyone in Government.

The conversation we should be having is what services do we need and are we willing to pay for it.

Naw, it's nothing you said. It just sucks being the modern equivalent of a Kulak. And most people don't understand the huge differences between state and federal. I'm not saying I'd never work for the state, but I'd far rather work for the Feds. Now, State workers get lots of benefts (no SS tax, no health insurance premiums in Ohio) but also have to deal with politics at a much closer level. I've shocked people by explaining that I pay $120 a month in health insurance premiums for solo coverage. That's a great benefit, but not what people think I get.

And private or public, nobody trusts management to lay off the worst and keep the best.

I agree that the VA should be amazing.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.

Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.

Aren't they protected by the SIUE Union? Or, am I mixing things up here. ?

That doesn't make them not able to get fired. No union does that. It's just that management actually has to do a little bit of work to do it.

Here is what usually happens when people say that you cannot fire government/union employees:

Boss: We are firing you because you are a bad employee.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: What makes him a bad employee?
Boss: He doesn't do his job!
Union: Got any proof of that?
Boss: We say so.
Union: Sorry, no can do.
Employee: Hurray!

If management actually does their job the conversation becomes this:

Boss: We are firing you because:
1) On January 1st you didn't give the ordered antibiotics.
2) On January 2nd you didn't chart any patient teaching and didn't update the careplan.
3) On January 6th you didn't verify orders and missed a lab test that was ordered 6 hours ago.
........
25) On January 28th you didn't notify the doctor of a bad blood pressure.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: You are fethed...

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.

Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.

Aren't they protected by the SIUE Union? Or, am I mixing things up here. ?

That doesn't make them not able to get fired. No union does that. It's just that management actually has to do a little bit of work to do it.

Here is what usually happens when people say that you cannot fire government/union employees:

Boss: We are firing you because you are a bad employee.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: What makes him a bad employee?
Boss: He doesn't do his job!
Union: Got any proof of that?
Boss: We say so.
Union: Sorry, no can do.
Employee: Hurray!

If management actually does their job the conversation becomes this:

Boss: We are firing you because:
1) On January 1st you didn't give the ordered antibiotics.
2) On January 2nd you didn't chart any patient teaching and didn't update the careplan.
3) On January 6th you didn't verify orders and missed a lab test that was ordered 6 hours ago.
........
25) On January 28th you didn't notify the doctor of a bad blood pressure.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: You are fethed...

Oh... yeah, I see your point.

Even the company I work for, management has to do that.

 Polonius wrote:

myself and a couple of supervisors think that our office would be more productive if we fired 10% of the staff, simply because they are a net drain to the workforce.

As a professional Desk Jockey, I have never found a place where this isn't the case. Of course, the key word in this sentence is "think".

Also, d-USA is right about the documentation bit.

I know our agency is terrible about supporting local management in any disciplinary action. Local management operates under the assumption that they can't fire people. Which is just terrible. Nobody want's to live in constant fear of termination, but IMO it's bad for morale to have no accountability.

 Polonius wrote:
I know our agency is terrible about supporting local management in any disciplinary action. Local management operates under the assumption that they can't fire people. Which is just terrible. Nobody want's to live in constant fear of termination, but IMO it's bad for morale to have no accountability.

You are absolutely correct.

Right there with you about the problems with firing people in the government. It is VERY hard to fire someone in my agency unless you've got a mountain of evidence on your side, and even then, the process can literally takes years. Our group supervisor was amazingly incompetent, to the point where he was an active obstruction to productivity, but due to his years in the the government (and military), he was nigh-untouchable. Thankfully, he managed to get a medical condition that allowed him to retire a few months ago with a good deal, so our collective stress levels have gone down (I actually no longer feel physically ill going to work every morning, it was that bad).

And the hiring freeze we've been under for the past couple years (our agency is capped at around 80% of its available positions depending on the department, so if you've got 80% of your positions filled, too bad, doesn't matter what you're hurting for, just share the workload, but amazingly enough, there's always management positions available) makes it so that you would almost rather keep an incompetent person, because you can't replace them with someone new. That's the problems with cutting government jobs from a budget: the ones that need to go, get to stay.

Anyway, some of the problems with the across-the-board cuts is that some agencies are hit harder by it than others. Those agencies already operating on a tiny budget (basically, the less popular agencies that aren't name-dropped in campaign speeches) will be hurt, while those with bigger budgets will just have to shuffle money around a bit (my own agency was able to massage the budget enough to only require furloughs, what I call "unpaid time off awards" for no more than one day a paycheck for up to 14 pay periods).

Sorry for rambling a bit there.

 Frazzled wrote:

Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.

Prior to TARP, and the associated state actions, that's pretty much what it was.

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.