U.S. Budget & OBBB | OCT 1 - Gov’t Shutdown Begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 69K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Most words that accurately describe her aren't suitable for polite company.

She reminds me of Sarah Palin, in that she can't process the question so that every answer is the same: [some Democrat] created this problem.
Click to expand...
Sarah Palin wasn't very bright.

Leavitt is smart enough to know she's lying. She's sliming down to Stephen Miller territory.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
I am quite aware of what civil servants do. I have had numerous interactions with civil servants, contracted with civil servants, had neighbors that are civil servants, and one of my best friends works for the fed g'ment. So I like to think that my knowledge of what civil servants do and how the g'ment conducts business is at least informed. Many of my opinions about a bloated fed g'ment were formed by talking directly with them, especially my good friend who tells me stories of how overstaffed and inefficient his agency is. As well, after making a living in the corporate world implementing concepts like 6 sigma and lean mfg, I know that we could lop off 25% of the fed workforce and not miss a beat, and then start to get serious about improving the efficiency of the fed g'ment. My issue is not that trump is going to take this opportunity to make cuts, its the way the cuts are going to be made. Cutting overhead is great but if not done strategically it can make things worse than when it was overstaffed and inefficient. The dems are about to FAFO out of fear of pissing off the left flank. AOC apparently is way more influential within the dem party than I realized. Deferring to her is a huge mistake.
Click to expand...
Since you know that we could lop off 25% of the fed work force and not miss a beat, I assume you know where we could lop off a quarter of those civil servants ? Would it be a 25% lop off across all agencies or would it be targeted to a limited number of agencies and other agencies would be spared ? If the lop off would be targeted, which agencies could lop off the 25% and not miss a beat ? ?

How much of the military is overstaffed, inefficient, and spending billions to buy military weapons we do not need from defense contractors ? We have our military picking up trash in DC and occupying our cities. Could we lop off 25% of our military service soldiers and not miss a beat ?

How efficient is ICE ? Could we reduce the ICE force 25% and not miss a beat ?

I am seriously interested in where you think we could strategically cut 25% of those who serve us whether they wear a coat and tie, a military uniform, or camouflage and a mask.
 
Who doesn't know that the federal government also uses principles like six sigma?

Only a man who doesn't understand timeouts would fail to know that six sigma and lean mfg are themselves not useful for government work because of legal requirements.

Only a dumbass thinks he can get an accurate view of the federal government from one friend who works in one office. Who doesn't think their workplace is inefficient? Every place I have worked, nearly all of my co-workers would complain about inefficiency.
 
That business is somehow more efficient than government is a myth conservatives continually spread.

In another career, I worked for a Fortune 500 company. It was nowhere near a model of efficiency. I have numerous friends with the same experience.

Yet this notion has become a sacred truth for conservatives.

I wonder when this notion took hold so deeply? Anti Communist hysteria?
 
heelinhell said:
Since you know that we could lop off 25% of the fed work force and not miss a beat, I assume you know where we could lop off a quarter of those civil servants ? Would it be a 25% lop off across all agencies or would it be targeted to a limited number of agencies and other agencies would be spared ? If the lop off would be targeted, which agencies could lop off the 25% and not miss a beat ? ?

How much of the military is overstaffed, inefficient, and spending billions to buy military weapons we do not need from defense contractors ? We have our military picking up trash in DC and occupying our cities. Could we lop off 25% of our military service soldiers and not miss a beat ?

How efficient is ICE ? Could we reduce the ICE force 25% and not miss a beat ?

I am seriously interested in where you think we could strategically cut 25% of those who serve us whether they wear a coat and tie, a military uniform, or camouflage and a mask.
Click to expand...
Not going to go down that road with you. In 20 years of streamlining businesses I have NEVER seen one that couldn't lose 25%. I don't think you would disagree that normally for profit businesses are more efficient and streamlined than governments. As well, we were talking about civil servants, not military or crime prevention. I will offer you one anecdote that I know is also similarly represented in other agencies. My good friend works for the US Forest Service. He is now in his 33rd year. For the last 2 years his sole job was to build, install, and monitor / manage 20 bird houses that were to house a population of 20 endangered woodpeckers. The management consisted of chasing squirrels out of the bird houses and documenting his observations. None of that is hyperbole. It is fact. That is just one of the examples of g'ment waste he has shared over 33 years. When asked why he doesn't just retire his answer is nobody can fuck with him due to his seniority so he gets to do pretty much anything he wants, is drawing a nice check plus g'ment benefits / insurance, and is adding more to his pension. He knows its absurd but not many would walk away at 57 if not forced to. So yea, I feel pretty confident that the country could lose 25% of our civil servants and be just fine.
 
Zoo_View said:
Nothing like anecdotal “evidence.”
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, some need it. Anyone who doesn't understand the bloat and inefficiencies associated with a government, especially one as large as ours, isn't likely very well educated on how our g'ment operates. Which is astounding to me because people have to deal with the IRS, SSA, etc at some time in their life and if they can't see it or identify it then they likely don't understand the meaning of efficiency. But your point was what I would expect.
 
LeoBloom said:
That business is somehow more efficient than government is a myth conservatives continually spread.

In another career, I worked for a Fortune 500 company. It was nowhere near a model of efficiency. I have numerous friends with the same experience.

Yet this notion has become a sacred truth for conservatives.

I wonder when this notion took hold so deeply? Anti Communist hysteria?
Click to expand...
I’ve worked for very large financial organizations my entire 30 year career and from the first day until today there have always been groups of people who are putting in 12+ hour days and killing it and are the future leaders of the company sitting right next to a group that sucks.

The only difference from what I see day to day and stories about how some government employees are lazy and inefficient is when I go out with friends on the weekend I have better things to talk about than my slack co-workers.
 
If my understanding is off base on this, I'm open to a different perspective. Basically it boils down to this:

1. Democrats want to extend the intended temporary ACA expanded subsidies enacted during Covid which included the likelihood that illegal immigrants could receive some form of healthcare. That was a byproduct of the way the rules of the subsidies were originally written. So technically, semantically the republicans are correct in saying the democrats want to "give healthcare to illegal immigrants". However, that isn't a priority for the democrats in wanting the subsidies extended. They just don't want a benefit that is helping many poorer Americans to end.

2. The republicans want to end the extended subsidies and go back to pre covid levels but don't want to be seen as taking away a benefit that many might be upset over so they used a technicality (illegal immigrants getting subsidized healthcare) as the primary basis to sell ending the benefit so they wouldn't be seen as heartless.

3. The cost of the subsidies is in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion.

4. Democrats are lying when they say extending the subsidies doesn't give subsidized healthcare to illegal immigrants
Republicans are lying when they say democrats are willing to shut down the g'ment so illegal immigrants can have subsidized healthcare

5. CS is under pressure from the leftwing of the party (aoc and company) to not cave. So that is his primary reason for not going along with a 7 week continuing resolution that republicans claim contains no republican nuggets and is just intended to provide more time to negotiate a spending package

From this board's perspective, am I missing something?
 
superrific said:
Did you read the whole link? Bet you understood almost none of it, though again I have my doubts that you read past the first paragraph.
Click to expand...
Nope, I didn't read it. I also didn't bold a specific part that I didn't read. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
1. You are wrong about presidents cutting costs.
2. A balanced budget would be horrible for the US and the world. I won't bother to explain, as the explanation is obvious to most people and those who can't see it -- like you -- aren't going to listen to reason or expertise anyway. Suffice it to say, the balanced budget constitutional amendment -- had it passed -- would have been the worst amendment in our history (worse than Prohibition by a long shot) and would have led to economic collapse.
Click to expand...
If a balanced budget is bad, then it stands to reason that you believe continuing to grow the national debt is a good idea?
 
LeoBloom said:
That business is somehow more efficient than government is a myth conservatives continually spread.

In another career, I worked for a Fortune 500 company. It was nowhere near a model of efficiency. I have numerous friends with the same experience.

Yet this notion has become a sacred truth for conservatives.

I wonder when this notion took hold so deeply? Anti Communist hysteria?
Click to expand...
That has been my anecdotal experience as well . In my career I had the displeasure to deal with private insurance companies. They were very inefficient to the point that I eventually restricted my practice to Medicare and cash paying patients.

Medicare was far more efficient. The reimbursement rate was lower but they were timely in reimbursements unlike private insurance companies. Collecting a lower fee was worth the time saved hassling with private insurers.

But no conservative will believe it just as no conservative will believe that the stock market and economy do better when a Democrat is in the White House.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top