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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 79K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
“… Some furloughed workers at the Department of Education expressed shock on Thursday to find that their out-of-office email messages had been changed without their knowledge to reflect the Trump administration’s view that the government shutdown was the fault of “Democrat Senators.”

“Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate which has led to a lapse in appropriations,” the emails said. “Due to the lapse in appropriations I am currently in furlough status. I will respond to emails once government functions resume.”

One Education Department employee, who like another worker interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution, said they wanted to change the language but worried that logging into the system might violate a federal law that prohibits furloughed employees from working….”

www.nytimes.com

Partisan Language Inserted Into Education Dept. Workers’ Automated Emails

The out-of-office responses from the accounts of employees on furlough cast blame for the shutdown on Democrats.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
This seems to me to present a really interesting First Amendment question. I'm sure federal departments have the ability to limit what their employees can say to a large extent, but do they have the right to effectively speak FOR their individual employees? No chance that issue gets resolved before the government is reopened, but it's an interesting constitutional question.
 
nycfan said:

White House Senses Political Risk on Healthcare Despite Shutdown Bravado​

Trump aides are discussing proposals to extend Obamacare subsidies on which millions of Americans rely​


🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy...7?st=BWsxkw&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“…
Inside the White House, aides are discussing proposals to extend the enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act health-insurance plans, the officials said. Trump hasn’t yet decided whether he will endorse such a proposal, according to the officials. Republicans say they will only hold negotiations with Democrats on the matter after the government is reopened.

The closed-door hand-wringing stands in contrast to the public bravado conveyed by the president and his top advisers….

… The emerging dynamic puts Trump in a bind: He is determined to crush the most concerted Democratic resistance since he regained the White House. But he also has to find a solution to a looming problem that threatens his agenda and the GOP majority in the midterms.…”
Click to expand...
This would be a good time for Taco man to act...

Taco Taco man !
Trump gotta be the Taco man !
 
ZenMode said:
Yah, probably true. I was just making the point that no President has actually put real effort into cutting costs or balancing the budget.

It's not impossible that the tariffs help to balance the ridiculous tax cuts.

I don't support tariffs, but that's beside the point...
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenMode said:
There have been many studies done on the topic with the many finding negative impacts particularly among non-white women.

I'm surprised, given that this has been a fairly well discussed topic, even among liberals, that you are at all familiar.

It shouldn't be surprising that men would find it easier to leave knowing that the government will pick up the financial slack.

The research literature on the effects of welfare on marriage and fertility contains a large number of studies over the last 30 years. The studies use a variety of methodologies, employ several different datasets with different types of individuals, and cover different time periods. Several studies were conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s, but there has been a second wave of studies beginning in the mid-1980s and still under way. Based on the early studies, a consensus among researchers developed a decade or so ago that the welfare system had no effect on these demographic outcomes. However, a majority of the newer studies show that welfare has a significantly negative effect on marriage or a positive effect on fertility rather than none at all. Because of this shift in findings, the current consensus is that the welfare system probably has some effect on these demographic outcomes.

Click to expand...
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.
 
Ramrouser said:
The government arbitrarily seizing my bar license for political differences is completely different from the government following the law in deporting illegals or from firing some unnecessary government workers (fucking others over?). There’s no lifetime tenure to possess a job in government. I have a property right in my license to practice law. No such right exists to remain illegally in this country or to have a salaried job.
Click to expand...
How's that property right in your law practice going?

This is why I have my doubts that you've ever been in federal court. The ND Ga court closure is depriving you of billable hours? LOL. How can you represent clients when you understand so little.

You're probably thinking that a law license can be part of an asset division in a separation or divorce. That is to say, it is treated as an asset for the purposes of family law, which is where you are getting the idea of property.

But that isn't at all the same as having a property right. If lawyers had property rights in their law licenses, then they couldn't be disbarred unless a) they were compensated, per 5th Amendment; or b) the disbarment is actually akin to a civil fine, but that doesn't work for a number of reasons (including the fact that not all law licenses are equally valuable). Obviously neither of those options describe reality.

Rather, the privilege of practicing law is just that -- a privilege, and one that can be revoked. I don't think a lawyer has a due process right in the federal constitution to contest any revocations. That is, if a state didn't want to give lawyers an opportunity to be heard or to contest the allegations, I don't think it has to. All states do, because in theory they want good lawyers to live there and that's not likely if licenses can be stripped willy nilly. But that is in no way saying that you have property right.
 
LeoBloom said:
Why is it so important to shrink the government? Because of waste?

So we put more emphasis on and give more power to corporations? Because they are not wasteful? Yeah, ok.
Click to expand...
Am I the only one that thinks that some level of government waste is not just the cost of doing business, but actually necessary to achieve the optimal societal good?

Listen, you want a new bridge built over a river to replace a failing one. No corporation is going to touch that one. The best your going to get is a public private/ partnership with the public paying the loin's share and some sleazy corporation getting the right to collect tolls on that bridge in perpetuity. The worst of all worlds.

We could demand a zero-waste government solution, but that's an unrealistic and unachievable goal. By all means we should strive for it. fight for it and remain perpetually vigilant about it, but on some level there will always be waste.

And to be honest I don't care at all about the waste, as much as I care about realized social good (from having the new bridge) dramatically outweighing the social costs to get the project built. If there was some pork traded off in Congress the get the bridge built, good! That's called lubrication, and it is a net good! The alternative is no bridge or a toll bridge. I don't even really care if the waste is from pork, corruption, or incompetence. I only care that #1) it's not too excessive and #2) it acts as a lubricant to get the project done and the societal benefit delivered.

If we are being clear eyed about this, and not reacting emotionally, we're going to find that the overwhelmingly optimal solution for delivering the most societal good is going to involve a not insignificant amount of waste. It just will, but that's OK, because we as a society are better off with the output (i.e. cost/benefit ratio) of that process than we are with any other possible process, ever.

1759498999328.png
 
Last edited:
If the bridge supports $1 billion dollars of economic activity over it's lifetime, and costs 100 million to build, then 30% waste (i.e $30 million dollars) is a rounding error! Eyes on the prize people. Is the waste free bridge option better? Yeah, sure. And we should all fight for that. I'm with you all the way. But push come to shove, we all need to be able to realize that the 30% waste option is infinitely better than the toll bridge or no bridge.
 
Ddseddse said:
Am I the only one that thinks that some level of government waste is not just the cost of doing business, but actually necessary to achieve the optimal societal good?

Listen, you want a new bridge built over a river to replace a failing one. No corporation is going to touch that one. The best your going to get is a public private/ partnership with the public paying the loin's share and some sleazy corporation getting the right to collect tolls on that bridge in perpetuity. The worst of all worlds.

We could demand a zero-waste government solution, but that's an unrealistic and unachievable goal. By all means we should strive for it. fight for it and remain perpetually vigilant about it, but on some level there will always be waste.

And to be honest I don't care at all about the waste, as much as I care about realized social good (from having the new bridge) outweighing the social costs to get the project built. If there was some pork traded off in Congress the get the bridge built, good! That's called lubrication, and it is a net good! The alternative is no bridge or a toll bridge. I don't even really care if the waste is from pork, corruption, or incompetence. I only care that #1) it's not too excessive and #2) it acts as a lubricant to get the project done and the societal benefit delivered.

If we are being clear eyed about this, and not reacting emotionally, we're going to find that the overwhelmingly optimal solution for delivering the most societal good is going to involve a not insignificant amount of waste. It just will, but that's OK, because we as a society are better off with the output of that process than we are with any other possible process, ever.
Click to expand...
1. What you are talking about are positive externalities. Corporations can build bridges, and they can do so without any public money. But they only have an incentive to do so if they can monetize cross-bridge traffic enough to cover costs. Unfortunately, that means that a lot of bridges with tremendous social utility wouldn't get built because the bridge owner can't capture all the development benefits the bridge contributes. The bridge, after all, can create a lot of economic activity simply by existing, even if the bridge isn't used that often.

For instance, consider the Erie Canal -- not exactly a bridge, but economically and functionally the same. New York City would not be what it is without that canal. By opening cheap transportation of goods and materials from upstate New York to the city, it allowed the port of New York to thrive and expand. Well, ports attract manufacturing, and soon Lower Manhattan was filled with production facilities. Ports also require financial services, and specifically mercantile banking, and hence the development of the financial sector in New York City (which did exist before the canal but greatly expanded after that). Also, the banks, flush with loanable funds, did issue lots of loans and financed the creation of those manufacturing facilities, along with housing and other capital construction. The net value of all this economic activity was much much greater than the traffic headed down the canal (which is the only thing the canal owner could charge for).

The Erie Canal was originally supposed to be a privately financed project. They tried to do it privately. They could not do it privately. So Governor DeWitt Clinton authorized public money for the digging of the canal. One of the best investments in US history. There were a couple of other reasons why it couldn't be done privately, but mostly it's because the private sector won't build what it can't monetize.

2. To this extent, your point is solid and well-taken. I'm not sure I would call any of it waste. It's a cost. If a bank makes 100 loans, and 95 of them pay off normally and 5 default, I wouldn't call those 5 loans a waste. I would think of it as a loan portfolio with a 5% default rate (which is pretty good). I suppose you could think of them as waste, and argue that the waste is necessary because otherwise we wouldn't have the other 95 loans. But I think it's easier just to think of them as regular costs.
 
Ddseddse said:
If the bridge supports $1 billion dollars of economic activity over it's lifetime, and costs 100 million to build, then 30% waste (i.e $30 million dollars) is a rounding error! Eyes on the prize people. Is the waste free bridge option better? Yeah, sure. And we should all fight for that. I'm with you all the way. But push come to shove, we all need to be able to realize that the 30% waste option is infinitely better than the toll bridge or no bridge.
Click to expand...
The bridge might carry $1B of traffic for that $100M to build. If it's a good and well-placed bridge, it will likely support way more than $1B of economic activity. More like $10B. Over the bridge's life, it would probably support hundreds of billions in economic activity.
 
superrific said:
How's that property right in your law practice going?

This is why I have my doubts that you've ever been in federal court. The ND Ga court closure is depriving you of billable hours? LOL. How can you represent clients when you understand so little.

You're probably thinking that a law license can be part of an asset division in a separation or divorce. That is to say, it is treated as an asset for the purposes of family law, which is where you are getting the idea of property.

But that isn't at all the same as having a property right. If lawyers had property rights in their law licenses, then they couldn't be disbarred unless a) they were compensated, per 5th Amendment; or b) the disbarment is actually akin to a civil fine, but that doesn't work for a number of reasons (including the fact that not all law licenses are equally valuable). Obviously neither of those options describe reality.

Rather, the privilege of practicing law is just that -- a privilege, and one that can be revoked. I don't think a lawyer has a due process right in the federal constitution to contest any revocations. That is, if a state didn't want to give lawyers an opportunity to be heard or to contest the allegations, I don't think it has to. All states do, because in theory they want good lawyers to live there and that's not likely if licenses can be stripped willy nilly. But that is in no way saying that you have property right.
Click to expand...
You're correct that a bar license does not meet the technical definition of property since it is subject to revocation by the State Bar and is non transferrable. In your hypothetical, however, you were speaking about the State arbitrarily seizing my license due to my political beliefs not aligning with a future Democratic governor in Georgia. So I was referring to my license as property in a broader sense in that it allows me to generate income and the State arbitrarily seizing my license would be depriving me of income. This would not be a revocation due to my violating any ethical or professional obligations of the State Bar but a seizure of an asset without compensation.
 
Ddseddse said:
Am I the only one that thinks that some level of government waste is not just the cost of doing business, but actually necessary to achieve the optimal societal good?

Listen, you want a new bridge built over a river to replace a failing one. No corporation is going to touch that one. The best your going to get is a public private/ partnership with the public paying the loin's share and some sleazy corporation getting the right to collect tolls on that bridge in perpetuity. The worst of all worlds.

We could demand a zero-waste government solution, but that's an unrealistic and unachievable goal. By all means we should strive for it. fight for it and remain perpetually vigilant about it, but on some level there will always be waste.

And to be honest I don't care at all about the waste, as much as I care about realized social good (from having the new bridge) dramatically outweighing the social costs to get the project built. If there was some pork traded off in Congress the get the bridge built, good! That's called lubrication, and it is a net good! The alternative is no bridge or a toll bridge. I don't even really care if the waste is from pork, corruption, or incompetence. I only care that #1) it's not too excessive and #2) it acts as a lubricant to get the project done and the societal benefit delivered.

If we are being clear eyed about this, and not reacting emotionally, we're going to find that the overwhelmingly optimal solution for delivering the most societal good is going to involve a not insignificant amount of waste. It just will, but that's OK, because we as a society are better off with the output (i.e. cost/benefit ratio) of that process than we are with any other possible process, ever.

1759498999328.png
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
If it's possible to do so, I'd love to see a member of the minority enter a memorandum into the record detailing the consequences to our healthcare system when the cuts to healthcare funding go into effect: seniors won't be able to afford some medications; millions will be unable to afford basic health insurance; rural hospitals will be forced to close. As a result, people will die that could have survived.
THEN concede to an extension, with a public record listing those who voted to approve those cuts (but allowing tax breaks for the ultra-rich) that are going to have blood on their hands.
 
Ramrouser said:
You're correct that a bar license does not meet the technical definition of property since it is subject to revocation by the State Bar and is non transferrable. In your hypothetical, however, you were speaking about the State arbitrarily seizing my license due to my political beliefs not aligning with a future Democratic governor in Georgia. So I was referring to my license as property in a broader sense in that it allows me to generate income and the State arbitrarily seizing my license would be depriving me of income. This would not be a revocation due to my violating any ethical or professional obligations of the State Bar but a seizure of an asset without compensation.
Click to expand...
1. But it's not an asset. I mean, you just said so yourself in your first sentence. That's not a "technical definition" of property. That is almost the whole definition. It's an "asset" only because the state has extended you due process -- the same due process you would gleefully strip from others. It is mind boggling that you can't keep your logic straight even over the course of four sentences. I guess I just have higher standards. To paraphrase Scalia, I would hide my head in a bag for a year if I was writing such egregiously illogical paragraphs.

2. Arbitrarily seizing your license would deprive you of income? What do you think an arbitrary firing of a career civil servant does? Your post couldn't be a clearer endorsement of your guiding principle of: "what is good for me, is good. What is bad for me, is bad." And that is why people find you so loathsome. You would complain bloody murder about people doing to you what you gleefully celebrate being done to them.

3. Actually, I don't care about the Democratic governor. I just want your state to be reconstructed. And I don't want to take away your bar license. I've just been using that as a prime example of your hypocrisy. I know you don't care about that, but really lawyers should care. If the profession is seen as just hypocrites, it wouldn't be much of a profession. If you only support rule of law when it's convenient for you, then you are abandoning your ethical duty.

4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top