Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Goverrnment Shutdown 2013: The Obamapocalypse is here! :(


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#121 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:03 AM

So, conservatives, any time you're ready to get rid of these idiots and send adults, we're still waiting and ready to talk. Until then, we're going to stand here with our white wine at our dinner parties and try to figure out how you got the last nail in when you crucified yourselves. It's quite a feat. 

 

Love,

 

Liberalism


Posted Image

#122 Purple Flames

Purple Flames

    MC Sucka DJ

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:47 AM

Did anyone see that insane woman get dragged off the House floor just now? Here's the audio:

 

Listen on Soundcloud.com



#123 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 17 October 2013 - 05:18 AM

hahaha.

Remember when the 'pubs would get so much crap because they'd "refuse to compromise"?

Now, the same clowns who would give them so much crap are cheering on their team for the same thing. :D

But don't say both sides do it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#124 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:50 AM

hahaha.

Remember when the 'pubs would get so much crap because they'd "refuse to compromise"?

Now, the same clowns who would give them so much crap are cheering on their team for the same thing. :D

But don't say both sides do it.

 

I think you and I have a different understanding of the word "compromise". 


Posted Image

#125 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

LOL!!!!

... oh, wait. You're serious.

Well, here. This oughta make you seem less stupid.

http://www2.lhric.or...ilwar/south.htm

That's a really cute website. Did your mommy help you with it or were you able to put it together like a big boy?

Saying that there was only one cause for the civil war being state's rights to secede is like saying all of WWII, Pacific theater included, was because they were Nazis and they wanted to kill Jews. You're conveniently ignoring all the underlying issues involved.

As for that piece of shit confederate flag, I don't doubt that there are a small percentage of people who view it as nothing more than civil war remembrance, the vast majority that fly it though do it because its their way of publicly saying "yeah, southern pride" while (not quite) secretly winking and nudging their fellow racists. I'm not arguing the flag should be erased from the history books but if I see anyone flying it, I already know everything I need to about them.

#126 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:18 PM

I think you and I have a different understanding of the word "compromise".


Well I, for one, always thought compromise meant that you can make a deal and then a couple years later act like that deal never existed, was something you didn't agree to, and do everything possible to undermine that deal including nearly burning your country to the ground...

#127 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:18 PM



#128 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:23 PM

slidecage? :rofl: I keed...I keed...

 

No joke: I can't tell if that guy is real or not.


dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#129 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:42 PM

slidecage? :rofl: I keed...I keed...

 

No joke: I can't tell if that guy is real or not.

 

It's a character. Pretty funny guy. He's the one who flipped the Magic the Gathering table.


Posted Image

#130 Purple Flames

Purple Flames

    MC Sucka DJ

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 05:05 PM

Poe's Law can be a cruel mistress.



#131 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:02 PM

Anybody think furloughed workers should get back pay? I'm curious. To me, the message was we don't have the money to run the government (due to political posturing or in reality) so let's make sure nobody is working for 16 days. OK, thanks for not working for 2.5 weeks, so here's a bunch of money for your troubles.

 

Regardless of the cause of government employee furlough, is it logical or rational to pay people not to work for 2.5 weeks? To me they could use accrued vacation/PTO for that period, or elect not to get paid, but I don't understand why they should be getting paychecks because their bosses told them to go home.

 

US of A.

 

By the way, why don't our news networks call the crazy stenographer who was removed from the House floor a "radical, religious extremist"? I guess that title is only reserved for Muslims.



#132 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:53 PM

Anybody think furloughed workers should get back pay? I'm curious. To me, the message was we don't have the money to run the government (due to political posturing or in reality) so let's make sure nobody is working for 16 days. OK, thanks for not working for 2.5 weeks, so here's a bunch of money for your troubles.
 
Regardless of the cause of government employee furlough, is it logical or rational to pay people not to work for 2.5 weeks? To me they could use accrued vacation/PTO for that period, or elect not to get paid, but I don't understand why they should be getting paychecks because their bosses told them to go home.
 
US of A.
 
By the way, why don't our news networks call the crazy stenographer who was removed from the House floor a "radical, religious extremist"? I guess that title is only reserved for Muslims.

I'll stick my neck out on this one.

Personally, I think of the shutdown in the same way as a snow emergency and a good employer will pay you for it. This goes beyond private vs public employers because every fulltime job I've had has done this and I've only worked in the private sector even when I was an hourly wage slave.

Pragmatically speaking, it's not only easier to pay them the back pay, but probably cheaper than processing over 800,000 applications for unemployment benefits, paying out those benefits, and then closing out those cases all at once especially when there's already reduced staffing levels to process those applications to begin with. Even from another angle, that's an over 800,000 person-sized economic black hole that was dropped in the midst of a slow recovery. How is that better than paying them beyond "it's the principle!"

edit: Not every government employee is highly paid with awesome benefits. I think a good compromise would be to make back pay tiered according to income with anyone making below $100k to get 100% and roll it back for some arbitrary amount above that.

In regards to the stenographer, didn't she have a mental health issues? I haven't really paid any attention to it.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#133 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:06 PM

Personally, I think of the shutdown in the same way as a snow emergency and a good employer will pay you for it. This goes beyond private vs public employers because every fulltime job I've had has done this and I've only worked in the private sector even when I was an hourly wage slave.

Pragmatically speaking, it's not only easier to pay them the back pay, but probably cheaper than processing over 800,000 applications for unemployment benefits, paying out those benefits, and then closing out those cases all at once especially when there's already reduced staffing levels to process those applications to begin with. Even from another angle, that's an over 800,000 person-sized economic black hole that was dropped in the midst of a slow recovery. How is that better than paying them beyond "it's the principle!"


 

I think in a private sector situation (and I'm in the Pacific NW, so weather related no-work days are few and far between), but both in California and Oregon, through a variety of professional and menial jobs, I've never worked somewhere where an "act of God" or similar prevented a person from going to work, but entitled them to pay.

 

Nothing prevented all those federal employees from filing for unemployment, and at least according to TV interviews with folks affected, many did, so they were already in the system. It would make sense that one part of the government saving money by shutting down a bunch of departments, wouldn't really save money, since another department would now start paying them (although you get that unemployment benefits would only pay a fraction of their standard salary, right?). But that's not how the government does budgeting. It's department-specific. DHS has this budget. EPA has this budget. It's not like if one goes over budget, another department gets their budget slashed to balance (like any intelligent company would do)

 

The benefits of federal employment have historically been job security, retirement/pension, and health benefits. Their salaries are lower than private, but that's the sales pitch for government jobs. I don't see ethically or logically, why it wouldn't be just to tell them to use PTO for the time away from the office, or don't get paid. What's far more likely, is that nobody in Congress wants to bring wrath to their entire party (well aware of the irony in this) by saying "we caused you guys to be out of work AND we're not paying you".

 

Here's a question. If a furloughed employee was receiving unemployment benefits (likely the most they would've received is about one check, assuming it's paid out every two weeks), then they also get backpay, shouldn't they have to pay back the unemployment?



#134 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:25 PM

Gov't employees are all UNIONIZED, so yes they are getting back pay for a 2.5 week vacy.....

 

Apparently in 4 months we get to play this little game all over again

 

Why bother even debating about raising the debt limit,  why not just make it infinity :)

 

Its not like we will ever manage our debt, we might as party till we crash... HA HA HA

 

The only one who wasn't crazy on that room was the stenographer....  I really wish I was my own personal gov't or can declare myself as a soverign gov't, I can party like there is no tomorrow and raise my debt limit everytime I run outa money...



#135 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:09 PM

I think in a private sector situation (and I'm in the Pacific NW, so weather related no-work days are few and far between), but both in California and Oregon, through a variety of professional and menial jobs, I've never worked somewhere where an "act of God" or similar prevented a person from going to work, but entitled them to pay.

I never said anything about being "entitled." That's a bit of a loaded term, which is exactly why I said a "good" employer. What you're saying implies that the employee somehow has some control over whether or not they get paid.
 

Nothing prevented all those federal employees from filing for unemployment, and at least according to TV interviews with folks affected, many did, so they were already in the system. It would make sense that one part of the government saving money by shutting down a bunch of departments, wouldn't really save money, since another department would now start paying them (although you get that unemployment benefits would only pay a fraction of their standard salary, right?). But that's not how the government does budgeting. It's department-specific. DHS has this budget. EPA has this budget. It's not like if one goes over budget, another department gets their budget slashed to balance (like any intelligent company would do)

The government isn't a for-profit company and it shouldn't be run like one. Ether way, we're still operating under the sequester and the one budget that should absolutely get cut, never will be. I'm sure we agree on which one.
 

The benefits of federal employment have historically been job security, retirement/pension, and health benefits. Their salaries are lower than private, but that's the sales pitch for government jobs. I don't see ethically or logically, why it wouldn't be just to tell them to use PTO for the time away from the office, or don't get paid. What's far more likely, is that nobody in Congress wants to bring wrath to their entire party (well aware of the irony in this) by saying "we caused you guys to be out of work AND we're not paying you".

Why not just eliminate unemployment insurance at that rate?
 

Here's a question. If a furloughed employee was receiving unemployment benefits (likely the most they would've received is about one check, assuming it's paid out every two weeks), then they also get backpay, shouldn't they have to pay back the unemployment?

I'm pretty sure it takes more than a week to start collecting once you submit a claim. The unemployment office also verifies employment status and checks the earnings with the former employer to calculate the benefit. Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be approved to collect benefits even for that one week. If someone slips through the cracks and actually collected something, I highly doubt that it would be worth it to even pursue it. It'd end up like the drug testing for benefits in Florida: it costs more money to find the fraud than the money saved from finding it. Spending $10 to fix something that will only cost me $5 in less than half the time is a fool's errand. Me? I'm a pragmatist. No system is perfect and there will always be a loophole or someone slipping through.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#136 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:16 PM

http://money.cnn.com...yment-benefits/

 "If you receive back pay from your agency to cover the furlough period, you must repay any unemployment benefits you received for that time," the Virginia Employment Commission said in a Q&A on its site.



#137 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:26 PM

^And there we have it.

If it saves more money to go after them, then I'm all for it because they shouldn't be double-dipping, just not when it costs more money.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#138 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:42 PM

http://money.cnn.com...yment-benefits/

 "If you receive back pay from your agency to cover the furlough period, you must repay any unemployment benefits you received for that time," the Virginia Employment Commission said in a Q&A on its site.

 

I never said anything about being "entitled." That's a bit of a loaded term, which is exactly why I said a "good" employer. What you're saying implies that the employee somehow has some control over whether or not they get paid.
 
The government isn't a for-profit company and it shouldn't be run like one. Ether way, we're still operating under the sequester and the one budget that should absolutely get cut, never will be. I'm sure we agree on which one.
 
Why not just eliminate unemployment insurance at that rate?
 
I'm pretty sure it takes more than a week to start collecting once you submit a claim. The unemployment office also verifies employment status and checks the earnings with the former employer to calculate the benefit. Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be approved to collect benefits even for that one week. If someone slips through the cracks and actually collected something, I highly doubt that it would be worth it to even pursue it. It'd end up like the drug testing for benefits in Florida: it costs more money to find the fraud than the money saved from finding it. Spending $10 to fix something that will only cost me $5 in less than half the time is a fool's errand. Me? I'm a pragmatist. No system is perfect and there will always be a loophole or someone slipping through.

Bleh...I should multi-quote properly, but it's the end of my day and want to fire off a quickie.

 

Entitled has become a loaded political term admittedly, but I mean it more in the sense of, "it's not something inherently deserved". Not the "entitlement program" kind of nonsense that always gets thrown around. Bad choice of words considering the modern political landscape.

 

The Govt isn't for-profit, and shouldn't be run as such, agreed. But there are some common organizational principles that should apply. If you can't afford it, or have a good way to pay for it...don't buy it. Unless the government drastically raises taxes (which I personally oppose) or radically reduce spending (which I'm more in favor of) they will continue to run at an operational deficit. To shrug it off cause they're the government, doesn't put the responsibility of getting their shit in order, on the govt. Everyone needs to pander to their support base though, so neither of those things will ever happen, so we'll keep spending, and we'll keep taxes where they are, and we'll have these political showdowns for decades to come.

 

I don't understand the leap from "getting paid UI when you're technically employed" to "why don't we just eliminate it". UI is for people who are actively searching for work, and can't find it. I've been on it. I know the rules, the forms (although they have made it easier. I used to have to call in every two weeks and go to the employment office and meet with folks. Those restrictions are gone, it all gets done online now).

 

http://money.cnn.com...yment-benefits/

 "If you receive back pay from your agency to cover the furlough period, you must repay any unemployment benefits you received for that time," the Virginia Employment Commission said in a Q&A on its site.

Sweet. The way it should be. I think we all agree on that, so it's nice to see that someone was forward thinking enough to consider the possibility of someone receiving unemployment and backpay at the same time.



#139 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 October 2013 - 02:26 PM

New employees didn't have access to unemployment so it would be unfair to make them go without pay. Especially while congress was getting paid to prevent them from working.


Posted Image

#140 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:23 PM

New employees didn't have access to unemployment so it would be unfair to make them go without pay. Especially while congress was getting paid to prevent them from working.

Unfair? I would think paying someone for work they didn't do with other people's money would be considered "unfair".



#141 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:58 PM

You get paid even if there isn't a fire that day?


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#142 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:45 PM

You get paid even if there isn't a fire that day?


This'll be good

#143 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:49 PM

You get paid even if there isn't a fire that day?

This guy and his logic as always make no sense. Should we then restrict everyone? So should we then not pay bank tellers or policeman unless they help a customer or bust a drug dealer? Its like Msut just babbles w/e comes to his mind. Does he not realize that everyone has several duties instead of just one? He is either a complete idiot or trying to troll everyone who he thinks leans right. 



#144 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:49 AM

This guy and his logic as always make no sense. Should we then restrict everyone? So should we then not pay bank tellers or policeman unless they help a customer or bust a drug dealer? Its like Msut just babbles w/e comes to his mind. Does he not realize that everyone has several duties instead of just one? He is either a complete idiot or trying to troll everyone who he thinks leans right.

Actually I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic and you in fact made the same point he was getting at.

#145 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:58 AM

You get paid even if there isn't a fire that day?

Hheheheheehehheeeee.....you are joking, right? You would never actually make that much of a false equivalency, right?



#146 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 October 2013 - 10:25 AM

You would never actually make that much of a false equivalency, right?

 

Indulge me.

 

Why should you steal from the taxpayer if there happens to be no work that day?

 

A day laborer would be turned away.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#147 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:56 PM

Indulge me.

 

Why should you steal from the taxpayer if there happens to be no work that day?

 

A day laborer would be turned away.

Wow. You just totally convinced me. How could I have been sooo wrong for sooo long? Not actually having to show up to work is EXACTLY the same as having to be at a fire station for 24 hours straight while training, cleaning, cooking, repairing and maintaining the apparatus and tools, conducting ship tours, designing and reviewing fire/hazardous material pre-plans, oh, and having to be in a constant state of readiness to respond to any emergency in 5 minutes or less. You are being totally reasonable and logical with your comparison. Please enlighten me with more of your intelligent and well thought out opinions. I'm currently arranging a cashier's check to return 90% of my salary for the past ten years to the city, gotta keep that last 10% to at least give the federal gov't something so they can pay people to stay home.



#148 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:38 PM

Actually I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic and you in fact made the same point he was getting at.

You still think so?



#149 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:51 PM

Wow. You just totally convinced me. How could I have been sooo wrong for sooo long? Not actually having to show up to work is EXACTLY the same as having to be at a fire station for 24 hours straight while training, cleaning, cooking, repairing and maintaining the apparatus and tools, conducting ship tours, designing and reviewing fire/hazardous material pre-plans, oh, and having to be in a constant state of readiness to respond to any emergency in 5 minutes or less. You are being totally reasonable and logical with your comparison. Please enlighten me with more of your intelligent and well thought out opinions. I'm currently arranging a cashier's check to return 90% of my salary for the past ten years to the city, gotta keep that last 10% to at least give the federal gov't something so they can pay people to stay home.

 

The firefighters in my town don't get paid at all, let alone for any of the prep work (throwing in cooking for yourself seriously?).


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#150 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:37 PM

You still think so?

Uh....the shutdown is over.  Thread DONE.