Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


In case of emergency please contact the Senate Appropriations Committee
July 8, 2013 8:27 PM   Subscribe

This week the US government began furloughs of over half a million employees, reducing their pay and work hours by 20%. Members of a corresponding Facebook group who will be out of work one day a week had some ideas regarding how to set up out-of-office email auto-replies.
posted by exogenous (72 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
The funniest part of this to me is that they use Blackberries.
posted by swift at 8:35 PM on July 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


I recently was awarded a Meritorious Service Award for work on cases like this one you'll recall and those usually come with a big fat check, but guess what? Thanks to the sequester it's just a fancy certificate this year! Thanks! Next year maybe I'll shoot for World's Greatest Dad, at least it comes with a mug.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:35 PM on July 8, 2013 [10 favorites]


Political Football!

The decision making involved is hilarious. Especially when dealing with non- .gov funded positions.
posted by graftole at 8:37 PM on July 8, 2013


One could always quit that government job and get a private sector job. Or, better yet, become self employed and be on the front end of dealing with government sector employees.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:39 PM on July 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Or, better yet, become self employed and be on the front end of dealing with government sector employees.

And by that you mean when you go file for unemployment?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:43 PM on July 8, 2013 [28 favorites]


Incidentally, I love the irony of how that article was brought to me by Accenture and Cisco. And that it's available on an iPhone.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:47 PM on July 8, 2013


One could always quit that government job and get a private sector job.

I didn't realize it was a given that a private sector job is available to anyone.

Maybe just for former government workers? I can see how the common rhetoric about mindless bureaucrats and the inherent inferiority of government agencies vs private enterprise would work in their favor.
posted by weston at 8:57 PM on July 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


I didn't realize it was a given that a private sector job is available to anyone.

They are now part time also - that way the private sector can avoid healthcare costs.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:01 PM on July 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


One could always quit that government job and get a private sector job.

Well the ones who can might be using their furlough days to do just that. Cutting their pay by 20% is a good way to make the most productive and employable government employees go elsewhere.
posted by grouse at 9:02 PM on July 8, 2013 [12 favorites]


One could always quit that government job and get a private sector job. Or, better yet, become self employed and be on the front end of dealing with government sector employees.

Our community does not work without direct government service provided by individuals. They act in our name a lot and get a lot of crap for doing jobs we need. The depiction of government work as a picnic is wrong at this point in time.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:14 PM on July 8, 2013 [37 favorites]


I had to furlough myself when I became self-employed. But I do really enjoy dealing with those totally not bueraucratic HMOs directly, so yeah, way better.
posted by Brocktoon at 9:16 PM on July 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


I didn't realize it was a given that a private sector job is available to anyone.

Well, they would be if it weren't for the damn Department of Bootstraps' damn regulations!
posted by entropicamericana at 9:16 PM on July 8, 2013 [7 favorites]


The funniest part of this to me is that they use Blackberries.

The Canadian-designed technology (unlike the tech designed in Silicon Valley) means that Defense Department employees can send private, encrypted correspondence.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:21 PM on July 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


One could always quit that government job and get a private sector job. Or, better yet, become self employed and be on the front end of dealing with government sector employees.

This is the Defense Department, so presumably they could quit and join the virtuous ranks of Booz Hamilton.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:22 PM on July 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


You get what you pay for.

Another way to look at it is ROI and our elites have decided there's better ROI to be had elsewhere, so they've pulled their money out of the tax base, and put it to work abroad, or in bonds, or in commodities, or wherever it is.

Go ahead. Try to stop them. It's all legal.
posted by notyou at 9:32 PM on July 8, 2013


This is as much about a certain segment of Moonbatistan hating the public sector and a subset thereof wittingly bringing the sort of economic precarity to government employees as they've already brought the private sector, as it is about budgets.

I set my own out of office bot to say that I was out on "Freedom Leave."

One thing that bears mentioning is that it's rather rich to be encouraging civil servants--including a fair number who have a skillset you really don't want traveling around--to find other employment while you're also howling and rending your garments over disillusioned leakers.

The furlough is going to bring pain of varying degrees to some federal employees; some of it quite bad. Losing 20% of your livelihood in certain markets is a no-shit emergency. It is, first and foremost, about a segment of Congress apparently attempting to further bankrupt the government, and to hell with the consequences.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 9:37 PM on July 8, 2013 [25 favorites]


Well the ones who can might be using their furlough days to do just that. Cutting their pay by 20% is a good way to make the most productive and employable government employees go elsewhere.

Yeah, I have a good friend who works for a government agency and had her first "Furlough Friday" last week. She's young, bright, hard-working and well-educated, exactly the kind of person the federal government needs to work for them since they have record retirements coming down the line. But she's looking for other jobs because she can't really afford a 20% pay cut.
posted by lunasol at 10:00 PM on July 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


I blame public broadcasting and NASA!
posted by Brocktoon at 10:06 PM on July 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


A 20% reduction in pay seems like a fair trade off for a 30% reduction in greens fees so you can play golf on your unexpected day off.
posted by peeedro at 10:09 PM on July 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


The problem isn't that congress needed to make cuts---cuts are painful, but can be managed. Real 20% cuts mean cutting actual programs or capability that someone cares about. That takes political will, and that's lacking right now.

A 20% squeeze means that everything gets worse, the good and the bad. It means that good managers---yes they exist in the public service---can't move resources around to keep core services running. The cuts hit weather prediction, air traffic controllers and the worst of the slush funds equally.

Not making a decision, and indeed, not allowing the departments to even make their own decisions, makes the cuts as brutal and senseless as possible.
posted by bonehead at 10:44 PM on July 8, 2013 [5 favorites]


Jeez, I wonder if Snowden, at 200,000 (so he says) would be making the same if he hadn't been outsourced from good ole CIA or some other govt spy analyst agency, where he'd be making, what, half that?
posted by nevercalm at 10:52 PM on July 8, 2013


Yeah, that's new-wave privatization in which the taxpayer is still on the hook, with the added benefit of paying premium inflated outsourced-to-for-profit-corporation prices! See also private security contractors and other private highly hazard-paid contractors in war zones handling things like drinking water for the low-low-price of far-more-than-it-would-cost-you-in-house but you get to claim a magically lean fighting force, and sweep the rest under billions of dollars in billable hours and I'd betcha that the mythical $600 Pentagon toilet seat was purchased from an aw-shucks private business recouping its investment in lobbying and campaign contributions.
posted by lordaych at 11:50 PM on July 8, 2013 [5 favorites]


My simplest abuse scenario centers around "you can't pay every analyst or random contractor with too much access enough money to keep some of them from doing something crazy like blackmailing Brad Pitt." I mean, it's just bound to happen, and probably it'll be quiet and swept under the rug if and when it occurs, in most cases. I was talking to someone of the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset about the simple potential for simple-minded human abuse of the information at a low level, and it was sort of a revelation to him, having been more prone to thinking of these agencies as monolithic amoral superjuggernauts rather than monolithical amoral supperjuggernauts run by humans representing the full spectrum of human tendencies, good and bad, possibly skewed towards deviousness and mischief (not intelligence-analyst-ist, just one of those random internet gut feeling / thoughts).
posted by lordaych at 11:57 PM on July 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Not making a decision, and indeed, not allowing the departments to even make their own decisions, makes the cuts as brutal and senseless as possible."

The current GOP aspires to the cacocracy of the past.
posted by klangklangston at 12:49 AM on July 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


My part of my agency is not furloughing us because of salary savings due to the large number of vacant positions we have. That's good for me in the short run, and tremendously harmful to my agency in the long run because it's increasingly likely that those positions will never be filled. Our ability to achieve our research mission will be further eroded when hundreds of senior scientists start retiring. My field is rather small, and here is a shortage of people at my level with my skills, so I have options. The federal service has been pretty good to me, so I'm not itching to leave, but I'm considering my options. Who wouldn't, given the handwriting on the wall?
posted by wintermind at 4:00 AM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jeez, I wonder if Snowden, at 200,000 (so he says) would be making the same if he hadn't been outsourced from good ole CIA or some other govt spy analyst agency, where he'd be making, what, half that?

Did you notice how quickly conservative libertarians either stopped talking about who Snowden worked for or went quiet entirely when BAH's name started getting thrown around? How are you going to complain about governmental overreach when they've even outsourced that to your preferred solution to everything?
posted by zombieflanders at 4:24 AM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Not making a decision, and indeed, not allowing the departments to even make their own decisions, makes the cuts as brutal and senseless as possible.

Mission accomplished.

This is what starving the beast looks like. All the right's hand-wringing over doing something to avoid the sequester was a smokescreen. Deep, across-the-board cuts will be made and, eventually, the country will get used to reduced (or eliminated) Federal services (and eventually State services, since a good many of those depend on Federal largesse.) This is ideology triumphant, no matter the cost.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:32 AM on July 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Cutting their pay by 20% is a good way to make the most productive and employable government employees go elsewhere.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
--P. J. O'Rourke

Of course, the solution to this problem is obvious: More tax cuts!
posted by Gelatin at 5:50 AM on July 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Much to the delight of corporations, the government now exists to dismantle itself.
posted by sibboleth at 6:02 AM on July 9, 2013


Much to the delight of corporations, the government now exists to dismantle itself.

If by "dismantling" you mean to contract most of the mid-level and support roles out to "small business" and be a barebones administrivia machine with a few managers, sure. The federal government is going to get "leaner" but it'll still be just as inefficient and glacial as it is now, there just won't be any institutional knowledge left or direction.

Deep, across-the-board cuts will be made and, eventually, the country will get used to reduced (or eliminated) Federal services (and eventually State services, since a good many of those depend on Federal largesse.) This is ideology triumphant, no matter the cost.

The furloughs and sequester are really just the beginning but what's next is really anyone's guess at this point. I agree with you that this is "win at all costs" and damn the consequences, but nobody wanted to sign on the line and go down as the person responsible for killing their districts money machine so we got the sequester. At some point though, the US (specifically DC) is going to have to decide if it wants to use war as the driver of its economy (and keep the spending up) or start making spending cuts. If we do go with increased spending cuts the fallout is going to be severe.

What will be really interesting to watch is how bad these cuts hurt the booming DC Vortex® economy. The past 10 plus years of security theater and war spending have really helped DC become a boomtown, can it survive a true government slowdown?
posted by playertobenamedlater at 6:49 AM on July 9, 2013


the US (specifically DC) is going to have to decide ...

I would say specifically not DC. People who live in DC have no voting representation in Congress. The congresscritters sent here by the rest of the country are the people fucking us over.
posted by exogenous at 6:59 AM on July 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


It should be pretty obvious I was referring to the DC metro area and not DC proper.
posted by playertobenamedlater at 7:00 AM on July 9, 2013


The DC metro area is one of the most liberal areas in the country, with a population of whom very few like the idea of deep spending cuts on non-military services for no good reason. It also houses most of the government doing actual good work. Portraying it as just a place where the military-industrial complex rules a petty fiefdom is factually wrong and is incredibly condescending and dismissive of the people and work being done that helps people to an extent that pretty much the entire private sector has shown neither a willingness nor the resources to undertake.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:10 AM on July 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Portraying it as just a place where the military-industrial complex rules a petty fiefdom is factually wrong and is incredibly condescending

Do you really think that Boomtown DC would exist without the security theater and military-industrial complex spending?
posted by playertobenamedlater at 7:14 AM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've had a 20% (hours) furlough for the past year, and a 40% furlough (salary and benefits) since 2009. It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration. Oh, I also lost employer subsidized health plan, paid holidays, paid vacation, sick days, 401K, and right now the AC is broken. So please stop the (rather creative) whining, and be grateful you still have a job with all of the above and a pension.
posted by Gungho at 7:16 AM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Do you really think that Boomtown DC would exist without the security theater and military-industrial complex spending?

Yes. It's been a boomtown since the beginning of the 20th century, well before any of that existed in a recognizable form. The New Deal in particular was a prime time for growth in DC.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on July 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


If by "dismantling" you mean to contract most of the mid-level and support roles out to "small business" ...there just won't be any institutional knowledge left or direction.

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for the other insights from the inside.
posted by sibboleth at 7:25 AM on July 9, 2013


Zombieflanders, do you have a paypal account so that I can send you money to cover the cost of one beer? Yes, Washington is not the Capitol nor the White House. Washington is where the sausage is being made. Across the river and the "directional" Avenues in the suburbs are the local headquarters of the big contracting firms trying to convince your representatives that they, despite their goal of turning a corporate profit rather than being a public service, can do the work of helping people better and more efficiently. Chances are they could actually "trim some fat" but the problem is that they take a hell of a lot of meat with them in order to please their shareholders and pay premium salaries to their executives and "consultants" usually Executive Branch higher ups and "retired" legislators who just gave them the sweetheart deals. So go ahead and complain about the glacial pace of bureaucracy, it beats the alternative.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:25 AM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've had a 20% (hours) furlough for the past year, and a 40% furlough (salary and benefits) since 2009. It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration. Oh, I also lost employer subsidized health plan, paid holidays, paid vacation, sick days, 401K, and right now the AC is broken. So please stop the (rather creative) whining, and be grateful you still have a job with all of the above and a pension.


Well, I guess you should have earned a better degree, acquiring a better skillset that was more vital to your employer. You probably didn't work hard enough either. You should stop whining yourself.

See how easy this nonsense is?
posted by Quonab at 7:26 AM on July 9, 2013 [14 favorites]


People who live in DC have no voting representation in Congress.

They don't need to vote. They have thousands of lobbyists with hundreds of millions of dollars used to buy everyone else's congressmen.
posted by JackFlash at 7:27 AM on July 9, 2013


It's kind of the other way around, JackFlash. Everyone else's members of congress make the decisions for DC, which is why we have some of the highest taxes in the country and the DC government needs Congress to approve its budget. DC only got the right to an elected-by-the-people mayor in the 1970s.
posted by troika at 7:36 AM on July 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


They don't need to vote. They have thousands of lobbyists with hundreds of millions of dollars used to buy everyone else's congressmen.

Are you kidding me? Do you even know who the residents of DC are? I doubt very much you'd find, say, the people living in Brentwood or Anacostia or Shaw regularly hiring lobbyists. If you did, this country would have had the opportunity to eliminate most racial and economic inequality, continue massive investments in infrastructure, push for educational improvements, and any of a number of other things that the majority of DC residents--yes, even most of the rich ones--have been enthusiastically supporting for the better part of a century.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:39 AM on July 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


They have thousands of lobbyists

No, YOU have the lobbiests. Those guys don't represent DC nor are they even DC residents. You seem to have a strange view of how this place works. The US is not run by Washington, the US comes to Washington and tells the locals how to run their city. The District of Columbia is a suzeranity to the US.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:40 AM on July 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


I've had a 20% (hours) furlough for the past year, and a 40% furlough (salary and benefits) since 2009. It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration. Oh, I also lost employer subsidized health plan, paid holidays, paid vacation, sick days, 401K, and right now the AC is broken. So please stop the (rather creative) whining, and be grateful you still have a job with all of the above and a pension.

Sounds like one of the 47% to me, always asking for a handout. Why don't you go cozy up to a job creator and see if he'll make one for you?
posted by Aizkolari at 7:45 AM on July 9, 2013


My apologies. Just a joke.
posted by JackFlash at 7:51 AM on July 9, 2013


It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration.

Take responsibility for your own life and stop blaming other people for your problems, Mr. Party of Personal Responsibility.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:00 AM on July 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


> Jeez, I wonder if Snowden, at 200,000 (so he says) would be making the same if he hadn't been outsourced from good ole CIA or some other govt spy analyst agency, where he'd be making, what, half that?
Not even. And you can bet that Booz was charging the DoD 150% of the salary he was earning.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 8:03 AM on July 9, 2013


"I've had a 20% (hours) furlough for the past year, and a 40% furlough (salary and benefits) since 2009. It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration. Oh, I also lost employer subsidized health plan, paid holidays, paid vacation, sick days, 401K, and right now the AC is broken. So please stop the (rather creative) whining, and be grateful you still have a job with all of the above and a pension."

You realize that your comment represents a dumb, race to the bottom that will end up hurting you more than if you support people slightly better off than you in making the benefits you want the norm, right? (Also, this is a pretty great argument for a single payer health care system, with health care not tied to employment.)
posted by klangklangston at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


" . . . Your email will be answered in the order it was received. Thank you.”


"in the order it was received . . . "

    "in the order it was received . . . "?

        "in the order it was received . . . "!?

But I only sent one. Does that mean I'm first in line?
 
posted by Herodios at 8:24 AM on July 9, 2013


Gungho: I've had a 20% (hours) furlough for the past year, and a 40% furlough (salary and benefits) since 2009. It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration. Oh, I also lost employer subsidized health plan, paid holidays, paid vacation, sick days, 401K, and right now the AC is broken. So please stop the (rather creative) whining, and be grateful you still have a job with all of the above and a pension.
This is going to sail right over your understanding of cause and effect, but the economy problems of 2009 were not created by Obama. They all originated in the previous administration, which had the good fortune to be booted out of office just as the shit they were dealing hit the fan.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:32 AM on July 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


See how easy this nonsense is?
posted by Quonab at 10:26 AM on July 9 [7 favorites +] [!]

And the others.

What you all fail to see is the cause and effect. While the economic problem had its genesis in earlier administrations, going as far back as Carter and Clinton, Mr. Obama was elected on "hope and Change", neither of which has happened. Well I guess people Hoping for a return to prosperity has happened, but Obama and Congress have done little change to ensure anything happening any time soon. The result is a jobless recovery. Several years of Congressional stagnation, The ACA, and uncertainty on taxes all go towards creating a hostile job creation environment.
I was in fact the only person who could do my job. The whole department was decimated by across the board cuts. Mere weeks later they were looking to fill my position...at about 1/2 of what I was making. looking to fill it with contractors who get no benefits. So you all go on believing in that fantasy of Hope and Change. You all go on believing that it is the workers own fault for being laid off. You go on believing that jobs without any benefits is because of something "the previous administration" did. The sequestration is just another example of DC's inability to lead.
posted by Gungho at 10:50 AM on July 9, 2013


Well I guess people Hoping for a return to prosperity has happened, but Obama and Congress have done little change to ensure anything happening any time soon...Several years of Congressional stagnation

Obama can't be blamed for an entire branch of the government he has no control over, or for that matter for a policy that was never intended for anyone but actual crazy people to implement (i.e., sequestration).

The ACA, and uncertainty on taxes all go towards creating a hostile job creation environment.

There is no evidence that the ACA has done anything to the recovery, largely because almost none of the financial aspects of it have gone into effect, and won't do so for another 6 months. And literally every single bit of "uncertainty" on taxes has come from the opposition in Congress, not Obama. There is, however, plentiful evidence that what Obama and a less crazy (i.e., 2009-2011) Congress has had an effect on recovery, from almost the very day the stimulus went into effect.

You go on believing that jobs without any benefits is because of something "the previous administration" did.

Well, okay, but only because it's true.

The sequestration is just another example of DC's inability to lead.

If by "DC" you mean "a single political party made up almost entirely of stupid and/or crazy people who know how to shut down the Legislative Branch and therefore make governing more or less impossible, let alone change," then sure.

TL;DR: LOLWUT
posted by zombieflanders at 11:03 AM on July 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


While the economic problem had its genesis in earlier administrations, going as far back as Carter and Clinton, Mr. Obama was elected on "hope and Change", neither of which has happened.

You only say that because you can't see the counterfactual world where McCain won in 08, which would look a lot like 1929-1933 except with the added fun of unrestricted war against Iran.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:06 AM on July 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


DC's inability to lead

Yes, I'll admit it this time. You wore me down. The 600,000 residents of Washington who have no national representation are the ones dragging the rest of the country down. I guess if we're going to lead then you're going to have to actually give us the ability to do so. It's also our fault your Uncle Murray drinks so much even though we produce precious little alcohol.

Seriously, DC has no representation. Can you please stop blaming DC for the mistakes of the rest of the country? We're not the ones doing it TO you all. If you want "DC" to lead then send us people who aren't crazy, stupid, and/or greedy assholes to represent you in the building that happens to be in this town.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:21 AM on July 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


The sequestration is just another example of DC's inability to lead.

If by "DC" you mean "a single political party made up almost entirely of stupid and/or crazy people who know how to shut down the Legislative Branch and therefore make governing more or less impossible, let alone change," then sure.


It takes two to tango. IIRC Mr. Obama suggested the sequestration, Most likely because he believed congress would never call his bluff. Well they did. And now we have more of the same finger pointing and blocked ears.

The ACA has most certainly affected hiring practices. From the Fed's March 6th report: "Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff." " Firms with defense-related work and entities dependent on federal money for operations, including higher education, expressed a wait-and-see attitude to the most recent fiscal uncertainty." "employment at conventional oil and gas firms was flat. We heard several reports of layoffs by coal operators. Many of our contacts pointed to rising health insurance premiums as a concern" and "Employers across the District continued to cite the Affordable Care Act and its unknown impacts as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff."
posted by Gungho at 11:34 AM on July 9, 2013


employment at conventional oil and gas firms was flat. We heard several reports of layoffs by coal operators.

Hmm, I wonder if record low gas prices and a massive untapped stockpile that will keep those prices low and flat over the near future had anything to do with that? Naw, I'm sure it was all because of ACA.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:37 AM on July 9, 2013


The ACA has most certainly affected hiring practices.

Surgeon: we're going to cut the cancer out.

TeaParty Patient: but cutting will make me bleed - bleeding is bad! If you don't cut, at least I won't bleed!

Surgeon: Fine. I won't cut. I'll leave the cancer the way it is. The cancer that will eventually kill you.

I guess Obama should have just let the current health care situation continue its downward spiral.

I can understand saying ACA is not enough, single payer would be preferable.

But given the alternative of ACA or nothing (thanks, Republicans and Blue Dog Demos), I'll take ACA, thank you.

Even if implementing ACA will result in some initial pain (due in no small part to Republican sabotage).
posted by VikingSword at 11:43 AM on July 9, 2013


It takes two to tango. IIRC Mr. Obama suggested the sequestration, Most likely because he believed congress would never call his bluff. Well they did. And now we have more of the same finger pointing and blocked ears.

Not only did you recall incorrectly, but you're in essence blaming the hostage for being shot by the hostage taker. Classy.

The ACA has most certainly affected hiring practices

Every single instance of someone claiming the ACA was already having a fiscal impact you provided had not a single shred of evidence to back it up. They could just have easily said that they weren't hiring because Obama hadn't personally ridden up to them on a unicorn and paid their employee's health insurance with gold doubloons and it would have had the same factual proof.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:49 AM on July 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


zombieflanders...that was taken from the Federal Reserves own report! What other proof do you need?
posted by Gungho at 12:02 PM on July 9, 2013


Did you even read it? It came from employers quoted by the Federal Reserve. Not one of them provided any actual impact, just their "feelings" on what they flat-out admit is unknown potential impact. I could cite unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for not planning to go see Pacific Rim and reluctance to go to that new burger place down the road, it doesn't mean that it's true.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:10 PM on July 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


zombieflanders...that was taken from the Federal Reserves own report! What other proof do you need?

Actually, you took a line about ACA and the labor market from the report and juxtaposed it with a line about the energy sector from a completely different section that had no mention of ACA at all.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:12 PM on July 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I've had a 20% (hours) furlough for the past year, and a 40% furlough (salary and benefits) since 2009. It is called working in the private sector during the Obama administration. Oh, I also lost employer subsidized health plan, paid holidays, paid vacation, sick days, 401K, and right now the AC is broken.

Lies. I got my first job within a month of Obama's inauguration, in the private sector, with great benefits, and have received a 25% payrise since then. Given that macro-economic policy is clearly directly correlated to my anecdotal experience, I have therefore proven that Obama has saved the economy and the private sector is running strongly.
posted by jacalata at 1:48 PM on July 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


"What you all fail to see is the cause and effect. While the economic problem had its genesis in earlier administrations, going as far back as Carter and Clinton, Mr. Obama was elected on "hope and Change", neither of which has happened.

Do you understand the separation of powers? Like, that Congress sets a budget and the President executes policy?

Well I guess people Hoping for a return to prosperity has happened, but Obama and Congress have done little change to ensure anything happening any time soon.

Aside from the stimulus keeping America from cratering, I guess.

The result is a jobless recovery.

…which has actually been going on since about 2000.

Several years of Congressional stagnation, The ACA, and uncertainty on taxes all go towards creating a hostile job creation environment.

o_0 The ACA will save us money while providing millions of people with much needed health care, and the "uncertainty" on taxes is largely a phantom of Fox News.

I was in fact the only person who could do my job. The whole department was decimated by across the board cuts. Mere weeks later they were looking to fill my position...at about 1/2 of what I was making. looking to fill it with contractors who get no benefits. So you all go on believing in that fantasy of Hope and Change.

Wait, Obama is responsible for the hiring decisions where you work? And the GOP obstructionist congress isn't?

You all go on believing that it is the workers own fault for being laid off. You go on believing that jobs without any benefits is because of something "the previous administration" did. The sequestration is just another example of DC's inability to lead.

No, I'll go on believing that bullshit like this leads to more anti-worker sentiment than anything from Obama, and that you're complaining that your shoes don't fit after shooting yourself in the foot.
posted by klangklangston at 2:10 PM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I did nothing close to shooting myself in the foot. The economic collapse of 2008 hit the company i worked for hard- a nearly 40% loss overnight. They had to cut something, a lot of things, so they took the nuclear option and did a 10% across the board cut. Not much later they did another cut that further decimated the group. People with 8, 9 and even 18 years of corporate knowledge were bounced onto the street while the newly hired CEO's limo was idling in the driveway.

The reality of this new economy is that many jobs that would have been full-time are now part time, or hired out to contractors. All in a cost savings approach to labor. Fewer benefits = lower costs. Is that such a difficult concept? The uncertainty of taxes is not a fantasy. Congress has not been able to pass much of anything that isn't just yearly extensions. That gives businesses no ability to plan. The stimulus was, and continues to be just throwing money at a problem and hoping it will go away. Their latest idea...QE III.
posted by Gungho at 6:15 AM on July 10, 2013


I see that the irony is lost on the same people who got all gung-ho about electing people to Congress explicitly to stop legislation from being passed and are now the people who bitch longest and loudest about legislation not being passed by Congress.

And BTW there's been empirical evidence provided of stimulus and QE stopping or even reversing poor economic trends. If you've got anything to refute that other than claiming feelings are facts and deliberately conflating entirely different parts of a document that you repeatedly quote out of context, you're free to provide them.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:47 AM on July 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you are referring to me, my vote didn't count, you see I live in a state where the number of fiscal conservatives are vastly outnumbered by the zombies who keep voting D, even when the candidate has no prior legislative experience, lies about affirmative action, and promises to be a rubber stamp for the Obama administration with no consideration of crossing the aisle because that in itself would have doomed her as being too conservative. Now who is being the obstructionist?
posted by Gungho at 7:58 AM on July 10, 2013


The economic collapse of 2008 hit the company i worked for hard- a nearly 40% loss overnight.

Ah, yes. Obama's economic collapse of 2008.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:02 AM on July 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


Now who is being the obstructionist?

Um...you? I mean, you just admitted that you voted against someone who would have voted for stuff that myself and others have shown to positively affect the economy (and that you have not refuted with any evidence at all) and for someone who promised to oppose that.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:11 AM on July 10, 2013


"Ah, yes. Obama's economic collapse of 2008."

Not just the first black president, but the first time travelling one too!
posted by klangklangston at 8:44 AM on July 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


you just admitted that you voted against someone who would have voted for stuff that myself and others have shown to positively affect the economy

OR I voted against someone who proposes or supports stuff that I and others have shown is detrimental to the economy. it all depends on how you define it. Higher taxes- detrimental. Wasteful spending- detrimental. The stupidity of the sequester- detrimental. And i never blamed Obama for the collapse of 2008 just the three ring circus that was (is) the attempts at recovery.
posted by Gungho at 12:20 PM on July 10, 2013


OR I voted against someone who proposes or supports stuff that I and others have shown is detrimental to the economy.

Well, once you've shown that, you have a case.

it all depends on how you define it.

You can define funding tax breaks for the Hogwarts School of Wizarding as detrimental to the economy, but until you show data that says that huge tax breaks to Harry Potter and Friends have contributed to a drag on the economy, you've got nothing.

Higher taxes- detrimental.

The 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax cuts are responsible for for more of the deficit now and foreseeable future than both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the pre-Obama economic downturn, TARP, bailouts, and stimulus--combined. How's that for detrimental tax effects?

Wasteful spending- detrimental.

Yes, but none of the spending you've cited has actually shown to be detrimental to anything but "job creator" fee-fees.

The stupidity of the sequester- detrimental.

No one's arguing that. We're arguing that you have no idea where it originated, the detrimental effects coming from useful spending, or what side of the political spectrum is relishing it.

And i never blamed Obama for the collapse of 2008 just the three ring circus that was (is) the attempts at recovery.

You blame the collapse of 2008 on the attempts at recovery from the collapse of 2008?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:13 PM on July 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


The stimulus was, and continues to be just throwing money at a problem and hoping it will go away.

The Fed is acting, in the only way it can, because Republicans in Congress prefer to cause unemployment to rise and our infrastructure to crumble as long as they think they're hurting the black man in the White House.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:28 AM on July 11, 2013


« Older Bulletproof Security is a paramilitary security co...  |  An oral history of the "Americ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments