Do We Really Need 18% of the Fed Gov?

[The Rabbi]

This shutdown has proven pretty conclusively that the fed gov is grossly bloated and inefficient. They have laid off 18% of their workers (the "non-essential ones". If they're non essential, why do we need them?). What has been the result? Virtually nothing. If Obama hadn't spend money and man power barrycading open air monuments, no one would have noticed.
How many reports of bacteria-laced food have you seen, with the absence of food inspectors? Yeah, none. Because companies have lots to lose selling spoiled food. So they take steps to make sure it doesn't happen.
How many additional incidences of dangerous things happening have you read about? None. Companies are invested in safety. And generally do a better job than outside regulators, because they knwo the dangers better.
Even the parks could easily be handled well: states can take over responsibilityu for their upkeep. Imagine some company like IBM or Apple stepping forward and agreeing to pick up the tab for maintaining the Lincoln Memorial. If offered the chance, do you really they'd refuse?
Bottom line: we dont' need most of the things the federal gov't does. And what we do need they do badly.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We may NOT need all this welfare Obama has been forcing on America...Certainly. On the other hand it is a fact that science, tech and infrastructure isn't the cause of the current debt. We probably spent far more in the 50's on these area's....

This is just history and the reality of this world. It will take us decades to regain our edge in these area's for being retarded.

I guess within your mind we don't need to have the biggest economy
I guess within your mind we don't need to be leading in shit

I made a mistake in my life falling for such shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This shutdown has proven pretty conclusively that the fed gov is grossly bloated and inefficient. They have laid off 18% of their workers (the "non-essential ones". If they're non essential, why do we need them?). What has been the result? Virtually nothing. If Obama hadn't spend money and man power barrycading open air monuments, no one would have noticed.
How many reports of bacteria-laced food have you seen, with the absence of food inspectors? Yeah, none. Because companies have lots to lose selling spoiled food. So they take steps to make sure it doesn't happen.
How many additional incidences of dangerous things happening have you read about? None. Companies are invested in safety. And generally do a better job than outside regulators, because they knwo the dangers better.
Even the parks could easily be handled well: states can take over responsibilityu for their upkeep. Imagine some company like IBM or Apple stepping forward and agreeing to pick up the tab for maintaining the Lincoln Memorial. If offered the chance, do you really they'd refuse?
Bottom line: we dont' need most of the things the federal gov't does. And what we do need they do badly.

No....Much of what is not happening due to the partial shut down could be handled by the States. Some of it is just plain unnecessary.

 

[The Rabbi]

We may NOT need all this welfare Obama has been forcing on America...Certainly. On the other hand it is a fact that science, tech and infrastructure isn't the cause of the current debt. We probably spent far more in the 50's on these area's....

This is just history and the reality of this world. It will take us decades to regain our edge in these area's for being retarded.

I guess within your mind we don't need to have the biggest economy
I guess within your mind we don't need to be leading in shit

I made a mistake in my life falling for such shit.

You made the mistake of your life coming on here pretending to be a Republican.
We dont lead by spending money we dont have, unless you think being the biggest debtor is something to crow about.
Take your science, technology and infrastructure and stick it up your ass.

 

[KevinWestern]

This shutdown has proven pretty conclusively that the fed gov is grossly bloated and inefficient. They have laid off 18% of their workers (the "non-essential ones". If they're non essential, why do we need them?). What has been the result? Virtually nothing. If Obama hadn't spend money and man power barrycading open air monuments, no one would have noticed.
How many reports of bacteria-laced food have you seen, with the absence of food inspectors? Yeah, none. Because companies have lots to lose selling spoiled food. So they take steps to make sure it doesn't happen.
How many additional incidences of dangerous things happening have you read about? None. Companies are invested in safety. And generally do a better job than outside regulators, because they knwo the dangers better.
Even the parks could easily be handled well: states can take over responsibilityu for their upkeep. Imagine some company like IBM or Apple stepping forward and agreeing to pick up the tab for maintaining the Lincoln Memorial. If offered the chance, do you really they'd refuse?
Bottom line: we dont' need most of the things the federal gov't does. And what we do need they do badly.

I don't disagree that the gov't is bloated and needs to be shrunk to a more reasonable and manageable size, however just because everything isn't falling apart after two weeks doesn't mean all of these furloughed employees "do nothing".

If you were to shut down my team at work (I'm in finance) things would run (on the surface) somewhat smoothly for a few weeks or so, but eventually everything would start to fall apart. Point is, I think you need to give it a good month+ before you start making those assumptions.

 

[boedicca]

18% is low estimate of the government we don't need.

The problem is that all those parasites think that they "need/deserve" us to support them, hence our Parasitocracy.

Articles: Parasitocracy

 

[thereisnospoon]

We may NOT need all this welfare Obama has been forcing on America...Certainly. On the other hand it is a fact that science, tech and infrastructure isn't the cause of the current debt. We probably spent far more in the 50's on these area's....

This is just history and the reality of this world. It will take us decades to regain our edge in these area's for being retarded.

I guess within your mind we don't need to have the biggest economy
I guess within your mind we don't need to be leading in shit

I made a mistake in my life falling for such shit.

Matty. I have no idea where you get the idea that government action leads to a growing economy.
Because in looking at how much this administration has grown the size of government( more debt and deficit) if your theory were to prove out, our economy would be booming.
What say you?
While on the subject of technology and how it's funding relates to government spending.
More often than not, researchers spend years applying for grants. Essentially, these people are asking government to supply them with an income.
And why is this? Because most of the time, these people have already been rejected by the private sector. And why is that? The answer is simple. The private sector saw little or no financial benefit to the proposal.
Granted, many good things have come out of a government research grants. However, the real producers of the technologies and other advancements have been in the private sector.
When government funds such things as studies to measure the sex drive of Japanese quails when high on cocaine, I have to shout WHOA!!! Not with MY money.

 

[Billy000]

This shutdown has proven pretty conclusively that the fed gov is grossly bloated and inefficient. They have laid off 18% of their workers (the "non-essential ones". If they're non essential, why do we need them?). What has been the result? Virtually nothing. If Obama hadn't spend money and man power barrycading open air monuments, no one would have noticed.
How many reports of bacteria-laced food have you seen, with the absence of food inspectors? Yeah, none. Because companies have lots to lose selling spoiled food. So they take steps to make sure it doesn't happen.
How many additional incidences of dangerous things happening have you read about? None. Companies are invested in safety. And generally do a better job than outside regulators, because they knwo the dangers better.
Even the parks could easily be handled well: states can take over responsibilityu for their upkeep. Imagine some company like IBM or Apple stepping forward and agreeing to pick up the tab for maintaining the Lincoln Memorial. If offered the chance, do you really they'd refuse?
Bottom line: we dont' need most of the things the federal gov't does. And what we do need they do badly.

.
This is so dumb. You obviously have no idea what has been shut down. If you did, you would have explained why we don't need it.

Moving on.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, that's why they are called "nonessential" personnel.

 

[thanatos144]

When did they lay off food inspectors?

 

[Billy000]

No, that's why they are called "nonessential" personnel.

So we don't need the dept of treasury, dept of commerce, and the FDA?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, that's why they are called "nonessential" personnel.

So we don't need the dept of treasury, dept of commerce, and the FDA?

Were those furloughed considered non-essential?

 

[depotoo]

did you know that the Senior Executive Service alone has grown by over 300,000 employed from 2009-2012?

 

[Billy000]

No, that's why they are called "nonessential" personnel.

So we don't need the dept of treasury, dept of commerce, and the FDA?

Were those furloughed considered non-essential?

Well the large majority of them were so I would say they they are essential.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So we don't need the dept of treasury, dept of commerce, and the FDA?

Were those furloughed considered non-essential?

Well the large majority of them were so I would say they they are essential.

That's LOLberal logic for you! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Claudette]

Hell. Half the Govt and Fed workers could disappear tomorrow and NO ONE would even notice.

 

[Billy000]

No, that's why they are called "nonessential" personnel.

So we don't need the dept of treasury, dept of commerce, and the FDA?

Were those furloughed considered non-essential?

Most of the dept of energy were. As well as...

EPA

Housing and Urban dept

Interior dept.

Should I keep going?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So we don't need the dept of treasury, dept of commerce, and the FDA?

Were those furloughed considered non-essential?

Most of the dept of energy were. As well as...

EPA

Housing and Urban dept

Interior dept.

Should I keep going?

Are they considered non-essential?

 

[Billy000]

Were those furloughed considered non-essential?

Most of the dept of energy were. As well as...

EPA

Housing and Urban dept

Interior dept.

Should I keep going?

Are they considered non-essential?

Where is this "non-essential" crap coming from? Who is saying this?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Most of the dept of energy were. As well as...

EPA

Housing and Urban dept

Interior dept.

Should I keep going?

Are they considered non-essential?

Where is this "non-essential" crap coming from? Who is saying this?

That's how these departments determine who they furlough. If the employee is non-essential, they aren't required to operate the main functions of the agency. Hence, non-essential.

In the private sector, this is a routine undertaking when scaling back due to a loss of revenue or a tax increaase. Federal workers aren't demi-gods because they work for taxpayers.

These agencies could probably trima lot more fat to decrease taxpayer burden.