ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:27 PM   #81
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,892
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Quote:
I blame the Scorpion for stabbing the Toad. But the Scorpion kind of has a point.
Its more like someone put the Scorpion on the Toad's back without asking.
Then as they're drowning the scorpion can say "now we can have a rational discussion just how much swimming a toad should do". Of course it will be irrelevant because they'll both be drowning.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:31 PM   #82
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If this is directed at me then I never claimed the shutdown was no big deal. I've been furloughed in the past and it was a big deal to me and others who were dismissed from work.

I was only saying that the shutdown is not a complete one and some government entities are still funded.
Pretty sure it isn't.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:33 PM   #83
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The POTUS is like a third house of congress so the HoR has two hurdles to overcome before a money bill can be signed into law. There is also no mechanism for resolving deadlocks like this so shut downs are more likely in the US.
This is wrong. There are two well-established mechanism for resolving deadlocks like this: A supermajority of Congress decides to care more about the resolution than the deadlock. And voters replacing those reps who are unwilling to contribute to such a supermajority.

The awkwardness arises because budgetary shutdowns can happen inside the decision loop of the second mechanism. Ideally, the government should not be doing anything so essential that a few months of deadlocked inaction are anything more than an inconvenience to the nation.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:40 PM   #84
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Great. Other than the fact that its risking the financials stability (and indeed the lives) of millions of Americans. After all, what could go wrong?
That is an excellent question that everybody involved should probably have asked themselves before they got into this game of chicken. Congress could have safeguarded the financial stability (and indeed the lives) of millions of Americans simply by approving a bill they knew the President would sign. Instead, they chose to play a game of brinkmanship with an a naive and self-centered idiot. What could go wrong, indeed?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:47 PM   #85
zorro99
Muse
 
zorro99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 733
The shutdown is proof that Trump cannot govern.
__________________
There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.
zorro99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:49 PM   #86
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The amount of savings and the rate at which they're going through it is irrelevant: it's outrageous that they should have to be using their savings at all because the government is "shut down". How do you not get that? Is it acceptable because it's not "bad enough" in your personal opinion? Well, I work in healthcare. To me, cancer is more serious than a broken leg, so when you break your leg and I leave you untreated for a few weeks I don't expect to hear any complaints, is that fair?
I agree that your relatives should not have to spend their contingency funds because the federal government cannot get its **** together. I agree that it is indeed outrageous that they and so many others are in this situation right now.

I'm also relieved to learn (I think) that your relatives' circumstances are not yet so dire as we might naively expect. And I'm hopeful that things will return to normal before their situation gets out of hand. Maybe we should each write to our representatives, urging them to think of your sister and find a compromise.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:50 PM   #87
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is wrong. There are two well-established mechanism for resolving deadlocks like this: A supermajority of Congress decides to care more about the resolution than the deadlock. And voters replacing those reps who are unwilling to contribute to such a supermajority.
It is rare that a supermajority exists such that a presidential veto can be overridden. And there is no way to force an early election if congress becomes dysfunctional or deadlocked.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:50 PM   #88
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If this is directed at me then I never claimed the shutdown was no big deal. I've been furloughed in the past and it was a big deal to me and others who were dismissed from work.

I was only saying that the shutdown is not a complete one and some government entities are still funded.
I'm so vain, I thought TM's post was about me.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:50 PM   #89
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is wrong. There are two well-established mechanism for resolving deadlocks like this: A supermajority of Congress decides to care more about the resolution than the deadlock. And voters replacing those reps who are unwilling to contribute to such a supermajority.

The awkwardness arises because budgetary shutdowns can happen inside the decision loop of the second mechanism. Ideally, the government should not be doing anything so essential that a few months of deadlocked inaction are anything more than an inconvenience to the nation.
Really? Your answer is moronically stupid and ignorant.

How many companies do you know that could shut down for two months without sizable and most likely devastating consequences?

Customers and employees would disappear and the time off would likely put the company in financial peril.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:01 PM   #90
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,892
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Quote:
Great. Other than the fact that its risking the financials stability (and indeed the lives) of millions of Americans. After all, what could go wrong?
That is an excellent question that everybody involved should probably have asked themselves before they got into this game of chicken. Congress could have safeguarded the financial stability (and indeed the lives) of millions of Americans simply by approving a bill they knew the President would sign. Instead, they chose to play a game of brinkmanship with an a naive and self-centered idiot. What could go wrong, indeed?
So your argument is "just give in to whatever Trump wants"?

There are a couple of problems with that:

- The wall itself is a huge waste of taxpayers money. So, the financial harm that might occur from the shutdown needs to be weighed against the cost of basically throwing billions of dollars into a big bonfire (i.e. building the wall). Not to mention the secondary costs... people having their property expropriated to build a useless wall (something every American should be wary of), the harm to wildlife, etc.

- Trump has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. Giving into him in this case will not guarantee that he won't pull the same stunt the next time a budget bill needs to be signed
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:03 PM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
That doesn't change the fact that if they were expecting a paycheck at the end of december that never came, then they are still eating into their savings.
It depends. I have a savings account that I pay into and avoid paying out of.

I have a separate account for recurring expenses. That account usually has a few months of "run" in it. If I have a cash flow shortfall in one month, I don't immediately start eating into my "savings". I just shorten the "run" of my expense reserve, and build it up again (usually by some combination of economizing and reducing my savings contributions temporarily). Ultimately, money is fungible, so my arrangement can certainly be thought of as "eating into my savings". But I would argue that it's very different from TM's "burning through their savings" after having missed one bi-weekly paycheck (at most).

Quote:
Its not your place to dictate how people live their lives.
It is, however, my place (as it is everyone's) to judge how people live their lives, based on the available information. (And the members of this forum are certainly not averse to judging on incomplete information.)

Quote:
You have no idea of people's financial circumstances... maybe they had an unexpected emergency that has left them with limited funds. Maybe they have some expenses that need to get paid at the start of the year but after that they can build up their savings.
And maybe they've got one of those "cushy, overpaid, anonymous back office jobs that are given to cronies" that psionl0 mentioned, and they thought it would be protected this time but it wasn't. TragicMonkey doesn't say.

Quote:
Even if they have several months' of savings to draw on, its not an ideal situation, since:
- they lose interest on any money that isn't sitting in their bank account
- they have no idea just how long the shutdown will last. So you're saying "its only a couple of weeks". Just how long before people should start to panic before they realize there is a major financial problem? a month? 2 months?
Yep. Definitely not an ideal situation.

I'm not sure I understand your question about panic, but in general people should avoid panic by planning ahead.

And if TM had said "they're okay at the moment, but if this goes on they'll be burning through their savings in a couple of months", we'd be having a very different conversation right now. We should definitely put serious effort into ending the shutdown before that happens. But it's barely been two weeks, and they're already "burning through their savings"? I'm not sure that's a problem we should attribute to the shutdown.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:16 PM   #92
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You said you're without income, didn't you? Well, my savings are such that I can go several years without income. Which means if you're without income for only a year or two it's no hardship, right?
Perhaps we should revisit this question after the government shutdown has gone on for a year or two. Right now, it's barely gone on for a week or two.

We can while away the time by getting clarification on one point, though: After less than two weeks without income, your sister and her husband are in roughly the same position you or I would be in if after a year or two. Is that the gist of your argument here?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:17 PM   #93
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It depends. I have a savings account that I pay into and avoid paying out of.

I have a separate account for recurring expenses. That account usually has a few months of "run" in it. If I have a cash flow shortfall in one month, I don't immediately start eating into my "savings". I just shorten the "run" of my expense reserve, and build it up again (usually by some combination of economizing and reducing my savings contributions temporarily). Ultimately, money is fungible, so my arrangement can certainly be thought of as "eating into my savings". But I would argue that it's very different from TM's "burning through their savings" after having missed one bi-weekly paycheck (at most).


It is, however, my place (as it is everyone's) to judge how people live their lives, based on the available information. (And the members of this forum are certainly not averse to judging on incomplete information.)


And maybe they've got one of those "cushy, overpaid, anonymous back office jobs that are given to cronies" that psionl0 mentioned, and they thought it would be protected this time but it wasn't. TragicMonkey doesn't say.



Yep. Definitely not an ideal situation.

I'm not sure I understand your question about panic, but in general people should avoid panic by planning ahead.

And if TM had said "they're okay at the moment, but if this goes on they'll be burning through their savings in a couple of months", we'd be having a very different conversation right now. We should definitely put serious effort into ending the shutdown before that happens. But it's barely been two weeks, and they're already "burning through their savings"? I'm not sure that's a problem we should attribute to the shutdown.
Aaaah, Prestige's answer. The shutdown shouldn't hurt people. That everyone should have the resources to not be bothered by the inconvenience of being without income.

The Trumpian way of thinking. I have mine and if the rest of you are ******, too bad.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:18 PM   #94
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Its more like someone put the Scorpion on the Toad's back without asking.
"I didn't ask to work for the government," said no federal employee ever.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:19 PM   #95
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,709
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And if TM had said "they're okay at the moment, but if this goes on they'll be burning through their savings in a couple of months", we'd be having a very different conversation right now. We should definitely put serious effort into ending the shutdown before that happens. But it's barely been two weeks, and they're already "burning through their savings"? I'm not sure that's a problem we should attribute to the shutdown.
Oh, I see the problem here. You're stupid about money. Any expenditure of savings is bad. "Burning" is a completely appropriate word choice. It's not "okay" to be using your savings, which are for emergencies. Which, and I wouldn't have to point this out to anybody else, bad. Emergencies are bad. Using your bad times money means the situation is bad. It's bad to have to resort to spending your savings. Got it? If not, perhaps the business genius in the White House can explain it to you.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:23 PM   #96
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,709
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Perhaps we should revisit this question after the government shutdown has gone on for a year or two. Right now, it's barely gone on for a week or two.

We can while away the time by getting clarification on one point, though: After less than two weeks without income, your sister and her husband are in roughly the same position you or I would be in if after a year or two. Is that the gist of your argument here?
Not at all. I was responding to your premise that nothing that's not a problem for me can be a problem for anyone else. I lost 40 pounds in five months this year, so weight loss is very easy for everybody.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:23 PM   #97
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,019
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"I didn't ask to work for the government," said no federal employee ever.
So its their fault. Gotcha. Victim blaming is easy, isn't it?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:27 PM   #98
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all I noticed you missed the second part of that statement.... that in the case of a museum or park shutdown the effects are immediate an obvious.
It's also immediately and obviously a minor issue. If your goal is to discuss the serious nature of the shutdown, doubling down on the media hype surrounding the relatively minor stuff may not be a productive strategy.

In this thread, I've pointed out some issues with the shutdown that are serious and do deserve more examination. But the media didn't hype those concerns last time. Instead of noting the deficiency, and taking us where the media did not, you went after the same low-hanging, inconsequential fruit the media tossed at you last time. What's that about?

Quote:
Secondly, I hope you also recognize that I classified the shutdown of parks/museums as a minor issue, because the shutdown is also going to cause harm to the health and welfare of millions of taxpayers, and not just the government employees, but joe-average taxpayer, who will be risking his health because they don't have proper food and drug inspections. Or jane the retiree, who risks her social insurance payments because there aren't enough staff working to handle changes to her information.
See, this is the kind of thing you should be talking about. Twelve days into the shutdown, three pages into this thread, and you're still struggling to actually discuss the stuff you say you want to discuss. Don't let me stop you!
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:29 PM   #99
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Then as they're drowning the scorpion can say "now we can have a rational discussion just how much swimming a toad should do". Of course it will be irrelevant because they'll both be drowning.
Enh. All analogies break down pretty quickly. And I continue to stipulate that nobody is drowning quite yet.

Anyway, I haven't said that now is the time for such a discussion. I do however hope that such a discussion will emerge from the situation at some point.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:31 PM   #100
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"I didn't ask to work for the government," said no federal employee ever.
Irrelevant.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:37 PM   #101
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,111
Not a federal employee, but week after next I/several of my staff were supposed to attend some wildland fire training put on by a federal agency. The instructors include the best/most professional trainers available. Some states and NGOs, private orgs, etc were also scheduled to attend, and pay the gov't to do so. It cannot be rescheduled for later in the year.

As a result of this whole deal, a lot of prescribed fire/fire fighting operations will not occur in the upcoming year, or will be less effective due to a wide range of personnel not getting this training.

So regular citizens, not just federal employees will feel the affects of this as a variety of land managers have been scuttled from gaining some much needed experience and knowledge.

It doesn't always come down to paychecks.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:37 PM   #102
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Oh, I see the problem here. You're stupid about money. Any expenditure of savings is bad. "Burning" is a completely appropriate word choice. It's not "okay" to be using your savings, which are for emergencies. Which, and I wouldn't have to point this out to anybody else, bad. Emergencies are bad. Using your bad times money means the situation is bad. It's bad to have to resort to spending your savings. Got it? If not, perhaps the business genius in the White House can explain it to you.
Yea, and imagine having two or three emergencies in a row? The AVERAGE American does not have the savings for emergencies. And it is Christmas time. Itself a wallet draining time.

Prestige's argument that we all should be prepared for every event may be ideal, but is not realistic.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:38 PM   #103
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Really? Your answer is moronically stupid and ignorant.

How many companies do you know that could shut down for two months without sizable and most likely devastating consequences?

Customers and employees would disappear and the time off would likely put the company in financial peril.
I thought it was quite customary for companies in Europe to do exactly that every summer. But whatever. Governments are not for-profit corporations. The analogy is too weak to be useful.

But if you insist... The government hasn't really "shut down". It's curtailed a number of "non-essential" activities temporarily. Whether or not everything on that list really is "non-essential" is worth debating. But typically when a company cuts non-essential functions and focuses on its core business, this is widely regarded as a desirable and healthy step to take. Companies especially aren't expected to keep jobs around just for the sake of giving people money.

The more I look at your analogy, the less apt it seems. Perhaps we should go back to discussing the thing itself in its own terms.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:39 PM   #104
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Enh. All analogies break down pretty quickly. And I continue to stipulate that nobody is drowning quite yet.

Anyway, I haven't said that now is the time for such a discussion. I do however hope that such a discussion will emerge from the situation at some point.
How do you know? You DONT. Talking out one's ass, the Trumpian way.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:45 PM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
So your argument is "just give in to whatever Trump wants"?
Not at all. It depends what he wants, and what you're willing to trade for it. Right now, you're willing to trade the financials stability (and indeed the lives) of millions of Americans, but not your principles, to keep Trump from getting what he wants. And that may in fact be the morally optimal trade-off for you to make. But TragicMonkey's sister can't pay her bills with your principles. And it's not my responsibility to compromise my principles simply to address the deficiencies in the trade-off you chose.

Quote:
There are a couple of problems with that:

- The wall itself is a huge waste of taxpayers money. So, the financial harm that might occur from the shutdown needs to be weighed against the cost of basically throwing billions of dollars into a big bonfire (i.e. building the wall). Not to mention the secondary costs... people having their property expropriated to build a useless wall (something every American should be wary of), the harm to wildlife, etc.

- Trump has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. Giving into him in this case will not guarantee that he won't pull the same stunt the next time a budget bill needs to be signed
Then I don't see the problem. You believe the shutdown is the lesser of two evils, and you're acting according to your beliefs. This is laudable, and I think you should continue on this path. I think you should probably also lead with this argument, and be clear about what you believe and what you are doing about it. Maybe you should explain to TragicMonkey that you deeply regret his sister's situation, but her sacrifice is necessary to stop Trump, and that if you had it to do over again, you'd do the same thing. I'm sure he'll understand.

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd January 2019 at 04:46 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:52 PM   #106
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Aaaah, Prestige's answer. The shutdown shouldn't hurt people. That everyone should have the resources to not be bothered by the inconvenience of being without income.
It hasn't even been two weeks yet. Most government employees should not already be "burning through their savings", as TragicMonkey put it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:54 PM   #107
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I thought it was quite customary for companies in Europe to do exactly that every summer. But whatever. Governments are not for-profit corporations. The analogy is too weak to be useful.

But if you insist... The government hasn't really "shut down". It's curtailed a number of "non-essential" activities temporarily. Whether or not everything on that list really is "non-essential" is worth debating. But typically when a company cuts non-essential functions and focuses on its core business, this is widely regarded as a desirable and healthy step to take. Companies especially aren't expected to keep jobs around just for the sake of giving people money.

The more I look at your analogy, the less apt it seems. Perhaps we should go back to discussing the thing itself in its own terms.
More stupidity. Government may not be 'not for profit', but that doesn't mean that government doesn't have customers and suppliers. That there are ripple effects to every action.

Yes some companies close down in Europe for a few weeks in summer. But it is planned. Bills are paid, employees receive their normal and expected wages. Shipments are made before. People are not left hanging.

You don't have a ******* clue how damaging this is, but you're more than willing to pull nonsense out of your ass to say it shouldn't be. What is essential to one person, could be the life's blood to someone else. As you said 'debatable'.

My father use to tell me if your neighbor is out of work it's only a recession, but if you are, its a Depression.

This is your reasoning.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:55 PM   #108
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Oh, I see the problem here. You're stupid about money. Any expenditure of savings is bad. "Burning" is a completely appropriate word choice. It's not "okay" to be using your savings, which are for emergencies. Which, and I wouldn't have to point this out to anybody else, bad. Emergencies are bad. Using your bad times money means the situation is bad. It's bad to have to resort to spending your savings. Got it? If not, perhaps the business genius in the White House can explain it to you.
What percentage of your sister's savings have they "burned through" in the past week and a half? Two percent? Ten percent? Fifty percent?

Once their employer starts making payroll again, how many weeks will it take for them to replenish their savings? Two weeks? Six weeks? Fifty weeks?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:56 PM   #109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not at all. I was responding to your premise that nothing that's not a problem for me can be a problem for anyone else. I lost 40 pounds in five months this year, so weight loss is very easy for everybody.
Well, you're definitely responding to a premise, that's for sure. You're just mistaken about whose premise it is.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:56 PM   #110
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It hasn't even been two weeks yet. Most government employees should not already be "burning through their savings", as TragicMonkey put it.
Two weeks when you might be living paycheck to paycheck could be difficult. But let's be honest. This is ridiculous. Toddler Trump is throwing a tantrum and everyone else suffers because of it.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:58 PM   #111
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Irrelevant.
Tell that to kookbreaker. He's the one who said they didn't ask to be dependent on the political whims of elected officials.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:00 PM   #112
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,173
I haven't read all 3 pages of this thread yet but a couple things stood out to me in just the first page:

1. The expected defense of Trump and the attempted minimization of the effect of this shutdown on the country by the usual suspects.

2. "And most people, given the opportunity to work for such a dysfunctional organization, quite reasonably decline and seek employment elsewhere." (The prestige, post #3)

A good example of this is the many positions still not filled by the Trump Administration, including WH Chief of
Staff and Secretary of Defense.

3. Those not being paid cannot even claim unemployment as they are technically employed.

4. The number of people on furlough and not being paid: 350,000 .
The number of people working but not being paid: 420,000 (Washington Examiner).
I suppose these 770,000 people could all quit and go look for a more stable boss, but I have a sneaking
suspicion this just might negatively affect everyone in the country.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 2nd January 2019 at 05:11 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:04 PM   #113
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yea, and imagine having two or three emergencies in a row? The AVERAGE American does not have the savings for emergencies. And it is Christmas time. Itself a wallet draining time.

Prestige's argument that we all should be prepared for every event may be ideal, but is not realistic.
My argument is that most government employees should be prepared for at least a two-week interruption in cash flow. Most typically by living within their means and maintaining a reasonable liquid reserve ("savings"). I know that American schools do a piss-poor job of preparing people for the real world, but surely most of us here (and most government employees) have already figured this out? It's not like the US government really underpays all that much - especially when the value of the government pension is taken into consideration. Me? In addition to maintaining my liquid reserves, I also have to pay for my retirement fund largely out of my own pocket.

TM's anecdote was intended to spark outrage. For me it just raises a lot of questions about what the hell is actually going on with his sister's finances.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:07 PM   #114
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How do you know? You DONT. Talking out one's ass, the Trumpian way.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Show me someone who's actually drowning already, and I'll happily accept the claim that someone is actually drowning already.

But you don't know either. (Or, for some bizarre reason, you do know but can't be arsed to actually communicate that knowledge.)
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:14 PM   #115
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Two weeks when you might be living paycheck to paycheck could be difficult.
Okay, sure. Somewhere out there is a government employee whose life is hanging by a thread. They live week to week, paycheck to paycheck. This shutdown has, or soon will, put them out on the street. There's probably more than one such person, actually. Is this your claim?

Quote:
But let's be honest. This is ridiculous. Toddler Trump is throwing a tantrum and everyone else suffers because of it.
Congress could send a different bill to his desk, and nobody would suffer. Or somebody else would suffer. The problem isn't Trump's tantrum, it's the fundamental dysfunctionality of the federal government.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:18 PM   #116
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
And all too often, people do not actually read the post that they are quoting which can serve to make their response factually worthless.

In your case, it would help if you would actually read my posting because I also stated that the poster in question could have simply asked me for clarification instead of making his incorrect assumption.

If it is a real issue, then I can provide a copy of my birth certificate that clearly shows just where and when I was born in the USA.
The rest of your post was correct, and I had no objection to it.

Citing your Location tag was a waste of time, though.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:20 PM   #117
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,709
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What percentage of your sister's savings have they "burned through" in the past week and a half? Two percent? Ten percent? Fifty percent?

Once their employer starts making payroll again, how many weeks will it take for them to replenish their savings? Two weeks? Six weeks? Fifty weeks?
What percentage of your blood have you lost through the wound? It has to be above a certain percent before you get treatment.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:20 PM   #118
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Show me someone who's actually drowning already, and I'll happily accept the claim that someone is actually drowning already.

But you don't know either. (Or, for some bizarre reason, you do know but can't be arsed to actually communicate that knowledge.)
No. You're the one that is making the claim. I didn't. You're the one who said that no-one is 'actually drowning' I assumed that was metaphorical.

That you would say that is the perfect example of pulling something out of one's ass.

You're right. I DON'T know what damage this is causing. But I can guess this is worrisome to some of those being affected by it.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:26 PM   #119
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,302
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Okay, sure. Somewhere out there is a government employee whose life is hanging by a thread. They live week to week, paycheck to paycheck. This shutdown has, or soon will, put them out on the street. There's probably more than one such person, actually. Is this your claim?
I'm saying it's possible and likely probable given the amount of savings most people have.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Congress could send a different bill to his desk, and nobody would suffer. Or somebody else would suffer. The problem isn't Trump's tantrum, it's the fundamental dysfunctionality of the federal government.
What should they do? Hand the toddler 5 billion dollars he can piss away on a monument to xenophobic stupidity?

For one who rants on this forum about wasteful government spending , I would think you would be outraged over this kind of lunacy.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:33 PM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What percentage of your blood have you lost through the wound? It has to be above a certain percent before you get treatment.
That's... true, though.

I'm now amusing myself with the mental image of a kid being rushed through the ER on a gurney, blood seeping from a scrape on his knee, and the duty nurse running alongside screaming, "he's losing blood fast, get me fifty cc's of hemoglobin stat! Code blue! Code blue!"
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.