Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's Opinion
j...@sna.com
>rf...@clark.net (Richard Firestone) wrote:
>
>
>>The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>>all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>>be reposted in its entirety.
>
>You should send you letter to the President. He was the one who shut
>down the government.
>
>Compromise-The repubicans have been compromising for 40 years and look
>where we are going broke.
>
>I an sure you are a very productive worker but about half of the
>federal workers are not and should be fired.
>
>Kern
>
Your post reflects the basic ignorance of government work and workers that
I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
thankless position. Until you've been there, you ought to keep your ignorance
where it won't show. You should also think about the difference between
annecdote, which is what the idea of the "inefficiency" government workers
is largely based on, and reality.
Yeah, the bureaucracy is maze like and horrible, and could definitely use
pruning, but are you smart enough to know where to put the blade? If you
helped elect a congress that wants to weaken the clean water act,
not only do you not know, but you probably deserve to drink what we
would have in its absence, and be cared for by the health system you
think is just fine the way it is, preferrably in a hospital that has undergone
"redesign" to be more "competitive" in the health care "industry".
JWD
Stephen Lajoie
>
>The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>be reposted in its entirety.
>
>Congressman,
>
> I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
>nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one
[rantings deleted]
There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
much hate.
And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better job
security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
guaranteed you a job for life.
--
--
Steve La Joie
laj...@eskimo.com
J.D. Baldwin
[Cute but bogus newsgroups deleted.]
In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net>
wrote:
>Congressman,
Let's start here. You left out one very important player. The only
thing necessary for the government "shutdown" to end is for Bill
Clinton to KEEP HIS DAMN WORD. (I know this is a lot to ask.) He
agreed, in no uncertain terms, to use non-partisan numbers from a
mutually agreeable source to calculate the balance of his submitted
budget. The details of the compromise were very clear at the time and
are not in dispute. So where is your wrath for the one man who's
dishonorable act is keeping a compromise from being consummated?
What's that you say? "That's just politics"? Oh, well, if you
don't particularly care who does and doesn't keep his promises, that
would explain your anti-Republican slant . . . .
> I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>immorality, and hubris.
That's quite a list. I wonder how arrogance differs from hubris in
your list, and what exactly you meant by "immorality" and what exact
form of "cowardice" you had in mind. I personally, think it's the
finest example of moral courage in U.S. politics since . . . uh
. . . since, I don't know when!
> I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for nine of the past
>ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one case where a
>colleague has worked a thirteen hour day because illness prevented her
>relief from coming to work.
Dear God, you can't mean that! Thirteen whole hours! That has NEVER
happened in the private sector! What kind of sweatshop are they
running down there at USIA? And on top of that, she may be late with
her next payment on the Volvo! Boo hoo, you're breaking my heart.
Look, sarcasm aside, I'm not impressed. I'm sorry this is happening,
I really am. It's disrupting the lives of a lot of innocent people,
and it's probably not fair. But if this is the price we (you, in
particular) have to pay so that our children won't have to work their
whole lives to give 82% of everything they make to the government, so
be it. (And, before you ask, yes I have made sacrifices for this
country, including deprivations that far dwarf the occasional thirteen
hour day--six months' separation from my family in service of the
national interest, for starters.)
Besides, you act as if the Congress (the Republican freshmen, in
particular) is acting like a bunch of spoiled children, when in fact
they're making a bold stand against politics as usual. They've made
their willingness to negotiate WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN ALREADY
AGREED-TO COMPROMISE quite clear. The President, has, however,
reneged on his commitment to using CBO numbers to balance the budget,
and the freshmen are the victims of his duplicity. Clinton continues
to get away with it, largely because the media is beating the drum for
him and portraying the Republicans as recalcitrant spoiled brats. You
seem to have bought the party line.
> You people have the audacity to take your pay of almost three times
>what I make and give yourself a five or six day weekend during a
>crisis. Next week I will receive half pay (or less).
There are, of course, Constitutional problems with holding up
Congressional (or Presidential) pay, besides which the Congress is of
course working its normal schedule. (Incidentally, didn't the
Democrats do the exact same thing to Reagan back in '86? Pass a
budget, go on break, dare him to veto it?) No such Constitutional
considerations apply to nth-tier bureaucrats in federal agencies.
Besides which, you know damn well you're going to get your money
retroactively. All the players agree on that, and stories and
speculation to the contrary are mere fearmongering. So shut up and
enjoy your vacation.
> As annoying as it is, our system of government was apparently set
>up dependent on COMPROMISE to solve political disagreement. You
>Republicans have rejected that road to a solution of the country's
>indebtedness problem. I consider this a rejection of Constitutional
>philosophy and an example of arrogance and hubris.
It bears repeating: the compromise has already been reached, and
Clinton is getting away with a political stunt that would make
Machiavelli blush. As for the "solution" to the "country's indebted-
ness problem," Clinton has yet to offer one that is based on numbers
derived somewhere besides "Alice in Wonderland" (no insult meant to
the fine mathematician who penned that opus).
> I urge you to try something different: a rational solution, not one
>that uses innocent Federal employees as abused soccer balls.
Well, there's always the private sector. Oh, yeah, I forgot: you
already tried that, didn't you?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
nem...@iadfw.net
wrote:
>
>There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
>much hate.
>
>And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
>"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
>year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
>got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
>better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
>going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
>
>I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better job
>security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
>I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
>guaranteed you a job for life.
>Steve La Joie
>laj...@eskimo.com
You obviously were not aware of Clinton's National Performance Review
Program where by all Federal agencies were required to lay off or
downsize in order to save money.
What that means is that a number of people were RIFFED (reduction in
force) . Promotions were cancelled and work loads were increased
under the same demands as before.
When employees are laid off, they can normally draw some sort of
severance pay. In contrast, furloughed Govt. employees don't get
severance pay. They are entitled to unemployment compensation only.
IF Congress opts to repay them, the unemployment compensation must be
paid back.
Nobody expects a job for life with the Govt. But would you like your
pay frozen because the bureaucracy wants to play one upsmanship. This
isn't a question of being fired. It's a question of having your
earnings and you placed in limbo.
Richard Firestone
:
: And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
: "downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
: year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
: got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
: better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
: going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
:
:
: --
:
I'm sorry about those 5,000 people and anyone who loses a job because of
the volatile nature of free enterprise, but I'll bet everyone of those
5,000 were able to collect unemployment, were free to look for a new job,
and were not required to report to their former job as before, except for
the matter of being paid.
Under this furlough there are in one of two situations. You are either
furloughed, which means you have a job, are not permitted to come to
work, and don't get paid. That seems fair, but you are not permitted
to take another job since you are still "employed" by the Government.
The other situation is where you are declared to be in "emergency"
status, must come to work and do your job (and other people's if
possible), and not get paid.
That's it. Its not possible to anything else. Personaly I'm now
looking for a job in the private sector. If I find one before this
stupidity is settled there is no way to resign. The Personnel Department
is furloughed. If I just walk out I jeopardize the possibility of the
money owed to me for the work I did. You may disagree but I don't think
that's a good idea.
If the Government wants to shut down my agency, and they go through the
Constitutional process, thats OK with me. I think its stupid to get rid
of the Voice of America, but I took an oath to support and defend the
Constitution, so I'd be a hypocrite if I complained.
On the other hand, whats happening now is not that process. I am not
full of hate but I am angry about my employer's treatment.
Robert Zitka
: In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net> wrote:
: >
: >The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
: >be reposted in its entirety.
: >
: >---------
: >Congressman,
: > I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
: >immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
: [rantings deleted]
: There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
: much hate.
: And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
: "downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
: year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
: got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
: better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
: going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
Ahh, so because people in the private sector got laid off, it's time to
celebrate the demise of government workers. Is that about it? Hey, where
i worked there were lay-offs all the time, and I was laid-off too. It's
a terrible situation, but not one that calls for a vengeful type attitude
to those who have jobs. They are people just like you and me.
: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
: tax and borrow policies.
Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
they're all that different.
: It means a stronger private sector, better job
: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
situation.
: I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
: guaranteed you a job for life.
There is no job that is guranteed. This doesn't mean we should root for
a persons downfall. It doesn't mean you will automatically have your job
saved.
Stephen Lajoie
>In <4c4iln$f...@firehose.mindspring.com>, kpe...@atl.mindspring.com (Soccernut) writes:
>>
>>
>>>The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>>>all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>>>be reposted in its entirety.
>>
>>down the government.
>>
>>Compromise-The repubicans have been compromising for 40 years and look
>>where we are going broke.
>>
>>I an sure you are a very productive worker but about half of the
>>federal workers are not and should be fired.
>>
>>
>
>Your post reflects the basic ignorance of government work and workers that
>I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
>service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
>knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
>thankless position. Until you've been there, you ought to keep your ignorance
>where it won't show. You should also think about the difference between
>annecdote, which is what the idea of the "inefficiency" government workers
>is largely based on, and reality.
>
>Yeah, the bureaucracy is maze like and horrible, and could definitely use
>pruning, but are you smart enough to know where to put the blade? If you
>helped elect a congress that wants to weaken the clean water act,
>not only do you not know, but you probably deserve to drink what we
>would have in its absence, and be cared for by the health system you
>think is just fine the way it is, preferrably in a hospital that has undergone
>"redesign" to be more "competitive" in the health care "industry".
>
>JWD
Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.
The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
state agency or private industry, except for the military.
Stephen Lajoie
>: >
>: >The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>: >all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>: >be reposted in its entirety.
>: >---------
>: >Congressman,
>: >
>: > I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>: >immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
>: >nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one
>
>: [rantings deleted]
>
>: There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
>: much hate.
>
>: And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
>: "downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
>: year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
>: got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
>: better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
>: going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
>
>Ahh, so because people in the private sector got laid off, it's time to
>celebrate the demise of government workers. Is that about it? Hey, where
>i worked there were lay-offs all the time, and I was laid-off too. It's
>a terrible situation, but not one that calls for a vengeful type attitude
>to those who have jobs. They are people just like you and me.
I've seen massive layoffs throughout aerospace. Hardly a mention in the
news. No thought given in congress, or by the president. And maybe that's
as it should be. What gripes me is that the news media plays like it's
the end of the world and stands at the gate of some national monument and
ask people what they think of the shutdown. They're they only people they
can find affected, outside of the government workers themselves. And the
government workers are almost to a person playing party politics with the
shutdown, pinning all the blame on the Republicans.
I didn't ask for vengeance, I was just putting it in perspective. I
compared the attention a short shutdown gets, where are bunch of
histeracle government workers are denouncing and demonizing congressional
republicans, (as we saw in a recently nationally telivised parade), with
the private sector, where people LOSE their jobs every day, and in much
greater numbers. We don't pay much attention to the people getting laid
off compared to some government asshole in a Gingrich mask whining about
his check being late.
>: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>: tax and borrow policies.
>
>Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>they're all that different.
What? By taxing social security?
Why not tax the elderly? It was their stupid representatives that voted
them a tax free ride in the first place, with the younger generation
picking up the tab. Thomas Jefferson thought that it would be a miscarage
of justice for one generation to do that.
The republicans are just asking them to pay the same fair share of taxes
that everyone else pays. Why should a guy pulling down $100,000 a year
get a social security check, paid for with my tax dollars, tax free?!
>: It means a stronger private sector, better job
>: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
>
>Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
>situation.
Apparently you didn't see the stock market rally when the Republicans
started acting like they meant business when they started fighting Clinton.
It hit record highs. The bond market shot up too, interest rates went
down... all these things make it easier for businesses to stay in
business.
>: I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
>: guaranteed you a job for life.
>
>There is no job that is guranteed. This doesn't mean we should root for
>a persons downfall. It doesn't mean you will automatically have your job
>saved.
Rooting for a downfall is different than rooting for a balanced budget.
I'm rooting for a balanced budget, and I am pointing out that a lot of
people who don't work for the government have had it a lot worse, and
their lot can be made better. And while it is tough to have your paycheck
a week late, it's a lot tougher to have no paycheck at all.
Charles Lipsett
>
>laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
>>was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
>>threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
>>thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
>>worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
>>be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.
>
>>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
>
>
>
>>laj...@eskimo.com
>>
>
>
>
>Ooooooh....can I have some of what you're drinking? It must be a
>powerful mind-altering substance! The last time I checked, federal
>employees aren't getting paid to stay at home. We've already missed
>one paycheck, and at this rate we'll probably miss several more.
>
>Did you have a bad work experience working for the federal government?
>Get real....the problems you mentioned are common to all large
>organizations.......Ask someone at IBM about bureaucracy, waste and
>inefficiency. AT&T wants to eliminate 75,000 mid-management
>positions....I bet there was waste there. There is waste in any large
>organization.
>
>But simply saying private industry doesn every thing better is one of
>the dumbest things I've heard. Gee, I think I'll trust Weyerhauser to
>manage public lands for multiple use. And I'm sure they have my best
>interests at heart when they use river from a watershed for making
>paper. I'm certain they'd make sure I have a clean drinking water
>supply.
>
>I also know that worker safety is at the TOP of all private employer
>priorities.
>
>Steve, did you ever stop to think that government programs were
>installed to correct certain abuses by the private sector? Did we
>really need a clean air act? Only if we wanted to keep breathing!
>
>Most federal employees want to be productive and do a good job. Some
>are held back from that by restrictive practices and procedures, but
>no more than similar stupid rules in private industry.
>
>
>Rusty Neff
>
Rusty you have hit the nail on the head. I have been a gov. for 32 years
and have been defending the works of NASA.
Robert Zitka
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much
: >: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
: >: tax and borrow policies.
: >Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
: >they're all that different.
: Everyone taxes the elderly. It sounds however that you've fallen
: victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying is
: that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
: budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
: realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming voting
: for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
: it.... sort of.
Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
implement it, everyone backed off. The same thing with the Contract
w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.
: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.
Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
and that will go down to defeat too.
: >: It means a stronger private sector, better job
: >: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
: >Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
: >situation.
: Please read the comments of the top financial advisors at
: www.townhall.com. They interview about 12 of them.
: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.
One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt. Secondly,
as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
the government.
Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.
: - Will Gilliland
: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
: Will Gilliland
:
: will...@airmail.net
: ----------------------------------------------
Rusty Neff
William A. Gilliland
>Ahh, so because people in the private sector got laid off, it's time to
>celebrate the demise of government workers. Is that about it? Hey, where
>i worked there were lay-offs all the time, and I was laid-off too. It's
>a terrible situation, but not one that calls for a vengeful type attitude
>to those who have jobs. They are people just like you and me.
I'll go with you here. No one should celebrate layoffs, furloughs,
cutbacks, RIFs or whatever you want to call them. What we should
celebrate is the cutting of actually unneeded jobs in the Federal
sector.
>: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>: tax and borrow policies.
>Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>they're all that different.
Everyone taxes the elderly. It sounds however that you've fallen
victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying is
that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming voting
for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
it.... sort of.
What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
EVERYONE. Can't beat it.
>: It means a stronger private sector, better job
>: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
>Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
>situation.
Please read the comments of the top financial advisors at
www.townhall.com. They interview about 12 of them.
They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.
- Will Gilliland
Richard Clark
>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
Well I'd certainly hate it, if the Air Controllers left their jobs
while I was up in the air and waiting to land on a foggy day at
Chicago O'hare.
William A. Gilliland
>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much
>: >: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>: >: tax and borrow policies.
>: >Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>: >they're all that different.
>: Everyone taxes the elderly. It sounds however that you've fallen
>: victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying is
>: that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
>: budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
>: realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming voting
>: for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
>: it.... sort of.
>Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
>he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
>implement it, everyone backed off.
Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
> The same thing with the Contract
>w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
>everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
>Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.
The thing here is that one person is backing away and not signing. In
the prior example, the consensus of a group decided it was a bad idea.
>: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
>: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.
>Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
>and that will go down to defeat too.
I think you greatly overestimate the power of lobbying and
underestimate the power of election. The biggest cries won't be from
the accounting industry, but from misinformed poor that see the rate
of taxation dramatically decrease for the wealthy.
What they unfortunately don't know is that the very wealthy pay as a
proportion, very little in taxes. They can afford tax lawyers and
write-offs out the wazoo.
>: >: It means a stronger private sector, better job
>: >: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
>: >Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
>: >situation.
>: Please read the comments of the top financial advisors at
>: www.townhall.com. They interview about 12 of them.
>: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
>: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
>: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.
>One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt.
The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
growth both of which are not achieved by debt.
> Secondly, as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
>making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
>the government.
Downsizing, in general, does promote larger profits to shareholders.
However, companies are in the business to stay in business. If you
fire someone that is essential, you won't have a business to give out
profits. Therefor, companies don't layoff to increase shareholder
profits, they downsize to make the company more efficient.
>Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.
Of course you realize we fuel the goverment.
-Will Gilliland
Dallas Conservatives for Common Sense
nem...@iadfw.net
wrote:
>Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
>was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
>threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
>thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
>worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
>be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.
No argument there. The Govt. is very wateful.
>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
Yes, except where do you think the states, and in some cases private
industry, look to for funding these essential duties.
ken heffner
Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
>One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt. Secondly,
>making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
>the government.
--
Companies see layoffs as a way to stay competitive. Like it or not,
capitalism is based on competition. Less people doing the same work
translates into more efficient. This country has change drastically, but,
people aren't keeping up.
In the 50s and 60s you could drop out of high school, get a job as an
apprentice somethingorother, join a union, and have a solid middle class
life. Now, that's no longer true. You still have the same number of kids
partying their way through, or out of, school. But, now there's nothing
there for them except a career in the fast food industry.
kenh
bu...@ionet.net
>
>
>>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
>
>while I was up in the air and waiting to land on a foggy day at
>Chicago O'hare.
>
>
>
not. And I am afraid that I agree with that policy. I don't
work at O'hare but I do care about the people that I control
every day. Nice of you to think of us too. Later.
Buddy
Sheldon (Buddy) Thornton
Air Traffic Controller (Pays the bills and provides the thrills)
Buddy's Computer Service (Supports the habit)
Team OS/2
Acer Authorized Reseller
Evan Steeg
Chris Moorehead <moor...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <4ccj1k$h...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
> will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:
>>....
>>Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
>>of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
>>learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
>>with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
>>needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
>>costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
>
>US conservatives pontificating at great length on the failures of Canada's
>health system. Our health system is one of the major reasons that Canada's
>quality of life is consistently rated as the highest in the world. It's
>expensive for sure, but US health costs per capita are almost TWICE those of
>Canada - plus we don't have millions of our citizens falling through the
>cracks and having no health care coverage at all!
As a U.S. citizen living in Canada (7 years, mostly in Toronto), I'd
like to add my $.02 (that's $.01 U.S. :-)
I, too, am tired of ideology-gripped Americans spouting ignorant
nonsense and lies about the Canadian health-care system. I also think
that some Canadians would do well to curb their arrogant presumption
that Canadian systems should be adopted in the U.S.
Basically, the truth is, lots of thing do work well in Canada --
the health system *is* better, the cities *are* cleaner and have *much*
less violent crime, and so on. However, that doesn't mean that particular
policies successful in one place can be exported and implanted successfully
within a very different cultural and political context. For example, I
don't think gun-control works in the US -- the culture of violent yahoo-ism
is too deeply ingrained. Better to let citizens there protect themselves
against their depraved neeighbors, now that things have come this far.
Sorry, my American friends, but Canadian health-care does work well in
Canada (not perfectly, but very well). Canadian gun-control also works
well in Canada. If you want to argue against their implementation
in the US, I'm with you on that, but stop lying about Canada, eh?
-- Evan
Department of Computing and Information Science
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
CANADA
Phone: (613) 545-6000 -1-5710
FAX (613) 545-6513
Email: st...@qucis.queensu.ca
st...@cs.toronto.edu
st...@t13.lanl.gov
Pat Coghlan
ken heffner <ke...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>Companies see layoffs as a way to stay competitive. Like it or not,
>capitalism is based on competition. Less people doing the same work
>translates into more efficient. This country has change drastically, but,
>people aren't keeping up.
>
>In the 50s and 60s you could drop out of high school, get a job as an
>apprentice somethingorother, join a union, and have a solid middle class
>life. Now, that's no longer true. You still have the same number of kids
>partying their way through, or out of, school. But, now there's nothing
>there for them except a career in the fast food industry.
You are right about how the standard of living for the 'average Joe' is
about to decline dramatically, but you don't need to write off everyone
currently in school.
There are TONS of jobs in the high tech sector which continues to grow at
a healthy rate. Just make sure your kids study computer science or
electrical engineering etc. and not the arts.
D. Citron
: I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
: service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
: knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
: thankless position.
If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.
There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
job is owed to them.
There are LOTS of thankless positions out there. That's why you are free
to quit and seek another. Or start your own business.
I don't think that being a bureaucrat (federal, state, or local) is any
picnic, but if you act superior to the peons of the public who must deal
with you -- and whine if you're not treated that way -- you deserve every
bit of our disrespect and disdain.
You'll notice that the liberal media and the federal employees and all
the recipients of entitlements are making a big deal about the shutdown.
But everyone else says "who cares?" If they're not working, they're not
causing trouble. The Hooters case, during the last shutdown, was the
exception.
How come Slick Willie isn't considered a non-essential employee?
Posted as a public service by .............................. D. Citron
"The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public
authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind. ... In this
field every person must be his own watchman for the truth, because the
forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from
the false for us."
...Thomas v Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)
Chris Moorehead
>>Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
>>he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
>>implement it, everyone backed off.
>
>Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
>of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
>learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
>with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
>needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
>costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
>
I live in Canada (Toronto, Ontario, to be precise), and am a little tired of
US conservatives pontificating at great length on the failures of Canada's
health system. Our health system is one of the major reasons that Canada's
quality of life is consistently rated as the highest in the world. It's
expensive for sure, but US health costs per capita are almost TWICE those of
Canada - plus we don't have millions of our citizens falling through the
cracks and having no health care coverage at all!
The major danger to our health system is last June's election of a neo-con
wacko as Premier of Ontario. Our new "leader", Mike Harris is a third-rate
golf pro who is as mean as Newt Gingrich, but a whole lot stupider. He
froths at the mouth constantly about the private sector being the engine
of economic growth - however, the only job he ever held in the private sector
was running daddy's ski resort (which he ran into bankruptcy). As a small
business owner, I'm a little resentful of this loser presuming to tell me how
to run a business!
To add insult to injury, this weasel and his cronies are presently trying to
ram through Omnibus Bill 26, a truly oppressive piece of legislation which
gives the Premier's office carte blanche to do practically ANYTHING with no
input from either Legislature or citizens (sorry, we don't have citizens
anymore, we have TAXPAYERS!!)
My sympathies are with any of you unfortunate enough to be working for the
Federal Government at the present time. It's very difficult to get any kind of
compassion from TAXPAYERS for your predicament, since OF COURSE government
workers are lazy, overpaid, blah, blah, blah... Mind you, these TAXPAYERS are
the first to whine endlessly whenever services are cut.
Good Luck!
Chris
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher J. Moorehead
Environmental & Manufacturing Engineering Consultant
moor...@inforamp.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Zitka
: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much
: >Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
: >he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
: >implement it, everyone backed off.
: Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
: of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
: learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
: with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things.
: The focus
: needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
: costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
Gee, even the Republicans think you have to control the costs. What kind
of conservative are you?
But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care
platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR campaign
ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.
: > The same thing with the Contract
: >w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
: >everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
: >Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.
: The thing here is that one person is backing away and not signing. In
: the prior example, the consensus of a group decided it was a bad idea.
No, the one person not signing is doing so because he has the support of
the multitude of senior citizens, parents, and others who beleive that
the Republican way is not the right way. The same consensus you talked
about.
: >: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
: >: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.
: >Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
: >and that will go down to defeat too.
: I think you greatly overestimate the power of lobbying and
: underestimate the power of election. The biggest cries won't be from
: the accounting industry, but from misinformed poor that see the rate
: of taxation dramatically decrease for the wealthy.
I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican
congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.
: >: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
: >: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
: >: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.
: >One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt.
: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.
Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
heard of margin?
: > Secondly, as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
: >making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
: >the government.
: Downsizing, in general, does promote larger profits to shareholders.
: However, companies are in the business to stay in business. If you
: fire someone that is essential, you won't have a business to give out
: profits. Therefor, companies don't layoff to increase shareholder
: profits, they downsize to make the company more efficient.
And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose
confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
they once worked for?
: >Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.
: Of course you realize we fuel the goverment.
What goes around, comes around.
: -Will Gilliland
dc3
Opinion>>Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
>> tax and borrow policies.
>
>Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>they're all that different.
applies to almost all of the wealthy?? Isn't this the tax cut that Clinton
so despises?? Well let me explain it to you, very slowly, so you can
understand Robert. Let's talk about the elderly that you think the
Republicans "want to hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about 36
years ago, back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the house
that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth $110,000. If they
wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home, and just visit all of the
National parks for the remainder of their lives, (provided of course that
the parks were not shut down by something as far fetched as a Government
Shutdown), they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a high price.
Considering that to own that house, they had to pay interest to a mortgage
company, the insurance to a insurance agency, maintenance for 36 years of
wear, and what ever else might be included, do you think they would really
end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that exceded the
inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. But they made a
GOOD choice and put the money they earn to use. Is this the kind of person
that should be taxed for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had my way,
that kind of capital gain would not be taxed!
Now, for the $10,000 question, who wants to help a person in this
situation more, Republicans in congress, or the President and her husband?
Just in case you don't know, the Republicans want to lower the capital
gains tax. THE PRESIDENT AND HER HUSBAND WANT TO RAISE THE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX, or keep it the same, or lower it some, depending on which day of the
week it is.
Now tell me, are there more homeowners in this country or are there more
businesses? There again I don't know the answer, but common sense would say
there are more home owners than businesses.
Who's plan would help the most people? (clue-- it is not the president's
plan).
Only fools think there is something to be had for nothing. You think the
democrats are on the side of the "working family?" Think again. Everything
democrats want hurts people who work for a living and people who take risks
with there capital to gain more money. Do you think you pay enough of your
money in taxes? I'll end it here.
David in Dallas
Leonard Grossman
nem...@iadfw.net wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Jan 1996 21:12:15 GMT, laj...@eskimo.com
(Stephen Lajoie)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll
for a guy with this
>>much hate.
>>
>>And welcome to the real world. In the private sector,
people get
>>"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go
out the door last
>>year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with
back pay when they
>>got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit
happens. You got it
>>better than a hell of a lot of people in private
industry, so you aren't
workers.
>>
Bill Clinton and his
>>security for me and better job oppertunities for those
who were laid off.
shutdown forever. No one
>>guaranteed you a job for life.
expect extensive furloughs _without pay_ after getting
back to work. These will be necessary if agencies are
going to be able to function under the reduced budgets
that are anticipated without further RIFs. Of course,
the continued delay means that there will be less time
left in the fiscal year to spread out the loss making
the pain even more difficult to bear.
gros...@mcs.net ( preferred address)
alternative address:leonard....@syslink.mcs.com
William A. Gilliland
>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:
>: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much
>: >Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
>: >he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
>: >implement it, everyone backed off.
>: Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
>: of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
>: learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
>: with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things.
>: The focus
>: needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
>: costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
>Gee, even the Republicans think you have to control the costs. What kind
>of conservative are you?
Conservatives ARE the ones who believe in fiscal responsiblilty.
Where have you been? Thats why the balanced budget, the government
cuts, the contract with American....etc.
>But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care
>platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR campaign
>ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.
People voted Clinton in for 'change'. Congressman Joe Barton of
Ennis, Tx also pointed out something amusing on talk radio today. He
pointed out Bill Clinton hasn't made good on one of his campaign
promises.
Back to the subject. What killed the "Healthcare reform" is that it
was too socialistic as most Democratic policies are. Hillary started
spouting how she wanted to limit the number of specialist and that she
wanted to get more general practictioners; that she wanted to put
prices on medicine and services and America woke up and thought we'ld
lost the Cold War.
>: > The same thing with the Contract
>: >w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
>: >everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
>: >Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.
>: The thing here is that one person is backing away and not signing. In
>: the prior example, the consensus of a group decided it was a bad idea.
>No, the one person not signing is doing so because he has the support of
>the multitude of senior citizens, parents, and others who beleive that
>the Republican way is not the right way. The same consensus you talked
>about.
Wrong. I think you must have been sleeping in the last election. Not
only have conservatives been elected in droves, but the Democrats that
did retain their seat are learning how bankrupt Democratic ideas are.
They just want politics as usual keeping red tape flowing and keep the
poor dependant on you like poverty pimps.
Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens. Fortunately
Nightline uncovered their lies and you should have seen the Democratic
leaders studder when confronted. I couldn't believe I saw it on
network TV.
I don't blame you for being misguided, most of America has been
mislead too. The facts are that Republicans will increase spending in
Medicare, Medicaid, lunch programs and the like. They also provide
ingenious alternatives. Too bad CBS, NBC and ABC will never focus on
them.
>: >: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
>: >: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.
>: >Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
>: >and that will go down to defeat too.
>: I think you greatly overestimate the power of lobbying and
>: underestimate the power of election. The biggest cries won't be from
>: the accounting industry, but from misinformed poor that see the rate
>: of taxation dramatically decrease for the wealthy.
>I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican
>congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
>laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.
If they have such a big say, why is the plan gaining popularity and
will be voted on this year by congress?
Lobbyist have swayed some people, but the new Republican freshmen are
proposing ground breaking new laws limiting special interest groups to
only $100 per group. That includes special interest personal money,
group money and the monetary value of all perks.
>: >: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
>: >: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
>: >: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.
>: >One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt.
>: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
>: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
>: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.
>Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
>heard of margin?
Consumer debts are loans, credit cards etc (I can't believe I have to
spell this out). Like I said before, if anything debt weakens the
stock market not strengthen. If you don't have the cash, you don't
buy. How could it 'fuel' the stock market?
Again, I implore you to read what top investors have to say about the
great things ahead if we balance the budget. @ www.townhall.com
The same holds true for companies. If they don't have the cash, they
don't invest in R&D, give raises, takeover or expand.
I've heard of plenty of margins. I'ld be happy to explain whatever
one you are talking about. Profit, sales, debt,.....
>: > Secondly, as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
>: >making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
>: >the government.
>: Downsizing, in general, does promote larger profits to shareholders.
>: However, companies are in the business to stay in business. If you
>: fire someone that is essential, you won't have a business to give out
>: profits. Therefor, companies don't layoff to increase shareholder
>: profits, they downsize to make the company more efficient.
>And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose
>confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
>and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
>do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
>they once worked for?
Remember, you are talking about a VERY small portion of the buying
public (.04% to be exact) You can't seriously think that .04% will
bring us to a roaring halt.
The plight of the federal workers is tragic and not by their own hand.
I feel for them, but they don't affect the economy. As I've stated
before, many more private sector employees get cut every year but you
don't hear the fanfare for them from the media nor do they really
affect the economy.
>: >Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.
>: Of course you realize we fuel the goverment.
>What goes around, comes around.
I think you missed the point. Remember Government of the People
by the People and for the People?
We are at the top of the food chain, then the Government. The only
reason Government 'can' subsidize some companies is because WE provide
them with the money.
- Will Gilliland
Dallas Conservatives for, I guess, not so Common Sense
Robert Zitka
: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:
: >: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much
: >But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care
: >platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR campaign
: >ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.
: People voted Clinton in for 'change'. Congressman Joe Barton of
: Ennis, Tx also pointed out something amusing on talk radio today. He
: pointed out Bill Clinton hasn't made good on one of his campaign
: promises.
Yes, and one of the changes was to change the healthcare situation in
America. Everyone knew his plan was to institutionalize a national
healthcare system. People cheered him when he said it during the campaign.
: Back to the subject. What killed the "Healthcare reform" is that it
: was too socialistic as most Democratic policies are. Hillary started
: spouting how she wanted to limit the number of specialist and that she
: wanted to get more general practictioners; that she wanted to put
: prices on medicine and services and America woke up and thought we'ld
: lost the Cold War.
What killed it was the republican propaganda machine that ran the ads on
tv showing the couple being scared to death by the "draconian" health
care program.
: Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.
Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the Clinton
helathcare program. This time the republicans are on the losing end.
: I don't blame you for being misguided, most of America has been
: mislead too. The facts are that Republicans will increase spending in
: Medicare, Medicaid, lunch programs and the like. They also provide
: ingenious alternatives. Too bad CBS, NBC and ABC will never focus on
: them.
Yes they will cut spending on the elederly, who's health care cost
continue to rise, to finance a tax cut. Sounds like I got it about right.
: >I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican
: >congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
: >laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.
: If they have such a big say, why is the plan gaining popularity and
: will be voted on this year by congress?
Can you gurantee that? I'd wait until the real debate started before
being so sure about it.
: >: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
: >: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
: >: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.
: >Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
: >heard of margin?
: Consumer debts are loans, credit cards etc (I can't believe I have to
: spell this out). Like I said before, if anything debt weakens the
: stock market not strengthen. If you don't have the cash, you don't
: buy. How could it 'fuel' the stock market?
Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to throw
more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have
the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds. The same
is true for margin on the market. Why not margin another 50% so you can
ride the wave?
And don't let me even get into the fact that more people lease their cars
than ever before. What a sham.
: The same holds true for companies. If they don't have the cash, they
: don't invest in R&D, give raises, takeover or expand.
I can name a long list of companies that have loans taken out. They are
debtors too. Ask any person who owns a house if he has a mortgage. You
make it sound like no one has debt but the federal government. Surprise,
but this whole country, and world, is running on debt.
: >And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose
: >confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
: >and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
: >do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
: >they once worked for?
: Remember, you are talking about a VERY small portion of the buying
: public (.04% to be exact) You can't seriously think that .04% will
: bring us to a roaring halt.
No, probably a wimpering halt. Considering the economy hasn't been all
that strong, thanks to the fed, it probabaly doesn't take much to shift
to a recession right now.
But the point is, companies lay off to make more profits, forcing other
companies to lay off to keep up to them, and so on. But, now those that
are laid off can't get their higher paying jobs, so they stay unemployed
or take lower paying jobs. In turn, companies see lower than expected
profits and in turn lay off more people and so on and so on.......
: The plight of the federal workers is tragic and not by their own hand.
: I feel for them, but they don't affect the economy. As I've stated
: before, many more private sector employees get cut every year but you
: don't hear the fanfare for them from the media nor do they really
: affect the economy.
Actually, in my opinion, only in the third week of the govt. shutdown has
there been a media focus on the govt. employees. But, mostly about the
fact that they are working without pay and how the ones they interviewed
had no money left to pay their bills.
But, there is a lot of media coverage about private sector workers
getting laid off too. One of the top stories this week was about ATT.
In the past I've seen stories about other companies too having massive
layoffs.
I don't think any of it is right. We want people off of welfare, yet the
slogan of companies is lay-off. It doesn't send a positive signal.
All I do know is that people better have a cushy nest-egg set aside for
the next recession.
donna marie fern
democrate is in office. After all the majority of the spending that
contributed to this situation was signed into law by the previous
republican administrations. This inflamitory retoric is not changing a
thing.
Kim DeVaughn
|
| In <4cc8hi$6...@news2.his.com>, rac...@his.com (Richard Clark) writes:
| >
| >Well I'd certainly hate it, if the Air Controllers left their jobs
| >while I was up in the air and waiting to land on a foggy day at
| >Chicago O'hare.
|
| We wouldn't do that we have to be there whether we get paid or
| not. And I am afraid that I agree with that policy. I don't
| work at O'hare but I do care about the people that I control
| every day. Nice of you to think of us too. Later.
Well ... you (the generic "you") *did* go out on strike back when Nixon was
in the White House, as I recall ...
But don't you think it'd be better in *many* ways if the ATC were to be
"privatized", as is currently being discussed?
For example, you could get some decent new technology (read, new computers)
in a reasonable amount of time, that actually worked correctly. And UPS's
to match.
Hell ... I remember working on a proposal in the late 1970's for a system
to replace the then-obsolete NAS Enroute systems. And here it is in the
mid-1990's, and those machines are *still* in service (most of the time,
anyway). Ah ... some of the stories I heard WRT Enroute ... <shudder> ...!
Let's hear it for the FAA's procurement "policies" ...
/kim
==================================================
Excuse me ... I have to go vacuum my files now ...
Andrew Hall
dc3> On Jan 02, 1996 04:53:23 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One
dc3> Fed's
Opinion> Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote: ,
Opinion> 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
>>> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill
>>> Clinton and his
>>> tax and borrow policies.
>> Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I
>> hardly think they're all that different.
dc3> Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you
dc3> know how it applies to almost all of the wealthy?? Isn't this
dc3> the tax cut that Clinton so despises?? Well let me explain it
dc3> to you, very slowly, so you can understand Robert. Let's talk
dc3> about the elderly that you think the Republicans "want to
dc3> hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about 36 years ago,
dc3> back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the house
dc3> that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth
dc3> $110,000. If they wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home,
dc3> and just visit all of the National parks for the remainder of
dc3> their lives, (provided of course that the parks were not shut
dc3> down by something as far fetched as a Government Shutdown),
dc3> they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
dc3> capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a
dc3> high price. Considering that to own that house, they had to
dc3> pay interest to a mortgage company, the insurance to a
dc3> insurance agency, maintenance for 36 years of wear, and what
dc3> ever else might be included, do you think they would really
dc3> end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that
dc3> exceded the inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't
dc3> matter. But they made a GOOD choice and put the money they
dc3> earn to use. Is this the kind of person that should be taxed
dc3> for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had my way, that
dc3> kind of capital gain would not be taxed! Now, for the $10,000
Good, as this particular transaction would have no taxes under current
law.
dc3> question, who wants to help a person in this situation more,
dc3> Republicans in congress, or the President and her husband?
dc3> Just in case you don't know, the Republicans want to lower
dc3> the capital gains tax. THE PRESIDENT AND HER HUSBAND WANT TO
dc3> RAISE THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX, or keep it the same, or lower it
dc3> some, depending on which day of the week it is. Now tell me,
dc3> are there more homeowners in this country or are there more
dc3> businesses? There again I don't know the answer, but common
dc3> sense would say there are more home owners than businesses.
dc3> Who's plan would help the most people? (clue-- it is not the
dc3> president's plan). Only fools think there is something to be
dc3> had for nothing. You think the democrats are on the side of
dc3> the "working family?" Think again. Everything democrats want
dc3> hurts people who work for a living and people who take risks
dc3> with there capital to gain more money. Do you think you pay
dc3> enough of your money in taxes? I'll end it here.
dc3> David in Dallas
ah
(Followups set to "talk.politics.misc" where I am posting from.)
Guy E Wheelock
>j...@sna.com wrote:
>: I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
>: service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
>: knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
>: thankless position.
>If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.
>There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
>job is owed to them.
>There are LOTS of thankless positions out there. That's why you are free
>to quit and seek another. Or start your own business.
>I don't think that being a bureaucrat (federal, state, or local) is any
>picnic, but if you act superior to the peons of the public who must deal
>with you -- and whine if you're not treated that way -- you deserve every
>bit of our disrespect and disdain.
>You'll notice that the liberal media and the federal employees and all
>the recipients of entitlements are making a big deal about the shutdown.
>But everyone else says "who cares?" If they're not working, they're not
>causing trouble. The Hooters case, during the last shutdown, was the
>exception.
>How come Slick Willie isn't considered a non-essential employee?
... or the IRS - at least thru April 15th .... of the year 3000!