lazy federal employees costing us a fortune for nothing....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:28 am

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... li=BBnbfcN

$150 million that could be WAY better spent.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:36 am

I agree…fire them all!

But…the only problem with the argument presented…is the constitution gives no time frame for fulfilling those duties.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:51 am

You want real waste? Have someone figure out how much is wasted near the end of a depts. fiscal year when they spend just to use up the rest of their budget so they don't have their budget downsized next year. Your 150 mil is pocket change compared to the waste there.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:33 am

didn't read the piece, huh, Woody?

Spidey, my only real beef here is the absolute REFUSAL to hold hearings and vote up or down. I cannot remember a similar refusal, but will stand corrected. Sure,you can find a lot of talk, from both sides about not considering nominees, but when presented with one, the Senate has always gone through the process before the public. The argument about 'letting the voters decide' is utterly ridiculous, given that we elected Obama to be President until next January.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:04 am

OK slick, what we have is the Rep. using Dems tactics to get their way. Are you whining because they are not doing their job when they are or are you whining because the Rep. are going to win this one.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:59 pm

woodchip wrote:OK slick, what we have is the Rep. using Dems tactics to get their way. Are you whining because they are not doing their job when they are or are you whining because the Rep. are going to win this one.

first off, you have ZERO evidence that the Dems ever did this, because they have not, and history show it. Second, I'm not whining, because the GOP isn't going to win this. Already, 8 Senators, most up for election in Blue or Purple states, have suddenly changed tune this morning, and if McConnell holds to his word, they are not only going to lose on this, but in the overall election.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:14 pm

callmeslick wrote:The argument about 'letting the voters decide' is utterly ridiculous, given that we elected Obama to be President until next January.

the voters elected Obama to be president until January, and the current Senate for the same term. Don't be the sort of partisan hack who thinks only one side of the equation is relevant. The voters decided on gridlock. The voters knew that's what they were getting, particularly last midterm since they'd already been getting gridlock for 6 years.

Is it a good idea to actually gridlock on this particular issue? Probably not. But it's rare for confirmation hearings to go quickly, so I wouldn't be surprised if nominee #1 finally gets shot down in like June and nominee #2 in October and then the election happens. I also wouldn't be surprised if nominee #1 gets confirmed in June, given that he seems to be exactly the sort of choice I suggested Obama attempt -- somebody so moderate and unobjectionable that blocking him will appear to be ridiculously petulant.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:19 pm

Lothar wrote:
callmeslick wrote:The argument about 'letting the voters decide' is utterly ridiculous, given that we elected Obama to be President until next January.
the voters elected Obama to be president until January, and the current Senate for the same term. Don't be the sort of partisan hack who thinks only one side of the equation is relevant

why did you decide to pick on me? You've been singling me out as a 'partisan hack' for months now, and frankly it's a steaming pile of BS, that you use to justify some sort of self-perceived moral superiority. That is a delusion, so please, give it a rest. I would have said the same thing of Obama, except HE DID HIS JOB.

oh, and I'd strongly disagree that anyone voted for gridlock.....I base this opinion upon the low regard the public has for the gridlocked Congress. They voted for the vain hope of compromise, knowing full well that compromise is the reason our system of government was created(hell, it was formed VIA compromise....called The Great Compromise)

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:42 pm

further countering the specious 'let the voters decide in November' argument that Lothar seems to be jumping on: That is exactly what those of my opinion, which is hardly partisan at all here in the East and Mid-Atlantic, are suggesting. Hold hearings, treat the nominee with disdain, respect, whatever. But, let the nation hear the nominee, and the Senate, and then go to the polls and decide what they think about the job done during the current term.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:12 pm

callmeslick wrote:You've been singling me out as a 'partisan hack' for months now

You shouldn't be a partisan hack, you've proven you're not a partisan hack, and then you act like a partisan hack at seemingly random times. That's why I call you out in particular. You should know better than to make the argument that "the people spoke by electing Obama" without acknowleding that they also spoke by electing an opposition Senate.

I'd strongly disagree that anyone voted for gridlock

About 1/3 of Republicans I hear basically wanted to gridlock 100% of everything Obama tried (a lot of these are now Trump supporters -- calling the establishment "RINOs" because they compromised on occasion), and the remainder of people who voted Republican in the last election merely wanted to cause partial gridlock (somewhere in the 20% to 40% gridlock neighborhood -- compromising on a lot of issues, but definitely blocking some of the more significant ones.) I read SCOTUS nominees as part of the 20-40% that people specifically wanted to gridlock, along with any further expansion of PPACA (though "refinement" of PPACA is an area where a lot of people would be willing to compromise).

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:56 pm

Lothar wrote:...and then you act like a partisan hack at seemingly random times.

I think some of that is rolled into Slick's sense of humor. Either way I agree with Slick, you seem to be contrary to him for no reason at all except to restate the things he says in a different way. Kind of ridiculous. I'm not sure you even know you are doing it.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:25 am

vision wrote:you seem to be contrary to him for no reason at all except to restate the things he says in a different way

... to restate the things he says in a better, less partisan way. Yes, I know I'm doing it -- it's an intentional teaching tool. I'm modeling the correct way to argue the position, in opposition to his incorrect technique, in which he falls into partisan habits and lazy analysis. Do better and I won't need to correct you, instead of complaining that I'm always correcting you. (Also don't fall into the mistake of thinking this is "ego". I'm on the autism spectrum; I argue from a detached perspective.)

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:11 am

Lothar wrote:
vision wrote:you seem to be contrary to him for no reason at all except to restate the things he says in a different way
... to restate the things he says in a better, less partisan way. Yes, I know I'm doing it -- it's an intentional teaching tool. I'm modeling the correct way to argue the position, in opposition to his incorrect technique, in which he falls into partisan habits and lazy analysis. Do better and I won't need to correct you, instead of complaining that I'm always correcting you. (Also don't fall into the mistake of thinking this is "ego". I'm on the autism spectrum; I argue from a detached perspective.)

LOL @ the ego on this guy. Holy f'ing crap. You really think you argue as a non-partisan? Hahahaha. My god you are out of your flipping mind. I didn't know the autistic spectrum included delusions and narcissism, so thanks for that insight I guess.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:47 am

Dammit. Page not available at this time.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:21 pm

Lothar wrote:
vision wrote:you seem to be contrary to him for no reason at all except to restate the things he says in a different way
... to restate the things he says in a better, less partisan way. Yes, I know I'm doing it -- it's an intentional teaching tool.

Good golly, I really hope you just sort of blurted this out, as it seems more than a little presumptuous.

I'm modeling the correct way to argue the position, in opposition to his incorrect technique, in which he falls into partisan habits and lazy analysis. Do better and I won't need to correct you, instead of complaining that I'm always correcting you. (Also don't fall into the mistake of thinking this is "ego". I'm on the autism spectrum; I argue from a detached perspective.)

oh, there is ego involved. To be sure.......

yeesh, can't even start down this path. However, I will request the link you are working from to the Rules For Online Discourse--the Complete Edition with Latin Footnotes. Geez o Pete, take a few steps back, Lothar. I really don't think you mean to come off as you can be read.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:28 pm

Tell me something slick, whens the last time you posted a link that made Dems seem stupid? Or made the Dem party seem irrelevant? 95% of what you post is Dems good, Reps bad...whether it is on a personal level or policy level. That is what makes you look like a party hack.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:58 pm

woodchip wrote:Tell me something slick, whens the last time you posted a link that made Dems seem stupid?

viewtopic.php?p=332667

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:14 pm

And I get called the “sycophant”.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:48 pm

nah, Spidey, it was too easy a question.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:00 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Tell me something slick, whens the last time you posted a link that made Dems seem stupid?
viewtopic.php?p=332667

Wow you found one from 2 years ago. There I thought Ferny was slicks familiar.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:10 pm

here's a Republican, just today, who seems to have a perfectly fine grasp of the issue
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:41 pm

woodchip wrote:
vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Tell me something slick, whens the last time you posted a link that made Dems seem stupid?
viewtopic.php?p=332667
Wow you found one from 2 years ago.

I think you've taken the wrong lesson from my criticism.

The thing is, slick is usually willing to criticize Dems. He's usually willing to acknowledge good points on the other side. That's why his recent pattern has been so perplexing and drawn so much ire from me -- because for a while he was one of those rare interesting people who was always thoughtful about every issue, and very much NOT the average talking-point-reciting partisan hack. I don't know if it's just a result of spending too much time heads-down in party business, but I expect he'll eventually get back to leveling reasonable criticisms both ways, which is a rare trait and not one you've ever shared with him.

callmeslick wrote:I really don't think you mean to come off as you can be read.

How you choose to read me is up to you.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:39 pm

Lothar,thank you for the kind words, and the sort of odd idea of attempting to inform me may have been nobly intended. However, I'll give you the explanation. Right now, one portion of one party is ALONE in going completely off the rails. That group and that tangent is, to my mind, the most dangerous development I've seen in US politics in my 61 years. So, yes, I am going to focus on one party at the moment,because while finding buffoons in either camp is childs play, finding folks completely willing to derail any semblance of serious intent in our system of government seems limited to one side at the current time.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:13 am

callmeslick wrote:Right now, one portion of one party is ALONE in going completely off the rails.

I'll back this up as someone who never voted for Obama, voted for Bush, and was a registered Republican until two years ago. I mean, seriously, the party is insane. Mitt Romney was a sub-par candidate but even he is leaps and bounds above this current crop (including Kasich whom I'm think highly of). Had the GOP and it's constituents acted sanely I would be supporting Jeb! over Hillary right now, but I'm not, so I'm hoping Sanders goes all the way to the General Election and wins.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:00 am

Sanders is nothing but a fear and jealousy monger with delusions of Santa Claus.

*spelling corrected...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:15 am

callmeslick wrote:Lothar,thank you for the kind words, and the sort of odd idea of attempting to inform me may have been nobly intended. However, I'll give you the explanation. Right now, one portion of one party is ALONE in going completely off the rails. That group and that tangent is, to my mind, the most dangerous development I've seen in US politics in my 61 years. So, yes, I am going to focus on one party at the moment,because while finding buffoons in either camp is childs play, finding folks completely willing to derail any semblance of serious intent in our system of government seems limited to one side at the current time.

So you are part of the problem. The status quo is more important than reform? And would you rather have riots in the streets like your side did at the 68 Chicago convention (I guess you forgot how dangerous your side can be). Me I prefer the way things are shaking out instead of a armed mob marching on Washington. But then if the Salt Lake City mob of protesters is any indication, I think the violence your side will foment will far overshadow what the Trump supporters will do by "derailing" the system. Only this time the conservative base won't flee in panic.

I suggest you get a hold of the people you know to cool the demonstrations and have the protesters act like the adults you so paint your side as being. So far it appear the Trump supporters are the adults as I don't see them roughing up the police, mass disrupting of Bernie or Hillaries rallies or charging their podium. Adults eh.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:35 am

woodchip wrote:I suggest you get a hold of the people you know to cool the demonstrations and have the protesters act like the adults you so paint your side as being. So far it appear the Trump supporters are the adults as I don't see them roughing up the police, mass disrupting of Bernie or Hillaries rallies or charging their podium. Adults eh.

what a silly load of manure. The violence has ENTIRELY come from the Trump supporters save one who rushed that stage.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:25 am

sadly more revisionist history being dragged out.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:21 pm

woodchip wrote:sadly more revisionist history being dragged out.

someone sucker punching someone two weeks ago is now 'history'? Thus far, every single documented call for violence, act of violence or threat of future violence has come from the Trump camp. Your anonymous blogger's version aside.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:58 pm

callmeslick wrote:one portion of one party is ALONE in going completely off the rails. That group and that tangent is, to my mind, the most dangerous development I've seen in US politics in my 61 years. So, yes, I am going to focus on one party at the moment

I think part of what makes that "one portion of one party" so dangerous is that it destroys the drive toward moderation from the opposite side. We saw the same thing when the Democrats were acting wacky (though not Trump-wacky) during the W administration. The worst outcome wasn't from the Democrats, because the wacky didn't get elected en masse. The worst outcome was that Republicans felt like they had a "mandate" and they stopped even trying to compromise or be moderate, and they pushed through some fairly bad legislation, and moderate Republicans didn't really take them to task for it because we were too busy criticizing the Democrats for courting nutjobs like Michael Moore, and moderate Democrat voices got completely overlooked.

With the Trump wing of the Republican party going nuts and quite possibly causing mass losses this cycle, the non-extremists among us have to be diligent about pushing back against extremism from the other side, as well as about acknowledging the good points from both sides' moderates. We have to be careful to avoid the subtle, insidious partisanship that essentially takes the form of pushing one side's talking points while not acknowledging reasonable counterarguments or balancing statements from the other side.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:00 pm

Spidey wrote:Sanders is nothing but a fear and jealousy monger with delusions of Santa Clause.

utter nonsense. Bernie has been selling a vision of a continuation and expansion of the FDR model onto the template provided by Denmark, Sweden and others for about 30 years now. Given that such works, and works extremely well, elsewhere, we can dispense with the 'delusion' argument out of hand. Nothing about explaining that we've evolved onto a trajectory that will put 90 percent of all Americans into poverty in another generation or two is the least bit about 'jealousy'. I've been saying this, loudly, for over a decade and a half myself and pretty much anyone that knows me is aware that I am in the 10 percent who are pulling away from the pack. You all would be likely pretty upset or even shocked at how much appreciation of assets I've seen this year alone, but that fact doesn't comfort me when I think of the NATURE of the nation my grandkids will inherit along with my assets.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:06 pm

Lothar wrote: I think part of what makes that "one portion of one party" so dangerous is that it destroys the drive toward moderation from the opposite side. We saw the same thing when the Democrats were acting wacky (though not Trump-wacky) during the W administration. The worst outcome wasn't from the Democrats, because the wacky didn't get elected en masse. The worst outcome was that Republicans felt like they had a "mandate" and they stopped even trying to compromise or be moderate, and they pushed through some fairly bad legislation, and moderate Republicans didn't really take them to task for it because we were too busy criticizing the Democrats for courting nutjobs like Michael Moore, and moderate Democrat voices got completely overlooked.

I could quibble over details here, but won't, because you speak to the TYPE of situation I fear from the current cycle. I already see one-party Dem control here in Delaware after the Tea Party got roundly rejected, and whenever one party dominates, you risk overreach and lack of compromise which usually tempers excess. Thus far, Delaware hasn't seen this, but the citizenry here(historically pretty damned sensible and traditionally bipartisan) has shown awareness of the potential for overreach. The only GOP state official that has won election since the Tea Party takeover of the GOP here is a local actuary who got elected as State Auditor as a Republican. I and my late father supported his campaign for just that reason, having a GOP set of eyes to keep everyone honest and check the impulse for overreach.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:55 pm

Spidey wrote:Sanders is nothing but a fear and jealousy monger with delusions of Santa Clause.

Ridiculous. He's the only candidate who is talking about our future in a realistic light. He's very smart and he sees the need to get serious about new economic models for the 21st Century.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:23 pm

Those rich people have everything, and you have nothing…

Here little Johnny, have some free health care, and here is some free college for little Jane.

Ho Ho Ho

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:47 pm

Spidey wrote:Those rich people have everything, and you have nothing…

not yet, actually, but as vision noted, Sanders is actually thinking about changing our economic paradigm to prevent that exact thing happening. Lord knows, I've presented enough data here about the trajectory, and it is unassailable.

Here little Johnny, have some free health care, and here is some free college for little Jane.

nothing is presented as FREE, although you seem determined to paint it that way. It is proposed that we change our national priorities on spending and taxation so as to prepare for a 21st century reality. If you think free public ed should stop in 12th grade, you are not up to speed. If you don't think decoupling worry over healthcare from employment or other factors leads to a happier populace top to bottom, you need to talk to people from Denmark or Sweden(to name but two, but I just happen to know a lot of folks from those two). What is hilarious is the desperate attempt to paint Sanders as selling this stuff as free. If you even attempted to make it through any of his stump speeches, you MIGHT grasp that he goes to great pains to not present it as such.

Ho Ho Ho

feel free to laugh. Your grandkids(should you have them) won't get the punchline.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:25 pm

“nothing is presented as FREE”

“If you think free public ed should stop in 12th grade”

Now see, that’s just some funny ★■◆● right there...

Ummm…Ho Ho Ho is the way Santa Claus laughs, not me, I can’t believe I had to explain that.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:29 pm

Spidey wrote:“nothing is presented as FREE”

“If you think free public ed should stop in 12th grade”

Now see, that’s just some funny **** right there...

Ummm…Ho Ho Ho is the way Santa Clause laughs, not me, I can’t believe I had to explain that.

ummm, you, as an adult, realize that free public education isn't free, right? Shall we just use the term Bernie uses, 'tuition-free'?
Still dancing around the real issue I see, and I got the Santa Claus(note spelling) joke, and noted that your grandkids will not find these issues amusing if we fail to act.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:54 pm

Spidey wrote:Those rich people have everything, and you have nothing…

Here little Johnny, have some free health care, and here is some free college for little Jane.

Ho Ho Ho

Holy ★■◆●, free education and health care would radically change the quality of life for everyone, rich or poor. I can totally be happy without being rich if I had those two things, which coincidentally are the things I spend the most money on and are most important in my life. I don't see how that is some sort of joke to you. This is what we should be striving for as a civilization.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:12 pm

Well, what you see as a goal of civilization and what I do are probably two different things.

You are probably far more of a collectivist than I am.

What's next...houses and cars, why stop at health care and education? And yes that is an honest question.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:46 pm

Spidey wrote:Well, what you see as a goal of civilization and what I do are probably two different things.

You are probably far more of a collectivist than I am.

What's next...houses and cars, why stop at health care and education? And yes that is an honest question.

Because if you don't have to worry about those two, you can probably get the rest on your own.