Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Regulatory capture (Score 1) 242

Just so we're clear here, you're claiming that the federal government has no business protecting individual constitutional rights, but has a vested interest in the radio spectrum?

No, can't say that I'm claiming that. Why are you asking?

Because that was your response to:

Abortion is another example. According to SCOTUS it's protected by the constitution. How are those southern states doing in regard to protecting that constitutional right? Or how well do you think New York will do in protecting gun rights if they didn't have to? The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

Comment Re:Regulatory capture (Score 1) 242

The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

And why do you think that is an issue with respect to regulation of radio spectrum? We don't get worked up over how states implement rules on jay walking or murder, for example.

Just so we're clear here, you're claiming that the federal government has no business protecting individual constitutional rights, but has a vested interest in the radio spectrum?

Comment Re:Regulatory capture (Score 2) 242

Because states *love* implementing federal standards, as the Obamacare rollout clearly shows.

And if that aspect of Obamacare hadn't been found unconstitutional, those states would be implementing that particular "standard" at considerable expense. But OTOH implementing standards for radio frequency use is a valid exercise of the Commerce clause and thus it doesn't matter if those states like it or not.

What "aspect" are you talking about? IIRC it's always been a carrot on the stick thing for implementing, otherwise the feds would do it for them. They didn't *have* to implement the standards, and therefore most of them refused, even though the states that did implement their own exchanges fared far better than those that didn't. Abortion is another example. According to SCOTUS it's protected by the constitution. How are those southern states doing in regard to protecting that constitutional right? Or how well do you think New York will do in protecting gun rights if they didn't have to? The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

Comment Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (Score 4, Insightful) 172

Let the free market work its magic. Companies should start using employment contracts for stellar performers so that they don't have to fear them leaving for competitors, and the contract can be renegotiated every 2-3 years, if the stellar employee doesn't like the terms, they can walk when the contract expires.

And once your anti-poaching agreement kicks in, that employee will spend 6 months unemployed, then come back begging for the same job at half the pay! Free market FTW!

Comment Re:Oh how I love this game! (Score 1) 767

Then why don't you specify exactly what government functions need to go? Aside from DOD the federal workforce is pretty damn small. A much bigger problem is the way government contracts are awarded. In many cases our government costs so much because we have too few government employees, and have to pay exorbitant prices to private sector contractors to do the work of employees. Note that the people who actually do the work make less money than the average federal worker for the same job, but the middle-man contracting companies make ridiculous profits.

Comment Re:Oh how I love this game! (Score 1) 767

I'm doubting the accuracy of your MSNBC report. MSNBC is just as bad as Fox when it comes to selling bullshit, so I'm going to do more digging. On the first Tuesday of the shutdown it was reported that the FDA would still be inspecting everything that needed inspection because the establishment was already using that as a "we're all doomed" vehicle. I do know that CA had FDA inspectors on site at the company selling bad chicken before any changes were made to the shut down, which backs my initial statement.

I just used your own evidence to show you were wrong, I won't claim that MSNBC presented facts.

It was NBC, not MSNBC. But seriously, now you're saying the shutdown never happened? That *no* FDA employees were furloughed? You're either a very convincing troll or a very troubled individual.

Comment Re:Oh how I love this game! (Score 1) 767

From your source, not mine. Fox my ass, I don't get news from Fox either.

The Food and Drug Administration has 60 percent of its 1,602 investigators on furlough, according to an administration spokesman – and the effects on the country’s food supply may last well beyond the shutdown’s expiration date, whenever that may be, experts said.

The date is also the 8th, and was changed the following Monday due to issues in CA for which the FDA didn't even matter as the manufacturer in essence said "we don't care what the Government say's, we are not shutting down" which has nothing to do with the FDA but a legal matter.

Perhaps you were just giving partial facts to make your point and didn't mean For instance, the FDA was considered non-essential because the country could still function for a while without food inspection which indicates all of the FDA not at work? Giving partial facts to back your point instead of real facts is still dishonest isn't it?

Yeah, not like your:

Food inspectors were not on furlough. Those people were considered essential.

Which was just factually wrong. The FDA was furloughed. The fact that "only" 60% of the FDA was shut down does not diminish the fact that it was furloughed. The fact that they were called back in because of a crisis also does not affect the fact that they were furloughed in the first place.

Comment Re:Oh how I love this game! (Score 1) 767

Repeat much propaganda? Food inspectors were not on furlough. Those people were considered essential. Most DOD workers were not on furlough. Most contractors were not on furlough either, because contracts are all paid up front in Government work.

Go back and read what I stated, then go do some fact checking. Nothing I said is wrong, everything you claimed is wrong.

I was a federal employee for 3 years, but I left 6 months ago for the private sector because the benefits, pay, and stability of a federal job were terrible. I'll say that again, the benefits, pay, and stability of a federal job is significantly worse than in the private sector.

Strawman much? First, that is a complete load of bullshit because I worked in DOD for probably longer than you have had a career. I was also Military, so save your fallacy. More importantly, it does not change anything I stated or that you lied about.

You're clearly wrong about most everything, and clearly have some anger management issues. I'll just address the first of your contentions, that FDA was not furloughed. Since you're clearly wrong here, I don't think it's worth debating with you any longer. Go back to your Fox "News", where facts change around ideology instead of the other way around.

Comment Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun (Score 3, Informative) 767

Or perhaps had they been smart enough to not spend their hard earned(I use that term loosely with the feds) money on iduds and new cars every few years they would have had enough cash on hand to pay ALL of their bills for at least 3 months rather than go belly up from not working for only 2 weeks.

We ALL always have a choice. The idea that someone only has the choice between getting a paycheck from the federal government and going and getting another loan to pay for the first loan that they can't pay because they were piss poor planners is not only disingenuous, but morally bankrupt. In this country we all have not only the choice, but the opportunity to better ourselves and then some.

Another good question is WHY IN THE FLYING MONKEY POO do we need 800,000 Federal workers? And before anyone goes there, yes, I've lost my job before and was at one time out of work for more than 3 months. In the end, it all comes down to responsibility. Responsibility of both idiot political stooge parties for creating this mess and responsibility of the individual collecting a paycheck to care and provide for their families.

It never occurred to you that you can have more than one emergency at a time? For instance, having to pay for expensive chemo treatment drained your savings 3 months ago, but at least you've got a nice stable federal job! Oh wait... Also, remember these workers also had to deal with a 10% pay cut this year due to sequester furloughs, so their savings were already a bit light.

Comment Re:Oh how I love this game! (Score 4, Insightful) 767

Lost productivity? Those are non essential people, there was no productivity lost in reality. Are you going to make up something about how they were spinning gold or some such to claim that "no really they are very productive people"? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every one of those people do the best they can at their jobs, so I don't mean that as a personal insult to them. My claim is that those people are non essential people. They are not required for defending our borders from a massive invasion, they are not required to judge legal matters, they are not required to mitigate our laughable trade imbalance, and they are not required for other members of society to perform their daily activities.

There is of course a red herring where you could claim that a service industry that relies on that many Government workers suffered. It's a false argument of course, because if we took away those non-essential jobs and returned the tax money to those of us that pay, that service industry would make the same amount of money.

Now to the other point you made in "Considering that we have to pay 800,000 people for time they didn't (couldn't) work", this is another line of crap from politicians. We don't "have" to pay them! This was a politician's decision to GIVE them money. Many of them are going to get Unemployment in addition to getting PTO. We didn't have to give them anything, but a politician chose to give them YOUR TAX MONEY! Makes you feel good don't it?

I don't think you understand the difference between non-essential and non-productive. For instance, the FDA was considered non-essential because the country could still function for a while without food inspection (or so they thought, a few thousand people who recently got salmonella might disagree if they could get away from the toilet long enough to post). Systems might need to be upgraded -- anyone working on improvements to existing infrastructure would be considered non-essential. As for the "paid time off" argument.. Well, they didn't exactly ask for this time off, did they? If you were working at a private employer and they said "we can't pay you, and you can go home, but we promise to pay you back at some indeterminate time in the future", would you consider that a paid vacation? I wouldn't. I would consider that time to look for a better employer. I was a federal employee for 3 years, but I left 6 months ago for the private sector because the benefits, pay, and stability of a federal job were terrible. I'll say that again, the benefits, pay, and stability of a federal job is significantly worse than in the private sector.

Complain all you want about government employees, but at the end of the day most of them bust their ass for people like yourself who demand that they all be fired.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Working...