PDA

View Full Version : House approves back pay for federal workers




green73
10-05-2013, 10:16 AM
The House voted unanimously Saturday to retroactively pay back federal workers who are not receiving a paycheck because of the government shutdown.

Members approved the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act, H.R. 3223, in a 407-0 vote, with 25 members not voting.

Workers will not be paid until the shutdown — now in its fifth day — ends. About 800,000 workers have been furloughed.

cont
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/326773-house-approves-back-pay-for-workers-hit-by-the-shutdown

torchbearer
10-05-2013, 10:18 AM
if they didn't pass this- their work would be considered slave labor and illegal under the 14th amendment.
its still slave labor because if the shutdown continues to inifinity- they will be compelled by force to work- and never get paid.

Danke
10-05-2013, 10:22 AM
So if they are going to get paid, open up the fricking parks!!

Brian4Liberty
10-05-2013, 10:29 AM
What a crock of sh*t. Giving away taxpayer money is fun! Bonus paid vacations for all government workers, layoffs for the private sector! Next up, a new amnesty immigration bill to bring in a sh*t-ton of new workers to make sure that American layoffs are permanent. And then everyone can go on the government tit with food stamps, extended unemployment payments and welfare. What a country!

seapilot
10-05-2013, 10:43 AM
So if they are going to get paid, open up the fricking parks!!

They cant open the parks because they are on paid vacation. The ones on duty with guns are doing their best to keep the people out to make sure local private business and workers wont get paid. FUBAR!

DGambler
10-05-2013, 11:10 AM
What a crock of shit.... Leeches, everyone that works for the government is a parasite, you'd never get furloughed and then then paid in the private sector.

Ranger29860
10-05-2013, 11:12 AM
So apparently government shutdown = paid vacation?

torchbearer
10-05-2013, 11:15 AM
So apparently government shutdown = paid vacation?

only if the government passes a CR or budget.
until then- they have bills with no pay.
let the shutdown go on for years to come.

tod evans
10-05-2013, 11:17 AM
Heros one-n-all!

Brett85
10-05-2013, 11:23 AM
This is what I was explaining to my liberal uncles who were complaining about all of the "harm" that this is going to cause government employees. These people are basically getting a two week paid vacation. I would want the government to shut down if I were a government employee.

Brian4Liberty
10-05-2013, 03:32 PM
if they didn't pass this- their work would be considered slave labor and illegal under the 14th amendment.
its still slave labor because if the shutdown continues to inifinity- they will be compelled by force to work- and never get paid.

This was just for the people who weren't working. That would appear to mean that those who are actually working during this faux shutdown were never at risk of not being paid.

kcchiefs6465
10-05-2013, 04:43 PM
Did Amash and Massie vote for this bullshit... or were they not present?

Rudeman
10-05-2013, 04:53 PM
Did Amash and Massie vote for this bullshit... or were they not present?

They both voted for it:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h525

puppetmaster
10-05-2013, 05:33 PM
only if the government passes a CR or budget.
until then- they have bills with no pay.
let the shutdown go on for years to come.
Time for Rome to burn baby burn

seapilot
10-05-2013, 05:52 PM
only if the government passes a CR or budget.
until then- they have bills with no pay.
let the shutdown go on for years to come.

If that happens expect lots of government property (the small mobile kind) start getting sold off under the table to highest cash buyers.

Happened in Russia, heck they almost sold a sub to some drug smugglers.

TaftFan
10-05-2013, 05:53 PM
This was the right decision even though I know everyone likes to get in a shot at government employees.

Brian4Liberty
10-05-2013, 06:20 PM
They both voted for it:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h525

Doesn't Justin explain each of his votes?

kcchiefs6465
10-05-2013, 06:24 PM
Doesn't Justin explain each of his votes?
He has fallen behind on explaining a few votes lately and meant to get caught up. I'm not sure if he has yet or not. Eventually he will post an explanation though.

kcchiefs6465
10-05-2013, 06:24 PM
This was the right decision even though I know everyone likes to get in a shot at government employees.
Like fuck it was.

oyarde
10-05-2013, 06:33 PM
So if they are going to get paid, open up the fricking parks!!

Which one do you want in ? If you take me along as tour guide I can show you access.I have special privledges and bolt cutters.LOL

Cabal
10-05-2013, 07:15 PM
So, they're effectively on paid vacation?

TaftFan
10-05-2013, 07:30 PM
Like fuck it was.

So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

I'm all for getting rid of federal workers, but cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.

kcchiefs6465
10-05-2013, 07:43 PM
So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

I'm all for getting rid of federal workers, but cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.
First, I understand what you are saying. I am sympathetic towards those who find themselves in a bind because of a moment's notice suspension of employment or pay. In my ideal scenario to avoid a default and restrain government to its proper confines I'd want a transitioning period for all those who have become accustomed to government loot. Simply pulling out the rug beneath people would be much more painful than needed though less painful than a hyper-inflated currency or default.

As to what I would say to the people who need money to provide for their families; it would be short and to the point. Get real goddamn jobs why don't you?

Not that I am particularly hostile to their position individually but collectively, they are at best weights around the throat of productivity. At worst, and I do believe this to be true, they are siphoning productivity, or in other words, leeching off of the sweat the average American puts in week in and week out.

It is more about those who can't help themselves than it is those who consciously retain employment where they are. I'd also note the actual back pay money will be by and large swindled, flat out wasted, or otherwise simply regarded as another man's money. Frugality be damned and I'd rather not even know of the dumbass ways the money is spent.

MRK
10-05-2013, 07:53 PM
So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

I'm all for getting rid of federal workers, but cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.

When I was 18, 19 and 20 I had relatively comfy summer government jobs in various departments where I was paid $12 an hour. If I had worked there full time it would have been closer to $20 plus cadillac health benefits and I was guaranteed a job. Not bad for fresh out of college - especially considering this was post crash.

Instead of taking the public sector job that paid above fair wage for my labor I went into the private sector making half as much. I even went unemployed for a few months while looking for a job while I could have easily made a few phone calls and fixed my situation by signing up with the government.

I knew it was the right move because there is job security in actually producing something.

So I have no sympathy for these people.

If a young kid could figure out that there was something wrong with the situation then there is no excuse for a well aged adult not to at least put back a bunch of savings for when the gravy train tax stream comes to an end.

seapilot
10-05-2013, 07:53 PM
Furlough??? Loving It!!!!! The people that still have to stay on the job are no doubt jealous.





http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wkdq.com/files/2013/05/Vacation-630x420.jpg


This is how most federal employees probably view it. They know the Fed will continue to create funny money so no worry for them not getting paid. Private workers and business hear furlough they know its a nice way of saying they are terminated.

Danke
10-05-2013, 08:34 PM
Which one do you want in ? If you take me along as tour guide I can show you access.I have special privledges and bolt cutters.LOL

Shark Valley. I want to go for a bike ride there.

Cleaner44
10-05-2013, 08:44 PM
Doesn't this still have to go to the Senate and then Obama?

Haven't the Democrats been threatening to block and veto anything piecemeal?

If Obama signs this, how does he explain not signing a bill that singles out other issues such as national parks?

cornell
10-05-2013, 09:28 PM
So basically furloughed federal employees are getting extra paid vacation days this year?

Dr.3D
10-06-2013, 12:17 AM
So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

I'm all for getting rid of federal workers, but cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.
Let em go on unemployment like everybody else does when they get laid off.

Brian4Liberty
10-06-2013, 12:23 AM
So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

I'm all for getting rid of federal workers, but cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.

WTF are you talking about? In the real economy, people aren't guaranteed shit. People are laid off every day. And if you are being paid good money with benefits and you can't last a week without pay, then you deserve whatever happens to you when the government tit runs dry!

tod evans
10-06-2013, 01:40 AM
So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

Get a job!


I'm all for getting rid of federal workers, but cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

Right for whom? Cutting federal expenditure is the "right thing to do", especially given that the USA is broke.


Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.

No but it's a start. Chicken/egg............

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 07:35 AM
So what do you say to those people who need the money, you know, to provide for families?

I say to them, there is no natural right to get the things you "need", and the Constitution does not promise job security to government employees. If you want handouts from a government, move to the Soviet Union.


cutting off pay without warning is not the right thing to do.

They've been warned for 224 years, since 1789:


All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives....

And if that somehow wasn't enough, the current shutdown hereby warns future government employees.


Targeting government workers does nothing to address the symptom behind the fact there are so many of them.

Anything that deters people from taking government jobs helps.

Let every government employee be on notice: tyrannical-majority attempts to enlarge government can backfire. Suck up the blowback.

800,000 bums weaned from the teat.

800,000 drones disarmed.

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 07:49 AM
if they didn't pass this- their work would be considered slave labor and illegal under the 14th amendment.

13th, but they aren't working or being compelled to do anything, so how would there be a violation?


Eventually he will post an explanation though.

Inexcusable.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 07:51 AM
It's odd to read this thread. I realize most of you do make a distinction between jobs and Government jobs, but if some Government agency swooped in and told you that you'd be off your job for a few weeks (starting immediately) but don't worry they'll pay you afterwards, how prepared would you be? How okay with it would you be? We'd see thread after thread about the injustice of it.

There's also this perception that those 800,000 people have oodles of money. Cafeteria workers, lab techs at the VA who draw blood, and a whole lot of other jobs are not exactly ways to get rich. The big-salary wastes of space are still working and Congress (unless they opted themselves out) is still getting paid.

If you're going to compare this to layoffs, okay. Where is the severance pay? Years ago, when both sources of income in my household died out due to layoffs on the same day, we had weeks of pay to figure things out with. At that time we WERE living paycheck to paycheck.

Does that mean we should fling money at these jobs? No, and I agree that if this went on for a long time those jobs would be a little less attractive as time goes on, but merely leaving the AGENCIES in place with no workers is the backwards way of doing it. All that will happen is that more and more workers will be deemed essential and brought back on to work, or those on the job will half-ass it so mistakes can be blamed on the lack of agencies.

If you really think that wars will end, drones will be disarmed, and the Government will be spending way less money because of this, I have to question your intelligence. Were SS checks withheld at the start of this month? Have Medicare and Medicaid stopped --- oh wait those just got bigger! Are all the troops home? Has Kerry stopped globetrotting to make deals with foreign nations?

Oh but someone who works as a tour guide lost their job temporarily.

Well. That victory certainly makes me feel warm and fuzzy, right?

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 07:58 AM
I realize most of you do make a distinction between jobs and Government jobs, but if some Government agency swooped in and told you that you'd be off your job for a few weeks (starting immediately) but don't worry they'll pay you afterwards, how prepared would you be? How okay with it would you be? We'd see thread after thread about the injustice of it.

If my employer told me I'd be off my job for a few weeks, I'd be okay with it. If you told your employee he'd be off his job for a few weeks and you were punished for doing that, how okay with it would you be?


Oh but someone who works as a tour guide lost their job temporarily.

Well. That victory certainly makes me feel warm and fuzzy, right?

Anything that weakens demand for government jobs is progress. These people are entitled to nothing. Liberty does not reward people for making bad choices, which all these people did. If they are mentally incompetent enough to take government jobs, they are invalids who can be supported by their families or charities, but not by me.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 08:08 AM
If my employer told me I'd be off my job for a few weeks, I'd be okay with it. If you told your employee he'd be off his job for a few weeks and you were punished for doing that, how okay with it would you be?



Anything that weakens demand for government jobs is progress. These people are entitled to nothing. Liberty does not reward people for making bad choices, which all these people did.

So you don't think this forum would be seething with angry posts if the Government told a company to shut down without paychecks and that they'd just pay them back later whenever Government got around to it? Essentially a 100% tax on your income, to be paid back later without interest?

There is a constant meme that every Government worker makes oodles of money and should have pillowcases full of cash. In reality, there are a number of people for whom that first check of the month would have been their rent money.

I don't say that to feel sorry for these workers, but out of frustration that we're all being played. By the looks of this thread, it's working. This isn't stopping any of the hurtful godawful things the Government does. It's giving them a distraction so they can do more. Punishing a bunch of "non-essential" workers by withholding pay --- and it is still a punishment to be randomly put on paid vacation when you don't know when the "paid" part will kick in --- is a PR move. Closing the parks? They're meant to inconvenience people in very visible ways. You'll notice they're not really addressing the "non-essential" workers who actually might be essential to some. That's bad PR if that gets out.

Again, in the meantime, this is the perfect smokescreen for the really awful shit the Government is still doing. But people want to cheer holding paychecks from some workers. Might as well fire squirt guns at a forest fire.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 08:10 AM
Oh, and before another round of "this would never happen in the private sector!" I do get paid when the office is closed through no fault of my own.

Root
10-06-2013, 08:20 AM
I have zero sympathy for anyone who works a government job who has to deal with making ends meet during the "shutdown". The US govt has a long track record of lying to everyone (citizens, other governments, themselves), unethical actions and general manipulation. The should have realized who they choose to work for.

That at being said, I hope they all enjoy their taxpayer paid vacations.

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 08:25 AM
So you don't think this forum would be seething with angry posts if the Government told a company to shut down without paychecks and that they'd just pay them back later whenever Government got around to it?

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to do what you're describing, so I'd understand objections in that scenario on constitutional grounds. I think the more fitting analogies are the two I gave in my previous post, 1st paragraph, though.


There is a constant meme that every Government worker makes oodles of money and should have pillowcases full of cash.

Not from me.


In reality, there are a number of people for whom that first check of the month would have been their rent money.

I favor any amount of harm done to them; not as punishment for the past, but as deterrence for the future. My heart doesn't bleed for government, no matter how smiley a face it wears.

tod evans
10-06-2013, 08:27 AM
Government must be reigned in.

If the whining and sniveling about low level workers in indicative of what's to come all I can say is Lord help us when the real tax-ticks get the ax.

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 08:33 AM
In reality, there are a number of people for whom that first check of the month would have been their rent money.

There is no natural right to rent-money. Not only aren't they entitled to rent money, but when you use government to provide housing, food, and health care for people, you are taking housing, food, and health care from others. If these people can't survive without government jobs, I have no problem letting nature take its course with them.

Government employment is effectively a form of welfare, to which I'm opposed for reasons given here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429673-Government-Shutdown-9-Million-Moms-And-Babies-At-Risk-As-WIC-Program-Halts&p=5256800&viewfull=1#post5256800
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429429-Welfare-or-Warfare-Government-Shutdown-9-Million-Moms-And-Babies-At-Risk-As-WIC-Program-Halt&p=5253725#post5253725
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429429-Welfare-or-Warfare-Government-Shutdown-9-Million-Moms-And-Babies-At-Risk-As-WIC-Program-Halt&p=5255160&viewfull=1#post5255160

HOLLYWOOD
10-06-2013, 10:12 AM
NO Work, NO Pay... it's the risks you take in life. You get laid-off, you don't get paid and go collect unemployment. As far as Congress goes, this is 100% to cover their spineless asses. They don't want Americans catching on to the big con game. This is the prefect example how government destroys productivity, backs to their wicked ways of bribery, extortion, racketeering, corruption, and fraud... all to keep their power/control, at the expense of the taxpayers.

AND yes... I know so-called "furloughed government workers"... I wish I would of recorded and posted their conversions. Basically, enjoying paid vacations, getting things done about the house, goofing off, you name it, those .gov workers are enjoying it.

The picture below reflects exactly what the government employees feel of the shutdown. BTW, it's only about 20% of Federal paychecked employees furloughed.


Furlough??? Loving It!!!!! The people that still have to stay on the job are no doubt jealous.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wkdq.com/files/2013/05/Vacation-630x420.jpg


This is how most federal employees probably view it. They know the Fed will continue to create funny money so no worry for them not getting paid. Private workers and business hear furlough they know its a nice way of saying they are terminated.

seapilot
10-06-2013, 10:29 AM
In this current situation Id rather be a furloughed govt worker than a small business that depends on visitors being threatened by use of force or penalty to stop servicing people. Its basically shut down or we pull your permit and shut you down permanently. Yet those doing the intimidating do not have to worry financially about their future. Its ironic that those business pay taxes to the govt and they are now using those taxes to keep them from generating more tax revenue. Not only that but each visitor to the parks pay a fee to enter. Those fees go directly to the Park Service. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 11:02 AM
I yield. The logic level in this thread has convinced me that withholding the checks of people who work for the Government is going to end all of the huge Government ills out there, or at least make some meaningful dent, and will not in fact lead to blowback and additional Government programs to study the problem and ensure that nothing this catastrophic ever happens again. There is nothing more dire than withholding their checks. It is, in fact, worthy of massive celebration.

kcchiefs6465
10-06-2013, 11:25 AM
I yield. The logic level in this thread has convinced me that withholding the checks of people who work for the Government is going to end all of the huge Government ills out there, or at least make some meaningful dent, and will not in fact lead to blowback and additional Government programs to study the problem and ensure that nothing this catastrophic ever happens again. There is nothing more dire than withholding their checks. It is, in fact, worthy of massive celebration.
Nobody said that.

For some reason I am supposed to feel sorry for at best neutrally productive people sent home for a few days only to receive back pay with interest. What a fucking joke. Not only do I not feel particularly bad for these people, though I have sympathy for the young who cannot help themselves, it should be straight away clear cut that they ought get real goddamn jobs. That this "shutdown" won't lead to them being told as much is indicative of the spinelessness of Congress and the general welfarist attitude Americans project. Let's build billion dollar submarines that no one wants because otherwise people starve and die in the streets. Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 11:34 AM
Nobody said that.

For some reason I am supposed to feel sorry for at best neutrally productive people sent home for a few days only to receive back pay with interest. What a fucking joke. Not only do I not feel particularly bad for these people, though I have sympathy for the young who cannot help themselves, it should be straight away clear cut that they ought get real goddamn jobs. That this "shutdown" won't lead to them being told as much is indicative of the spinelessness of Congress and the general welfarist attitude Americans project. Let's build billion dollar submarines that no one wants because otherwise people starve and die in the streets. Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

There's interest on it now? I must have missed that. It's not in the article or in any similar ones I've read.

Again, you've decided to use hyperbole here. The people building those submarines are not Government workers. They are being bought by the Government, though. Did furloughing workers stop the subs from being built and purchased? No. It was aimed at "stopping the loan approval process" and furloughing secretaries and techs at the VA hospital who'd normally draw blood and process lab work. It is framed as torpedoing WIC and welfare (even though that's not really happening, either). It isn't chopping off the arms of Government. It is giving it a hangnail.

Non-essential employees who could not go to work because their workplace was shut down will be getting back pay. I don't love it, but I also don't take it as hard as some here are. I guess I wasn't as enraptured by the idea of a tiny fraction of Government workers --- the ones who make the least and do the most, in several cases --- being furloughed while the bigger problems are still being paid.

Maybe that's where the focus should be? "Essential" workers will be getting back pay when it's all over, but they were working this whole time. "Non-essential" workers will be getting back pay when it's all over, but they weren't working this whole time. The Government workers themselves should be the ones pissed off about it.

Brian4Liberty
10-06-2013, 11:44 AM
I yield. The logic level in this thread has convinced me that withholding the checks of people who work for the Government is going to end all of the huge Government ills out there, or at least make some meaningful dent, and will not in fact lead to blowback and additional Government programs to study the problem and ensure that nothing this catastrophic ever happens again. There is nothing more dire than withholding their checks. It is, in fact, worthy of massive celebration.

:rolleyes:

You've been straw-manning.

Your main point seems to be about the cruelty of a sudden loss of income or a job, which is not unique to this situation. It happens all the time. This shutdown was no surprise. We all knew it was coming. As far as anecdotes about layoff details, I can point to a couple of times I have been laid off, one time from one of the largest and oldest corporations in the nation, and there was not a severance. Once again, this is a discussion that is greater in scope than just this specific government "shutdown".

Your point about us "all being played" is very relevant. But it doesn't mean that anyone here is being suckered. On the contrary, the anger stems directly from the fact that it is charade. Furloughs are supposed to save money. At this point, especially after this vote, this so-called shutdown is actually costing more money than would be spent just keeping it running. DC loves to spend money, and apparently fighting that fact only results in more money being spent.

This is beyond discouraging.

SludgeFactory
10-06-2013, 11:49 AM
Nobody said that.

For some reason I am supposed to feel sorry for at best neutrally productive people sent home for a few days only to receive back pay with interest. What a fucking joke. Not only do I not feel particularly bad for these people, though I have sympathy for the young who cannot help themselves, it should be straight away clear cut that they ought get real goddamn jobs. That this "shutdown" won't lead to them being told as much is indicative of the spinelessness of Congress and the general welfarist attitude Americans project. Let's build billion dollar submarines that no one wants because otherwise people starve and die in the streets. Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

I think it would be far more productive if we focused all this energy on the actual agencies themselves as opposed to the people who are employed by them. Not every agency is an NSA type place where the workers knowingly undermine the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. That said, many of the agencies that have been formed should be shut down. Going after the individual people that work at these agencies won't solve that. Instead, supporting and pushing your representatives to support something like Rand Paul's bill a year or so ago that would defund many of these agencies would be an excellent start.

phill4paul
10-06-2013, 11:49 AM
Since they are going to receive back pay then shouldn't they, you know, go back to work?

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 11:52 AM
:rolleyes:

You've been straw-manning.

Your main point seems to be about the cruelty of a sudden loss of income or a job, which is not unique to this situation. It happens all the time. This shutdown was no surprise. We all knew it was coming. As far as anecdotes about layoff details, I can point to a couple of times I have been laid off, one time from one of the largest and oldest corporations in the nation, and there was not a severance. Once again, this is a discussion that is greater in scope than just this specific government "shutdown".

Your point about us "all being played" is very relevant. But it doesn't mean that anyone here is being suckered. On the contrary, the anger stems directly from the fact that it is charade. Furloughs are supposed to save money. At this point, especially after this vote, this so-called shutdown is actually costing more money than would be spent just keeping it running. DC loves to spend money, and apparently fighting that fact only results in more money being spent.

This is beyond discouraging.

I've been addressing the strawmen others have put up, including the one I bolded. It happens in other situations; others have mentioned layoffs. When you are laid off, there is usually severance pay. It is not generally withheld for an indeterminate period of time. So yeah, that part's a strawman.

The furlough, even BEFORE this back pay for non-essential personnel, was going to cost a shitload of money.

tod evans
10-06-2013, 11:54 AM
Since they are going to receive back pay then shouldn't they, you know, go back to work?

http://caveviews.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bffd953ef016767ab80e3970b-800wi

phill4paul
10-06-2013, 11:57 AM
http://caveviews.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bffd953ef016767ab80e3970b-800wi

I have up most respect for that handicapped shovel. Too proud to let federal workers help it to stand.

kcchiefs6465
10-06-2013, 11:59 AM
There's interest on it now? I must have missed that. It's not in the article or in any similar ones I've read.

Again, you've decided to use hyperbole here. The people building those submarines are not Government workers. They are being bought by the Government, though. Did furloughing workers stop the subs from being built and purchased? No. It was aimed at "stopping the loan approval process" and furloughing secretaries and techs at the VA hospital who'd normally draw blood and process lab work. It is framed as torpedoing WIC and welfare (even though that's not really happening, either). It isn't chopping off the arms of Government. It is giving it a hangnail.

Non-essential employees who could not go to work because their workplace was shut down will be getting back pay. I don't love it, but I also don't take it as hard as some here are. I guess I wasn't as enraptured by the idea of a tiny fraction of Government workers --- the ones who make the least and do the most, in several cases --- being furloughed while the bigger problems are still being paid.

Maybe that's where the focus should be? "Essential" workers will be getting back pay when it's all over, but they were working this whole time. "Non-essential" workers will be getting back pay when it's all over, but they weren't working this whole time. The Government workers themselves should be the ones pissed off about it.
What you technically label those building the submarine is nothing short of semantics. The government, against the wishes of the Navy in some instances, approves of another round of contracts aimed at simply keeping people in key Congressional districts with jobs. It is nothing short of corporate, tax funded, (inflationary or otherwise) welfare. I understand that this isn't some big triumph to be paraded around but to be clear, the reason things people like are attacked first is to discourage Americans to ever consider stopping a dime of the gravy train. The truly worthless or even detrimental no doubt are still "working." Of course, they'll target WIC and National Parks as a means to get Americans back in line and to dissuade any future thoughts or realizations that this bloated, overbearing, corporatacracy is not needed.

tod evans
10-06-2013, 12:00 PM
I have up most respect for that handicapped shovel. Too proud to let federal workers help it to stand.

I couldn't help it...

That's the mental picture I have of every government employee.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 12:07 PM
What you technically label those building the submarine is nothing short of semantics. The government, against the wishes of the Navy in some instances, approves of another round of contracts aimed at simply keeping people in key Congressional districts with jobs. It is nothing short of corporate, tax funded, (inflationary or otherwise) welfare. I understand that this isn't some big triumph to be paraded around but to be clear, the reason things people like are attacked first is to discourage Americans to ever consider stopping a dime of the gravy train. The truly worthless or even detrimental no doubt are still "working." Of course, they'll target WIC and National Parks as a means to get Americans back in line and to dissuade any future thoughts or realizations that this bloated, overbearing, corporatacracy is not needed.

I should have been more specific about the submarine thing; that's my fault. I meant that in the context of *this* conversation, the submarine-building is not stopping because of this furlough or any other. The Government is still BUYING things, it has just reduced its EMPLOYMENT of people... and that only by a very small percent.

Brian4Liberty
10-06-2013, 12:13 PM
I've been addressing the strawmen others have put up, including the one I bolded. It happens in other situations; others have mentioned layoffs. When you are laid off, there is usually severance pay. It is not generally withheld for an indeterminate period of time. So yeah, that part's a strawman.

The furlough, even BEFORE this back pay for non-essential personnel, was going to cost a shitload of money.

I've used the "lay-off" comparison because it is worse than a furlough. Worse things can and do happen than a furlough, much more often in the private sector than with our benevolent and generous government.

TaftFan
10-06-2013, 12:14 PM
Responding to some of the comments directed at my post...

1. Working for the federal government does not mean you have a "fake" job. Many of these jobs are very useful, they just shouldn't be done by the federal government. But because the federal government can establish a monopoly due to either laws restricting competition or because its pay and benefits make it the best place for job seekers, people will work their and they should based on economic incentives.

2. It obviously was not stupid for these people to take the government jobs. The bill to pay them, after all, did get passed unanimously.

3. I never said anybody has a right to a job, government or private sector.

4. These people are not going to file for unemployment because then they would have to quit their job, which would be insanely stupid. Plus, putting people on unemployment means they are being paid by the government for doing nothing whatsoever.

5. Let's see what happens when 17% of the workforce has to default on monthly payments because their employer decided that they wouldn't get paid for a month. Sure, they are on vacation, but I guarantee they would rather work for money than not work and have no money. It wasn't their decision.

6. No, you don't tell these workers to "get a job". Imagine going up to a business and saying, "Hey, can you hire me for the remainder of the government shutdown"? There is no way in hell they will be hired.

TaftFan
10-06-2013, 12:16 PM
To be clear, I support reducing the federal workforce. Not paying them for the duration of the shutdown not only doesn't do that, it creates more problems than whatever benefit would come from not paying them their salaries.

Brian4Liberty
10-06-2013, 12:24 PM
http://caveviews.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bffd953ef016767ab80e3970b-800wi

I'd wager those are the slaves that Torchbearer mentioned earlier.

(I.e. Community service.)

Ender
10-06-2013, 12:25 PM
I think it would be far more productive if we focused all this energy on the actual agencies themselves as opposed to the people who are employed by them. Not every agency is an NSA type place where the workers knowingly undermine the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. That said, many of the agencies that have been formed should be shut down. Going after the individual people that work at these agencies won't solve that. Instead, supporting and pushing your representatives to support something like Rand Paul's bill a year or so ago that would defund many of these agencies would be an excellent start.


Agreed- get rid of the agencies that have no bearing on how a republic should function is the right first step. Punishing the little guys who work for them is non-profitable in many ways.

kcchiefs6465
10-06-2013, 12:35 PM
6. No, you don't tell these workers to "get a job". Imagine going up to a business and saying, "Hey, can you hire me for the remainder of the government shutdown"? There is no way in hell they will be hired.
I wasn't referring to them getting a job for three days to supplement their lack of welfare. I was saying that they should get real goddamn jobs actually producing something... you know, for the foreseeable future; not until Daddy approves more funds for them. Or they shouldn't. Whatever; that would be up to them. I do know that they shouldn't be paid through the destruction of a currency or the theft of hardworking people's fruits of labor.

You can spout the useful services they provide all day long but I'll tell you this, I haven't even noticed they've been gone. Let them stay wherever the hell they went and let me not hear another word about it and that would be just great. Yes, their useful service of permitting people to look at natural monuments. Because, you know, no one could visit the Grand Canyon without federal employees stamping hands and giving tours.

My sympathies are draining as this thread moves on. They are off for a week. Boo the fuck hoo. I'd hate to see the day an actual change of status quo is projected. The horror of freedom.

25,000,000 government employees. And I'm the radical who wishes people actually produce or provide a service without being subsidized by the people who do?

Paying one seventh of the workforce through the theft of the rest is about as radical an idea as I could imagine.

They're big boys and girls. Send them home and let them decide for themselves what they wish to do.

HOLLYWOOD
10-06-2013, 01:24 PM
What's amazing are the charges of contractors, seems to always be over inflated. A contractor receiving $25/hr, the corporation is billing the US government $250/hr. Of course the contractor has to justify, which they do to government by showing costs of management, buildings, utilities, travel, HealthCare, Boondoggle conferences, resort meetings, executive housing, private jets, Insurances, etc... what isn't told to government(who knows anyway) and more so the US taxpayers, are all those expenses to justify the $250/hr are written-off by Corporate welfare/tax code - Lobbyist/Campaign donations of corporations/defense contractors.

Then there's the memos to design a new $200M fighter jet, must include parts & processes in as many states as possible so that makes it harder to kill the contracts with so many Congress critters effected by contracts in their districts. It's been done over and over and over with big contracts. Of course they'll also get media to exploit the propaganda to the apathetic/clueless taxpayers.

Here's a great example of the U.S. Army doesn't want anymore M1 Abrams tanks... surprisingly, CNN covered this, and you witness first hand how government graft is complicit in the racket that manifests upon itself and the poor taxpayers/Americans are on the hook for more; Taxes/Inflation, Lower standard of living/Less Freedom-Liberty.

Army to Congress: Thanks, but No Tanks (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/)

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/



What you technically label those building the submarine is nothing short of semantics. The government, against the wishes of the Navy in some instances, approves of another round of contracts aimed at simply keeping people in key Congressional districts with jobs. It is nothing short of corporate, tax funded, (inflationary or otherwise) welfare. I understand that this isn't some big triumph to be paraded around but to be clear, the reason things people like are attacked first is to discourage Americans to ever consider stopping a dime of the gravy train. The truly worthless or even detrimental no doubt are still "working." Of course, they'll target WIC and National Parks as a means to get Americans back in line and to dissuade any future thoughts or realizations that this bloated, overbearing, corporatacracy is not needed.

phill4paul
10-06-2013, 01:33 PM
http://caveviews.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bffd953ef016767ab80e3970b-800wi

Actually the more I look at this picture the more I see the symbology. The workers symbolize the government. The shovels being held up by the workers (government) are the welfare recipients. The little shovel standing on it's own symbolizes people like us. And it show the grand scale of what we are up against. :cool:

tod evans
10-06-2013, 01:47 PM
6. No, you don't tell these workers to "get a job".

As a self employed person who carries at least two of these worthless bags of shit, YES! I am entitled to say "get a job"...

Sucking the tax-tit is by no means gainful employment. It is service sector employment just like McDonalds only it pays a hell of a lot better and provides less.

kcchiefs6465
10-06-2013, 01:50 PM
What's amazing are the charges of contractors, seems to always be over inflated. A contractor receiving $25/hr, the corporation is billing the US government $250/hr. Of course the contractor has to justify, which they do to government by showing costs of management, buildings, utilities, travel, HealthCare, Boondoggle conferences, resort meetings, executive housing, private jets, Insurances, etc... what isn't told to government(who knows anyway) and more so the US taxpayers, are all those expenses to justify the $250/hr are written-off by Corporate welfare/tax code - Lobbyist/Campaign donations of corporations/defense contractors.

Then there's the memos to design a new $200 fighter jet must include parts & processes in as many states as possible so that makes it harder to kill the contracts with so many Congress critters effected by contracts in their districts. It's been done over and over and over with big contracts. Of course they'll also get media to exploit the propaganda to the apathetic/clueless taxpayers.

Here's a great example of the U.S. Army doesn't want anymore M1 Abrams tanks... surprisingly, CNN covered this, and you witness first hand how government graft is complicit in the racket that manifests upon itself and the poor taxpayers/Americans are on the hook for more; Taxes/Inflation, Lower standard of living/Less Freedom-Liberty.

Yes, sir.

Same with the B-2 bomber or the V-22 Osprey that the Air Force didn't want or the Seawolf submarines the Navy didn't want.

Somehow I am considered heartless (not here, but when speaking to people) for suggesting the people who are paid some $50+ an hour to build these worthless machines of death and destruction not be funded through corporate subsidies and stolen loot. "Think about their families", I'm told. Hardly justifiable to pay enormously inflated costs to build weapons of destruction we do not need and which are not wanted to destroy countries half-way around the world, making us less safe, only to grant KBR, et al. contracts to rebuild what was needlessly destroyed.

Truth be told I feel worse for the bombed peasants drinking depleted uranium contaminated water than I would for those making their lucrative pay through such a detrimental policy losing their jobs.

No matter what they continue to be built. It is no shocker when you look at the Congressional districts these welfare handouts are directed to.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 01:54 PM
I am just going to leave this here as a placeholder for myself.

I don't think what I mean to say, and what I am actually typing, are lining up. I have a nasty migraine and it's possible that I am jumbling things up badly on this one, so I am going to bow out, and hope to the Almighty that I don't have to hand out apologies later.

:o

silverhandorder
10-06-2013, 03:24 PM
Ideally we want no government. However you don't win friends by suddenly cutting off federal workers, even if it is only temporary. I would not look favorably on a private company if they were to do this. There needs to be a warning and a damn good reason if a warning did not come. But since the federal workers are getting paid, they should ideally go back to work. Unless there is more costs then payroll.

Dr.3D
10-06-2013, 03:58 PM
4. These people are not going to file for unemployment because then they would have to quit their job, which would be insanely stupid. Plus, putting people on unemployment means they are being paid by the government for doing nothing whatsoever.


When GM workers are laid off, they go on unemployment till they either get a new job or they are called back by GM. Of course nobody is going to hire a laid off GM worker because they should know he is going to go back to work with GM and they would lose their new employee anyway. Once this fact is understood, the part you mentioned about them having to quit their job is ridiculous. My mother was a teacher and she went on unemployment every summer, till she went back to work in the fall. She didn't have to quit her job.

Right now, with those people not working and still getting back pay it's just the same as them being paid by the government for doing nothing whatsoever except they have to wait for the back pay rather than being paid every two weeks like they would with unemployment.

TaftFan
10-06-2013, 04:03 PM
When GM workers are laid off, they go on unemployment till they either get a new job or they are called back by GM. Of course nobody is going to hire a laid off GM worker because they should know he is going to go back to work with GM and they would lose their new employee anyway. Once this fact is understood, the part you mentioned about them having to quit their job is ridiculous. My mother was a teacher and she went on unemployment every summer, till she went back to work in the fall. She didn't have to quit her job.

Right now, with those people not working and still getting back pay it's just the same as them being paid by the government for doing nothing whatsoever except they have to wait for the back pay rather than being paid every two weeks like they would with unemployment.

There is a difference between a furlough and getting laid off.

HOLLYWOOD
10-06-2013, 04:16 PM
http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/imagecache/feature400/afscme_demo.jpghttp://kukis.org/blog/conservativereview189/congresspaid.jpg
http://laborunionreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AFSCME2-AFL-CIO.jpg

madengr
10-06-2013, 04:21 PM
Let em go on unemployment like everybody else does when they get laid off.

They will, and get paid for the time off.

madengr
10-06-2013, 04:22 PM
http://laborunionreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AFSCME2-AFL-CIO.jpg

WTF? Is there anyone not obese in that photo?

tod evans
10-06-2013, 04:24 PM
Is there anyone not obese in that photo?

Have a heart man!

If those fine folks had to go work at McDoodles they'd cost the franchise business..

phill4paul
10-06-2013, 04:31 PM
WTF? Is there anyone not obese in that photo?

A distended abdomen is a sign of starvation. Oh, the humanity. And right here in Amerika!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1397/1398819087_5842afe2f5.jpg?v=0

69360
10-06-2013, 04:33 PM
They should have all been ordered back to work when the back pay bill passed.

madengr
10-06-2013, 04:42 PM
A distended abdomen is a sign of starvation. Oh, the humanity. And right here in Amerika!

I'll volunteer you for belly button inspections. Convex is truly distended, deeply concave for lard-o government union worker. I know I should not stereotype, but it's kind of hard not too.

That one in front has a nice white poster that screams for photoshopping. Something about Obamacare would be good.

Danke
10-06-2013, 04:50 PM
4. These people are not going to file for unemployment because then they would have to quit their job, which would be insanely stupid.

No, unless you have a really good reason, (like employer abuse, loss of childcare, etc.) you can't quit and collect unemployment. If you are furloughed you can.

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 09:33 PM
There needs to be a warning and a damn good reason if a warning did not come.

How was this not a "warning":


They've been warned for 224 years, since 1789:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives....


However you don't win friends by suddenly cutting off federal workers, even if it is only temporary.

Trying to win the friendship of government employees is your trip, not mine.

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 09:41 PM
Somehow I am considered heartless (not here, but when speaking to people) for suggesting the people who are paid some $50+ an hour to build these worthless machines of death and destruction not be funded through corporate subsidies and stolen loot. "Think about their families", I'm told.

You're told that by heartless (or maybe just myopic) people not thinking about the families that are harmed by welfare (including welfare disguised as government employment). Here's welfare in a nutshell:


Welfare's intent:

http://image.tutorvista.com/cms/images/38/exponential-growth-graph.JPG

Nothing could be more harmful to the children of future generations.

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 09:44 PM
Punishing the little guys who work for them is non-profitable in many ways.

They had no natural right to these job in the first place, so why do you call furlough "punishment"?

better-dead-than-fed
10-06-2013, 09:52 PM
Not paying them for the duration of the shutdown not only doesn't do that, it creates more problems than whatever benefit would come from not paying them their salaries.

The benefit of not paying their salaries would have been significant. The next time legislation was proposed to expand government, we could have said, "but remember all those government employees who starved last time you tried that?" It would have been real deterrence. Without that, we continue to head towards catastrophe you can't fathom if you're worried about furloughs.

libertariantexas
10-07-2013, 04:17 AM
This should surprise no one. We should have all known that this was nothing more than a paid vacation for government slugs.

green73
10-07-2013, 08:16 AM
Republicans Are Evil, Even the ‘Conservative’ Ones
by Laurence M. Vance

The Republican-controlled House has passed the “Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act” to provide “for compensation of federal employees furloughed due to any lapse in appropriations that begins on or about October 1, 2013, for the period of such lapse in appropriations.” The vote was 417-0. This means that every Republican in the House that voted (13 Republicans did not vote), voted for the bill. Forget all their talk about fiscal conservatism, reining in government spending, eliminating unnecessary government programs and agencies, limited government, etc., etc., etc. The Republican Party is pure evil (just like the Democratic Party). It cannot be reformed. It cannot be taken over. It cannot be made libertarian. It cannot be restored. It should be abandoned. There is no difference between the parties when it comes to our life, liberty, and property.

No, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for overpaid, underworked, and unecessary federal workers, 95 percent of whom help carry out unconstitutional activities of the federal government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/republicans-are-evil-even-the-conservative-ones/