“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#162 Feb 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't discuss. You ask questions, get answers, and then Lord your judgement down on the answer - even if someone else is right, even if they are the ones with experience which you don't have. You said IRS hiring had flatlined, I quoted otherwise, you then say I don't understand a budget. Okey dokey then.
Let me explain.

A budget ask is not the same as actually receiving the funding and hiring the people.

GK was making the case that expansion has been going on now for some time. In fact, IRS was looking at a 6% decrease in manpower.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#163 Feb 16, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
It was actually Rahm Emanuel who said that
Thanks. George already straightened me out on that. In my defense, they are pretty interchangable, in my view.
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#164 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain.
A budget ask is not the same as actually receiving the funding and hiring the people.
GK was making the case that expansion has been going on now for some time. In fact, IRS was looking at a 6% decrease in manpower.
You two went round and round for two pages I think, until finally there was agreement.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#165 Feb 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
I give you a pass on the "bad call". Certainly it's no worse than any other citation that's used and George was right - sometimes that guy is right on the money.
I prefer to lead by example. Let's see if Twister can give an iota. I have my doubts.
Adif understanding

United States

#166 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, now, how you gonna enforce the laws while making the government smaller?
And has something significant happened between then and now to ensure that cost overruns and budget concerns would not again lead to such a critical error?
It's easy to enforce laws while making the government smaller. You simply make it more efficient and pick where the cuts go. When people want a smaller government, they aren't suggesting you put department names on a dart board and toss darts to decide where and what to cut.

As for the costs overruns and such, no, nothing has changed outside of regulators being replaced that actually enforce the laws. The fines have always been more then the potential savings should an incident happen and expands directly proportionately with the scale of any accident resulting from it.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#167 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain.
A budget ask is not the same as actually receiving the funding and hiring the people.
GK was making the case that expansion has been going on now for some time. In fact, IRS was looking at a 6% decrease in manpower.
No. I provided facts for some hiring that's gone on within the IRS.

I was refuting your statement that the IRS shrunk. Big difference.

Let me explain. A budget is based on expected income and expected costs in reality. However, in the federal government, it's based on wants redefined as needs.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#168 Feb 16, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I prefer to lead by example. Let's see if Twister can give an iota. I have my doubts.
Actually, I do give an iota.

From the beginning of your post I was moved to accept your explanation (dare I say, apology?).

But by they time you got to the end you were deep into personal insults, so it was easier to just walk away

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#169 Feb 16, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I provided facts for some hiring that's gone on within the IRS.
I was refuting your statement that the IRS shrunk. Big difference.
Let me explain. A budget is based on expected income and expected costs in reality. However, in the federal government, it's based on wants redefined as needs.
Well, you provided some anecdotal info on hiring that conflicts with the actual numbers, which showed 6% fewer employees.

Government budgeting of any kind IS a different kind of animal from other--at least at the deparmental levels. Wants and needs are always somewhat subjective and there is also a certain amount of gamesmanship. Somewhere at the highest levels there is some revenue forecasting that determines the big picture. At street level, however, there is typically some kind of guidance for the budget ask--such as providing two budgets, one for moderate cuts and one for really deep cuts; or for a certain percentage increase, or fitting within a particular set of priorities, etc. There's a lot of bargaining and horse-trading. Some padding can protect against cuts, too much can be problematic. And the folks doing the asking are going to be accountable for being able to get the work done.

So, if the IRS thinks it will take 1500 to do the job, forecasting liberally for 2000 may be what it takes to ensure that they get 2000. BTW--that doesn't seem like a huge staff increase.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#170 Feb 16, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It's easy to enforce laws while making the government smaller. You simply make it more efficient and pick where the cuts go. When people want a smaller government, they aren't suggesting you put department names on a dart board and toss darts to decide where and what to cut.
As for the costs overruns and such, no, nothing has changed outside of regulators being replaced that actually enforce the laws. The fines have always been more then the potential savings should an incident happen and expands directly proportionately with the scale of any accident resulting from it.
The problem with the more efficient vision is that there never seems to be anyone willing to point out where the cuts should be nor what efficiencies should be brought about.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#171 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do give an iota.
From the beginning of your post I was moved to accept your explanation (dare I say, apology?).
But by they time you got to the end you were deep into personal insults, so it was easier to just walk away
What apology?

And did you walk away? No.

Seems to me that there is no discussion with you oftentimes. More like browbeating. Hence my Lenten sacrifice. My spirit is hampered with the headaches I get attempting to understand or discuss many things with you. Sorry if you lack a sense of humor. My sacrifice begins in 3, 2, 1...
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#172 Feb 16, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I get it wrong? Gazillion doesn't follow 2000?
woof
Say the lawyer who has misquoted me. Never, ever did I say a "gazillion". Is this why you practice at home? Or are you even IN practice? And frankly, I put you in Kenmore.
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#173 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain.
A budget ask is not the same as actually receiving the funding and hiring the people.
GK was making the case that expansion has been going on now for some time. In fact, IRS was looking at a 6% decrease in manpower.
Oh, thanks for explaining THAT!

"Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law"

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-r...
Follow us:@thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#174 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do give an iota.
From the beginning of your post I was moved to accept your explanation (dare I say, apology?).
But by they time you got to the end you were deep into personal insults, so it was easier to just walk away
What personal insults? And you didn't walk away...you got skunked.
Adif understanding

United States

#175 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the more efficient vision is that there never seems to be anyone willing to point out where the cuts should be nor what efficiencies should be brought about.
I don't think that's the case at all. The problem is no one wants to get down to business and make it happen so you always get one side crying that their pet program is being cut.

Did you know there is a rumor going around that if the entire budget was cut by 1% each year for the next 6 years, we would have a balanced budget without any tax increases?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#176 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the more efficient vision is that there never seems to be anyone willing to point out where the cuts should be nor what efficiencies should be brought about.
Bring Mitt Romney in there. He'll do what he did with the Olympics.

Oh wait...we missed that opportunity, didn't we?
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#177 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you provided some anecdotal info on hiring that conflicts with the actual numbers, which showed 6% fewer employees.
Government budgeting of any kind IS a different kind of animal from other--at least at the deparmental levels. Wants and needs are always somewhat subjective and there is also a certain amount of gamesmanship. Somewhere at the highest levels there is some revenue forecasting that determines the big picture. At street level, however, there is typically some kind of guidance for the budget ask--such as providing two budgets, one for moderate cuts and one for really deep cuts; or for a certain percentage increase, or fitting within a particular set of priorities, etc. There's a lot of bargaining and horse-trading. Some padding can protect against cuts, too much can be problematic. And the folks doing the asking are going to be accountable for being able to get the work done.
So, if the IRS thinks it will take 1500 to do the job, forecasting liberally for 2000 may be what it takes to ensure that they get 2000. BTW--that doesn't seem like a huge staff increase.
"The IRS will have to create new forms and instructions by 2014, and likely reprogram all of its systems to manage the incredible volumes of information that it will now have to retrieve from Americans to ensure that they adhere to the new law.

Of course, all those changes should be easy with the additional staff. The IRS is hiring more than 13,000 agents. Not administrative staff. Agents. The IRS assures Americans that the agents will not audit or check to make sure that Americans adhere to the law. One must assume, then, that the trained agents will sit at keyboards keying in information."

http://ifawebnews.com/2012/11/06/look-for-new...

Maine Governor Calls Obamacare’s Army of IRS Agents the “New Gestapo”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/maine...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#178 Feb 16, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think that's the case at all. The problem is no one wants to get down to business and make it happen so you always get one side crying that their pet program is being cut.
Did you know there is a rumor going around that if the entire budget was cut by 1% each year for the next 6 years, we would have a balanced budget without any tax increases?
I did, and I understand those figures. Just as I understood creating 12 million more jobs would DECREASE middle class income tax by 20%, while generating more tax revenue into the coffers and decreasing the budget by people coming off of unemployment and other assistance, while pumping their earnings into the economy, creating more jobs and on and on. It has to sprial up.
VADoc

Warrenville, SC

#179 Feb 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Economic stuff is all pretty complex and ticklish stuff. The "deep implications" are frequently based on speculation with regard to how human beings will respond should a given change be enacted.
One of my news shows last night took a fairly deep look--in so far as can be accomplished in half an hour or so.
One thing that we need to keep focus on is that the proposed solution, raising the minimum wage, is a response to a very real problem--that of a widening earnings gap that is perpetuating a largely powerless set of workers on the bottom earning rungs who are not only extremely limited in their ability to bargain for the price of their labor, but also highly reliant on government subsidy for basics such as food, health care, and possibly also housing.
There are real risks associated with a raise in the minimum wage, which include loss of jobs to mechanization or outsources. However, the risks of not responding to a widening economic gap in our society are also great. Such societies tend to be vulnerable to political extremes and revolution. One interesting little factoid to demonstrate the diminsion of this crisis is that 1% of the population absorbed 120% of the economic recovery. In other words, those people returned to their pre-downturn status, but also benefitted from the losses of others--who are still suffering.
Apparently tax reform is a less risky means of adjustment. However, Congress has been unwilling to do this on a scale required. Minimum wage increases, however, have generally been politically popular. So, this could be seen as a fall-back position in an effort to solve a real problem.
Yes let's reform the tax code. Facebook needs to give back those millions in tax refunds.

Actually I have said it before you should never be able to collect more in a refund than you pay in. The same people who would benefit the most from the minimum wage boost would be the same folks getting the EIC at tax time all while siphoning tons of money off of government services. So essentially this group would get more of a handout. Then when inflation occurs and the average price for gas groceries and other goods increases, the government will say we need to raise the food stamp and welfare payment amounts. The only real losers in the raising of minimum wage are educated or trained workers who will see no cost of living adjustment and see the price of their normal purchases increase in price effectively decreasing their pay for the same work. It's a race to the bottom. Couple that with our fed reserve printing money whenever it wants to and your 60k job is worth the same as a 40k job in no time.
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#180 Feb 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Say the lawyer who has misquoted me. Never, ever did I say a "gazillion". Is this why you practice at home? Or are you even IN practice? And frankly, I put you in Kenmore.
I didn't realize I was quoting you, let alone misquoting.

You sure seem angry.

woof
VADoc

Warrenville, SC

#181 Feb 16, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on where you are in Ohio to see a bad economy. SE part of the state always has, always will be, bad. Applachia and few industries down there.
I grew up there. Many people either worked in coal or on the river or worked for welfare. Military was often another job. Now once Obama destroys the coal industry southeast Ohio will be destroyed.

I know plenty of families that are on their 4th generation of welfare recipients. Many consider if a job.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
9/23/17 What's going to happen? 37 min Something or Nothing 1
UTrashy & Spook 2 hr UTrashy 39
Power sought to unmask on almost daily basis, s... 4 hr 404 not found 1
Example of how the Dems Weaponized the FBI 4 hr 404 not found 1
President Trump:We love the (DACA)Dreamers. We ... 4 hr 404 not found 533
Why do Republicans love Russian lovers more tha... 4 hr 404 not found 3
Liberals Should Leave, Give Space To Native Ame... 7 hr Mud, James Mud 7
EXCLUSIVE: 6 U.S Agencies Conspired to Wiretap ... 12 hr 404 not found 30

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages