With drastically reduce hours perhaps they can do substantially less damage to the people they, ostensibly, “serve”? Maybe?
2Hotel9 - 08:07am on 07/05/2008
I think a better idea would be to lay of 20% of the government workers. Better yet 60%.
If they lay off the right ones then they might even get something productive out of the remainder.
The Whistler - 01:07pm on 07/05/2008
I’m not sure they aren’t redefining the word “work” here…
robert108 - 01:07pm on 07/05/2008
And an extra two hours of government vehicle usage?
They must drive some pretty unusual cars out in Utah.
thetodd - 06:07pm on 07/05/2008
I think a better idea would be to lay of 20% of the government workers. Better yet 60%.
If they lay off the right ones then they might even get something productive out of the remainder.
The Whistler on July 5, 2008 at 01:05 pm
Can’t do that. The unemployment
rate will go up, the Bush administration will take another hit, and you will be blaming the liberals for it.
ellinas - 08:07am on 07/06/2008
Can’t do that. The unemployment rate will go up,
Again you illustrate your colossal ignorance of basic economics. Those govt drones will be hired by productive businesses, now that their tax burden will is reduced, thus boosting the economy. You fail to realize what an economic benefit it will be to the productive sector to not have to support all the useless govt bureaucracy.
robert108 - 09:07am on 07/06/2008
Robert’s got it right. The fact that they are doing unproductive jobs is a loss to the economy. If they were producing something someone wanted the entire government would grow.
Add to the fact that government workers are actually counterproductive the economy would get a further boost.
Plus knowing that they weren’t worthless would probably help their depression problems.
The Whistler - 10:07am on 07/06/2008
Decreasing govt interference in our economy is always a good thing.
robert108 - 10:07am on 07/06/2008
robert108:
Decreasing govt interference in our economy is always a good thing.
With drastically reduce hours perhaps they can do substantially less damage to the people they, ostensibly, “serve”? Maybe?
I think a better idea would be to lay of 20% of the government workers. Better yet 60%.
If they lay off the right ones then they might even get something productive out of the remainder.
I’m not sure they aren’t redefining the word “work” here…
I think a better idea would be to lay of 20% of the government workers. Better yet 60%.
If they lay off the right ones then they might even get something productive out of the remainder.
The Whistler on July 5, 2008 at 01:05 pm
Can’t do that. The unemployment
rate will go up, the Bush administration will take another hit, and you will be blaming the liberals for it.
Again you illustrate your colossal ignorance of basic economics. Those govt drones will be hired by productive businesses, now that their tax burden will is reduced, thus boosting the economy. You fail to realize what an economic benefit it will be to the productive sector to not have to support all the useless govt bureaucracy.
Robert’s got it right. The fact that they are doing unproductive jobs is a loss to the economy. If they were producing something someone wanted the entire government would grow.
Add to the fact that government workers are actually counterproductive the economy would get a further boost.
Plus knowing that they weren’t worthless would probably help their depression problems.
Decreasing govt interference in our economy is always a good thing.
robert108:
We agree!!!
As usual, todd, you have nothing but lying smear.