The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

I view those as disagreements in religious belief or practice, not hate towards individuals.

 

They don't trust them to teach elementary school and find them to be un-American, but they don't dislike them.

 

 

 

really, that sentence makes sense to you?

[BigSqwert]

Whenever Tea Partiers mention the President as Barack Hussein Obama it's because they very much like Muslim sounding names, because they really like Muslims.

[StrangeSox]

So your basis is being made off of almost the exact same percentages of make up of the Republican Party, as hold "anti-Muslim" feelings in the Democratic Party.

 

I don't know what you're saying here? I've explicitly said I'm talking about the tea party and not Republicans several times.

 

But only one of those can influence policy? Nope, can't buy that one.

Where's the dem anti-Muslim policies or politics? Fighting Sharia law and the islamification of American isn't really part of the Democratic party politics, but its pretty common in the tea party.

[Rex Kickass]

 

I knew Obamacare was gonna have the death panels. I just didn't know they were taking place at Republican presidential debates!

[BigSqwert]

I knew Obamacare was gonna have the death panels. I just didn't know they were taking place at Republican presidential debates!

[southsider2k5]

I don't know what you're saying here? I've explicitly said I'm talking about the tea party and not Republicans several times.

 

 

Where's the dem anti-Muslim policies or politics? Fighting Sharia law and the islamification of American isn't really part of the Democratic party politics, but its pretty common in the tea party.

 

Aiding the overthrow and leading bombing of a predominantly Muslim nation in Libya, sending your military to an attack on another sovereign nations soil without permission in Pakistan, expanding war in another Muslim country in Afghanistan?

 

Also missed that the Tea Party is not its own party, so its influence in policy only goes as far as it can influence its parent party.

Edited September 13, 2011 by southsider2k5

[BigSqwert]

Aiding the overthrow and leading bombing of a predominantly Muslim nation in Libya, sending your military to an attack on another sovereign nations soil without permission in Pakistan, expanding war in another Muslim country in Afghanistan?

This is laughable even for you.

[southsider2k5]

This is laughable even for you.

 

Funny a few years back they were considered anti-Muslim, especially to Muslims living in those places.

[StrangeSox]

Aiding the overthrow and leading bombing of a predominantly Muslim nation in Libya, sending your military to an attack on another sovereign nations soil without permission in Pakistan, expanding war in another Muslim country in Afghanistan?

 

Those policies and actions are different from xenophobia and "muslim radicalization hearings" and that sort of crap. We didn't support a muslim-led coup against a muslim dictator in Libya out of anti-Islam feelings.

 

Also missed that the Tea Party is not its own party, so its influence in policy only goes as far as it can influence its parent party.

 

Missed?

[southsider2k5]

Those policies and actions are different from xenophobia and "muslim radicalization hearings" and that sort of crap. We didn't support a muslim-led coup against a muslim dictator in Libya out of anti-Islam feelings.

 

 

 

Missed?

 

Missed as in I forgot it in my response.

 

I understand the preponderance of benevolence assumptions in the Democrats actions here, but with a significant number of dead Muslims out there as a direct results of the Democrats policies why is it so crazy to assume that the significant portion of the Democrats who hold "anti-Muslim views" aren't the one influencing policy to the point where these dead Muslims are the results, yet the Tea Party, who has no power or party of their own, is apparently instituting "anti-Muslim policies"? Those two beliefs aren't very consistent together.

[Balta1701]

Missed as in I forgot it in my response.

 

I understand the preponderance of benevolence assumptions in the Democrats actions here, but with a significant number of dead Muslims out there as a direct results of the Democrats policies why is it so crazy to assume that the significant portion of the Democrats who hold "anti-Muslim views" aren't the one influencing policy to the point where these dead Muslims are the results, yet the Tea Party, who has no power or party of their own, is apparently instituting "anti-Muslim policies"? Those two beliefs aren't very consistent together.

If that's your argument...do you really want us to do body counts of dead muslims under each of the last 2 administrations? Because it's not even close.

[StrangeSox]

I understand the preponderance of benevolence assumptions in the Democrats actions here, but with a significant number of dead Muslims out there as a direct results of the Democrats policies why is it so crazy to assume that the significant portion of the Democrats who hold "anti-Muslim views" aren't the one influencing policy to the point where these dead Muslims are the results, yet the Tea Party, who has no power or party of their own, is apparently instituting "anti-Muslim policies"? Those two beliefs aren't very consistent together.

 

Who's saying that the Tea Party has actually instituted these policies? The discussion was that the tea party holds these views.

 

eta I don't attribute Bush's invasion of Iraq as something driven by anti-Muslim sentiment. To ignore all context and treat "supporting (Muslim) rebels in Libya" or "expanding operations in Afghanistan" as equivalent to opposing a mosque being built in your town or holding McCarthy-esque hearings on Muslims is just silly.

Edited September 13, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Who's saying that the Tea Party has actually instituted these policies? The discussion was that the tea party holds these views.

 

eta I don't attribute Bush's invasion of Iraq as something driven by anti-Muslim sentiment. To ignore all context and treat "supporting (Muslim) rebels in Libya" or "expanding operations in Afghanistan" as equivalent to opposing a mosque being built in your town or holding McCarthy-esque hearings on Muslims is just silly.

 

And evidently the Democrats hold these views as well. Apparently they just hide them better or something.

[StrangeSox]

And evidently the Democrats hold these views as well. Apparently they just hide them better or something.

To a much smaller extent than the tea party does, but it's sad that the general population's views on Islam are what they are. As has been said several times itt.

[BigSqwert]

Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who championed and helped launch the new U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will announce on Wednesday that she will run for the Senate against Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown.

 

via

[farmteam]

This sentence amuses me:

 

"I don’t think any Republican candidate should be engaged in the same kind of demagoguery, the same kind of negative political attacks we would expect to see from the Democratic Party,” Jindal said when asked about Romney’s Social Security offensive."

[mr_genius]

it begins

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/nyregion...tml?_r=1&hp

[Balta1701]

This is good enough to stick in here in case I ever need to remember it.

Despite a widespread belief that contracting out services to the private sector saves the federal government money, a new study suggests just the opposite — that the government actually pays more when it farms out work.

 

The study found that in 33 of 35 occupations, the government actually paid billions of dollars more to hire contractors than it would have cost government employees to perform comparable services. On average, the study found that contractors charged the federal government more than twice the amount it pays federal workers.

 

The study was conducted by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit Washington group. The federal government spends about $320 billion a year on contracts for services. The POGO study looked at a subset of those contracts.

 

The study comes after months of criticism, mostly by Republicans, about what they see as the high cost of salaries and benefits for federal workers. The House earlier this year passed a Republican budget plan that would freeze pay grade levels and eliminate raises for five years, and cut the government’s work force by 10 percent. Last year, President Obama announced a two-year salary freeze for federal workers, which Republicans said did not go far enough.

 

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, released a report last year that found that federal employees earn 22 percent more in hourly wages than the private sector. The Heritage study also found that if federal employee compensation were adjusted to match that of their private sector counterparts, federal spending would be reduced by $47 billion in 2011 alone.

 

But POGO said its study did not just compare the salaries of the two sectors; instead it focused on what the government actually pays contractors to perform services versus how much it would cost to have that work done by in-house staff members.

 

“That’s a big difference,” said Scott Amey, POGO’s general counsel. “We compared the full compensation paid to federal government and private sector employees to the billable rates in federal service contracts. Across the board you see that it cost government more to pay for contractors.”

 

For example, the study found that, on average, the federal government paid contractors $268,653 per year for computer engineering services, while government workers in the same occupation made $136,456.

 

For human resources management, the federal government paid contractors an annual rate of $228,488, more than twice the $111,711 to have the same services done in-house.

[StrangeSox]

See? The government sucks so bad it can't even privatize right!

[Balta1701]

See? The government sucks so bad it can't even privatize right!

IMO, the problem is overwhelmingly the "Spoils system".

[vandy125]

This is good enough to stick in here in case I ever need to remember it.

 

IMO, that is kind of a "duh" article. Based upon my experience the issue is not that they are outsourcing and getting private sector contractors, the issue is the cost of outsourcing period. It always seems to cost a whole lot more to bring a contractor in than it does to do the work in house. It doesn't matter if they are a private company or the government, contractors cost more money to bring in.

 

I would rather the government lower the benefits for their own people (assuming that would make it inline with typical private sector pay/benefits) and bring more people in to do the work "in house" than have them go outside and get contractors.

Edited September 14, 2011 by vandy125

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure that when you account for experience, education and the types of jobs in questions public sector pay is lower, but I could be wrong.

[vandy125]

I'm pretty sure that when you account for experience, education and the types of jobs in questions public sector pay is lower, but I could be wrong.

 

Well, the article was written in a direct response to a report that states exactly the opposite. The problem is that they didn't do an apples to apples comparison IMO. They compared "in house" work to contractor work, which I would think is always going to be more expensive to bring a contractor in. You could throw in private company ABC instead of the government and they would probably come to the same conclusion.

 

I honestly wouldn't know since A, I haven't researched it, and B, I only see the conservative research group side. It would be much better if they did a study that compared the same sort of thing that the Heritage Foundation did.

 

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, released a report last year that found that federal employees earn 22 percent more in hourly wages than the private sector. The Heritage study also found that if federal employee compensation were adjusted to match that of their private sector counterparts, federal spending would be reduced by $47 billion in 2011 alone.

[Balta1701]

Well, the article was written in a direct response to a report that states exactly the opposite. The problem is that they didn't do an apples to apples comparison IMO. They compared "in house" work to contractor work, which I would think is always going to be more expensive to bring a contractor in. You could throw in private company ABC instead of the government and they would probably come to the same conclusion.

 

I honestly wouldn't know since A, I haven't researched it, and B, I only see the conservative research group side. It would be much better if they did a study that compared the same sort of thing that the Heritage Foundation did.

The problem is...the Heritage method is the wrong way to do it. Controlling for education, age, etc., is the only proper way to ask that question. It would be much better if the Heritage foundation produced an honest study looking at that question, rather than forcing other groups to perform dishonest studies to match a dishonest methodology.

[StrangeSox]

The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing anti-government think tank that routinely publishes misleading or factually incorrect studies. They compare every private sector employee, from fry-cooks on up, the the whole public sector. It's a crap comparison because there's a lot more low-wage, low-skill, low-education private sector jobs that just don't exist in nearly the same proportion government.