Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Republicans spit on "More than 783,000 government employees"? [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)32. You said, quite explicitly
I wonder ,,,,
how many of these civilian gov workers ot be furloughed are located around all the Military bases in the Super Red Southern States?
How much pay will they have to lose before they regret being a tea bagger!?!
how many of these civilian gov workers ot be furloughed are located around all the Military bases in the Super Red Southern States?
How much pay will they have to lose before they regret being a tea bagger!?!
Now, unless I miss my mark you're saying the furloughed workers will resent the GOP-induced government shutdown because it will cost them financially and their ire ought to be aimed at the GOP. So far so good but it does have an inherent flaw which I point out.
I posited that a permanent job loss due to permanent military cutbacks -- as are current Democratic policy -- will engender just as much resentment, if not more. To wit I rhetorically asked --
So what would make permanent cuts better than a temporary furlough?
You replied --
It better for the employee, furlough takes away the Promise and expectation of work and pay , leaving the employee not knowing what to expect. Permanent Cuts leave no doubt with the employee (or former employee )as to where they stand.
Now, if that isn't an endorsement of permanent job loss over temporary furlough, I don't know what is.
You may claim your objective isn't to win over "teabaggers that work around military bases in the southern Red states" but I'm left to wonder what is the political utility in making them hate the Democratic party MORE than the GOP. No one likes a permanent job loss over a temporary furlough (probably with back pay) and if the military cutbacks occur whatever pain they felt during the furloughs will be displaced by this greater pain. Ergo the entire premise of your initial reply that they will resent the GOP more than President Obama and the Democratic party (assuming cuts are made) is faulty.
The insulting part is post #18 where you boldly assert the certainty of jobless is better than some temporary uncertainty engendered in a furlough. Do you really expect me to believe such silliness? Tell me you were just joking and all shall be forgiven.
BTW -- if civility is such a thing with you why use terms like "teabaggers ... in the southern ... states"? Do you carry some sort of prejudice about people in southern states that makes you assume they must be teabaggers? It'd make for a poor campaign poster next year, that's for sure.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thank you for highlighting this yanking of Americans' paychecks, by these members of Congress who
Cha
Sep 2013
#2
I dunno but is that a cautionary tale against permanent military cutbacks?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2013
#7
No, the premise that they'll more readily accept permanent job loss over temporary furlough.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2013
#30
Not to descend into anecdote, but I won't just be furloughed. I'll lose my malaria vaccine
Recursion
Sep 2013
#10