Have you ever had a job with no waste to cut?
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
March 3, 2013 12:33pm CST
Obama is pretending that sequester, which reduces the growth of government, will mean that critical personnel MUST be laid off, illegal aliens MUST be released from detention into Arizona (wonder who decided that was the right state for it), and basically horrible things will happen. Do you believe that this is necessary?
Do you believe that there is no government waste that can be cut to the degree that sequester won't be a problem? Have you ever had a job where every single employee, at every level , was a critical employee whose absence would harm the organization? I've found that if you talk to even the lowest level employee at any organization they'll be able to tell you ways the organization can cut costs or work more efficiently.
Why can't our government hire an independent cost-efficiency specialist to look for cuts that will not impact anything important? When I worked at Universal Studios they hired a guy for this when Islands of Adventure opened up because the revenue was lower than projected and they had to cut costs. Maybe if we had a president with just the tiniest bit of private sector work experience he would consider trying something like this.
3 people like this
5 responses
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
3 Mar 13
There's a lot that can be cut but saving money isn't the objective here--destroying the middle class and growing the government is the goal. Both seem to be going quite well and I think Obama and Soros will be quite pleased by 2016.
1 person likes this
@KrauseHome (36447)
• United States
5 Mar 13
No, the middle class is the ones hurting. We are the ones going hungry, etc and getting hit with the taxes etc. If we were poor and unemployed and lazy, welfare could help us some, and food stamps would freely be given out.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
3 Mar 13
You're right and the biggest thing hurting the middle class right now is inflation. Everytime the government prints money to give out "free stuff" it's the middle class that pays for it. Sure, the rich hate when taxes are raised on them, but inflation doesn't hurt rich people as much since they don't have as much liquid wealth. When inflation goes up, so do the value of their assets. For middle class and poor people, whose assets are cash, inflation brings down the value of their cash thus hurting them more while making them THINK they're getting something for free. Unfortunately the people who fail to understand this are the ones being hurt most by it and yet they still wonder why they're money keeps being worth less despite voting in democrats who give them free crap.
2 people like this
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
3 Mar 13
At work, we try to make our maintenance budget every month. If we have big expense come up, we cut back on the other items to make sure we come in budget for the month. Just as one would with their own paycheck.
The legislature department has come to think that their job to pass laws that usually end up spending more money.
Well, their job is also to take care of the sacred money that they are pulling in from our taxes and make sure it is being spent wisely. This has gone to the wayside. This should take up most of their time, Not coming up with new bills that will spend more money.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
3 Mar 13
At your job things are done sensibly. In the government, if they don't spend all their money each year they don't get as much the next year. So they waste the excess, if there is any, because otherwise their budgets will be cut. We could save billions if we tossed out the rule that says if you don't spend everything in your budget, you won't get that same amount next year. I learned that first hand when I temped in a state agency years ago and it still makes me angry.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
4 Mar 13
Exactly! They think of it as "their money" when in reality, it's OUR money. They, as public servants, are supposed to be stewards of our money. That's how I treat the budget at my job. It's not my money. It's taxpayer money and I do my best to spend it responsibly. I've only been at my current job for 3 months and already gotten pissed over them throwing out 5 old computers, 3 of which were fully functional, one that worked ok, and one that at least had some functional parts that could have been salvaged. I asked my boss if we could at least donate them to a Salvation Army so someone could get a decent, low cost machine, but he said there was nothing we could do. They were considered outdated and we had to send them to the county disposal department. We had no say in the matter.
Aside from that, Dragon is right about departments always being told to spend all their money and that they'll get less next year if they don't spend it all. Not only that, money often gets earmarked so if you have too much money in one budget, and not enough in another, you can't move that money around.
1 person likes this
@KrauseHome (36447)
• United States
5 Mar 13
Personally I seem to think there is no hope when it comes to programs and things that are important and often wonder how things even stand a chance of hope. In the end I think he is not really thinking about the American people and the economy in how to help us, and I hate to see what else continues to happen from here.
@sid556 (30959)
• United States
4 Mar 13
OMG...with the Government, I am sure that they could find a zillion ways to cut costs!! If they were to hire someone like that then they just might have to change up their little lifestyles a tad bit and I'm sure they don't want to do that. I do very much agree with you though. We had a company come in to the office when I worked in insurance and they went right through the place to make it more efficient time-wise as well as financially. It's quite a process but it does help.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
4 Mar 13
If they did that in government, I'm sure jobs would be lost though, and people tend to think that's always a bad thing. It's not. It's never good to have too many employees because you get some people who will sit around, doing nothing, not necessarily because they're lazy, but because there's nothing to do. Why waste money on employees with no work to do? I've worked in different government jobs and while some run on skeleton crews, others are grossly overstaffed. It would be nice to see the resources better spread out, but nobody wants their budgets cut, even if they have more money than they need or know what to do with.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
6 Mar 13
First off, cutting spending at a company is very different than cutting spending in a government. In a corporation you may find pet projects or departments that are funded differently. But, in our government the vast majority of the spending has a lobby attached to it that can and will spend money to ensure that their interest is funded. You don't have this (at this level) in ANY company.
Second, you need to look at how items are funded. If you look at a department who's funding is already spent you can cut their department, but that isn't going to effect them today. In many cases the budgets of departments are spent right away so they don't get them cut. So when you have to cut BILLIONS and the only thing you can cut is the salaries because those haven't already been paid, then you have no other choice.
Our government could hire an independent cost-efficiency specialist, but who is doing to appoint him? Congress would appoint someone they consider "independent", and if the president appoints someone the right wingers will attack this person no matter who he appoints. Even if you could find someone that everyone approves of you move back to my first point. If they don't have the will to cut funding now, than what do you think will happen when someone else tells them?
Maybe if in the last 12 years we would have had a president that ran a business. Someone who was a CEO, someone who maybe ran a baseball team.... This sounds like someone, I just wish I could remember his name..... George W. Bush?
I am sure you are NOT talking about THAT guy who had business experience, because when he ran the country our deficit went up, our spending went up, and at the end of his presidency the country was in the worse economic crisis since the great depression. Please tell me again why THIS is what you wanted?