9 ms·

Oh god yes. I'm currently a relatively junior flunky in the Marine Corps, and the GS civilians who work here are hilarious. "We need to cut the fat!" We work a

Oh god yes. I'm currently a relatively junior flunky in the Marine Corps, and the GS civilians who work here are hilarious. "We need to cut the fat!" We work at a minor airbase in the middle of nowhere... oh. Oops. Whatever we are, it sure as hell ain't muscle. "Government spending is out of control" while talking about how they exploit the DTS system to get as much per diem as possible. "Those lazy people who expect everything to be handed to them, and that Muslim in charge is just giving it all away" while sitting in their chair bitching whenever a Marine disrupts their Freecell session to ask about equipment repair. I don't even talk to them about it, mostly because the fact that they are capable of this caliber of doublethink indicates that they're beyond saving.

Jtsummers 13y ago
From a young AF lieutenant here: Taxes are theft! My response: But you're paid with those taxes. His response: Oh, right. <subject change> I live in a military town, 20k people work directly for the base (there are only 120k people in the county, 250k in the counties most of the employees live in). They rail against the fat, then when furloughs happened last year railed against that. No shit, you want the government to spend less, you've got to take a pay cut or a program has to get cut. You're consistently late on delivering equipment and completing jobs, you're the ones that'll get cut. And the safety record, the morons think it's government interference (damn OSHA!) to insist on PPE [edit: personal protective equipment], and don't wear it so their kids end up with heavy metal poisoning when they carry the crap home on their clothes.
- ableal 13y ago
  [search saver :] Personal protective equipment (PPE) refers to protective clothing, helmets, goggles, or other garments or equipment ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment )
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    Sorry about that, I live in acronym land.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Thanks for that.
MadManE 13y ago
Taking advantage of the existing situation for maximum personal gain doesn't indicate doublethink. It only indicates that they care more about themselves than they care about "the greater good" - which, in my opinion is how it should be. Somebody's going to be getting paid for doing nothing - it might as well be me.
- pseut 13y ago
  But then don't bitch about it.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  It's doublethink or hypocrisy to complain about people getting fat off the government dole while getting fat off the government dole.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    If someone is going to get paid it might as well be me. People that support positions only because they personally benefit or who can't change their minds because it would cost them, are far more worrying. As another comment pointed out, those people have a personal stake in the issue. Accepting they are wrong has an actual cost to them.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in. So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bane 13y ago
One of the things I find curious is the dichotomy between rhetoric and intent. "We need to shrink the government!" Sequestration happens "Well not those specific things I like!" Doesn't that imply then that those bits that shouldn't have been shrunk are therefore not part of what they think is "the government"? Considering that the list of things that usually people who want to shrink the government think should be exempted usually includes the military, I find that particularly troublesome.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Doesn't that imply then that those bits that shouldn't have been shrunk are therefore not part of what they think is "the government"? No, what you are doing is demonstrating the fallacy of division. The proposition "we should shrink government" is not equivalent to, and does not imply, the proposition "we should shrink every individual component of government". There is a legitimate case to be made that many people who would assert the need to shrink government in aggregate haven't actually considered things sufficiently and would not maintain that position if they considered things program by program, by it is quite wrong to argue that not wanting some particular programs to be cut, by itself, contradicts wanting the government cut in aggregate.
  - bane 13y ago
    Yeah, you are right. My thinking is a fallacy. Rationally, shrinking even a single program is "shrinking government". But practically "shrinking government" is used to mean "shrinking the civilian parts of government". > There is a legitimate case to be made that many people who would assert the need to shrink government in aggregate haven't actually considered things sufficiently and would not maintain that position if they considered things program by program, This reminds me of an extended conversation I had with a local county politician who ran on a "shrink federal government" platform. I asked him what we should shrink. There are certainly parts of the federal government I'd be in favor of shrinking or cutting. He resisted, he wouldn't answer. I found a high level list of agencies and programs and asked him to run down the list and specify what his platform was. He refused. He'd get up and give a speech about the excesses of government and the deficit and all that. So I put together a list of what I'd like to see cut or what I thought would be okay to cut. I was able to provided a rough budget that cut the deficit in half and calculated out a small tax increase that would end the deficit and provide a small surplus that would simply be used to pay down the debt and then simply be returned as tax returns every year. He refused. Finally somebody pulled me aside and explained that he needed the support of the national party to help fund his campaign, and they hadn't publicly specified their platform for cuts yet. So he couldn't specify his support for specific cuts. Which meant the conversation never got beyond "shrink government" as a principle, but not any specifics. A while later, the same national party put in place an across the board, every department gets the same cut, policy that for a while drove our news reporters to the brink of madness and was deeply deeply unpopular among much of the political spectrum. So in terms of how the rhetoric "shrink government" gets transformed into specific policy actions, it seems that yes, cutting it across the board is not what's intended, but the hard work of establishing a specific platform hasn't been done yet...probably because intra-party politics means there's no consensus of what that should actually look like.
sanderjd 13y ago
My anecdotes differ from yours. Most of the people I have met that are living that dichotomy are very aware of it, and just think "well this is the system we live in, so I have to play along until it changes". Many of them are really bummed about it. Sometimes being the change you want to see in the world is impractical, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your mind about it.
- rhizome 13y ago
  BRB, having another child.
hudibras 13y ago
[search saver :] DTS = Defense Travel System. The online system through which official DoD government travel is arranged.

Jtsummers 13y ago

From a young AF lieutenant here: Taxes are theft! My response: But you're paid with those taxes. His response: Oh, right. <subject change> I live in a military town, 20k people work directly for the base (there are only 120k people in the county, 250k in the counties most of the employees live in). They rail against the fat, then when furloughs happened last year railed against that. No shit, you want the government to spend less, you've got to take a pay cut or a program has to get cut. You're consistently late on delivering equipment and completing jobs, you're the ones that'll get cut. And the safety record, the morons think it's government interference (damn OSHA!) to insist on PPE [edit: personal protective equipment], and don't wear it so their kids end up with heavy metal poisoning when they carry the crap home on their clothes.

ableal 13y ago
[search saver :] Personal protective equipment (PPE) refers to protective clothing, helmets, goggles, or other garments or equipment ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment )
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  Sorry about that, I live in acronym land.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Thanks for that.

MadManE 13y ago

Taking advantage of the existing situation for maximum personal gain doesn't indicate doublethink. It only indicates that they care more about themselves than they care about "the greater good" - which, in my opinion is how it should be. Somebody's going to be getting paid for doing nothing - it might as well be me.

pseut 13y ago
But then don't bitch about it.
Jtsummers 13y ago
It's doublethink or hypocrisy to complain about people getting fat off the government dole while getting fat off the government dole.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  If someone is going to get paid it might as well be me. People that support positions only because they personally benefit or who can't change their minds because it would cost them, are far more worrying. As another comment pointed out, those people have a personal stake in the issue. Accepting they are wrong has an actual cost to them.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in. So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bane 13y ago

One of the things I find curious is the dichotomy between rhetoric and intent. "We need to shrink the government!" Sequestration happens "Well not those specific things I like!" Doesn't that imply then that those bits that shouldn't have been shrunk are therefore not part of what they think is "the government"? Considering that the list of things that usually people who want to shrink the government think should be exempted usually includes the military, I find that particularly troublesome.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Doesn't that imply then that those bits that shouldn't have been shrunk are therefore not part of what they think is "the government"? No, what you are doing is demonstrating the fallacy of division. The proposition "we should shrink government" is not equivalent to, and does not imply, the proposition "we should shrink every individual component of government". There is a legitimate case to be made that many people who would assert the need to shrink government in aggregate haven't actually considered things sufficiently and would not maintain that position if they considered things program by program, by it is quite wrong to argue that not wanting some particular programs to be cut, by itself, contradicts wanting the government cut in aggregate.
- bane 13y ago
  Yeah, you are right. My thinking is a fallacy. Rationally, shrinking even a single program is "shrinking government". But practically "shrinking government" is used to mean "shrinking the civilian parts of government". > There is a legitimate case to be made that many people who would assert the need to shrink government in aggregate haven't actually considered things sufficiently and would not maintain that position if they considered things program by program, This reminds me of an extended conversation I had with a local county politician who ran on a "shrink federal government" platform. I asked him what we should shrink. There are certainly parts of the federal government I'd be in favor of shrinking or cutting. He resisted, he wouldn't answer. I found a high level list of agencies and programs and asked him to run down the list and specify what his platform was. He refused. He'd get up and give a speech about the excesses of government and the deficit and all that. So I put together a list of what I'd like to see cut or what I thought would be okay to cut. I was able to provided a rough budget that cut the deficit in half and calculated out a small tax increase that would end the deficit and provide a small surplus that would simply be used to pay down the debt and then simply be returned as tax returns every year. He refused. Finally somebody pulled me aside and explained that he needed the support of the national party to help fund his campaign, and they hadn't publicly specified their platform for cuts yet. So he couldn't specify his support for specific cuts. Which meant the conversation never got beyond "shrink government" as a principle, but not any specifics. A while later, the same national party put in place an across the board, every department gets the same cut, policy that for a while drove our news reporters to the brink of madness and was deeply deeply unpopular among much of the political spectrum. So in terms of how the rhetoric "shrink government" gets transformed into specific policy actions, it seems that yes, cutting it across the board is not what's intended, but the hard work of establishing a specific platform hasn't been done yet...probably because intra-party politics means there's no consensus of what that should actually look like.

sanderjd 13y ago

My anecdotes differ from yours. Most of the people I have met that are living that dichotomy are very aware of it, and just think "well this is the system we live in, so I have to play along until it changes". Many of them are really bummed about it. Sometimes being the change you want to see in the world is impractical, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your mind about it.

rhizome 13y ago
BRB, having another child.

hudibras 13y ago

[search saver :] DTS = Defense Travel System. The online system through which official DoD government travel is arranged.