Cool.slaughtr said:Wait, are you're actually saying a huge number of ICU nurses and surgeons won't be missed? I guess I will tell my neighbor he should just live with his hip pain cause they are going to cancel his surgery next week.Kaiser von Wilhelm said:slaughtr said:I got no problem with that. Just wondering where 50% need to be fired come from and how that can be done.Kaiser von Wilhelm said:slaughtr said:See my answer above.Kaiser von Wilhelm said:slaughtr said:Your going to fire 50% of the VA nurses in the ICU and 50% of the VA doctors with hip surgeries scheduled?Bondag said:
Great. Now we get to fire 50% give them 2 weeks
Good luck with that.
You know as well as I do that this isn't an even percentage across every single specific group of government employees.
Nice try though. And by that I mean, good god...
If 80% of 20+ departments are useless, and 100% of others are useless, they can be cut. At the same time, some departments require no cuts. Logic isn't as difficult as some people want it to be.
It really isn't that hard unless you're wanting to be.
As stated in my edit, you can trim a significant number of people even within important departments. It would not be surprising to still see a huge percentage of your example who will not be missed, and who would certainly not impact the care and functionality where it actually matters.
That's an awesome way to construct a strawman.
KvW: People that won't impact care can be let go
slaut: So you're saying the people that will impact care will be let go?