Slashdot Mirror
No U.S. Government Shutdown This Week
A Reader writes "If you were hoping for a government shutdown today, you are going to be disappointed. In a last-hour cliffhanger, Democrats and Republicans managed to agree with each other enough to keep the government funded for the rest of the current fiscal year. Since the budget bill that finally passed was a compromise, no one is happy with it. So it goes. That's how things work in a representative government."
anymore.
I seriously doubt any of us have much in common with any of them.
anymore
Without a government shutdown how will the media try to frighten the general public with predictions and assumptions? I'll tell you what the 'almost' shutdown did for the economy - it gave a whole lot of 'journalists' and people who blog something to blather about. It's all about ads and page views, people.
Cancel the invasion, the government is still fully operational! It's a trap!!
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Why is this on Slashdot? How is it even "news for nerds"?
This is just general political news. There's really nothing technical about it. It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with computing. It has nothing to do with science fiction. It has nothing to do with anything related to Slashdot.
If I wanted to read crap like this, I could go to CNN's web site.
That was some fine Kabuki theater, next time I want to see the trial of blood: MUTAI !
However, it will be very equally applied. Congress doesn't get paid either--especially being that they're not doing their jobs anyway.
And when we shut it down, it gets shut down. That means no more bombs dropping in countries that don't need to be receiving our expensive military tech. It means no more funding for anything people depend on.
You know why this is important? So people revolt and get rid of Obama, all of the Democrats, and all of the Republicans, and all of the rest of the people who sit in Washington and twiddle their thumbs arguing over absolutely ridiculous crap all day.
It's time for change and since one man, who promised to bring it, couldn't. It's time for 300+ million of us to.
Only a one week stop gap to allow them to write the bill has passed. Once talk radio gets ahold of this on Monday I have to wonderif the Republicans will still have the vote needed for passage.
With over a $1.5 trillion deficit, congrats, you've just reduced the deficit by .025%. The coming forced austerity is going to be a lot worse than if Congress got it's head out of its ass and worked to cut the deficit.
I am employed by the Federal Gov't.
The last e-mail I got on Friday was explaining how and where to file for unemployment.
That is, the gov't was telling me how to get the gov't to pay me for NOT working because the gov't couldn't afford to pay me FOR working.
Is this a great country or what!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
This image says it all really - http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-spending-trillion-cartoon.jpg. As an outsider looking in, it's obvious to me the government really needs to cut military funding. Our UK government has done. Apart from a cool info graphic on the NYT a few months back where you could pretend to make the necessary cuts yourself I've never see this mentioned anywhere else in the US media.
Jonathanjk.com
I was hoping to finally have the opportunity to run up and down the halls of the Capitol Building naked. Dang.
Congress has to continue being paid according to the 27th Amendment, which prevents any law that varies the pay of members from taking effect until an election takes place. This is to keep them from engaging in any shenanigans with their own pay. If you allow them to suspend their pay between elections, you can bet that they're going to use that logic to increase their pay at some point in the future.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Medicate Part D was never funded. That is $64B and growing, or probably close to a trillion dollars of deficiet spending over the next 10 years. Repeal it or fund it. Could save $30B in the current budget process.
The department of education has grown widely since 2000. End NCLB and other unfunded mandates that infringe on the states right to educate it's population. DOE in an advisory roll is fine and history tells us it can be funded without deficit spending. So cut it's budget, maybe $10b in the current budget process.
Department of homeland security has also always been funded by deficiet spending. Cut it. Return the decision making to the civil servants that actually work. The last thing we need is another administrative layer. If the Tea Party wants small governement, this is the place to start. If we want screeners and the like, put it under the other agencies and shift administrators from other less important projects. Saving in the current budget cycle may $10B.
That is our $50 in deficit spending. We could do $100B but that would require a cut to the military, which they have already said they can do because they admit they waste massive amounts of money, and a tax increase to cover war operations around the world. Ultimately Obama is going to have to do what Bush I did with Reagan tax cuts, which is to end the Bush II tax cuts. Can't do it untile 2012 budget cycle, but much of the projected deficit comes from them.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Now let the real fight, over the 2012 budget, start.
The problem with all of these proposals is that nobody can get over ideology enough to actually hammer out how to solve fiscal problems. This fight got stuck on a piddling amount of money for Planned Parenthood. There was also a bunch of wrangling about the EPA.
I expect more of the same when it comes to arguing about the Ryan plan. He's started things in the wrong direction already, by wanting to cut taxes on the rich and turn Medicare into a block grant program. And all of the really ugly details ala Planned Parenthood and the EPA aren't even in his proposal. He just says that discretionary spending is going to be cut, but doesn't say how. So there will be more fights like we just saw.
If this isn't a strong case for term-limits, I don't know what is. The FY2011 budget took SO LONG to pass because IT WAS AN ELECTION YEAR and Americans were starting to worry about defaulting on their national debt. Are we really so stupid to believe that in a nation of 300 million people, it takes the same small group of elite warmongers to pass our laws year after year? Many congressmen have been there so long, they are rolling in their own shit. With term limits at least, there is the fresh flow of ideas every election cycle. There is also incentive to do well...with a 6x2 cycle for representatives (6 2-year terms, max) and a 2x6 cycle for senators with the requirement that they first served in the House, there is more incentive for aspiring first-time Representatives to appease their constituents (geographic, not party) so that they can "upgrade" to a Senate seat (and later, the presidency).
It's okay though. Looks like we are going to default on our debt sometime within my lifetime. There's no way out at this point. In the meantime, continue to spend, spend, spend. Let's get that new infrastructure (new bridges, roads, high-speed internet) built for the NEXT government. Maybe then we'll get it right with Term Limits.
The World is Yours.
Maybe if the government did shut down, people would actually be able to get some shit *done*.
[Obama] praised the [budget] deal as a model of bipartisan cooperation.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/09/congress.budget/index.html?iref=NS1
If this whole budget fiasco, in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were put in jeopardy over something that should have been taken care of weeks if not months ago instead literally at the very last minute is a model of how our government wants issues taken care of, then we have a big problem. This is basically confirming that Washington prefers politics to people. Our country can not afford to have our elected representatives playing chicken with anything, let alone something as important as the budget. Stop trying to make the other guy look bad, stop pandering to your donors and special interests, and just get the god damn job done. You're supposed to be helping this country, not holding it hostage.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
That's awesome. They're crushing Amendments 1-10, but we have to believe in the sanctity of the 27th!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
This might be an easier way
The numbers are staggering. They cut about $30 billion but the deficit for the year is stil 1.2 TRILLION! Now not all has to be cut, they could raise taxes or bet on an improving economy which generates more tax revenue but something has to be done. ~$30,000,000,000 isn't going to cut it (pardon the pun)
"That's how things work in a representative government." No, that's how things work in a schizophrenic government. Nowhere in the constitution is power over the government given to political parties. They were invented solely for overcoming slow communications and lack of education during elections. We have significantly improved both. Yet our "representatives" do not represent us at all; they vote according to who they party with rather than in the interests of their constituencies. You've heard the phrase "across the aisle." What it refers to is the fact that senators and representatives do not sit with others from their own state - they sit in two big camps of Democrats vs. Republicans. They should be forced to sit by state and to completely deny any party affiliation once they are elected. Right now most of a politician's time is spent trying to thwart the efforts of half the government. It's a wonder we get anything done at all the way this beast keeps tearing at itself.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
(Rhetorical)
Nah, keep the tax cuts. Just pulverize the military. Do the whole Cardassians Left Bajor thing and we can use the pantheon of DS9 to guide us through the mess. (/Rhetorical)
No? See, that's the deadliest political trap of all, the one the Republicans built their party on - "We'll have fun giving people tax cuts and we'll make the Democrats clean up the mess!" Then the Masses don't understand why things are so tough, and they elect in more Republicans who "ease the burdens of sacrifice" with more tax cuts.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...just come to Belgium. We have no government since 300 days and counting, 3 unhappy language communities and a shitload of compromises.
Except for number 2, which apparently trumps all the others, despite being irrelevant in the modern age.
You must realize that shutting down the government is not a money-saving act. It is actually much more expensive to shut down the government than to keep it running.
That's awesome. They're crushing Amendments 1-10, but we have to believe in the sanctity of the 27th!
Let's see ... 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 55, and since 27 is less than 55, well, 27 wins. Amendment math is just like golf - the lower score wins.
Such leadership! Even if they had agreed to slash the budget by 50%, it would only take us back to the level of spending of the Clinton administration. But no, they only managed to agree to $38 billion in spending reductions - about 1% of total outlays.
With leaders like this, we just as well jump off the cliff ourselves.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The military industrial complex. As they are still way over funded.
US spends 47% of all world defense spending. Over 60% if you include allies spending, leaving less than 40% divided among many small and or poor countries. So what do we really need this abusive defense spending really for? Defense against what and who?
Are the personal domestic economies really such a national threat?
Or are they just a threat to the military delusions of power elitism?
Interesting fact! The 27th Amendment was actually proposed along with the original Bill of Rights in 1789. It's just that it took 203 years to ratify it.
Not like it means anything in particular, but of all the amendments to compare unfavorably to the Bill of Rights, you chose the one that was an original member of it.
The US government is based on one idea nowadays:
Government of the people by the government, for the government.
They do what they do to stay in power.
While it is true that ultimately the people DO have the ability to replace the government, in practice this would be hard to achieve- everything is set up to maintain the status quo.
And most of the Money in the US likes the status quo: they get still more money.
The largest cooperative groups in the US are the "scary people"- the religious conservatives and corporate entities that continue to make more money. The religious groups have been catered to by a large number of politicians in order to gain/retain the political clout and the corporations have funded the same politicians to continue to receive tax breaks and federal policies that allow them to make still more money.
The PEOPLE in the US are a fractured group, many of whom are so busy simply believing what the Talking Heads say (even when contradicting themselves) that they can not get past pre-conceived ideas that are not based on facts. The PEOPLE in the US are therefore unable to exert much real influence on real issues- every time we get close a topic that is truly silly will be brought up to de-focus attention from important subjects.
Our government is rarely able to accomplish anything meaningful FOR the people of the US and this will continue as long as so many citizens believe that things like gay marriage, presidential infidelity or building a physical fence along our borders are truly important agenda items.
Wake up, America.
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Comment removed based on user account deletion
that any reasonable or rational person was HOPING for a government shutdown. Only the two-tailed 5% of crazies that occupy the rabid left- and right-wing who demand everything and accept no compromises would hope for it. Unfortunately these are the folks that get most of the attention.
That said, passing a balanced budget and term limit amendment would go far in promoting financial solvency and removing career politicians and lobbyists. At least there would be a fighting chance at really prioritizing spending. Of course they always have the opportunity for off budget spending (trillion dollar wars etc)
I was wondering why this comment would be moderated 'funny' vs any of the other possibilities. Then I remembered some of the recurring stories of late.
captcha: explains
And here I thought we should be discussing the Democrats' favorite game: adding new things the government does FOR you without raising taxes to pay for them (or cooking the books the way they did with Obamacare - thought it was clever that they added trillions in new spending on that one, but the spending doesn't kick in till after Obama is out of office, and not responsible for finding the money to pay for it)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
but if it is hating what he represents then I say " HELL YEAH "
The current budget is EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX BILLION DOLLARS higher than Bush's last year in office. This is what Obama represents to me. He got in under the guise of change, no more Washington as usual. Well he did give us change, change in the wrong direction.
He was offering no cuts during this process, he was offering platitudes and misdirecting public anger at the process by claiming Republicans were only interested in cutting if they could hurt people. Completely dishonest in the whole. Reid and Pelosi, two Congressmen that should have been taken to the woodshed for skipping out on their lawful requirement to have had this budget passed LAST YEAR. They didn't because they didn't want to be honest with the American people. Apparently the Democratic party is about. Without an official budget they didn't have to declare anything. They could just ad hoc fund what they wanted making it near impossible for the American people to understand what money was being spent on.
Would we miss the D. of Ed? Probably not, it has overseen no improvement in education since its founding under Carter. Can we afford to cut the defense budget, CERTAINLY. Why are we defending Europe? Let alone trying to fight three wars? Why do we need so many floating targets; carriers? Take the money from ridding us of the DOE and give it to states as block grants. Let them meet standards set but without the government finding eighty ways to do the same thing and getting nothing done. The D. of Energy ain't far behind.
The amount of money they are talking about cutting is less than the INTEREST we are paying this year on the Federal Deficit. Congressman Ryan at least has made a real attempt at righting this government. They question is, can he do it? Will it take a Tea Party organization or similar to push Congress to do what is right? Where is the Left's equivalent of the Tea Party, a group trying to get government out of our lives and back into serving the people instead of controlling them?
As for tax cuts. This problem cannot be fixed by ending the "Bush tax cuts". We can tax every dollar made by people over 250,000 a year and still not get the deficit down by half. Does that give anyone a clue as to the problem? It is all about spending. We already bring in more taxes than we should yet we spend more as deficit spending than some other G7 countries spend correctly.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Except that DHS,Medicare D, DOE funding increases were all pushed by repub legislators and signed repub president, and don't even star us on bailout deficit spending.
And replace it with what? Realistically? I don't see anyone capable of taking their place that is any better.
PS: Link to the CBO numbers I mentioned:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/did-we-ask/
You've been ordered to quarter troops? Damn Democrats cramming their third amendment crushing bills into our gullets.
As a Kurt Vonnegut fan, my first question was "Who died?"
Then I saw what programs were getting cut drastically, and the answer is abundantly clear: poor people and old people.
I am officially gone from
Interesting fact! The 27th Amendment was actually proposed along with the original Bill of Rights in 1789. It's just that it took 203 years to ratify it
And yet they STILL screwed it up. Somewhere in there, there's an argument for cutting government.
You wouldn't need taxes anywhere near 100% to fully fund all those programs and have plenty left over to pay down the debt. Currently the US pays around 25% of GDP to taxes (of all kinds). So, raise that to 50% and you double the total tax taken, at all levels. Well, last year federal tax income was about $2.16 trillion, and expenditures were about $3.46 trillion. Double $2.16 trillion and you get $4.32 trillion. That means you can fund everything and have $860 billion left over to pay down the debt.
In actuality, it could even be more because we are talking about doubling total tax liability, which includes non-federal taxes. So less federal funding would need to be given to states since they'd be taking in more.
This is not impossible, by the way, Sweden pays about 50% in GDP in taxes.
For that matter, you wouldn't even need to go that far. In 2010 SS and Medicare taxes amounted to about $860 billion. The two programs cost about $1.5 trillion. So, double the SS and Medicare tax and you have $1.7 trillion in income, enough to fund it and extra, you don't even need to mess with income tax or anything else.
Not saying that this is what should be done, that the programs should be reexamined and modified, but this bullshit of "Oh we can't fund them no matter how much we tax!" is just that: bullshit. It is completely false. It is true they are quite underfunded, but they could be fixed by raising taxes. Right now the combined tax rate is 7.65% to you and to your employer so 15.3% total. Increase that to 15.3% each, 30.6% and both programs are fully funded with money to spare at current levels.
You do realize that the GOP's budget strategy of cutting taxes on the rich and spending huge sums of money to make corporations happy left the President in a huge budget hole, even before he took office, right? Clinton was in a relatively similar situation when he took office as well, large GOP driven deficit spending.
I bet their sweet-ass salary, sweet-ass health plan and their sweet-ass zombie-invasion concrete bunker would not have been interrupted by the government shutdown.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
and the Tea Baggers are bawling their eyes out over not being able to push their insanity.The Tea Klux Klan would do us working folks a favor by jumping off the cliff they're trying to push the economy over
Geek Hillbilly
But they are not changing their pay, and they are certainly not changing it by law. The pay is suspended generally, that has no effect on the actual salary.
To put it gently: They are deliberately misinterpreting the 27th amendment to defend their own pay, while suspending that of everybodyelse.
I used to believe there was a certain place in hell for people like that, I never though it would be in Washington D.C.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives...
Not paying the Legislature does not violate the law. By failing to pay, compensation is not being varied. But, like all other government workers during a government shutdown, compensation is not being delivered . Once a budget bill has been passed, all compensation will be delivered without variance .
I propose no person in the entire Legislative branch receive compensation after January 15th until a budget bill is passed....let everyone else in government get paid.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
You forget part #4: "Defending against roving bands of marauders"
And part #5: "Disposal of bodies of dead seniors"
Here's the Republicans original gigantic list of legislation attached to the "budget" bill.
http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf
How much of that survived the "compromise"?
Actually, no, Congress does NOT get paid during a shutdown. A previous Congress passed a law saying they don't, and since it was not passed by the current Congress, the 27th amendment doesn't apply.
It's time for change and since one man, who promised to bring it, couldn't. It's time for 300+ million of us to.
He did not promise to bring it. He urged us to be a part of it. Our response - elect a bunch of right-wing lunatics that held the rest of our country hostage over their ideals. We have ourselves to blame. This is who we put in office. It's a reflection of ourselves.
Why is this on Slashdot? How is it even "news for nerds"?
This is just general political news. There's really nothing technical about it. It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with computing. It has nothing to do with science fiction. It has nothing to do with anything related to Slashdot.
If I wanted to read crap like this, I could go to CNN's web site.
It's not even unusual or major news. It's not a presidential victory, it's not a terrorist attack . It's not even a rightwing nut shooting a congresscritter.
More CPAN less CSPAN
Look at the most active stories ever on Slashdot, Hall of Fame section -> http://slashdot.org/hof.shtml
Politics, elections, war...
Do not blame him. The economy is getting better slowly, troops are coming home, countries are being more friendly to us again, no 9-11 attacks, etc... It will take time to clean up the mess the previous president caused for 8 years. The current president is doing what he can after the worst recession since the Great Recession. the Republicans and Tea Partiers are focusing on one terming this current president, not on job creation, fixing the economy, etc... Since I am part of the 300 million, I think I will vote for the party who are trying to bring us back from the brink and doing it.
One of the riders:
"Prohibits NASA from collaborating with China"
Hey, in all fairness, he said "yes we can". He didn't say anything about doing anything.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Systems of governance are ultimately a reflection of their society. In this particular case - that of budgetary issues & massive debt - we're talking about a society with masses of people unable to keep balanced personal budgets; generally at the forefront when it comes to rates of living on a debt, consumptionism, etc.
And revolutions tend to not promote the "best" people, but the most ruthless ones.
One that hath name thou can not otter
If only the sharp pencils in the Bush administration saved up money for bad times. Note that Bush fired (resigned) his own treasury secretary in 2002. Paul O'Neil became a harsh critic of Bush over his attitude toward money.
There is plenty of blame to go around for what happened. In his autobiography "Decision Points", Bush himself admits that he didn't make the best decisions. I respect that. The fact that Bush broke the books is history.
Cutting the budget in recession is almost universally acknowledged as bad by economists. Perhaps you are a genius who knows better. Publish your theory and collect a noble prize.
Somehow I think that pointing accusatory finger at others is a defence mechanism for how little you know.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I wish politics would stop coming up on slashdot. This is supposed to be news for nerds. I don't want to get into politics when I'm playing MMOs, and I don't want to get into politics when trying to keep up with the latest in science and tech. I'll go other news sources for this crap.
adding new things the government does FOR you without raising taxes to pay for them
.
I have a non-partisan point to make.
Reagan introduced one of the best laws regarding balancing the books. Every project had to prove funding before it was enacted. The proof of funding came from either raising taxes or showing cuts elsewhere. This law really helped the USA balance to books through the 90s.
Bush W. didn't like the rule, and let it lapse from the books before engaging in horrendous over-spending. (Not the non-partisan nature of this point. The Republicans introduced the solution and the Republicans subsequently removed it.)
For an example of adding new things the government does for you without raising taxes to pay for them: Medicare Part D. The cost of this program is set to eclipse the size of the US economy. It was very popular with the Republican voting base -- mainly older people.
I am all for small government, but let's make the debate less partisan, and more honest. The stronger the emotion, the more likely you are fooling yourself.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Naw,
The Dept. of Defence should be renamed "Dept. of Peace"
The Dept. of Homeland Security should be renamed "Dept. of the Protection of the Constitution"
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
And yet they STILL screwed it up.
Blame that douchebag, James Madison.
Our distinguished ladies and gentlemen can hardly even rearrange 1% of the deck chairs on this Titanic without everything breaking down. 1% of the 2012 budget, and it has to result in this ridiculous piece of theater. The worst of it all is that I only have myself to blame. All those decades I went to school, went to work, chased girls, watched t.v., played video games, all the while failing to notice the global corporate tendrils gaining control over nearly every aspect of my life.
Now it doesn't matter who I vote for -- the result is the same. Lawyer types on K street write the laws of my land in computer generated 5000 page bills that I could never have a hope to understand -- all to either maintain the status quo or to advance the collective kleptocratic agenda. Doubtless, our corporate masters will steal everything they can while it all slowly collapses! I could say more, but Dancing With the Stars is on, and I never miss an episode.
(Rhetorical)
Nah, keep the tax cuts. Just pulverize the military. Do the whole Cardassians Left Bajor thing and we can use the pantheon of DS9 to guide us through the mess. (/Rhetorical)
No? See, that's the deadliest political trap of all, the one the Republicans built their party on - "We'll have fun giving people tax cuts and we'll make the Democrats clean up the mess!" Then the Masses don't understand why things are so tough, and they elect in more Republicans who "ease the burdens of sacrifice" with more tax cuts.
"ease the burden of sacrifice" like not providing free health care to fat people, or giving money to doctors who do abortions because women would rather just have sex without the responsibility of raising a child. Liberals pour gas on a fire and then blame others who try to stop them. Want world peace. Get rid of liberals.
Blame that douchebag, James Madison.
The Constitution, as written, wasn't perfect. The founding fathers recognized this. That's why there's an amendment process. Seriously, though, is there an argument against changing the Constitution so Congress is banned from RAISING its own pay but they're allowed to LOWER it?
All this excited reporting, and nowhere can I find the actual numbers of this new budget deal. And I have both a serious news addiction and considerable search term skills.
Does anyone know the correct values of X and Y in this sentence?
For the fiscal year of Oct 2010 - Sep 2011, the US government plans to spend $X out of an expected income of $Y.
On a more rhetorical level I also wonder why it is this simple basic fact about the dominating news story for at least several weeks is simply not reported?
You are right, partially. The system of check and balances is protection against an INDIVIDUAL human influences of greed, laziness, pride etc etc. It does NOT protect against the masses. It stops Bill Gates from simply buying the president, it doesn't stop the voters from making bad choices in election after election.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Belgium has been without a NEW government following elections. Its old government is still in place even if reduced in this kind of decisions it can make. And its public services are completly uneffected. There is NO shutdown of the Belgium public service.
In contrast, the US has got a government AND has leaders in charge, who just aren't doing their job of running the fucking country and are threathing to break down basic services in order to get their pork projects signed off.
Big difference. The bullshit is the same (In Belgium nobody wants to face facts that the two-state nation is at the end of its life and in the US the two party system needs to change) but the results are very different.
To put simply: Belgium is proof that if you shoot the politicians, nobody would notice. The US is proof that politicians should be shot.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I know this concept will be hard to swallow but imagine this: A politician who really need his salary because it is the only income he has and if the salary for being a politician is lowered, he has no choice but to seek another job and no longer be able to be elected by the people he is trying to represent.
Or in other words, lowering the salary of politicians is a very effective way to keep the poor out of government.
Is that what you want, republican?
Silly question, of course it is.
And that you didn't even consider this simple thing, goes to show just how morally corrupt you are. Only rich people who don't need the pay can be politicians in your mind. A politician who simply needs the salary to pay for housing and food doesn't exist in your mind. Only fat cats can be leaders.
Pity how the current state of affairs has ruined peoples mind. Nobody can even run for office unless he is rolling in cash... democracy of the rich, for the rich. This is how it came to be.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm going down and asking for an abortion while I still can. And I'm a guy.
If you think this political show didn't cost the taxpayers plenty, think again. Federal managers from front line supervisors to agency heads, assisted by lawyers, accountants, human resource specialists, and contact officers, spent a good portion of the last week planning for the shutdown that didn't happen.
If you think it should be simple, just consider these questions: If the majority of your workforce will be on furlough but some essential operations must continue, how many IT contractors do you need to keep on the job to support the remaining workforce and what are the legal and financial implications of issuing new instructions to the contractor? Can you even pay the contractor without an appropriation or will you have to reassign federal employees to take over IT support? Last but not least, who will create and sign 800,000 formal furlough notices?
By Friday afternoon, most front-line supervisors had held meetings with their staff to tell them the bad news, "Report to work, but we don't know when you will get a paycheck." or the worse news, "Come in Monday long-enough to sign your furlough notice." That productivity loss was easily a half-million man-hours. Morale falls through the floor.
If Congress wants to save money, Congress should finish work on FY 2012 appropriations by 31 July 2011. That will give agency managers two months to plan implementation before the new budget year starts on 1 Oct 2011.
Gandhi wrote for public consumption, and so do you, therefore you're Gandhi.
No, you're completely out of your mind. Thanks for finally making that perfectly clear.
--
make install -not war
In that case, take it a different direction.
If congress can't do it's job. Fire the assholes. Then you don't have to pay them since they aren't on the payroll anymore.
Seriously. If they REFUSE to do their job, why should they be kept there.
While I appreciate the apparent absurdity, unemployment insurance is actually a state responsibility. It's only when you get into extensions that Federal money is used. So, you aren't collecting unemployment from the same government that can't pay you. If you live in California, you collect from a different government that can't pay you.
For all this talk of "budget savings" no politician has the guts to tackle REAL savings by cutting the stuff that will actually make a difference in the long run.
How about stopping payments to farmers to grow crops on land that is otherwise un-viable to grow those crops on?
How about spending less money on buying fancy new scanners for airports that do nothing to make airplanes safer from bad guys?
How about giving less money to the coal industry?
How about removing tax cuts and subsidies for the big end of town and making them pay their fair share?
How about spending less money on IP enforcement on behalf of the big content companies?
Oh wait, this is America where big corporations and special interests rule the day and where saying bad things about corn can get you sued for everything you own and then some.
Bull crap. You wouldn't be varying their pay. That's an absurd stretch. You would be temporarily laying them off without pay. Please don't throw in a red herring.
You can sing this tune as long as you want, but it doesn't hold up. 2010 budget numbers: defense, $689 billion; social security, medicare and medicaid: $1,494 billion. You can eff with the details all you want, but socialism dwarfs defense.
Adding interest on the debt changes nothing. If you add the burden to defense, you have to add it to socialism too. The ratio remains the same.
You conveniently split social security from medicare-and-medicaid solely in order to make each half of socialism look smaller (though each is still individually in fact larger than defense).
Veterans affairs couldn't morally be cut even if you eliminated defense overnight. Veterans served in good faith (or were forced to serve, before abolition of the draft), and deserve morally and ethically to be looked after. It's a consideration in recognition of service to others; fundamentally different than from of the three components of socialism enumerated above, which are handouts not predicated on service to others.
Oh, and defense is specifically enumerated as a responsibility of federal government in the constitution. Socialism is not. You can try to justify it on the basis of the much-abused "promote the general welfare" clause, but that is revisionism. None of that existed prior to the twentieth century, and it only started to get out of hand in the second half on the twentieth century. This was not done by amending the constitution, but rather by warping the interpretation beyond recognition in terms of the original intent. The votes were never there to do it honestly.
Yeah, it would be nice if we didn't need defense. Also, it would be nice in the abstract to have socialism if we could afford it. Heck, I'm not Mr. Potter, deriding and belittling everyone less fortunate. But neither of those nice ideals is possible. Not in the long run, and the long run is coming due faster and faster.
At this point, we cannot realistically either dispense with defense, or completely throw out socialism. The best we can do is try to improve the efficiency of both, and trim anything dispensable from both, but I think it's too late to save the nation as we have known it.
Some of us are IT professionals working for the US government... seems kind of relevant to me, even if it doesn't to you.
I don't own any apple products, yet I don't complain about all the apple stories that get posted.
Get over it and move on.
Want world piece? Kill all the idiots, racists, homophobes, and religious zealots. If you haven't guessed, that includes you. You are a disgusting human being, and I hope you die of a terrible illness that you can't afford to treat because you got laid off and don't have insurance.
Alexander Hamilton, 1st US treasury secretary, whom you may know as the guy on the $10, believed in government debt as a way to keep the debtors invested in the stability of said government. (so that debt keeps getting paid towards, I presume)
Wonder if it's gone too far for him, though?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I always laugh when Americans describe their banana republic as having 'representative government'. The US is probably better described as a corporate dictatorship / semi-christian fundamentalist theocracy. How many 'representatives' are not taking huge handouts from powerful interest groups? The shame of the US 'political' system is evident to almost every citizen of this planet, but a large section of american society.
With wall-to-wall misinformation from most of the US 'media' - I have been to the United States on numerous occasions and seen it - the people don't really appear to be aware of the massive level of corruption. Yes, there are some informed americans, but unfortunately there is a very large mass of mostly ignorant people - reminiscent of peasants in a feudal state of medieval Europe.
In a democracy, everyone's vote should have the same weight, uninfluenced by massive amounts of money, or the massively expensive and elaborate propaganda that is delivered by powerful and wealthy interests.
Since there are no sensible candidates in the US that have a reasonable chance of being elected, people have only one choice - republican/democrat. There is no fundamental difference in economic ideology, foreign policy, massive militarism, economic imperialism, social policy, or anything else that is significant between these parties, so they should be considered as one.
The republican party clearly exploits all of the classic nazi techniques for achieving power, using fear, hate, and religious fervour.
The time will come for regime change in Washington, just like it has for the backward and medieval religious regimes of the Middle East, and Africa. I hope the american people are ready to build some new prisons to house these people.
Maybe I missed a clause in my sentence structure. I agree with both you and the AC.
Republicans do things that lower taxes/Make Corps Happy/Bailouts/etc. Then they leave office.
The disgust is enough to get a Democrat President elected on "Change". But to do his job, he's stuck with some 8 years of fiscal disaster grinding down his policy options. So he does a few things, but eventually has to get around to "making sacrifices and tightening" etc. However, the voters who elected him on Change forget that he can't pull miracles, and start getting upset at the austerity measures which are attempts to clean stuff up. Also they somehow can't understand why 8 years of mess can't be cleaned up in 4 years of repairs. So they vote the Democrat out of office.
But wait! He got enough done and made some slack, so there's more room now for more tax cuts and Making Corps Happy!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
FTFA: "To keep the government running through Friday, lawmakers approved a short-term spending measure overnight — the Senate at 12:20 a.m. and the House at 12:40 a.m. — and said the final agreement should be approved next week."
In other words, there's a good chance we'll be repeating the whole scenario in another week. Again.
I picture our fearless leaders in a meeting:
A: Let's extend the deadline another week again.
B: Yeah! That way, we can continue to remind everyone each and every week just how dysfunctional we are!
You don't decide if amendments 1-10 are being `crushed'. The Supreme Court does. If you read the amendment differently from the Supreme Court, you are, quite simply, wrong. That's how the government is set up. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If the topic has not reached the Supreme Court yet, then it isn't decided. Once it does reach the Supreme Court, it will be decided.
Of course, that the 27th would prevent removing the pay of members of Congress is a silly claim at best. It's a bit of a travesty that a new law would have to be passed to mandate that when Congress fails to pass a budget to keep the government running, it keeps getting paid. Nonetheless, the 27th merely says that if you wanted to pass such a law, it sadly wouldn't take effect before the next election. So the current situation isn't changeable, but the long-term one is.
There are 3 types of people responding to this:
1. Those that blame the Republicans.
2. Those that blame the Democrats.
3. Those that actually get what's going on.
Until someone is willing to have the balls to tackle both the military industrial complex and entitlement programs, neither side is serious and neither side actually disagrees on anything of substance.
This might help some of you come to grips with the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Note that if you eliminated the DoD entirely (yay!), we'd still be screwed.
The only answer is to cut government back to at least Clinton-era levels - unfortunately for the socialist bureaucrat-worshippers, that means radical changes to medicare, medicaid, and social security. Unfortunately for chicken-hawk Republicans, that means radical cuts to the DoD.
It'd sure be nice if this country could get back to the principal of individual liberty and personal responsibility, but I guess that's long gone.
Completely different situation. They may not have a cabinet, but they do have a parliament that agreed to a budget, and all the necessary services are still being provided.