Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Government: Sorry, We're Closed
theodp writes "CNN reports that the U.S. government shut down at 12:01 a.m. EDT Tuesday after lawmakers in the House and the Senate could not agree on a spending bill to fund the government. Federal employees who are considered essential will continue working. But employees deemed non-essential — close to 800,000 — will be furloughed, and most of those are supposed to be out of their offices within four hours of the start of business Tuesday."
Do they do ANYTHING for the actual good of the country?
Do they receive other benefits? Bummer being sent home in the run-up to the holiday season.
So how about diverting some NSA domestic spying funds to keep retirees from going hungry?
...I don't feel any different at all.
All the news stories have been about "which political party should we blame."
You want to know who to blame? All of the twits who have been cheering on "their team" while this has been going on, instead of pressuring their representatives to do their job. The members of Congress -- in both major parties -- feel no pressure to actually resolve the situation, because they've managed to trick their supporters in the media into giving them a pass while they wasted time instead of actually trying to come up with a solution that has a chance of working.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
... the laughing stock of the western world, right? No other country has such an idiotic system (or as much partisan bickering).
It's all about keeping the unemployment down and helping the economy by cutting our government spending. OPEN YOUR EYES!
They are coming for more money. Your money. They are going to scare it out of you. Country is closed. Government is shut down. Crime is everywhere. End of the world. Blah, blah, blah.
What does it take to finally declare the Tea Party lunatics the terroristic organisation they are? They are not mildly insane like most modern GOPs, just full blown clinically insane. You can discuss with the Taliban, Kim Jong Un and Putin, with tea baggers... not so much.
Perhaps they realized finally that they need to stop spending money they don't have? Perhaps not what I would have selected as the first cut.
I am not surprised about this either. Let me guess, the congressmen get to keep their income too.
Game Over Man, GAME OVER!
Quoting a post on the Daily Paul:
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
'Murica! Where the government closes when they can't talk it out due to childish behavior from different parties.
I love Slate's take on this. When you read it, substitute "Venezuela", "Uganda", or "Myanmar" for "America".
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
If lawmakers of both houses were considered non-essential we wouldn't have a shut down right now.
It's all fun and games as long as you can play with someone else's income.
The people who steal one third of my paycheck! Who will spy on me? Who will treat me with contempt? Who will give my money to people who don't work? Who will blow up those nasty foreigners with drones? Who will second-guess my personal choices?
And what about the cronies!!? How will they get their schemes funded? Won't someone please think of the cronies!!!?
Sorry, but the way the US political class appear to act is absolutely fucking pathetic.
HA HA - "Nelson"
Can one side or the other toss the debt limit into the whole debate so we can skip that argument too?
I know, wishful thinking.
Because what we really need is anarchy, right? No way that could end badly.
Thank goodness that we don't get all of the government that we're paying for.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Quoting a post on the Daily Paul:
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
While some congressmen need their salary, most don't. You generally have to be fairly monied to make it that far in politics, meaning that the pay isn't a big deal. Also the lack of pay is something of a hollow threat as in all cases I know of, they authorized pay for employees retroactively after the shutdown.
That aside, if they were furloughed, they'd be prohibited from working meaning prohibited from resolving the situation.
A more effective solution would be to force them to work. Something like in the event of a shutdown they are required to stay in Washington and be in session 12 hours a day, 7 days a week until it is resolved. I think that would be more likely to work.
However, it is all academic since congress would be the ones who'd have to make that law (barring an amendment) so it won't happen.
Yes, I do! I find itÂquite amusingÂthat America was schooled by Putin on exceptionalism.
For a country one who claims to boast its own nationalÂexceptionalismÂandÂmoral superiority. Yet, forgets to mention they are the holders of the largest national debt known to man. If you ask me. I find this factÂhardlyÂexceptionalÂorÂsuperiorÂ... heck it'snotÂevenÂmoral!
What kills me is the assholes who are responsible for this shutdown... The senators and congress...
THEY STILL GET PAID! FOR FAILING AT THEIR JOBS!
How fucked up is that...
We have such morons in charge...
Lets take away their pay for the year. They have failed at their jobs.
If this happens in Australia (upper house repeatedly blocks bills from the lower house) we sack them all, and hold another election. It's called a double dissolution (because both houses are dissolved simultaneously).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
and stop giving billions of your tax dollars to the Israelis... In one fell swoop, your party would ride back in on a massive wave of goodwill as the TSA goons who make life such a misery would have been consigned to the dustbin of history...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Maybe the People can get stuff done, now.
I was there for the last shutdown.
By statute, email was not sufficient for notification. Every employee had to show up to the office and be given a formal-on-paper memo telling them they were furloughed. Remember, by statute, the in-person delivery of a notice on paper was required. That meant that *every* field employee had to make there way back to the office the same morning to receive their paper. Special Agents were called off of stake-outs. Employees permamently assigned to work from home or from desks at non-government entities had to leave their normal workspace and come into the federal building that was, theoretically, their place of employment...even if they *never* set foot in that building under normal circumstances.
At the last shutdown, every federal building was packed. There wasn't room for all the people who were forced to show up all at the same time. Halls were lined with people standing around because they had no place to sit. Friends gathered in groups of 4 or 5 around the desk of the one guy in their group who actually had a desk.
All of this may have been changed in the meantime.
However, post-9/11 we used to discuss the prospect of another shutdown and always concluded the same. Congress would be stupid to do it. The mechanics of the process made every federal building in the nation an incredibly enticing, super-target-rich environment for any nut job with a bomb or a gun who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory.
We tended to think that putting all government employees in central locations, metaphorically under a giant banner that said "All terrorists attack here. Multiple high-value targets present. High level of success guaranteed." was so stupid that even Congress wouldn't do it.
Of course, we might have been wrong about that.
A victory for the British Empire!
Retiree checks will continue to go out on schedule.
This is no joke. Have a look at this. Kinda scary....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cumulative_Current_Account_Balance.png
You have to scroll down to the very bottom to see the Good Ole USA... The scariest thing to me of all is not that are we at the bottom... its just how much in the hole we are... and this "benefit" appears to have been granted us because the other countries still accept the US Dollar as a world reserve currency.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
So this was inevitable...
http://www.usgovdownforeveryoneorjustme.com
You're right. I prefer the Nightly Kiera.
But employees deemed non-essential — close to 800,000 — will be furloughed
Since they aren't essential, why the hell are they even working there in the first place? If they don't NEED to be there, why are they even kept on? A private enterprize wouldn't keep on staff that isn't essential to the operation of the business, because it is an unnecessary expense that isn't justified. Why should the government be any different? If the government doesn't need to do something, THEN IT SHOULDN'T!!
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
In the corporate world, after every merger or takeover I've seen, non essential employees are shown the door. If we can do without for a day, why not a week, why not a month, let's go for all year. The worst thing will be having to fondle yourself at the airport.
The national parks employees are nonessential. NASA is nonessential. Those friendly men at the NSA who read all your email? They're totally essential.
Imagine the Republicans are in the same situation some time and a democratic congress adds a clause into a budget enacting gun control. Fair?
for putting a band of priviliged whackos into power in the House of Representatives.
They aren't representative of this country, and exist as a legal loophole that allows gerrymandering to be practiced.
Woo Hoo, Freedom for the rest of the world!
Roughly 16.7tn in debt. I.e., $16,700,000,000,000 and growing by a couple of trillion a year. Let's say that all the employees no longer getting paid are on $1,000 a week on average. Hell, let's be generous and make it $10,000 a week. That's $7,830,000,000 per week. Or 125 weeks to save 1 trillion from this. Assuming no other negative impact to the economy.
The govenment will still be going backwards by roughly 2 trillion per year.
Sure, its a symbolic guesture, but...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
What a joke, that quote is. It amazes me how some people actually want to live in a country with no government, or at least say they do. I can't think of a scarier world than a lawless one in this day and age.
Many aspects of government can be a bad thing, but removing it entirely is asinine. Pure anarchy? No thanks.
Because they never chuck out the executives.
NSA - spying on US citizens
MIC - burning taxpayer dollars for fun and profit
Politicos health care plan - you betcha
You should not depend on government to provide you with them. Make your own.
The funny thing with terrorism is that it means "scaring people". Which happens to be exactly what "terrorism preventing" does:
Politics found a war terminology, that also depicts its own negative side effects, side effects that actually support the war argument.
There should be a word invented for this maelstrom, because irony is not cutting it.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Feeling no different at all is not the only fascinating thing about this.
Just as fascinating is to contemplate that the US government has just vindicated mass action and laying down of tools to settle a payment dispute.
Amazingly fast conversion to unionism! :-)
of tears - i'm still waiting for a budget
"The Britsh are laughing! The British are laughing!"
www.gaiageek.com
Here in the UK if the upper chamber (House of Lords) repeatedly blocks legislation the lower chamber (Houses of Commons) can force it through regardless using the Parliament Act.
Seems most civilised countries have predicted this problem and developed a solution.
US Government is kaput. Victory!
So you don't want to be united states, but want individual countries?
Not just non-essential, a counterproductive drain.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Well, it's a democracy, and the people voted. That's good. But they voted in a bunch of Tea Party imbeciles. That's bad. Congress debated competing budget proposals. That's good. They were all politically-driven, ideological dreck more intent on sinking Obamacare than on reaching a deal. That's bad. The government is closed! That's bad. But security ops are still funded. That's also bad. But it's still a democracy! That's, uh, aaaa, hang on a sec, that's go- I mean b- that's, well, hell, I don't know if that's good or bad. Can we hand it over to a strongman tyrant now, so we can do away with the endless debate over nothing and actually get something done. Maybe this book would be of some use to the new guy?
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
If "The Government" shut down that doesn't mean there would be no government. People would still be free to get together and make laws and govern themselves. We don't need Washington DC to do everything for us.
Vote ALL of the incumbents out of office, and then pass a constitutional amendment that says:
If this ever happens again, all members of the congress that lets this happen are instantly convicted of "high crimes against the United States" and sent to GITMO for 5 years. Make sure it counts as a felony, so they're forbidden from ever holding public office again.
I don't care who takes the place of the impeached members of congress. It can be a lottery for all I care. The "next" congress is then required to pass a budget in 30 days. If they can't do it, they're all sent to GITMO for 5 years, and the process repeats until people figure out how to work together.
(In other words, make the penalty for failure so high that no congress would ever consider allowing it to happen again. That means the "replacement congress" case wouldn't ever happen, so it doesn't matter who it says gets elected/appointed.)
If "The Government" shut down that doesn't mean there would be no government. People would still be free to get together and make laws and govern themselves. We don't need Washington DC to do everything for us.
What exactly do you think "The Government" is? It's the people getting together and making laws to govern themselves.
Shedding the Federal government is not the same thing as anarchy. There is still state, county, and city government after that. What exactly do the Fed's do? Blow shit up, make enemies around the world, get us further and further into debt, engage in crony capitalism/privatize profit and socialize losses, destroy civil rights, etc. etc.
So yeah, thinking of the Feds being shutdown makes me feel hopeful and happy. Now if the fuckers would just totally go move to N. Korea, the world would be comparative bliss.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
If "The Government" shut down that doesn't mean there would be no government. People would still be free to get together and make laws and govern themselves. We don't need Washington DC to do everything for us.
Go and live in Somalia then, since that's exactly what they're doing there.
n/t
Pfff, please, you Americans suck! Belgium is where it is at, 1 year with NO GOVERNMENT! Because reject frenchies and reject dutchies couldn't agree they BOTH are the joke for other countries and just agree that they have insane accents and just hate the german speakers in their country like normal people.
Come back when the shutdown lasted a year.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Universal health care benefits the poor / middle income more than the high earners. I know Obamacare is far from the universal health care some countries enjoy, but it is a step to the right direction. When we know majority of the people in USA falls into middle class category, why would republican oppose the bill. I'm curious.
The simplest ,and obviously best solution to Obamacare is Medicare for all. Just do it goddammit! For the "debt"? Quit propping up the derivatives markets.. Zero the books, and make a fresh start. Fuck Wall Street.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You forgot "sudo "
Really? Air traffic control, we could leave that to the airlines, right? Or maybe you'd like 50 different collections of rules. How about NIH, anyone in your family get a really nasty disease lately? Surely your state will fund and coordinate that research. How about the CDC? You like plagues like salmonella raging across the land with no agency in charge of nailing down the culprit so more people don't die. How about EPA? What do you need clean air and water for. How about Social Security, Grandma can come and live with you, right? Medicare? You'll be happy to afford her medications so she'll live to ripe old age under your tender loving care. NTSB ring a bell? They are the folks that figure out how companies managed to kill of your mother by not paying attention to safety.
The list goes on, but shut it all down because they are "non-essential" and "counterproductive". Your motto must be, "I don't think, therefore I am not".
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-congress-approval/
Keep the fucking thing shut down. At least they won't be able to borrow into oblivion. Both major parties wrought this situation, and they deserve to be kicked out of office for it. There was no reason to have budget deficits, and no reason they couldn't compromise. But arrogance and self righteousness is not a monopoly of either party. A government that spends 40% of a nation's economic output is not a government that's doing a good job.
Add "dangerous" to that list.
Not just to stability in the ME and to US relationships with long-time allies.
More dangerous by orders of magnitude to US citizens' lives and freedom than the "terrists", or even any other hostile country, could possibly be.
Violent crime in the US, including gun crime, is at historic multi-decade lows (despite increased gun ownership, but I digress) according to official stats, yet the number of people killed by police (particularly unarmed people) and the number of para-military "SWAT" raids has steadily and rapidly increased over the last few decades, along with the prison population.
"National Security"? Ha!
*Real* national security would necessitate, in part, dismantling and/or massively-downsizing much of the myriad of current alphabet-soup domestic security/intelligence/enforcement agencies and departments, like DHS, TSA, and NSA for just a few examples, and either eliminating them outright, or at the least, stripping them of all but the barest minimum of powers and capabilities/infrastructure, like no more giant domestic data centers and "USS Enterprise bridge"-styled data/surveillance "command centers" at taxpayer expense to satisfy out-of-control and delusional sociopathic megalomaniacs with God-complexes, who also just happen to be US Generals.
Speaking of Gen. "Make it so!" Alexander, back in my day they used to send two big hospital orderlies with a net, a straight-jacket, and an ambulance for such people and placed them in mental institutions.
These days they hold high US political and/or government/military/intelligence positions.
I vote we simply wall-off all of Washington D.C. with all Federal government political/lobbying denizens inside, and make it a giant mental asylum ala "Escape From New York" and then throw a nationwide month-long block-party in celebration, using just a tiny fraction of the savings to the entire country.
"..And nothing of value was lost..."
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Right, because no one has managed to coordinate international flights, states don't have their own EPAs and dissolving the US would mean none of the states could ever cooperate internationally either with each other or with Europe right?
Finally, after all this time, the US Government is the size it is supposed to be, and doing only what is "essential."
We've been paying for "non-essential" bullshit to the tune of trillions of dollars every year for a decade now.
. . . .who are deemed "non-essential".
Um, if they're not essential, why are they on the payroll in the first place ???
We first had this argument a couple of centuries ago, a strong central government is simply more capable than a "Confederation" or...when we had the argument again, a "Confederacy"
What I wonder is if they'll actually save any money because they shut down and can't spend it. If they will save money, I wonder how much.
Interesting.. You mention that SWAT raids increase, and more people incarcerated tallies up with fewer gun crimes being committed.
That seems to imply that if you lock up (or shoot in a SWAT raid) the group that are prone to committing gun crime, they don't get to commit it. So the system seems to work as intended; the law abiding non-psychotic population are protected.
What's your beef with that?
It's worth mentioning that House and Senate representatives and President ... will get paid through the shut down.
Let's introduce a constitutional amendment that clearly specifies in the event of the failure of the House to pass a budget to fund the federal government that salaries for all of its members, as well as members of the Senate, go unpaid.
They got themselves into this mess, because they personally have no skin in the game. If they each had something to lose, then they wouldn't gamble away what many others can't afford to lose.
Besides, one of my most hated acts in politics are these last-minute dealings. Say that, after months of negotiations, leaders of both parties reach a compromise in a meeting at 8:00 PM, then the House & Senate pass the bill prior to midnight. Does anyone ever wonder how the actual budget legislation gets published so quickly? Or who actually writes the bill? Or whether anyone has time to read what's in it before voting on it? One of the many crimes in government today is how so much legislation is passed by legislators who've never read it but only base their vote by what they think is in it.
When the country had a population about the size of Brooklyn spread up and down the Atlantic coast that was probably true. Times have changed, and with the number of representatives set at a fixed amount the voices of the people get easier to tune out as the population grows. The federal government we have is not the right kind of government to oversee the nation we have become. It is time to dissolve, focus more on state level governments with cooperation akin to the EU (but not identical)
One of our Rights in the Bill of Rights is the right to petition our government. This is implemented in all sorts of ways. There are appeals processes when benefits are denied, the White House runs a petition lottery of sorts and rule making has public input mechanisms. I'm wondering: if this Right is impeded by the Speaker's shutdown, is the shutdown unconstitutional?
Yeah, wish they'd leave you alone to extinguish the blazing inferno that is your home, and catch the guy who robbed you at gun point. Let you handle your neighbor who wants to build a toxic waste dump on their front lawn. Get out of your way and let you find the hacker who stole all your money from the bank.
These are not their problems and none of their business. Because you are fit, strong and smart, and don't need any assistance to do all these things. And to hell with all those who aren't.
The Usa is the only developed country that does not have a universal health care system.
Medical bankruptcies are unknown in Australia.
The loonie goonie tea party wouldn't know how to make a good cup of tea.
when the government isn't operating at full capacity, it presents a fantastic opportunity for terrorism. also obama could use a false flag attack to kick the republicans into gear. i doubt he has the balls for this though.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
If the government has 800,000 non-essential employees why are we paying them to be in the government in the first place?
Maybe we should lock the doors and offer them all a significant pay cut , and decreased benefits to continue there terms of office.
Interesting.. You mention that SWAT raids increase, and more people incarcerated tallies up with fewer gun crimes being committed.
That seems to imply that if you lock up (or shoot in a SWAT raid) the group that are prone to committing gun crime, they don't get to commit it. So the system seems to work as intended; the law abiding non-psychotic population are protected.
What's your beef with that?
Come on, now. You must have realized even as you typed this how specious and disingenuous an argument that weak-sauce post is.
The SWAT raids are in the vast majority drug-related, not firearm- or firearm-violence-related. That, and SWAT use for the serving of regular non-violent/non-firearm/gang-related misdemeanor warrants has also skyrocketed.
How about trying to have an actual discussion instead of spewing ideologically-driven nonsense arguments that only muddy the waters and provoke knee-jerk reactions that divide people? That might actually stand a chance of making some progress towards saving lives.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think you've got your history a bit mixed up. The civil war did increase the powers of the federal government but not by much. Up until the 1910s we still had a quite limited federal government, the national guard was only formed in 1903, the federal reserve system in 1913, the income tax in 1913, our standing army was tiny, most affairs were handled by the states. During/after the Great Depression & WWII though things kicked into high gear, creation of the TVA, FBI, ATF, etc. Our standing army increased from tens of thousands to millions, the federal government became increasingly involved in prosecuting citizens, taxing citizens & influencing state/local governments/citizens through grants, regulations, special taxes, etc. I'm not saying that we don't need a federal government, that is foolish. But our constitution was created with very specific language written into it to prevent exactly what we have today, a massive bloated federal government rife with waste, bureaucracy, special interests & fraud. Limited government isn't only to prevent the rise of totalitarianism, but to prevent a sea of red tape and legalized theft by those with influence which left unchecked will surely sink any nation.
ALL of this is on the Tea Party Republicans who want to hurt Obama Care. And also on the rank and file Republicans who wont shut them up.
Period.
When you have Bill O'Reilly on FOXNEWS of all places calling you an ideologue (the Tea Party Republicans), you got a problem.
The Democrats and some Republicans in this case ARE trying to do their job.
This hedging with "both parties are at fault" to not offend anyone (and get moded down from some uninformed ignoramus) is completely wrong in this case.
It's the Republicans.
How to stop shutdowns.
1) Get big money interest out of politics. The good book says you can't serve two masters. As long as big money is involved, congress will serve them instead of the people.
2) If you can't change #1, then the shutdown has to impact the big money interests. Currently, parks and monuments and programs for the poor like Head Start and a lot of civilian workers (400,000 of them) are impacted, but for most people life goes on. If the shutdown closes airports, so business flyers can't travel, if it stops inspections at ports so goods can't be loaded or off loaded, if it closes US boarders because of lack of federal law enforcement, if, in other words, it causes real pain to the big money interests instead of just the poor, then Congress will do something to keep it from happening, because their (big money interest) pain will be felt at the election box.
3) Finally, regardless of #1 or #2, the staff of Congress shouldn't be exempted from the shutdown. Maybe if they have to do their own work instead of having aides do everything, they will think twice and of course, their pay and housing allowances and perks and benefits all should be stopped, too. After all, during a shutdown, only emergency services should be provided and their expense accounts hardly qualify.
Do I think any of that will happen? No, of course not -- the big money interests won't allow it.
How's this for a solution: if the government shuts down, the representatives and senators have to go home, and the janitors and admin and IT folks get to vote.
I wonder how many votes to repeal/introduce gun control, repeal/reinstate the death penalty, provide/deny access to abortion, abolish/reinstate segregation, block/permit pot use, allow/prohibit same sex marriage there were.
So what if there are a bunch of votes for/against the national health care plan, that's what democracy is about. It isn't a clean efficient system (as in an authoritarian state).
The job of politicians is to work to do the right thing.
That's what these guys are doing, you might disagree, as you might disagree with about half of the other issues I listed.
Non-essential just means the government and rule of law will not collapse today without them. (if you don't count collapse of congressional rule of law)
For example, the feds employ a lot of scientists and researchers. Most of them will probably be sent home today, and no one will notice.
In the near term, however, when our research that gives us better technologies, methods, etc. (remember, things like the internet that we are using right this minute were once government research projects!) has been inoperable and other nations pass us up technologically, we will come to regret putting "spending" ahead of everything else...
In Somalia the government is already holed up in a compound in the capital, what are you waiting for!?!? Run to your paradise!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. None of the essential services, such as air traffic control, will be shut down. You'll still be able to hop into your G5 and fly to Paris for dinner tonight.
2. OSHA, on the other hand, will stop inspecting your refineries, so some of your human resources employees may need to work a little harder to replace losses due to on-the-job mortality and morbidity.
If the #1 and #2 above do not apply to you, please ignore this post, it's not your government that shut down.
Compromise
Moderate
Tolerance
Ethics
I keep reading horror story told to me by American friend on how in Europe you have to wait for 6 weeks for exams, and how we are bled dry with health care cost or whatnot, and how universal healthcare is terrible. Hu. No. When I had a serious headache they made xray, MRI, everything possible within 1 week. When i had a stomach pain they made a camera in my stomach (can't recall how that operation is called) and took photo of the lesion, the same day, then within a few day (2?3?) got an answer from biopsy. I have never met somebody with a potential condition being in a waiting line. Also got my MRI retest 1 year after, to check if what is my head grew, within, what , 3 or 5 days of asking for it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Anarchy does not mean "without order".
Well if you're looking for something good they've done, I think shutting down such a large portion of the government was a good thing compared to what they normally do.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
800,000 non-essential employees... Hmm shouldnt this furlough had happened oh say 17 trillion ago?
I don't know if it's a product of my time in this life which has given me the perspective of age (I'm 41 ) , or if society as a whole is actually getting dull. It would appear in situations such as the government shutdown that grown men are incapable of making rational decisions either for:
lack of moral incentives (the desire to do the right thing succumbs to political advisors demanding that they take some drama based action to appeal to the emoitional minds of voters)
or lack of awareness (they are so oblivious to their surroundings that they cannot percieve any other way to act, logic has broken )
I see this in my everyday life where people are rather oblivious to their surroundings, and while I'm no mental superhero, I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend what your eyes can truly see. Are we as a society- Emotionally stunted? Chemically Muted (Monsanto?)? or perhaps the progressing of radio frequency communication has somehow scrambled our senses in a subtle and progressive manner? Does Carbon based fuel in the air or Radiation make us dumb? That the greatest leaders we can find and send to washington can't figure out how to balance the books and keep the lights on is ridiculous, so much so that I fear darker times are still to come from this madness.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
I wish I could get away with this. Bill collectors wouldn't have it though. Maybe I need some nukes or an army, then I can get away with being special.
Why not? If the last 200-odd years has taught us anything (yeah, I know, we're American, so probably not) it's that our whole federal structure has some massive scalability issues.
Too bad that shutdown doesn't shutdown its NSA and other constitution violating and terrorizing organizations.
Congress still gets paid!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is a systemic issue. Compromise cannot be found between Americans.
Blame congress all you want, but the heart of the issue is *us*. Their character reflects ours. Feinstein, Boehner, Cruz, Pelosi. They don't say and do things without the support of their constituents.
I can't count how many times I've heard Americans demonize one another over politics. They talk about each other as if they're enemies. 'Tea baggers', 'demo-rats', 'extremists'. How can you expect to find common ground in an environment like this? The divisive nature of discourse is pulling this country apart at the seams. The division is starting to become an existential risk to our livelihoods.
Divide and conquer.
Dislike of the Federal government =/= dislike of all government. My state, county and township governments are more than enough for me.
Bravo! With the use of logical fallacy, you sound like a budding politician. You should run for office
I knew when I clicked on the link from the home page of /. that this could not possibly be good. I expected to use my plentiful mod points to try to diminish the impact of illiterate trolls who take any opportunity to draw attention to themselves at the expense of their scorn of valid opinions.
I had no idea it would be this bad.
I am not an education elitist, at all. I didn't graduate high school. But it is so mind-numbing reading the poorly formed language and logic in nearly every positively-modded post here that I am just simply shocked.
I can't pretend to not have bias in this situation. I am an American living in Germany, and it is really interesting to watch all of this from outside, and see how Europeans view it. Also, I am so far left liberal that I am considered radical in the USA, although simply center-liberal here. My younger sister asked for a basic explanation of what is going on (she is extremely intelligent, but not well-informed - no TV, only mobile phone internet) and I wrote this to her:
"The Democrats and Republicans can't agree on a budget (and the Republicans don't appear to care about the budget, they're keeping it hostage over unrelated issues). The House is controlled by Republicans, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats. It takes both parts of the congress to pass a budget. The deadline for passing a budget passed, so although there is "money in the bank", almost a million people have to go home without pay until these assholes agree on how to spend it."
So, yes, I show my bias.
My point here, though, is simply to ponder: Why does any political discussion, particularly involving the USA, immediately devolve into nearly nonsensical, illiterate commentary that is almost impossible to understand, much less extract value from? 15 mod points is not nearly enough to down-mod all the garbage here, and I see very little to mod up, which is what I usually try to focus on as per Taco's original guidelines.
Air traffic control, we could leave that to the airlines, right? Or maybe you'd like 50 different collections of rules
Yes, we probably could. There are international standards for the rules (ICAO) that the US essentially follows now, so there's no reason we'd change from that. There are already variations of the rules per state or airport.
Canada has a privately owned company running the air traffic control (called NAVCANADA) , so it could definitely be done.
Ineptocracy
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Robert Anton Wilson put it a bit more succinctly. "National Security is the number 1 cause of national insecurity."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Please say TSA is Non-essential!!!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/enact-law-withholds-senate-and-congress-pay-if-they-fail-perform-their-budgetary-duties-time/98GfmwyY
and
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-process-leads-term-limits-congress/F1hprprT
So Obamacare moves forward today regardless of the shutdown, right? That means people can start enrolling in services today. What happens if the Republicans actually get a delay to Obamacare in a future Bills to raise the debt ceiling, or manage to repeal? What happens to the people now invested in a health care plan? Do they just lose it? I forsee a lot of really pissed off Joe the plumbers in the warmup to a pretty significant election year.
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
When calling attention to the constitution is flamebait then we have strayed too far from our principals. Going Galt has appeal.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
You apparently have little experience with local, state, and county governments. Many, if not most, of them make the federal government look like saints to devoted to the welfare of the people, and they'd likely be even worse without the threat of federal prosecution.
Let's close non-essential services like the NSA, DEA, DHS, ED, HHS, and a bunch of others.
Next, let's not raise the debt ceiling.
The Republicans shut down the government; the government did not shut itself down. Only one Republican voted "no".
They want the President neutralized. His only "victory", passing Bob Dole's idea of national health care (insurance by private companies in fenced markets), is baneful and hurts their very souls to behold. They will kill people to negate that minor win.
This isn't a government malfunctioning. This is a coup. The second one in six years. This, ladies and germs, is a test of national memory. Can we remember what happened only a couple of years back, at least, if we can't remember Gingrich doing this in the 90s?
As for Jon Stewart and all the other False Equivalency pundits: NO, this is not a failure of "Congress". Congress is furious, except for the representatives of the Confederacy still trying to win the Civil War.
"Brethren, you must club together to find me work at your own price." This is the right to work; i.e., elementary socialism of the first degree.
"Brethren, you must club together to find me work at my own price." This is the right to profit; i.e., refined socialism, or socialism of the second degree.
Both of these live upon such of their effects as are seen. They will die by means of those effects which are not seen.
That which is seen, is the labour and the profit excited by social combination. That which is not seen, is the labour and the profit to which this same combination would give rise, if it were left to the tax-payers.
In 1848, the right to labour for a moment showed two faces. This was sufficient to ruin it in public opinion.
The problem with that is you'd suddenly have 50 new countries. Could each of those 50 economically stand 100% on its own? Or militarily? I suppose they could instead stay together and elect representatives from each of them, to all meet in a central place and coordinate the affairs of interest to th.... Oh, right.
This is what happens in the land of the free, everybody does what he wants, and nothing gets done.
I will leave it to you to youtube a Cartman quote for "I DO WHAT I WANT", because I'm too busy being free to do it for you.
on the plus side, it looks like you guys have some minimalistic kind of health insurance now? Although I wouldn't bet my money on that being something significant either...
State EPAs can only, constitutionally, manage the food that's both grown and sold within its borders. The moment it crosses a border, any state involvement becomes unconstitutional.
Additionally, I'm not sure that expanding every State EPA to do the work currently done by the Federal EPA is fiscally responsible.
So when Bush was president, how many time did the democrats shutdown the fed government? Zero. With Obama president, the republicans have shutdown the government twice! Nice....
Given the history of American governments, which become steadily more despotic and corrupt as they reduce in jurisdiction, I'd argue we need to do the exact opposite.
I'd prefer a Federal Government that has control over my HOA, not the opposite.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Strangely, neither party, once in power, actually reduces spending.
I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what is actually going on. Clinton balanced the budget and reduced spending. Actually started paying down the National Debt. Idiot Bush raised the deficit and started spending money like a lottery winner and exploded the deficit again. After that idiot ran out of time in office, the deficit started shrinking again under President Obama. The Democrats actually try and reduce spending, get it under control, and then the Republicans mess it all up again, then another Democrat has to come in and fix it again.
As for the current debacle, the Republicans are acting like petulant children who didn't get their way, and are trying to hold their breath until they can make the president look bad. Some of these idiots were actually reelected on a platform of making the president bad. It's shameful and despicable. The idiot Republicans would actually flush the entire country down the toilet if they thought it might get more of them reelected. They are an embarrassment.
And I'm sick of having to pay high insurance premiums because uninsured poor people go to the emergency department (their only means of seeing a doctor when something happens), then when they can't pay their exorbitant bills, the hospitals charge everybody else more money to cover those costs. I'd rather see the money spent on getting everybody covered. We already spend more money per person on so called healthcare than any country that actually provides universal coverage.
Seriously, just make it a federal crime to tell a lie on the house or senate floor, and start throwing these morons in jail. Then maybe something useful can actually get done.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
At the very least it got you all talking about government and the roll of government.
First, I pretty much ignore the comments that have phrases like "hostage taker", "gun to the head", or "budget", there is no budget.
Second, the country is divided, as has been posted, our elections are very close, the parties are only a few percentage points apart.
Third, about half the country works for the government, which party do you think they tend to vote for?
Fourth, If you work, you pay about half what you earn in taxes, and "fees", federal, state, and local combined, Ask youself what do we get for that?
Fifth, big government is the same thing as big oil, big industry, big corporation, what ever, except big government is the biggest of all and if you think government ismore benevolent, trustworth, just, or beneficial, I think you are mistaken.
Six, no one not working for government really will even notice this "shutdown".
Seven, the rebublican party does better when they stand up like they did on this issue, I hope they will make some gains in congress on the next election, it is not good to have one party in control for to long, it has a corrupting influence on most any one involved.
Anyone that had a vote on this did so because they won their election, a republic is not winner take all system, the government is working as it is was designed, in this, the House is supposed to be the voice of the people.
I applaud both parties for taking a stand and making this possible, and encourage them to do more of the same.
Apparently you've never seen corruption in your local and/or state governments. If you did, you'd be very happy that the feds are still around in some aspect.
If "The Government" shut down that doesn't mean there would be no government. People would still be free to get together and make laws and govern themselves. We don't need Washington DC to do everything for us.
Go and live in Somalia then, since that's exactly what they're doing there.
You seem to forget we have State and city laws as well. Sure there would be some changes, but most states could eventually take care of their own else they would lose citizens.
Meanwhile, naturally our forces deployed in the Middle East will be standing down, right? That is something that is truly of no use to the people of the U.S.
Awe isn't it great living in the good ole' USSA (United Socialist States of America) which seems to be well on it's way of becoming the People's Republic of America.
I remember a day when we were taught a fairy tail about a land for the people by the people, and not for the special interest by the special interest, or more accurately now, a government for the oligarchy by the oligarchy. But I digress as that tail was told more than a few decades ago.
Our government is no longer run by two parties that actually stood for something. It's publicly controlled by the bleeding hearts liberals and spineless conservatives, but privately run by the deconstructionists, so we can all sit back and relax as it all unfolds with no real concern by "the people" other than the few who blog about the problem. Isn't life grand!
Oh, was I grand standing. Sorry, wrong forum... ;)
The site is in place to both block online services, which require the majority of their servers, and to prevent people from calling or emailing complaints, which requires a huge amount of staff. So yes, paying one guy to put up one page on one server allows them to shut down all other servers and send the rest of the staff home.
Shedding the Federal government is not the same thing as anarchy. There is still state, county, and city government after that. What exactly do the Fed's do? Blow shit up, make enemies around the world, get us further and further into debt, engage in crony capitalism/privatize profit and socialize losses, destroy civil rights, etc. etc.
So yeah, thinking of the Feds being shutdown makes me feel hopeful and happy. Now if the fuckers would just totally go move to N. Korea, the world would be comparative bliss.
Yea, the federal government destroys civil rights. We should leave it all up to the states!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
Fuck off.
...we have an immediate general election in order to try and get a government that can govern.
The whole US federal govenment is non essential. Only the state and municipal governments are useful. So nobody will miss anything.
Great.
Where is the New York embassy in France so I can arrange a visa?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
America was not shut down properly. Would you like to start America in safe mode, with free healthcare and without the guns? (Recommended)
Less *is* more.
So you think that if the federal government disappeared tomorrow that all the problems you mentioned would go away too? Isn't it more logical that all that mess will just filter down to the state, county and city levels?
How about getting realistic and living within our means like they expect each and every one of us to?
If they run out of money shut em down and don't pay the President or any of them. They will be sure to stick to the budget after one round of that.
An HOA is not a government. Your town may have a despotic government but it is hardly a universal truth. And candidates who can be thrown out by a fifty vote margin are a lot more likely to listen when their constituents start to complain.
In, I believe, late 1999 I was attending a high school that got a bomb threat. The school was, of course, evacuated, but how they handled the mass horde of almost 2,000 students after is what confused me then and to this day. Initially they had us line up down the street a bit. Later they brought in buses and had most of us get on those to sit there. These buses were parked next to one another blocking one end of the street.
Now imagine if some nut had a gun. Just how convenient would it have been to have the almost 2,000 students lined up? Any explosives? The buses! The possible paths of escape were (1) fleeing to the campus itself, (2) running towards almost certainly locked private homes packed together tightly, or (3) retreating towards the other end of the street.
Now play the scenario out. Thankfully the whole threat turned out to be nothing.
The government is good for two and only two things; stealing ( taxes ) and killing ( starting war ). Maybe if the government shuts down, instead of doom and gloom, we will see an era of prosperity and peace.
NSA
Due process free detention
Due process free execution
War on Some Drugs (aka, New Jim Crow)
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The last shutdown was in 1995. Email was so fucking new [for most] then. You think something could have changed since?
I never understood the thing where people hate the federal government but somehow love lower levels of government. Why is the state the maximum allowable level of federalism?
Don't forget SWAT raids on those dangerous and seditious home poker games.
It's a Salon article but I had to use the google link because salon put a " in the URL and I don't want to try to figure out how to deal with that.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
They do that and stuff like it all of the time. Apparently you only think it is unfair when the other side does it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Yeah, but it is realistic to think a smaller problem could be tackled.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Most people advocating for it also have delusion THEY would come out on top in such a situation (through outright murder and intimidation). They also, quite unsurprisingly, own the most firearms.
The feds are the last line of defense of your rights against the tyranny of the state government. The feds are the first line of defense against conquest by foreign powers. The feds are the only organization powerful enough to defend against the predations of for profit multinational corporations.
I am an American, not someone born in Montana, who grew up in Mississippi or lives in Florida. I am an American first and foremost.
I think the wrong part of Government shut down.
The part that should have shut down is the House.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Where is my Panda Cam?
Now that's an essential service ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
But because Obama is not being allowed to run roughshod, the whole interwebs is up in arms. News at 11.
So typical--a filibuster by the Dems is "democracy in action" while one like Ted Cruz' is "obstructionist grandstanding."
> Fucking idiots
Want to get rid of them? Go from a majority voting system to a proportional voting system (with a minimum percentage threshold). Gets you new parties in no time and rid of the old, clogged ones.
It is interesting that the U.S., which is so in favor of capitalistic competition, allowed their politicians to form a duopol preventing actual competition in the political field.
How about Social Security, Grandma can come and live with you, right? Medicare? You'll be happy to afford her medications so she'll live to ripe old age under your tender loving care. NTSB ring a bell? They are the folks that figure out how companies managed to kill of your mother by not paying attention to safety.
Anyone not receiving Social Security or Medicare benefits already -is- paying for those who are. The net difference would probably wouldn't be disruptive.
Are you guys serious? Do you not read the news? Despite the slashdot hiveminds wishes to the contrary, terrorism is very real and is happening. Just a few days ago, we had the Kenyan mall attack. How many attacks does it take before you believe it is happening?
He's conveniently overlooked the things that have shut down.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Hopefully we won't be able to start any new wars while the government is in shutdown.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I can only hope that it never reopens. Raping the poor with social programs is just mob rule and not a real government.
Maybe it would benefit the US to wall off a section of some conservative part of the country and let all the far right / libertarians move there and have no government. I guess we could settle once and for all the value of government.
Anyone else find some sick humor in the irony of today's Google Doodle being Yosemite National Park's anniversary, on the day it gets shut down?
If over 800,000 federal employees are considered "non-essential", should we really be giving them a job?
That gives you 2 weeks to convert your USD to bitcoin...
Democracies are "Majority Rule" again WE ARE A REPUBLIC. That's why it takes 2/3 votes to pass things and make them stick. 51% doesn't cut it, and all the ACA got was 51%. That is why it is still being stalled and picked apart. As it should be.
I really don't think you understand how the legislative branch works. A 2/3 vote is only required to override a presidential veto (both houses), to approve a Constitutional amendment to be sent to the states to ratify (both houses), to ratify a treaty (Senate), to declare the President incapacitated and allow the Vice President to act in his place for 21 days under the 25th Amendment (both houses), and to remove someone from office federal office after a majority impeaches them (House). Additionally, as a matter of parliamentary procedure (not Constitutional law), the Senate requires a 3/5 majority to vote for cloture and end a filibuster.
Beyond that, ALL votes in BOTH houses are a simple majority.
51% does in fact cut it. (Or 60-39 in the Senate and 219-212 in the House. But I digress.) If it didn't, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, because it would have never been law in the first place.
The only reason it's still being contested is because a minority has a very outsized voice through a combination of gerrymandering giving the Republicans a 242-193 edge despite them losing the popular vote by 1% and the Speaker's use of the "majority of the majority" rule to prevent bills that a majority of Congress would approve going forward unless a majority of his party is behind it.
There's a very big difference between ensuring that the voice of a minority is heard and can have influence and letting a minority run roughshod over the rest of the country. The Republicans lost on Obamacare. They've lost 43 times on it now, and the forefathers certainly did not envision a minority holding the entire government hostage until they got their way.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That would be me, one in 8.0 eex 5.
A smaller government cost less money to operate. Reduce all the special programs. Only self sufficient people should stay. Let all the freeloaders that live on government subsidies bankrolled by working citizens' taxes move out of this country! It's time for a change! I'm tired.. of this OBAMANATION. It's time to take America back! This includes any Corporation or entity that survives by sucking on Miss Liberty's tits. My payroll is taxed $33k/year. I'm tired of it. I want a US President that has balls enough to lock down our borders, kick out the illegal aliens. Especially the kind that depend on the US Government for food and healthcare. I want a President that has the balls to say... UN.. we've hosted you long enough, time to find another sponser. I want to see our government to stop sticking it's nose in other countries business. I want to see a President who has the balls that stops sending aid outside the country. Send the Senators and Congressmen home on furlow! Abolish Obamacare.
The House is gerrymandered. It does not accurately represent the will of the people, but rather represents the cumulative will of the parties in control of the states. If I remember correctly, between 95% and 98% of Congressional seats are predetermined by gerrymandering.
I never really thought of it before you put it that way, but isn't it ironic that the House and the Senate have completely flipped their roles? The Senate is actually more representative of the will of the public ever since they were swapped to election by the people of an entire state, while the House is more representative of the will of the states, since it's subject to gerrymandering by the state government.
What a completely screwed up series of events...
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Are government employees really ""workers?"" They're not actually producing value. In fact, I would call them leeches, not workers.
Is the marketing department at your company useless leeches? The accounting department? The legal department? The janitors or any security guards you might have? Is all of management useless? Would you even have a company if it was nothing but the supposed "productive" people?
The government provides essential services. The labeling of these people as "non-essential" is a disservice to the many people who keep us safe from harm and who provide the basic infrastructure and coordination that make allow businesses to operate smoothly.
We're looking at a shutdown of all federal loans for new houses as well as farm loans, a halt to food for impoverished children outside of schools nor for pregnant women (a harvest to be reaped over a generation), a halt to all of our science programs (including the CDC's monitoring of outbreaks and administration of flu shots), no more work or food safety inspections except in emergencies, no FTC or SEC oversight of our wonderfully trustworthy financial sector, and a nearly paralyzed court system if this goes on for more the two weeks. I bet towns near national parks are just so happy at what this is going to do to their tourism revenues.
Oh, and you're also cheering asking all of our soldiers sticking their neck on the line for America getting their paychecks delayed and half their civilian support getting furloughed. (Yeah, those are government employees too, didn't you know?) Plus, if things aren't resolves in 2-3 weeks, no more disability checks or pension payments for the people who sacrificed for our country.
Plus, shutting off the money to programs doesn't shut off the need for businesses to comply with them. No more permitting by the EPA, the DOE, the FCC, or the BATFE. No E-Verify for businesses looking to check the immigration status of new hires (and a hiring freeze).
So yeah. Cheer this on, you nihilistic twit. Just watch how well business does without the government in place if this lasts more than two weeks. And if we default on our debt obligations because Republicans shot all of their hostages, you can kiss every last bit of recovery since 2007 goodbye.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It's only the threat of default that puts us at risk over the debt, and it's the Republicans who manufactured that threat long, long before the debt itself would have. We held a LOT more debt relative to GDP after WW2 than we do now, and we paid down 2/3 of that quite easily while expanding federal programs the whole time.
The only reason our debt is this high compared to GDP is the Republicans unwillingness to raise taxes, and the only reason people are worried we may not be able to pay it back is because of Republicans using it as a hostage in political negotiations. Obama is the first Democratic President to preside over a rise in the debt over his full term, that is almost solely the fault of the Republican obsession with tax cutting, as is the rise over every Republican president's term since Reagan.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Been waiting for a good government shutdown. They keep threatening to do it, but they never actually do it. Was getting tired of waiting.
Any entity run so badly that it would shut down because of internal stalling over things that shouldn't even be an issue (always spending more than they had, and then confused when they can't do that indefinitely) deserves to be shut down.
I guess we will have to rely on the State, County and City governments for our daily fix.
And if you notice, The house actually changed position to try and compromise but the senate didn't. Neither party is innocent in this. Both are equally guilty.
So, if I walked up to you on the street and said, "Give me $100, or I'll punch your kid in the face," and then later compromised to, "Okay, only $20 not to punch your kid in the face," would you be equally guilty for not taking the second option?
You cannot start with an unreasonable position, "compromise" to a less unreasonable position, and then blame the other party as "equally guilty." Taking a hostage and threatening a wide chunk of the economy is not considered starting from a reasonable position no matter what your demands are.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Now signing on to the ObamaCare website, my minimum premium for coverage that I will have to pay each month for not using any of it at all, will put me out of work. The least expensive I've been able to find is in the $300 range.
Have you looked at a subsidy calculator? That may make your healthcare choice significantly more affordable. I make 400% of the poverty line (in the same boat as a software developer in GA making a fraction of what I used to), and that would provide me with over $2500 in subsidies (if my employer didn't cover me).
That doesn't make it free, but it takes it down to under $100/mo for me.
P.S. Not to rub salt in your wounds, but have you ever considered that part of the reason you make a fraction of what you used to and are saddled with such debt is because you keep electing people who are utterly uninterested in helping people like yourself, while you delude yourself into thinking that you're one of the "haves" because of your present help?
Why is not funding a massively expensive piece of legislation a bad thing? Budgeting is, by definition, deciding what to and not to spend money on. When you are already in debt by more than you will make in the next several years if you put everything towards just your debt, going out and buying a $100,000 sports car isn't good finance. Is the goal of the affordable care act good? Sure. Can we afford the subsidies right now? Hell no we can't, not without making other major sacrifices. As it is, we need to make major sacrifices even without it.
For your example to be valid, you have to support that not funding a majorly expensive program while the budget is already horribly in the red is actually unreasonable. I don't see how that is possible, since you don't make your debt and deficit go away by spending more money. Like I said, I'm sure if the situation was reversed, then the republicans would be trying to spend, spend, spend and the democrats would be saying we are spending to much, but that doesn't mean those saying we are spending too much are wrong in either situation. The federal government should not be spending almost 40% of our GDP every year. That's insane.
AJ Henderson
Oh, and some quick back of the napkin math. Someone earlier today was posting about what they saw for subsidies for them (as someone making $62k household income). That's 57% of the country that make that much or less. They were getting around $2 to $3k in subsidy per family member when they were looking at the level of subsidies, per year. Lets assume, just for insanity sake, that the subsidies don't get any bigger than that. That's a whopping half a trillion dollars a year in subsidies and it doesn't even get that great of coverage.
AJ Henderson
When the country had a population about the size of Brooklyn spread up and down the Atlantic coast that was probably true. Times have changed, and with the number of representatives set at a fixed amount the voices of the people get easier to tune out as the population grows. The federal government we have is not the right kind of government to oversee the nation we have become. It is time to dissolve, focus more on state level governments with cooperation akin to the EU (but not identical)
You (C0R1D4N) are probably already aware, but for other readers: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
All the Constitution mandates is that the house choose their Speaker. The Speaker technically doesn't even have to be a member of the House, though Congress always has chosen a member. There are no roles or powers specified directly in the Constitution, though Congress has always had the power to set its own parliamentary procedures, which is where all the power of the Speaker truly comes from.
Kind of like the filibuster -- not in the Constitution but within the power of the Senate to limit itself in that way.
And yes, it really is a grotesque misuse of an office the founders did not anticipate having the partisan role that it has today because of their general blindspot for the development of political parties in the US and belief that the government would be more of a "gentleman's" club.
Well okay, maybe "misuse" is a misnomer, since the office near really even had much of a use until it became a partisan tool. It's still a largely anti-democratic device that is yet another thing ruining political compromise in favor of winner-take-all politics.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The US position relative to the rest of the globe is irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the relative positions of the parties compared to each other in American politics.
How about the positions of the parties relative to themselves at other times in American history? Liberal Democrats today would be conservative Republicans in the 1960s. You want to read an eye opener? Go back and read The Republican Party Platform of 1960 and compare it to the 2012 GOP Platform. Much of today's Republican Party is still present in the party of 1960, but there's a lot in there that has been carved off of the party and rejected as "liberal." Here's some gems from the 1960 platform:
"To this end [opposing the Soviets] we will continue to support and strengthen the United Nations as an instrument for peace, for international cooperation, and for the advancement of the fundamental freedoms and humane interests of mankind."
"Our mutual security program of economic help and technical assistance; the Development Loan Fund, the Inter-American Bank, the International Development Association and the Food for Peace Program, which create the conditions for progress in less-developed countries; our leadership in international efforts to help children, eliminate pestilence and disease and aid refugeesâ"these are programs wise in concept and generous in purpose. We mean to continue in support of them."
"Republican policy firmly supports the right of employers and unions freely to enter into agreements providing for the union shop and other forms of union security as authorized by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act )."
"Republican action has given to millions of American working men and women new or expanded protection and benefits, such as: Increased federal minimum wage; Extended coverage of unemployment insurance and the payment of additional temporary benefits provided in 1958-59; Improvement of veterans' re-employment rights; Extension of federal workman's compensation coverage and increase of benefits..."
"Congress should submit a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for women."
"Strengthened federal enforcement powers in combatting water pollution and additional resources for research and demonstration projects. Federal grants for the construction of waste disposal plants should be made only when they make an identifiable contribution to clearing up polluted streams."
"Federal authority to identify, after appropriate hearings, air pollution problems and to recommend proposed solutions."
"Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy require that ... the annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled."
These are all positions that would have Tea Party nuts screaming to unseat them in a primary challenge. The GOP has taken a hard shift to the right of center, and they've dragged the Democrats behind them by framing and controlling the debate and by shedding moderates by labeling them as liberals.
Lastly, and perhaps most topically on the subject of the debt.
"In order of priority, federal revenues should be used: first, to meet the needs of national security; second, to fulfill the legitimate and urgent needs of the nation that cannot be met by the States, local governments or private action; third, to pay down on the national debt in good times; finally, to improve our tax structure."
It seems like our current GOP has a different set of priorities: 4,1,3,2. Well, with the furloughs hitting defense contracts and late pay for servicemen and their families, perhaps it should be 4,3,1,2.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm from Europe and in Washington during my fall vacations. Now I won't be able to visit any of those amazing
museums thanks to the US political systems' incredible failure. And they complain about lacking discipline of Europe's governments!
Why is not funding a massively expensive piece of legislation a bad thing?
Because it is law now. The process for overturning this law is supposed to be that you debate it on its merits, pass it in both the House and the Senate, and then either get the President to sign or get a 2/3 majority to override him. But they can't do that, because they don't have enough popular support for this to either take the Presidency or to take 2/3 of both houses, so they're taking hostages which is horribly unethical.
And besides, your car analogy is flawed because Congress can, at any time, raise its purchasing power by raising taxes. That's the main reason the budget is red right now. (That, economic collapse hitting revenues due to the banks destroying the economy, and unfunded wars.) We paid down a much larger debt after WW2 through high taxes, and the economy boomed during this period. The notion that high taxes + high expenses = economic death is simply not supported by history.
The federal government should not be spending almost 40% of our GDP every year. That's insane.
There's no magic number there. A good number of governments spend way more than we do as a measure of GDP (without spending such a huge chunk on the military) and are financially stable, with higher rates of happiness and health. e.g. Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Germany, etc. (To be fair, that list also includes a number of countries with ...issues like Greece, Italy, Cuba, etc.) Spending less is no real indicator in either direction either.
It's what they do with the money that matters.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Actually, we are already far worse than after WWII. Looking at the debt history article on Wikipedia anyway, the highest % of the GDP as debt previously was 94%. We are currently have a higher national debt than our GDP. And they were looking at ways to fix that at that point, not ways to spend more.
AJ Henderson
nt
Liberty in your lifetime
All of this has been settled Obama won twice. It is all I need for the sake of having a free country. If you don't like it win the house senate and pass a law through the supreme court. And you can have your way till then your pissing in the wind.
Blame Canada!
The funny thing is, the Government, as an entity, is something that Humans IMAGINED into existence. It is a like a Software Program that has taken on a life of its own.
I only hope that people remember that 'we the People' are the Creator Gods of the Government.
We are the Programmers, and we can always uninstall/upgrade/replace our current Version. All it takes is putting Words on a piece of paper (Constitution/Declaration/Northwest Ordinance/Patriot Act/etc) and having enough People BELIEVE in those Words.
A combo of Words, Imagination and Belief can make any Thing come to Life. Government is simply an example.
As a metaphor: Within 'Earth.exe' there are Natural System and Man-made Systems. The Natural Systems make up the 'Hardware Grid', and the Man-made Systems are the 'Virtual Grid'. Us Humans are basically Programmers living in a Virtual Reality... Creator Gods if you will. It would be nice if we started to act like it...
Who even noticed that anything government was shut down? If you work for the government, I do not count you, you alway got paid in the past when this has happened, and if you do not like it you have a choice, don't work for the government, you chose to work for an employer who is vindictive, arbitratry, petty, dishonest, etc.
Seriously, who really even noticed in their daily lives? The elected, and the bureaucrats will try very hard to shut things you will notice. I am sick and tired of people who claim to be serving US, when they do not get their way, will threaten and try to hurt US.
The governmet hates this because it shows how really irrelevent they are in our daily lives.
Do they do ANYTHING for the actual good of the country?
As they are shut down, they can't mess things up any worse!
800,000 workers on a free vacation with everyone else working means less than 20% of the workforce is not working.
What is happening here is that in order to increase the DRAMA, and get the press to report on those horrible, evil Rethugnicans who just won't come the the table and talk... is that they are selectively closing things they are sure the press will report on.
None of this would be happening if the Democrats would have performed their constitutional duties and passed a budget, but you'll be hard pressed to find any Democrats admitting to the truth, they prefer righteous indignation, and a defined group of people to direct all their hate at.
Disgusting.
Murphy was an optimist
And yet, when the Republicans asked the Democrats to sit down and talk out a compromise they said "We are not talking to you at all"
Murphy was an optimist
The president doesn't balance the budget, congress does. The president only signs it.
Republicans were in majority when Clinton "balanced the budget".
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
This rant applies equally to the UK, EU and the rest of the globalist economies, run by corrupt corporatists...
You know that the Democrats and the Republicans are BOTH selfish, greedy, corrupt puppets of the corporatist elites... don't you? What part of their insanity gets you voting for the same, idiotic, corrupt, infantile, greedy, selfish morons over and over again? When will you ever learn?
They are BOTH the same, but you democrats and republicans cannot see it, because you are both so massively blinded by your own hatred of the other side, that you engage in cognitive dissonance as a normal function of thinking and argue, concurrently, for and against the exact same policies, dependent entirely upon which party is trying to implement them.
STOP PLAYING THEIR STUPID GAMES!!!
Here is a clue as to how you save your nation from these idiots...
If any candidate is standing as a Democrat, OR as a Republican... Do NOT vote for them. Then YOU cannot be blamed for the mess America is in. They do NOT represent YOU. They represent a deeply hate filled, corrupt, vile group of corporatist parasites. Free yourself from their infestation and deprive them of a host. Vote them all OUT!
Please America (and the EU and UK) GET A CLUE!
...now Wallstreet can take over officially.
Has everyone forgotten the promises of then-candidate Barrack H O'Bama? He promised to go over the budget line by line to get rid of government waste, and he hasn't so much as proposed a full budget since he took office! Why can he get away with that? Instead of sending Congress a Budget, he sends them nothing, and when they try to pick up the slack, and send him a budget he says he will veto it. He has it wrong. He is the one that is supposed to be send THEM the budget, not the other way around! The House has it right. At least SOMEONE in Government realizes they need to be looking at all these programs from a funding standpoint. Since our Chief Executive to perform the duties of his Office he has no right to criticize not getting what he wants, because he has never put it on paper. We did not elect an Emperor. He WAS elected as our President. He should stop lying and politicizing and do the job he was elected to do. And that goes for every member of the Senate as well, if they won't do their job, throw the bums out of office.
Did you just tune into this yesterday? You don't remember these same Republicans pulling the last debt crisis to try to stop Obamacare from passing? Has there been any breach in the iron wall of Republican intransigence on this issue for the entirety of the Obama presidency? Because seriously, if so I missed that one.
The Republicans are the ones adding random crap to the goddamn finance bills...fuck, I can't even continue this sentence. If you want to defend these people, on your own head be it.
US economy will continue to slide till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma is resolved.
Casteism
The monetary cost of "a near perfect surveillance state" has become/is rapidly becoming negligible.
The more pertinent trade-off at this juncture is Freedom vs Security.
Another thing to keep in mind... the government is not the only powerful actor capable of taking away freedom by using surveillance.
Its hard to know how things will play out, but its certainly an important topic for people to be aware of and think critically about.
Inadequate in every way, but at least a place to start.
I see a common theme here is that Republicans are holding government funding hostage for defunding Obamacare.
Has anyone considered that perhaps shutting down 17% of the US Govt. is a good thing? Has anyone here, anyone at all, actually been adversely affected?
I know for me, and (quite literally) millions more just like me, the Federal Government "shutdown" has been the best thing to happen in at least the past 12 years.
Please cup Obama's balls the next time you're slurping down there.
Even in the most lopsided statistic you gave, 53.7 v 42.1, nobody has anything nearing a consensus. Yet, the media and the lackies always talk about their pet politicians having some sort of 'mandate'.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
You're saying that if someone has a legitimate reason to hate me and my organization (which happens to be an arm of the government), then trying to kill mass numbers of us, an action clearly intended not just to accomplish mass murder but also to highlight the evils of a government gone wrong, is NOT an act of terrorism.
You're saying that if we're a bunch of middle-class office drones, not especially unique, then targeting us is, by some definition you've neglected to explicity state, NOT terrorism.
Personally, I think that every person who flew a plane into a building on 9/11 truly felt they had legitimate reasons to hate something about the U.S. and that killing a bunch of middle-class office drones was a good way to send some sort of message to the world about the legitimacy of their complaints.
Knocking down a building full of government bureacrats who have been forced into a high-density gathering, without regard to which agency they report, is a pretty clear way to kill lots of people, send a political message, and create fear among the population. If that wouldn't qualify as terrorism, then neither would 9/11 or the Boston bombings or the Nidal shooting or the Murrah building. Yet I don't think too many intellectually honest people would quibble with categorizing those 4 incidents as terrorism against (mostly) unremarkable people who are not high (dollar) value targets.
Boiled down, you're saying that if you kill a bunch of people you have a reason to hate, even when that hate clearly has a political component, then the act may be reprehensible but it's not terrorism. I'm having trouble seeing the difference.
To me, terrorism is an act of violence, usually against the innocent or symbolic, with at least some political motivation. If killing concentrations of government employees doesn't qualify, I'm not sure what does. The value of the target is not in how much it (or, more properly, they) cost to replace; value is a function of how big a statement is made, how effectively, and how the government reacts. Drawing an equivalency between the value of a target to a terrorist and the dollar cost of rebuilding facilities and replacing people is simultaneously naive and offensive.
I've sat by the memorial in OKC and cried for the dead I knew and their children that I didn't. I find it hard to believe you could deny that bombing was an act of terrorism simply because most people don't like the agency that employed the victims yet, by extension of the reasoning in your post, you would do exactly that.
BTW, two things about Joe Stack. First, have you read his "manifesto"/suicide note? I have. He had personal motivations, sure. I'm guessing all terrorists have some but there is also no doubt he intended to make a political statement. Second, there is also no doubt he intended to kill lots more people than he did. The reason the entire side of the building was covered in a sheet of flame was that his plane precisely center-punched a main support column, causing all the fuel he had loaded into the fuselage to spread out at 90 degrees from the impact. If he had flown his plane five feet on either side of that impact point, he would have poured a giant fireball into the center of a crowded office killing, at minimum, dozens. He did all that to make a very political statement about his hatred of a particular government entity and to highlight a large number of additional grievances (see his suicide note) about other government behavior.
Yet you say that's not terrorism. It's an odd dictionary that provided you with whatever definition you're using for that term.