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).
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!!!?
When are they *not* coming for more money?
Every single November there is another "we need to fund education" bill that asks for more money to spend on education. Your state may be similar.
I understand the difference between state and federal, but in this case "they" refers to the same thing.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Sorry, but the way the US political class appear to act is absolutely fucking pathetic.
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.
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.
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]
When are they *not* coming for more money?
You are not old enough to remember a time when you could go to a local government-funded university, like City College or U California, and get a college education basically free, without going $40,000 into debt.
Sometimes the government collects taxes and uses it to pay for government services that are worth far more to the taxpayer than the cost of the taxes; sometimes government wastes the money.
It's the job of an intelligent citizen to figure out which is which, not to cynically demonize government and shut it all down.
Exactly. It's not like nobody could see this coming the last time they raised the debt ceiling. There was a similar crisis earlier this year and they "resolved" it by increasing the debt ceiling. Without structural reforms that bring the annual deficit under control, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that said ceiling will be reached again.
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.
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.
It was George W. Bush's policy to spend that surplus on tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and then spend $3 trillion for a war in Iraq for the purpose of (what was it again?), most of which went to his no-bid contractors like Halliburton. Bush left us in debt that your grandchildren will be paying for.
The Tea Party is funded by the same loonies that got those no-bid contracts.
Its the job of an intelligent citizen to not depend on the government to provide them with things and to stop saying "cut spending... OH NO DON'T TOUCH SHIT I CARE ABOUT!".
Everyone needs to suck it up and make cuts and then, maybe, they can afford to do some things they care about with their own money when it is kept in their own bank accounts.
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?
Because there is a whole class of work items which can be postponed, but you still want to be done eventually - purchasing (for example, buying equipment and supplies for troops on deployment - sustainment won't happen, so you only get whats stockpiled right now), training positions (you do want those essential people to be on top of their game, right?), cleaning jobs (offices and government buildings need to be cleaned, the public traipsing through the DMV are a messy bunch), assistants to the essential personnel (for example typists and secretaries, who take a lot of workload off the essential personnel so they can get on with something more important than actually typing out that letter, putting it in the envelope and posting it).
Not to mention all the museum and library staff, a lot of them are in the "non-essential" class as well...
The non-essentials include people and positions which make the work of the essentials easier and more fluid, and sustainable in the long term.
There is also a lot of cruft, I will grant you that, but equally there is a lot of good that will be missed.
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.
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.
It's the job of an intelligent citizen to figure out which is which, not to cynically demonize government and shut it all down.
When you find some of those, let's start a country together. Meanwhile, I'm stuck in this one with a vast number of people who have absolutely no conception of what government does and very firm opinions about how it should do it.
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..
Any praise that I have of Clinton is highly qualified.
The Democrats are awful. They're willing to do things that are bad for the country so they can become millionaires.
But the Republicans are really crazy. They're willing to destroy the creditworthiness of treasury bills. They're basically willing to destroy the country and the legislative system because they don't want to follow a law that passed.
I didn't say it was easy.
"The Britsh are laughing! The British are laughing!"
www.gaiageek.com
Well, I'd love to drop things like huge subsidies for large businesses that result in them being in a better position to charge higher prices, but apparently the Republicans aren't ready to consider that. :)
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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.
Non-essential services.
Passports are non-essential as they are not an essential requirement for the functioning of the government. They are essential to citizens travelling overseas, who are not by definition 'government' as those travelling as government have diplomatic papers.
All company staff are non-essential. This is why you can have companies which exist only on paper for legal and tax purposes. You don't need sales staff, but it can make the company more profitable if you have some. You don't need IT staff, but it makes the company run smoother if you have some. You don't need HR, but they exist to annoy staff everywhere :-)
You might want to check under whose watch financial regulation was relaxed, which was a (if not the) major cause of the sub-prime fiasco.
You mean the bundling of bad debts together with good debts and calling them all good? The credit rating agencies all declaring these disasters as AAA? The selling on of debts so no-one had any interest in whether the person getting the loan could pay it back? This was all Clinton's fault? It wasn't the fault of the people who actually did these things?
Its the job of an intelligent citizen to not depend on the government to provide them with things and to stop saying "cut spending... OH NO DON'T TOUCH SHIT I CARE ABOUT!".
Everyone needs to suck it up and make cuts and then, maybe, they can afford to do some things they care about with their own money when it is kept in their own bank accounts.
Ok, can we cut even a tiny portion of the US defence budget, cut all subsidies to oil companies, and repeal the tax exempt status of religious "charities" that are politically active, and repeal the Bush tax cuts on the top 10%?
Those are some cuts we can get behind. The current "the government is taking your money and spends wastefully!" nonsense is just to push through ridiculous things like defunding NPR as a proposed way to balance the budget, while leaving things like the DoD's budget as a sacred cow.
The government sets the framework. People within it then do their best (or their worst, in this case mostly their worst).
It's all about keeping the unemployment down and helping the economy by cutting our government spending. OPEN YOUR EYES!
Yeah, right.
What it's actually about is thinking you've got a God-given right to run a 'democracy' when your political philosophy is that "The proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Clinton repealed Glass Steagall, didn't he.
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.
I don't think that fault is limited to Republicans.
But yeah, our economic policies generally favor those who need help the least.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!!
Passport applications. Those aren't essential, right? (That's one of the positions being put on hiatus).
National parks and museums. Again, no need to have any of those right?
"Non-essential" in this context means "things that are not absolutely necessary for the country to fall into chaos". Things like posting a guard at nuclear weapons storage areas and other such things are considered "essential". It doesn't mean that the on-hold positions should be eliminated.
The partial repeal was a Republican bill that passed the Senate on party lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
I suppose you can blame Clinton for not vetoing it.
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.
Yeah except some really shitty legislation has been rammed through with the Parliament Act. Overall it would probably be better if it didn't exist.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
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".
Yes. It was a group effort.
So the government sent in the military and forced these people to do these obviously incredibly stupid and wrong things?
Did it? No, I don't think it did.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-congress-approval/
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.
Makes me wonder what the point of having a UK upper house is - especially since, I believe, the HoL can't introduce legislation either. I mean, I know that's sort of the point - you leave the aristocracy their positions as a sop, while removing any power they have - but it still basically removes any point of having a bicameral system.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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?
Do you REALLY want to grant root access to the clowns in charge of the US ????
Hell, they make 1-week cram-course MCSE's look good, in comparison. . . .
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.
So then how is it the government's fault? The people involved were in no way forced to do any of this stupid stuff.
Nope, in fact the Bush tax cuts were passed based on projections of continued surpluses as far as the eye could see. Look it up.
The government sets the framework. People within it then do their best (or their worst, in this case mostly their worst).
This is heresy! The government is BAAAAd! BAAAAd! BAAAAd! Everything would be perfect if the goddam gubbmint would just get out of the way.
(This message brought to you by Duckspeakers USA.) No actual brain cells were used in the creating of this message.
Payroll, cleaners, administrative staff that send letters, most of the techies that keep things running, internal post, park wardens, public garbage colleciton.. You know, everything that isn't directly front line on keeping the basic lights on (but just don't ask for anything because there isn't the resource).
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.
It was George W. Bush's policy to spend that surplus on tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and then spend $3 trillion for a war in Iraq for the purpose of (what was it again?), most of which went to his no-bid contractors like Halliburton. Bush left us in debt that your grandchildren will be paying for.
The Tea Party is funded by the same loonies that got those no-bid contracts.
yeah man no bid contracts never go to Haliburton under Obama! He farts rainbows and rides a unicorn to work every day!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/obamas-mounting-hypocrisy/
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
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"
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.
I wish I could give you all of the modpoints...
Common Sense (+1)
Ok, can we cut even a tiny portion of the US defence budget, cut all subsidies to oil companies, and repeal the tax exempt status of religious "charities" that are politically active, and repeal the Bush tax cuts on the top 10%?
Those are some cuts we can get behind. The current "the government is taking your money and spends wastefully!" nonsense is just to push through ridiculous things like defunding NPR as a proposed way to balance the budget, while leaving things like the DoD's budget as a sacred cow.
You may want to check what the sequester did - it was heavily targeted on the DOD. The issue is that Federal spending on social welfare has grown unsustainable, well beyond what inflation and population growth should require, and constitutes over 60% of the entire Federal budget - basically consuming 100% of our tax revenues. Everything else - the DOD, USDA, FBI, DEA, Air Traffic Controllers, USCIS, foreign "aid" - is funded with debt.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.
Did he? What was the last year the national debt went down? If the national debt didn't go down - but went up - then how could we have a balanced budget or even a surplus?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It was also quite heavily supported by the Democrats in the House... It was a real bipartisan bill.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If your notional techies are "keeping things running", wouldn't you consider them "Essential"??
Cleaners are generally contractors anyway.
As for Park Wardens and such, last time I visited a National Park, I paid an entrance fee for myself and each member of my family. Sounds to me like Wardens, Rangers, etc, should be self-funding.
The vast majority of the "Non-essential" people out of work are bureaucrats of one or another flavor. In these times of austerity, everybody ELSE is cutting back: what makes .GOV any different ?????
So, funny thing --
I'm trying to sell my house right now. Except with the shutdown in place, anyone who needs a federal loan can't get it approved.
Pretty essential from where I'm standing.
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.
Austerity? You must be thinking of Europe. The US government did "quantitative easing" instead.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
. . . .who are deemed "non-essential".
Um, if they're not essential, why are they on the payroll in the first place ???
Because they do things that the government thinks are unimportant. You know, making sure servicemen and women get a paycheck... ensuring that veterans receive disability payments and medical care...
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.
Either house can introduce bills --- which house something is introduced into is mostly a matter of tradition (financial bills, for example, are introduced in the House of Lords) --- but in general only the House of Commons need pass it. Note that there are limitations to the House of Commons' supremacy --- certain bills are required to pass in both houses (extending the term of parliament, for example).
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.
offices and government buildings need to be cleaned, the public traipsing through the DMV are a messy bunch
Federal employees clean the state DMV offices?
I know, it was just an example, but I think it's funny how consistently people who are explaining why the federal government is necessary give examples of things the federal government does not do. There have been a half dozen examples of this just in up-modded posts on this article alone; yours was just the last straw that provoked me to post.
I suppose if you live in DC federal employees (actually, probably federal contractors) do clean the local DMV offices. In that case, I offer my condolences.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
What it's actually about is thinking you've got a God-given right to run a 'democracy' when your political philosophy is that "The proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it".
That's a straw man. Perhaps the AC does want government to help the rich get richer faster, but there are an awful lot of people who simply want the government -- particularly the federal government -- to stop interfering so much. Federal subsidies and support for the wealthy and corporations should end. So should federal welfare programs (that's a role for states, since there's no constitutional basis for the feds being involved, and since doing it at a state level allows for diversity of approaches). While we're at it, let's cut the armed forces by about 90%, and eliminate the army almost completely in favor of increased national guard forces. Most of the federal law enforcement agencies can go, too -- as can most of the federal criminal statutes; again that's a job for the states.
Nearly all of what the federal government should either be done by the states or not done by government at all. That's got nothing to do with making the rich richer.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
A single payer system (ie. Medicare) was the original proposal but the GOP wouldn't support it, so the Administration replaced it with the GOP's proposed exchange program from the Bush Administration.
As for devaluing the currency, which is what you are proposing, that would have disastrous effects world wide as so many things are priced in dollars. A much more sound approach would be for banks to choose whether they want to be investment banks or commercial banks and not both. There is a reason why all of the banking regulations were added after the Depression and all of these crazy problems started after we deregulated the banks. Second, pension funds should not be allowed to invest in derivatives. That is the real reason the government is propping up these markets. If they collapse, most people's pensions are gone.
While on paper it sounds good to let the markets crash and start over again, think of it like a train without brakes that can't stop. Eventually, the train gets to the end of the line and does indeed stop. But for the people on the train, that solution isn't so good. Likewise, for the people vested in the economy, which is pretty much everybody, not just investors, letting things come crashing down is likewise one way to stop the craziness, but probably not the best way.
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
There have been fewer votes on federal gun control (for *or* against) in the past decade than there have been attempts to kill the ACA ('Obamacare') in the past year. This, despite it being virtually identical to the plan proposed by Republicans while Bush was in office.
There have, likewise, been fewer votes on the death penalty, abortion access, segregation, pot use, and same-sex marriage *combined* (again, for or against) in the past decade, than attempts to repeal the ACA in the past year.
Democracy isn't about throwing a fit and refusing to do your damned job (passing a budget) because the *other guy* got something you didn't like.
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!
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
Makes me wonder what the point of having a UK upper house is - especially since, I believe, the HoL can't introduce legislation either. I mean, I know that's sort of the point - you leave the aristocracy their positions as a sop, while removing any power they have - but it still basically removes any point of having a bicameral system.
Mainly delaying & amending... Commons don't want to use Parliament Act because it's a sledgehammer and it takes years before they are allowed to. It's rarely used, if it gets used then it's got lots of publicity and time for public opinion to be made. It's only been used a handful of times in the last 60 years.
At some point you have to have a supreme house though... otherwise you get stalemate like the US system. Whether you think that's better or worse than the 'wrong' choice being made is a matter of how you view politics I suppose...
Three problems. You're not paying money to an isolated entity. You're paying money to the government to use public utilities, the government pool then pays workers. Note the separate entities don't actually shut down like the Department of the Treasury is still running full steam ahead because they are separate and self funding. You'd need to split out each part of government into a separate entity and then endure the endless shouts of "OMG privatisation!!!!"
Secondly most people keep things running. Life becomes unpleasant when they aren't around, but their absence doesn't mean the immediate meltdown of the place. Take a look at the IRS, essential tasks are processing tax returns, non essential tasks are tax audits which are currently completely on hold. Techies are non-essential. The systems keep running. Someone locks themselves out of their computer and suddenly their work life is on hold because they screwed up and need someone to help them but that doesn't mean techies are essential, nor does it mean they don't keep things running.
Finally I don't care if the cleaners are employees, contractors, robots, aliens, or an army of dirt eating ants. They won't be getting paid right now, and in one or two days the offices are going to start to get really unpleasant. You can say what you want, but the government does not have 700000 bureaucrats, and those that are there are likely the ones who've weaselled their way into the essential category.
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.
Non-essential doesn't mean what you think it means.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
How exactly do the rich get richer by shutting down tours of Mt Rushmore?
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.
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
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
But up here in Canada, the health care system does a pretty bang-up job. Saved my father's life just recently in record time. From heart attack onset in the front yard to hospital in about fifteen minutes. The medical bill was zero.
Seems to me that too many Americans simply don't want a functioning free healthcare system, (for whatever fucked up reason), and with that kind of negative will in place, then of course it's never going to happen or work properly. Too many assholes who seem unable to achieve happiness unless they see others suffering around them.
Seriously; this latest door locking thing seems more like, "I'm taking my toys and going home!" tantrum bullshit.
Stop bombing countries and bailing out banksters if you're short on cash.
They might not be able to borrow, but they also won't be able to pay back.
Care to take a while guess what happens when the government defaults on its debt?
As that's never actually happened to the USA before, I'm not sure anyone wants to find out.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Replace the Federal reserve notes with government script to be given only to natural persons and their pensions, not corporations. Everybody can operate like like nothing happened at all. Transfer all property deeds away from the banks, and commit to much needed land reform. Give it back to the people who were robbed by mortgage fraud. Make everybody a property owner. We shouldn't be letting private industry counterfeit our money to feed to crooked gamblers that created this mess. We can destroy the derivative markets with one easy swing of the sword, and the collateral damage will be quite minimal. It's all going to crash anyway. We can make it almost painless. And the empire can continue to stand tall. We also need political conscription, like a military draft. Put people in the hot seat who don't want the job. That's the only way to know we are not electing psychos.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The sequester was a separate thing that should never have taken effect - it was a series of painful (and drastic) cuts across that board that hurt the interests of both parties.
I'm not talking about that, however, but the "normal" discussions on passing a budget that don't arise from a tea-party-led threat to crash the economy via debt ceiling obstructionism the first time around.
There have been serious GOP proposals to cut programs like NPR funding, and Planned Parenthood and other such things that are a minuscule piece of the pie being dressed up as fiscal responsibility to reduce the deficit, while on the other hand arguing against things like repealing the Bush tax cuts (something on the order of a trillion dollars over a decade) because that would have no effect at all.
Spending on social welfare is expensive, but necessary and is only unsustainable if taxes are too low. The problem is having a low-tax system with a high welfare system. Whether it's fair to pay for a welfare system with taxes is a matter of what side of the political coin you fall on (in my own opinion, as a lefty, it's well worth it since it leads to a more productive and healthy workforce and economy despite the supposed 'welfare queen' issue that is nowhere near as prevalent as certain people would have you think).
My main issue with the GOP right now (or more accurately, the tea party component of it that seems to be dragging the more moderate Republicans around) is that they preach fiscal responsibility and jobs, but are doing absolutely nothing toward that goal - their main goals have been exposed as "push a theological agenda dressed up as deficit cutting and/or medical safety" to oppress women and reproductive health, and "block everything Obama does" to try to score political points.
You forget...this is the US. Where everyone wants things...but no one wants to pay for them.
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.
Non-essential is not the same as not useful, or not productive.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
FTFY. It's blackmail.
The proper role of government is to stay out of the business of deciding who gets rich and who stays poor. The proper role of government is to ensure that everybody has the same liberties, and people can't take each other's property or kill each other, nothing more.
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.
First of all, it's not about "government", it's about the federal government only.
Furthermore, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition with us, we'd just like the federal government to go back to the size it was decades ago and stick to those areas that are constitutionally mandated and allowed for it, instead of trying to run and determine everything for everybody.
Yes, and now you can't because California has been squandering its money left and right, and then started squandering federal funds.
Furthermore, I don't see why $40000 in debt is a big deal; if your university education doesn't yield ten times that in return, you really shouldn't be attending university in the first place.
The Democrats are at least as much at fault for that as Republicans: financial bailouts, car bailouts, mortgage support, agricultural subsidies, Obamacare, alternative energy funding, etc. Those are all subsidies for big businesses that distort the market, stifle innovation, and create monopolies and inefficiencies.
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...
I've already been to Sears today to buy Garage Door Openers. Yesterday I was at my local Army/Navy surplus store. My plan may be foiled because I don't think my HOA will let me have 7 old Cadillacs in my yard though. :-(
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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.
It's funny but we haven't had a budget since 2009. Blame Harry Reid and the rest of his cronies for that one. The endless Continuing Funding Resolutions and stop-gap appropriation bills are what's been keeping things afloat, that and endless spending. It's impossible to be fiscally responsible without a budget, therefore every member of congress should be fired because they're not working off of a plan other than to get re-elected and run up record deficits. Raising the debt limit needs to be done, but not without a budget and a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget to be submitted to the states for ratification. That's the only way to force these fucktards to actually start doing their jobs and stop blaming each other for the mess we have. They're both to blame and continue to fiddle while Rome burns.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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.
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.
...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
There's a difference between being essential and being justified. The coffee I drank this morning wasn't essential: I wouldn't have died without it, but I think it was justified because it tastes good, makes me feel more awake and makes me more productive. If I were tight on cash, I might forgo my coffee: this might not be a good long-term solution as productivity I lose could make me lose my job, or not get a promotion, but as a short-term measure it can help me through a bad time.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
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?
No, unless buyers can get a FHA loan. Y'know, the most common type. I'm selling, not buying. Reading comprehension, eh?
I heard this argument on talk radio this morning. 3% of NASA workers were considered essential ( or maybe 3% of the local workforce). The host said you couldn't run a company with 3% of the employees being essential. Except NASA (at least locally) is pretty much stopping all services except services to the ISS. If you run a company and stop all but the absolute critical services then you very well could end up with 3% or less of your business being "non-critical."
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.
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
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
It was passed with Veto Proof Margins. Clinton couldn't veto it, his signature wasn't even needed. Repealing the financial regulations is ENTIRELY on the feet of the republican party.
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.
This is an example of The Big Lie in action - blaming Clinton for the excesses of private companies like Countrywide.
The lie goes like this: Clinton passed the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) in 1995, which led to more sub-prime loans that were responsible for the crisis of 2008.
Actually, sub-prime loans constituted only 7% of the mortgage market as of 2001, but went to 21% by 2006 - who was in office then? Additionally, the default rate on CRA sub-prime loans was 1/4 that of non-CRA sub-primes. Not to mention that the CRA was originally passed in 1977 and Clinton's changes to it in 1995 were aimed at making the process more efficient.
But don't listen to me - I'm probably a member of that evidence-based community.
Yeah, but it is realistic to think a smaller problem could be tackled.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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! --
> 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.
I keep hearing that the Republicans tried to pass basically the same thing as Obamacare when Bush was in office. What I don't hear is who opposed it at that time leading to it not being implemented then.
Hey, he didn't type in "sudo make install", so they can only screw up the current user account.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Of course they were only 7% in 2001. It takes time to ramp up supply/get investors to put their money into schemes. It doesn't happen over night. Clinton's changes made it easier but you choose to use the word efficient to make it sound benign. It wasn't, was it.
Just to be clear, it was Obama who was schooled. Many of us tried to tell him what an idiot he was being.
Just another day in Paradise
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?
. . . .who are deemed "non-essential".
Um, if they're not essential, why are they on the payroll in the first place ???
Fine. Scrap the national parks. Disband NASA. End the practice of issuing passports to anyone who wants to travel outside the country.
You want to live your life without government? Knock yourself out, but don't expect to have the same quality of life.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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
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.
If over 800,000 federal employees are considered "non-essential", should we really be giving them a job?
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").
Those are the common defense and general welfare things that the federal government and most state governments are mandated by their constitutions to provide.
College degrees and party snacks and such are individual things and the government is not required to provide them by the constitution, only by (sometimes) majority opinion.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.
It was George W. Bush's policy to spend that surplus on tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and then spend $3 trillion for a war in Iraq for the purpose of (what was it again?), most of which went to his no-bid contractors like Halliburton. Bush left us in debt that your grandchildren will be paying for.
The Tea Party is funded by the same loonies that got those no-bid contracts.
Bullshit. Clinton and the GOP Congress never had a surplus. It was *projected* but never realized. The US has had a deficit every year I've been alive and the debt has grown each year that I've been alive.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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").
You could just define the debt ceiling limit in terms of percentage of GDP. Then needing to raise it would unambiguously be a sign of the debt getting worse.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Utter total bullshit. Our department is cut down to basically ONE person who would call in the rest of us if he can't fix something. This is completely unsustainable for any length of time.
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").
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").
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").
Democracy isn't about throwing a fit and refusing to do your damned job (passing a budget) because the *other guy* got something you didn't like.
... or you aren't getting something you want?
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").
Democracy isn't about throwing a fit and refusing to do your damned job (passing a budget) because the *other guy* got something you didn't like.
This is the blow back from extremist rhetoric. If you say someone doing something is going to descend the country into a post apocalyptic wasteland it either better damn well bring upon the second horseman of the apocalypse like you claim or not happen.
It's like your accountant telling you"If you ____ you will go out of business in the next year!" Now maybe he believes it and maybe he doesn't but at the end of the year either you're firing him or you didn't do it.
The biggest danger for the GOP from Obamacare isn't that it's going to harm the country. The biggest danger for republicans is that it will work and that people will like it. Then they're revealed for the frauds that they are. "You told me this would kill my Nanna! She's now on a government healthcare plan that's better than ever!"
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...
The idiots who think government is the source of all problems are so simple they don't distinguish between different levels of government very well. It's all just some big blob of evil to them. dfw
Really? I'm one of the "idiots", but I distinguish between different levels of government quite well.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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!
well, we are a repuublic, not a democracy.
Making the government smaller, reduces the oppertunities for the rich to abuse the government to get richer.
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
The Bush administration went to Congress many times and made urgent pleas for them to stop the practice of forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't possibly pay the loans back. No surprise, they were called racists.
And then when those loans didn't get paid back, they were blamed for it.
Murphy was an optimist
A "surplus" to a Democrat is this:
Last year we spent $10 we did not have. Next year we have a mandatory increase of $2, so we plan to spend $12 we do not have. And then, in the next year, they spend $11 they do not have and declare they have a $1 surplus.
What's incredible is that they actually believe this nonsense and repeat it as truth. Same as the 3 trillion dollar no bid contract lie.
You can't SPEND money you didn't have in the first place that you chose not to spend. It does not exist.
Obama actually declared at one point that he saved the taxpayers 100 million dollars because he didn't spend it. By this logic, if I don't buy a new car today, that I can't afford, I have "saved" the price of the car.
And yet, it is clear the poster believes everything he is writing. The quality of the brainwashing is astounding, folks. Let's have him explain the difference between encumbrance, cash basis, and accrual basis accounting and which one government's use - and why.
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.
Yes, tons of people did, including The Consumerist, a ton of other blogs, and several mainstream newspapers. :p
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.
Joseph Steiglitz, who won the Nobel prize in economics, knows something about economics. He said that the real cost of the Iraq war was $3 trillion. If he can't explain it to you, I can't.
So you agree with my other points, great, thank you. My statements about the "surplus" lie are correct.
You insinuated that the entire 3 billion was on a no bid contract. There were some no bid contracts at the very beginning of the war, to Haliburton, who was the vendor already providing such services, that only lasted until the proper procurement processes could be followed. Had this not been done, soldiers would have not received food...
Do you want me to talk about no bid green energy projects? Or the favors handed to Jeffery Immelt, which make the contracts handed to Haliburton pale in comparison? How about rewarding Wall Street Bankers with a sweetheart deal that allowed them to suck up the regional banks, making it harder for ordinary Americans to get loans? How about a major piece of social legislation that was passed without bipartisan consensus, the first time in our history something so large has been done this way, and then voted into law using a procedural trick of attaching it to a budget bill, something else that has never been done? How about robbing the tarp fund to reward the UAW for campaign support, and handing them 55% of stock instead of giving it to the creditors - as has been done in every single bankruptcy case in history? Or are these all non starters because the evil Rethignicans didn't do them?
For the record I am neither a rabid conservative or a tea party guy, just an American Citizen who is tired of propaganda from both sides and interested in the facts. Which, if you stay away from the ideological sites, are not that hard to find. I am fed up with "THE NARRATIVE", the sacred tome of talking points that are repeated over and over and over without the slightest bit of rational thought or common sense.
Murphy was an optimist
US economy will continue to slide till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma is resolved.
Casteism
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.