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."

223 of 1,532 comments (clear)

  1. Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they do ANYTHING for the actual good of the country?

    1. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      War on Afganistan
      War on Iraq
      War on terror
      War on drugs
      War on swear words
      War on nudity

    2. Re:Fucking idiots by Bartles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Passing a yearly budget would prevent this from happening. But then of course they would have to admit that they aren't actually passing budgets anymore.

    3. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do they do ANYTHING for the actual good of the country?

      Short answer: no.

      Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

    4. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      War on it's own citizens

    5. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      War on my sanity

    6. Re:Fucking idiots by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it would limit it to happening once a year, when they're hammering out the budget.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      War on common sense - I think we actually won that one...

    8. Re:Fucking idiots by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm starting a pool.

      $1 to buy in. All those who guess how many days this lasts (including weekends) get to split 84% of the pot.

      Hey... the house has to have a cut. That's the way Wall Street does it.

      Wait... no, it isn't. I get a fee of 5% of the dollar as it goes in, 16% of the overall pot, then 5% of the remainder when it's paid out.

      There. That's better. If you want a cheaper deal, next time ask for a "no load" pool.

    9. Re:Fucking idiots by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      Make war, not love. (It's more profitable)

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    10. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no middle ground anymore theres the far left and the far right and a giant gulf in the middle with a few real centrists mixed in..

      Far left? Far right? Which country are you exactly living in? You're mixing your political terms, you have to parties that are far right and bickering over who gets to have the scepter of power.

    11. Re:Fucking idiots by Seumas · · Score: 2

      I'm all for shutting down non-essential government services, to get our budget under control and even give some relief to tax-payers. Of course, this will only happen for a week or two and will do nothing (they'll make it up over the year). The real non-essential "services" they should be cutting are the last dozen years and the next dozen years of stirring up more future terrorists in the middle east for the sake of pipelines and corporate contracts rebuilding nations in Gen. Wesley Clark's list of seven.

      Of course, that would impact corporations. Can't do that. Instead, we're going to move on prominent programs that garner a lot of sympathy, to really make tax-payers and voters feel bad. Cutting off their nose to spite *our* face.

    12. Re:Fucking idiots by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, those Fortune 100 companies paid good money for those laws and regulations!

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    13. Re:Fucking idiots by Sollord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Republicans are a day late and a dollar short on ACA. So many companies have already opted to drop coverage for part timers starting 1/1/2014 that if they delay implementations of it now they will basically screw them over even more so than ACA already has by getting companies to make part time jobs actually part time jobs instead of part time jobs with full time hours.

    14. Re:Fucking idiots by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just about everyone on here will want to blame the Republicans but in reality it takes two tango

      This is true... in the sense that a hostage crisis requires a hostage taker, a hostage, and a police force.

    15. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      make install
      not war

    16. Re:Fucking idiots by drkim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Luckily, NSA and TSA are not considered non-essential government services?

      Apparently USDA is considered non-essential. They've already pulled the plug on the site:

      "Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.
      We sincerely regret this inconvenience.
      After funding has been restored, please allow some time for this website to
      become available again.
      "

      www.usda.gov

    17. Re:Fucking idiots by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Funny

      the democrats aren't listening to the people. The republicans are

      Well, you're half right.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    18. Re:Fucking idiots by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they actually stay shut down, as in no longer having a fear of being arrested for not paying a fee for growing organic food, no longer worried about being arrested for working without hiring designated bureaucrats, there will be plenty of jobs, rather it's getting hired somewhere else because the costs overhead of supporting the government is gone, or the regulations keeping them from working for themselves are gone.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    19. Re:Fucking idiots by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure doesn't help when the president says I'll refuse to pass anything unless it's exactly what I want.

      The people elected Obama when a central part of his campaign was 'Obamacare'. They re-elected him. If congress want to repeal Obamacare then they could, and should, try and pass a bill doing so; instead they are using the budget and the massive harm not passing it causes the country to try and hold a gun to Obama's head. They have a legitimate means to try and change things, but because doing that is too hard they'd rather sacrifice the US economy for political point scoring.

      Would republican voters be happy if the next Republican president couldn't do anything the Democrats didn't like because the democrat led house or senate wouldn't pass a budget without demanding it be removed? Does anyone who has really thought about this want the budget to become a political nuclear weapon?

    20. Re:Fucking idiots by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Far left? That would be CPUSA. Are you sure they are in the government?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    21. Re:Fucking idiots by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry that's the far right and the very far right. There is no "left" in American politics. Just the New GOP (aka Democrats) and the Old GOP (aka parody of itself).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    22. Re:Fucking idiots by sehryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Task: Fund the government

      House bill: Fund the government and defund ACA
      Senate bill: Fund the government
      House bill: Fund the government and delay ACA
      Senate bill: Fund the government

      The Senate (aka Democrats) seems to have no issues achieving said task. It is the House (aka Republicans) that continues to muddy the waters.

      If their constituents really want ACA gone, that is fine. But this task is neither the time nor the place. The House just put 800,000 workers temporarily out of a job. You think those 800,000 people are going to care about ACA when they don't get a paycheck this month?

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    23. Re:Fucking idiots by Eddi3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of all their wars, this is the only one they are winning right now.

    24. Re:Fucking idiots by drkim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't cost nothing. It costs very very little but that isn't the same thing...

      I'm guessing it cost more to pay the I.T. guy to build this 'closed' page and set up the forwarding links than it cost to pay to just leave the functioning site and servers up.

      Come to think of it - they paid the IT guy AND are keeping the server up: just to keep this stupid 'closed' page up.

    25. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it takes two tango and the Democrats don't want to negotiate

      Um, why should they? The negotiations happened when the ACA was passed in a legitimate democratic act. What the Republicans are doing now is trying to hold a gun to the countries head in an entirely undemocratic move to kill the ACA. In other words, they are terrorists, and the President shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

      Once they put on their big-boy pants and pick up their toys, perhaps they can get back to the task in hand and pass the budget.

    26. Re:Fucking idiots by lordofthechia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oddly enough there is middle ground, the only problem is the democrats aren't listening to the people.

      A majority of the house of representatives could have passed a funding bill to keep the government going. But this bill won't see the floor. Why?

      Because the "Majority of the majority" doesn't support it. There's your "will of the people", it's second to the will of the majority party. There is no more compromise (Oh? 230/435 congress persons want to pass a bill? Pity only 70 of those are in our party. No vote for you!).

      So now our house of representatives can no longer represent the people. Only the whims of the majority party.

      This is why the government is shut down. The majority party refused to allow vote on a budget that had *majority* support in the house, just because it wasn't the bill their party wanted.

      And this is the overall issue. Representation in government has been co-opted by the political parties. They no longer represent the people in their districts, only their parties agenda.

      Read more about the Hastert rule and find out where the fault really lies and stop spreading talking points .

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    27. Re:Fucking idiots by lordofthechia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If congress want to repeal Obamacare then they could, and should, try and pass a bill doing so

      They say the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

      What is it called after you attempt the same thing fourty-two times ?

      I think I'll have to try this new tea party bargaining method. See I have the keys to the office. I can refuse to let anyone in the building unless *I* get a raise and they agree to get rid of the healthy snacks in the vending machines.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    28. Re:Fucking idiots by technosaurus · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is one profession older than warrior and it _is_ more profitable. In fact prostitution probably has one of the highest returns on investment.

    29. Re:Fucking idiots by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 2

      Does "non-essential" cover senators and reps?

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    30. Re:Fucking idiots by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      instead they are using the budget and the massive harm not passing it causes the country to try and hold a gun to Obama's head

      I wish they were using the budget!

      No, if I understand correctly, they're refusing to raise the borrowing limit again. I don't think Congress has been able to agree on an actual budget since Bush was in office.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    31. Re:Fucking idiots by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Funny

      War on it's own citizens

      War on mis-use of apostrophe's (sic)

    32. Re:Fucking idiots by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um....Obamacare was the single largest issue during the campaign.

    33. Re:Fucking idiots by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good point tho it's really more

      (Extreme Right) 5%*, Far Right (15%), Right (25%), Center (15%), Left(35%), Far Left (5%).

      If it were not for the abortion issue "glue", I think the Far Right would have broken off by now.

      Also, the Far Right isn't wrong when they say we should reduce government spending.

      The problem is they have a blind eye when it comes to a really overbloated defense bill (as big as the next 20 to 30 countries COMBINED) inflating at a high rate annual (even a cut back to 2007 levels would be 20%).

      In the U.S., extreme left candidates are essentially not elected to state or national offices.

      *Actually probably under 3% but I didn't want to research the numbers).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    34. Re:Fucking idiots by fnj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The USDA absolutely is unessential and should be abolished at once. The nation got along fine without a department of agriculture before it was created in 1862 by the Great Despot, and before it was elevated to cabinet status in 1889. The USDA does not grow one stalk of wheat, one ear of corn. (Don't bother finding some obscure lab somewhere growing a few bucks worth for scientific purposes and spending millions to do it; I'm talking about actual production).

      The USDA provides food assistance dosmestically. That should obiously be the domain of welfare.

      It sends food overseas as aid. That might be appropriate policy if the US ever got back on its feet and dealt with its own poverty and other gross domestic problems and negligences. Certainly it should stop at once and be reconsidered only when that time comes. Then the nation can decide whether this should be the domain of the US government, or charities.

      From 2009 to 2011, the budget for USDA inflated by 20%. Funny; in the same period my budget grew by 0%, and the same for most people. Only Federal spending and the wealth of Federal cronies grew during (and since) this period. The budget of $132 billion (estimated, 2011 - god only knows what it is today; nobody else seems to know) should be immediately cut to whatever is really necessary rock bottom for the food safety and inspection program, and the ridiculous cabinet status terminated. My guess is a couple of billion.

    35. Re: Fucking idiots by the-matt-mobile · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, thankfully you don't get a vote then. I for one am happy that someone is willing to stand up and say current behaviors are driving our country toward an inevitable debt burden we can never hope to repay, regardless of whether the message is popular. Someone is finally saying it's time to have a credible plan to turn things around. Now, if only they had a credible plan...

    36. Re:Fucking idiots by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was the rallying cry for the right. In US politics you do not vote for someone, you vote against the other guy. The winner is the guy who comes out looking slightly less worse. I am a Democrat as are all my friends. We want healthcare reform badly, but as people who fall above the poverty line but live in a very high cost of living state we get the penalty fee without the coverage so fuck it I hope the GOP wins this so we can get a real healthcare reform build.

    37. Re:Fucking idiots by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 2

      time for the War on Prostitution.

    38. Re:Fucking idiots by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea of tacking completely unrelated issues together on an up-or-down vote basis is one of the ugliest facets of the US legislative process. You take a bill, name it "The Homeless Puppies and Kittens Act", put in a token support for animal shelters, then festoon it with pork-barrel riders such as Interstate Highways to nowhere, covert espionage on citizens, etc., etc., etc. like lampreys on a whale. Now no one can vote against wasteful spending or violations of basic rights because if they do, they "hate puppies and kittens". And the puppies and kittens are hostages.

      If the Republican Party had any integrity, they'd stop attaching Obamacare to the budgetary process, get the darn thing passed, then do an honest frontal assault on Obamacare. But then, they can't win that, so intelligent people would regroup, plan for a more opportune time, and spend their resources on something that actually did the country some good, building some political capital that they could use for the next attack. But then again, intelligent and Congress never did go too well together.

    39. Re: Fucking idiots by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I for one am happy that someone is willing to stand up and say current behaviors are driving our country toward an inevitable debt burden we can never hope to repay, regardless of whether the message is popular.

      The party out of the White House always says this. The Democrats abhorred the outrageous spending on military actions and Medicare expansion during the Bush years. The Republicans abhorred the outrageous spending on social programs during the Clinton years. "We spend to much and are dooming our children to poverty and economic collapse," has been a rallying cry since at least Reagan.

      Strangely, neither party, once in power, actually reduces spending. Neither party is especially interested in changing those programs that actually affect the budget. What we currently get from the GOP is "We need to cut $1000B from the $600B discretionary budget, so we can afford to reduce revenues by $200B."

      This tactic, of claiming the party in-power is destroying the country, while continuing exactly those same behaviors when the tables turn, is the partisan rhetoric that polarizes the people and prevents any rational compromise to solve actual problems.

    40. Re:Fucking idiots by bfandreas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      want to blame the Republicans but in reality it takes two tango and the Democrats don't want to negotiate

      Sorry dude, but I can give you countless examples over the last four years in which the Democrats moved quite a bit to the right during legislative negotiations while the Republicans moved exactly nothing. In fact in some cases further to the right after the first Democratic entreaties, there is at least one case in which Obama adopted the Republican proposal to the letter only for the GOP to say no.

      Also Obamacare is already the product of negotiation. And the GOP has already made very clear there is no middle ground. And Boehner has zero room for negotiation.
      The GOP is at the moment paralyzed by the success of the Tea Party. They are effectively holding the entire GOP hostage.

      There are only three ways this can end:
      The US defaults on its obligations. Which is bad. Terrifying bad. There will be movement before that as only the extreme right wing of the GOP seems to think this is acceptable.
      A constitutional crisis. The head of the state(which for whatever stupid reason is also the head of the executive branch) declares the houses unable to do their job. I don't know if the US has a plan for such a case but this would propably lead to elections. Which would take longer than the 3 weeks left.
      Members of the GOP who don't think to irrepably damage the US financially over Obamacare vote against the party line. Which will damage the GOP. Potentially tear it apart.

      I don't see a short/mid/longterm winning scenario for the GOP.

      Obama can't budge. There will be a constitutional crisis before he does.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    41. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone who has really thought about this want the budget to become a political nuclear weapon?

      Yes it absolutely should be.

      I look forward to next February, when we can expect a cadre of politicians demanding that the NSA be defunded or they won't pass a CR. Followed, doubtless in March by demands that the Smithsonian be divested or they won't pay military salaries, and in April that NASA be defunded or they won't send out social security checks.

      Most of us think that, once you've passed a law, it's law. A segment of House republicans seem to think that you can cancel the law by refusing to pay for it, in exactly the same way they effectively cancelled the Dodd-Frank financial reform law by blocking appointment of the necessary administrators. If they think they really think the people want ACA repealed, then they should organize and get the votes to repeal it, not find sneaky ways to allow it to be 'technically the law, but we have no way to enforce or implement it."

    42. Re:Fucking idiots by evilRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Republicans are the ones that were using the government shutdown as a hostage situation to cut healthcare reform, which had nothing to do with the budget shorfall. The ACA actually lowers the deficit according to independent auditors. Let's not forget that when the GOP passed the initial rounds of tax cuts that led to this deficit, they promised that they would grow the economy and wouldn't increase the deficit. There was a gentleman's agreement that if the deficit got out of control, the tax cuts would expire. The reason we are here now is because the GOP reneged on that deal. This is totally their fault.

    43. Re:Fucking idiots by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've tried 41 times [huffingtonpost.com] already. Attaching it to this "must-pass" spending bill was attempt 42.

      So what's your point. If you can't do something properly you should do whatever it takes instead? You can't ask someone you don't know 41 times to give you $1000 and if they refuse the 41st time tell them they need to give you the money or you'll key their car and then claim they are being unreasonable.

      There's a democratic president who got elected on a platform including this bill, there's a democratic senate and the majority of voters voted for democratic congresspeople. The Republicans can't do this legitimately because the voters chose not to give them the power to run the country so they're using economic vandalism to try and get their way instead.

    44. Re:Fucking idiots by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They also re-elected a GOP majority in the House where funding bills start.

      Your electoral system gave the GOP a majority when they got notably less votes than the 'minority' Democrats. If I was a Republican I'd be embarrassed by the fact that my party was claiming to be the majority when they majority of voters in a democratic country didn't voted for the opposition.

      ACA had to be passed into law and was. Republicans had the chance to stop it then and they have had the chance to stop it at any time since then. The budget should not be a matter of party politics because anything being funded should already have been accepted by the three branches of government.

      If the Republicans manage to this without the public siding against them (which I'm dubious about) then just wait till the situation is reversed and the Democrats realise they can use this to get what they want on gun control, abortion, welfare etc by doing the same thing.

    45. Re:Fucking idiots by lp-habu · · Score: 2

      I don't remember it being so bad. Not at all. What did you think was bad about it? If you were personally affected, how did that affect anyone else?

    46. Re:Fucking idiots by bfandreas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If congress want to repeal Obamacare then they could, and should, try and pass a bill doing so

      They say the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

      What is it called after you attempt the same thing fourty-two times ?

      I think I'll have to try this new tea party bargaining method. See I have the keys to the office. I can refuse to let anyone in the building unless *I* get a raise and they agree to get rid of the healthy snacks in the vending machines.

      ...and that Supreme Court ruling...
      Most of the developed western countries have something like universal healthcare. And yet for some reason this is a huge problem in the US. Obama seems to be hell-bent to drag the US into the twentieth century. Kicking and screaming. And even has to be considered a progress. The current discussion(which is very much over and resolved) is so ninetieth century it's not even funny anymore.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    47. Re:Fucking idiots by superdude72 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What "far left" positions has the Democratic party taken? The Affordable Care Act is essentially what the Republicans were proposing for health care reform 20 years ago.

    48. Re:Fucking idiots by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      War on it's own citizens

      Huh? I'm expecting productivity to go UP^.

      --
      No sig today...
    49. Re: Fucking idiots by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do not understand correctly, debt limit increase is next month. This is just funding to keep staff paid and lights on, Congress hasn't authorized the executive to spend money, and the executive can't spend money without authorization, hence, shutdown. Debt default is the end of the modern era.

    50. Re:Fucking idiots by Diss+Champ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find your two paragraphs in disagreement with each other.

      Instead of funding everything at once, the Republicans in the House passed a bill funding some things but not others, so that what is more generally agreed upon can continue to work while the rest would need its own separate spending authorization. From your first paragraph, this would seem to be a step in the right direction.

      And yet, your second paragraph turns around criticizes the Republicans for NOT bundling all things. You suggest they should bundle everything then coming back later with a separate bill to remove some of them.

    51. Re:Fucking idiots by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

      The budget of $132 billion (estimated, 2011 - god only knows what it is today; nobody else seems to know) should be immediately cut to whatever is really necessary rock bottom for the food safety and inspection program, and the ridiculous cabinet status terminated. My guess is a couple of billion.

      Isn't the food safety and inspection program funded by user fees from the agricultural/packing industry?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    52. Re:Fucking idiots by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      That can't really happen, most of the politicians would find themselves warring on themselves :P

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    53. Re:Fucking idiots by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US forest service is also part of the USDA and they actually do stuff like manage the national forests.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    54. Re:Fucking idiots by tbannist · · Score: 5, Informative

      They also re-elected a GOP majority in the House where funding bills start.

      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.

      Furthermore, you already wrote "Polls show half the country thought the law was already fully in effect until last week or so and the majority don't understand their obligations or the most perfunctory effects the law will have on them" so clearly this can't be the will of the people, if half of them have no idea what the law is or will do. I'm not sure how this could conceivably be seen as anything other than the political obsession of a minority of congress.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    55. Re:Fucking idiots by Reibisch · · Score: 2

      Um, don't the republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives? Didn't the voters choose to give them the power to run that aspect of the country? And isn't the House of Representatives part of the trifecta of elected federal government? This isn't something where one party holding two of the elements of power 'wins' - particularly when the position of president is so weak.

      I'm not an American, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure you can't simply point at the Republicans and blame them for this when your citizens elected them.

    56. Re:Fucking idiots by tbannist · · Score: 5, Informative

      While the people did elect Obama a second time they also elected a majority republican congress at the same time. The people did vote for a divided government, although I do wonder how many people were voting against Romney instead of voting for Obama.Considering that Obama got a higher percentage of the vote than the democrats did in congress (looks to be about 3%) it would seem likely that people were voting against Romney.

      You should be aware that the Democrats won the congressional popular vote by around 50.7% to 49.3%, but because of gerrymandering (the practice of dividing congressional districts to subvert the will of the public), they have fewer seats in congress than the Republicans.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    57. Re:Fucking idiots by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was listening to an interview this morning where the interviewer asked a republican congressman from Arizona how they would feel if a democratic house pulled the same tactic with a republican president but instead of repealing the ACA, they wanted to implement gun control.

      He said that was totally different and of course wrong.

    58. Re:Fucking idiots by Reibisch · · Score: 2

      You speak as if this is something new.

      'There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.' - John Adams, 1980 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams#Quotes

    59. Re:Fucking idiots by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the Republican Party had any integrity, they'd stop attaching Obamacare to the budgetary process, get the darn thing passed, then do an honest frontal assault on Obamacare.

      Incorrect. If the Politicians had any integrity, they roll out stuff like Obamacare in a small test area, and IT WOULD BE ALLOWED based on the experimental nature of science, not rejected out of hand because it flies in the face of some bullshit untested ideological hypotheses about health care spending. Then it would be evaluated against control groups. Modifications would be made if needed as it was rolled out to more and more people -- Or stopped.

      Rolling out a huge nation wide change without any evidence it will work is fucking moronic. Opposing said changes without any evidence of their harm after the fact is equally moronic. Fire Congress, no Scientist would agree to be ruled thus.

    60. Re: Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Utterly wrong on nearly all counts. After WWII federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 16%. During the next 50 years federal spending increased a measly 3%... Then Dubya:

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7M6Qk22TGko/UDMQywXhifI/AAAAAAAARVM/AUKK51HNBPM/s640/Governemnt+Spending+as+Percent+of+GDP+-+Federal.png

      If you want the true underlying reason for the deficit look no further than two unfunded wars and drastic cuts in revenues, largely to the mega wealthy.

    61. Re: Fucking idiots by Adriax · · Score: 2

      When has that ever stopped them?
      Remember, a couple of the most fervent anti-gay advocates have been caught with their pants down with another man before.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    62. Re:Fucking idiots by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find your two paragraphs in disagreement with each other.

      Instead of funding everything at once, the Republicans in the House passed a bill funding some things but not others, so that what is more generally agreed upon can continue to work while the rest would need its own separate spending authorization. From your first paragraph, this would seem to be a step in the right direction.

      And yet, your second paragraph turns around criticizes the Republicans for NOT bundling all things. You suggest they should bundle everything then coming back later with a separate bill to remove some of them.

      That's just whitewash. The bill being held hostage is to pay for things already funded. "Killing" a law by de-funding it is what you do when you cannot get the law repealed by more honest means.

    63. Re:Fucking idiots by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, RomneyCare already did work pretty well when rolled out to Massachusetts --- it's a tried, tested system. Not as well as single-payer systems or socialized healthcare that cut insurance companies entirely out of the profit loop; but, what do you expect from a plan concocted by right-wing think tanks?

    64. Re:Fucking idiots by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, there was a test bed - Massachusetts.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    65. Re:Fucking idiots by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      That will not help them Obama-care counts Full-time Employees and Full-time Equivalent Employees. Full-time Equivalent Employees are the number of hours worked by part-time employees divided by 30, so by my understanding a full-time 40 hour employees counts as 1 and 2 part-time working 20 hours count as 1.5! So if an employer mis-calculates and goes over the magic number of 50 by 1 he can be hit with penalties.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    66. Re: Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree with you except for the "either party, once in power, actually reduces spending" part.

      Under Clinton the budget went from a deficit of almost $300B to a *surplus* of $230B.
      Under Obama the budget went from a deficit of almost $1.4T to a deficit of about $750B.

      Under all republican presidents in the last 30 years the deficit has gone up.

      Now, you can definitely argue that both democrats increased taxes, and that is certainly a factor. But Clinton's tax increases didn't add nearly $600B to the budget and neither did Obama's. Taxes only account for part of the reduction in the deficit. The other part is a reduction in spending.

      The combination of the two is what reduced the deficit and is the only sane way to approach the problem.

    67. Re:Fucking idiots by Ameryll · · Score: 2

      the democrats aren't listening to the people. The republicans are

      Well, you're half right.

      I don't know what country (or maybe I should say state) you live in. I haven't seen any sign of the republicans being the ones to listen to people

    68. Re:Fucking idiots by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What would help folks is a national health care system. The US spends more tax dollars on health care than any of the top 10 nations that have actual national health care systems... while not providing any healthcare. The US is ranked below most western nations on patient outcomes even though people in the US pay dramatically more for hospital care and procedures (I'm talking what is paid, not what is paid out of pocket).

      Provide national health care and otherwise allow no distinction between employees based on the number of hours worked (except for breaks over the course of a day and overtime of course but that should apply the same way to everyone).

      Also provide federal protection from termination or sanction for refusing to work the shift of another employee.

      That shit will help people and it targets some of the worst practices of the chronically worst employers.

    69. Re:Fucking idiots by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 2

      Reconciliation was used a few times during the Bush administration to pass tax cuts. The ACA was not the first use of reconciliation to pass something other than a budget, not by a long shot.

    70. Re:Fucking idiots by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Romney already did what you're suggesting. It worked well in Massachusetts.

      Yes, that's right - Obamacare was based on Romneycare.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    71. Re:Fucking idiots by njnnja · · Score: 2

      No this is still the budget crisis. You know, the one after the Syria crisis and before the borrowing limit crisis (that's scheduled for later this month). Like bad guys in a bad kung fu movie, they only come at you one at a time, but there is an endless supply of them.

    72. Re:Fucking idiots by tgibbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not exactly. The Republican Bill does not just do partial funding of ongoing business of government--it bundles funding in with a delay in the Affordable Care Act and a repeal of a portion of the Act (the medical device tax). Neither of these have anything to do with funding the ongoing business of government.

      Note that no Congressional action is necessary to fund Obamacare--it was previously funded by an Act of Congress, and its funding will continue.

    73. Re: Fucking idiots by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Government shutdown is not free--it increases costs, adding to the debt burden. It also creates business uncertainty, slowing the growth of the economy, which reduces tax receipts, further adding to the debt burden.

      In fact, current projections (at least prior to this nonsense) showed that the debt was under control. And the demands that the Republicans are making as a price of funding the ongoing business would further increase the debt.

    74. Re:Fucking idiots by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your electoral system gave the GOP a majority when they got notably less votes than the 'minority' Democrats.

      Yes, well, that sort of thing can frequently happen when you design a system where you actually elect individual people to serve particular districts, rather than collectively electing a "party" for the entire nation or something. It's far from a perfect system, but the House is designed where individual representatives are supposed to speak for specific groups of voters.

      Of course, gerrymandering makes it all much worse -- but that's hardly a Republican thing only.

      If I was a Republican I'd be embarrassed by the fact that my party was claiming to be the majority when they majority of voters in a democratic country didn't voted for the opposition.

      If I were a member of either of the two major parties, I'd be embarrassed by the way voters have been disenfranchised through gerrymandering. I don't think the Democrats should get a pass on this AT ALL. They are just as guilty of that sort of nonsense. It's just that Republicans currently are in the lead in terms of creating districts that effectively disenfranchise voters of the other party. (It's a little un-PC to note this, but Dems helped to contribute to this a little bit in previous decades, where Republicans and minority Dems occasionally teamed up to create racially gerrymandering districts that would help get minority representatives elected to Congress. While perhaps a noble cause, it also sometimes grouped too many Democrats into a single district, thereby diluting their influence on surround districts, which have now all turned Republican.)

      The budget should not be a matter of party politics because anything being funded should already have been accepted by the three branches of government.

      Personally, I don't think anything should be "a matter of party politics," because the two-party system itself does significant damage and sets the stage for the exact situations you're describing as problematic.

      But, that said, Congress has power to make laws, and it has power to repeal them. Without a Constitutional amendment, you're never going to be able to prohibit Congress from changing its mind and trying to backpedal on something it already agreed on.

      On the other hand, there is a kernel of truth to what you said in that Congress currently has conflicting laws in effect regarding the budget. All of this banter about the "debt ceiling" is nonsense, since appropriated federal funds MUST be spent -- BY LAW.

      Back in the days of Nixon and before, a President actually had the option not to spend all of the budget. Effectively, he could "impound" funds, either just to save money or because he thought the spending wasn't necessary. That's not true anymore. Once appropriated by Congress, the President by law must spend the money -- if it doesn't cost enough, the President must find a way to keep spending in the appropriated categories to use up the funds.

      So, the "debt ceiling" is a complete anachronism, and arguing about it is ridiculous. It's like a husband setting an autodebit for a bill on a credit card each month which is guaranteed to go over the credit limit, but the wife refuses to call up the credit card company and get them to raise the credit limit. The autodebit already MUST happen by law once Congress appropriates the funds. Refusing to authorize a raise in the debt ceiling would create a situation where the President is legally bound to do two different things (he MUST spend the money, but he's NOT authorized to do so).

      So yeah, while we may not be able to prevent "party politics" around the budget completely, some aspects of the process are legal nonsense.

    75. Re:Fucking idiots by kennytosh · · Score: 2

      You're forgetting the fact that the majority of House members reside in gerrymandered districts and are impervious to being voted out. THAT is the fundamental problem with Congress.

    76. Re:Fucking idiots by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no middle ground anymore theres the far left and the far right and a giant gulf in the middle with a few real centrists mixed in.

      There is no far left in American politics. Obama is well to the right of most first world politicians, and in American context is somewhere around Reagan or Nixon. The Democrats are a right wing party, and the Republicans are a far right party. The extreme left of American politics, represented by Bernie Sanders and Elizibeth Warren would be centrists in any sane country.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    77. Re:Fucking idiots by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read this passage, written in the 1930s by a Marine Corps General, and see if it doesn't sound EXACTLY like the shit we have been doing lately, just change the target and it could have been written last month...

      "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.â

      Folks think this kind of backroom bullshit has been only the last decade or two? try close to a century, probably longer. The blood of the poor paving the road to profit for a handful at the top, this has been going on for a loooong time. I'd say the ONLY difference between then and now? The uber rich have stopped giving a fuck about the kayfabe and even pretending they give a damn about any but the elite, for a perfect example watch that video of the RNC with the "let 'em die!" incident. All those rich cheering the thought of a poor person dying rather than costing them a dime? Perfectly summed up the kind of sociopath scumbags we see at the top.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    78. Re:Fucking idiots by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might have a point, if people knew where funding bills start. They don't, and campaigns do not remind people.

      Further, Fox did a study where people were asked if they supported ACA. Half the people saw it called Obamacare, half Affordable Care Act. All things being equal, people were in favour of affordable care and opposed to Obamacare.

      People don't understand what they are for or against today, or why. Regardless of where it originates.

    79. Re:Fucking idiots by unimind · · Score: 2

      Actually, more votes were cast for democrats for the House of Representatives in the last election as well. The only reason the Republicans were able to "win" the majority was due to their manipulation of re-districting, aka gerrymandering. Thems is some cheatin bastards.

      --
      The following statement is true: The previous statement is false.
    80. Re:Fucking idiots by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reasoning is

      http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

      If you look at the chart of spending vs outcome, you see the U.S. sucks and many other countries have better or at least equal outcomes with much lower cost.

      It's not unreasonable to think if we toss out the current system of "for profit" medical insurance and care and simply emulated some of the other already successful countries that we could lower costs and improve outcomes.

      As it is now, if you have a good job or are wealthy (and don't have a pre-condition), then you get insurance. Otherwise, forget it.

      Why are we paying $4500 a year to get worse results than 20-30 other countries including many 1st world countries with otherwise similar costs of living?

      The Medicare and Medicaid programs are actually comparable to other countries and younger doctors are accepting medicare and medicaid patients (they are profitable- just not AS profitable so long established doctors prefer to focus on the more profitable patients).

      Being aware how extensive the anti-aca propaganda has been, I checked the numbers myself and I'll be saving about $2500 on my insurance costs. And the ACA has freed me to retire and start my own small business (more of a hobby really- healing people with chronic pain, migraines, and various overuse syndromes).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    81. Re: Fucking idiots by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While those incidents are certainly iconic, remember that there are a lot of "fervent anti-gay advocates" in the US. The null hypothesis is that the proportion of homophobes who are homosexual is no different from the proportion of homosexual people the general population. At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    82. Re: Fucking idiots by elsuperjefe · · Score: 2

      Strangely, neither party, once in power, actually reduces spending. Neither party is especially interested in changing those programs that actually affect the budget.

      Not quite true. Govt. spending under Obama is way down and falling; especially as a percentage of GDP (the measure that matters). The concern at the moment is we are reducing spending too quickly given the current state of the economy and the fact that we've been in a liquidity trap since 2008. What i find especially galling is that a GOP congress rubber stamped billions (trillions? i'm not sure) for wars and tax cuts under Bush and now sees the need to gut food stamps and shut down the government. They run up the tab and then scream about how entitlements for poor people are killing us. It is time for Boehner to go.

    83. Re:Fucking idiots by sjames · · Score: 2

      For one, we have the right, and another party that is a mix of far right and batshit insane right

      This latest debacle rests firmly on the sholders of the GOP. They are the ones holding a routine but important piece of legislation hostage until they get their way on everything else. The saddest part is that the issue they're most rabid about is Obamacare which is really a re-branded Romneycare because of all the compromises the Ds made in the first place.

      That is, the Ds made so many compromises that the final form of the legislation looked exactly like something an R already implemented at the state level, the R's all signed off on it (and why not, it was right out of their playbook), but now they are holding the wellbeing of the entire country hostage (AGAIN!) to get it killed just because they don't like that the president is a D rather than an R.

      I say waterboard those terrorists (since they have all claimed that waterboarding is A-OK with them) and send them to Gitmo. At least that way there will be some actual terrorists being held there.

    84. Re:Fucking idiots by PRMan · · Score: 2

      It goes back a lot longer than that. Read about the Dutch East India Company and how they slaughtered thousands in Asia to keep the British in their tea.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    85. Re: Fucking idiots by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, Carter and Clinton both got the deficit down to zero. Obama has it falling sharply now (but I'll bet it goes back up as we recover from the latest hostage situation).

    86. Re:Fucking idiots by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter how it was passed, Obama ran his entire campaign on Obamacare which the American people chose over the competition.

      Of course the fact that the right is so fucking out of touch that they would run Thurston Howell the Third (the 47% bit, talking about how he drove "an ugly car" in HS while neglecting to mention it was a brand new luxury car, and his wife's "We were so poor in college we had to live on our stock dividends!" bit) didn't help matters any, but the one two punch that I think historians will look back on and say "THAT is what sank the republican party, that right there" will be the outright hatred for Latinos displayed by too many of the tea party and the "let 'em die!" cheers at the RNC. I have some serious right wing customers and even they were shocked and appalled by that little outburst.

      In any case the people CHOSE and what they chose was Obamacare, every poll shows they are in favor of Obamacare, they voted for the POTUS when his main platform was Obamacare, so by voting 42 fricking times to block Obamacare and now risking having our credit rating shot to shit AGAIN just to make the tea party and their corporate masters happy? frankly shows the current right wing to be downright suicidal. I mean did they learn nothing from 96?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    87. Re:Fucking idiots by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but you could split the votes out evenly by state, and the Democrats would still be in control of Congress today. For example, the Democrats got about 12% more votes for their congressional candidates in Michigan in 2012. Michigan has 9 Republican reps and only 5 Dems. In Pennsylviana the Democrats got about 80K more votes than Republicans. Pennsylvania has 13 Republicans and only 5 Democrats.

      The House is supposed to be the Representative body of our legislature, but that is no longer the case. The Republicans have managed to rig the system so they can lose elections badly, and still be the majority. They can lose barely, and be in a huge majority. This is not democracy in any way, so we should not be surprised when they proceed to act like elections don't matter. They don't.

    88. Re:Fucking idiots by budgenator · · Score: 2

      I over-simplified to spare the innocent migrains from the Vogan poetry the USG publishes as law, but Small Business Health Care Tax Credit Questions and Answers: Determining FTEs and Average Annual Wages is a good place to start without getting nausious.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    89. Re:Fucking idiots by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3

      The ACA actually lowers the deficit according to independent auditors. Let's not forget that when the GOP passed the initial rounds of tax cuts that led to this deficit, they promised that they would grow the economy and wouldn't increase the deficit. There was a gentleman's agreement that if the deficit got out of control, the tax cuts would expire. The reason we are here now is because the GOP reneged on that deal. This is totally their fault.
      Yes, "lowers the deficit" assuming 2 important caveats, one you only do the math for the first ten years wherein you new collect taxes without spending any new money for the 1st four years. Second caveat, you totally ignore the "doc fix" that gets passed every fucking year and no one actually scores when they do their projections, garbage in, garbage out.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    90. Re:Fucking idiots by loshwomp · · Score: 2

      Why are we paying $4500 a year to get worse results than 20-30 other countries including many 1st world countries with otherwise similar costs of living?

      Just for the record, Americans actually spend nearly $9000 per capita per year on health care (without actually covering everyone, of course). The $4500 you claimed would be an enormous improvement, but still worse than the UK, which spends about $3000/year, and actually covers everyone in the process.

    91. Re:Fucking idiots by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unbelievable. I really can't understand this reasoning. You ADMIT that the government is incompetent in how they spend the public's money ('while not providing any healthcare") while wanting to take a well working health care system and dismantle it and give it to the government to control! This is just insane thinking.

      It's very simple. The "incompetence" is not in the government spending money -- it's the government spending that money in the private sector rather than managing it itself.

      The problem is that we don't have a true public healthcare system nor a true private one. We have a hybrid public-private healthcare system, with all the greed of a profit-seeking private insurance and healthcare sector welded to the low competition of a publicly-backed system and captive market, with all the inefficiencies of both multiplied. We have the worst of both worlds.

      Going pure private sector won't help, because healthcare simply isn't a competitive free market and cannot be. Even if they had all the data, people simply do not seek care based on lowest cost, and the system cannot optimize itself to that end without that. Worse, the information asymmetry between providers and customers is horrible compared to something like auto dealerships Customers simply aren't qualified to know ahead of time whether they will get the best service for the lowest price.. (Do I really need that expensive CAT scan? How am I supposed to know?) Finally, customers are often not free to act with full rational capacity when the lives of themselves and their family are on the line. Time constraints, stress, etc. all compound the lack of available data with the inability to assess it properly. The end result is pretty much the opposite of what economists expect as the underpinnings of a free market.

      Our system has one additional complications from its current worst of both worlds status of having people kept out of the decision-making process of their healthcare combined with the profit motive. Healthcare providers are unable (and unwilling in most cases) to provide a price sheet for their services up front, making competitive shopping impossible. That's for the insurers to handle, not the plebeians. Without customer input and without government regulation, this results in wild swings in costs for similar services as well as perverse incentives to charge the most to people without insurance instead of to the people who can most afford it. Fixing this would require regulation even without public use of funds.

      So the only other real alternative is to swing the other way and eliminate the profit-seeking motive as a source of inefficiency. Also, a unified payer system would drastically cut down administrative costs. If the government was paying for all care, then the justification for most damages in malpractice lawsuits would drop sharply, reducing liability costs. Redundant services could be streamlined. Hospital costs could be brought in-line instead of varying wildly from facility to facility.

      With public health as a greater priority than profits, programs to focus on wellness instead of recovery could be brought into focus. We would no longer have the terrible costs of people waiting until they end up in the emergency room because they gambled that they'd get better first. We wouldn't have the constant drag on the economy of the working poor working through their illnesses rather than getting treatment when it's cheapest and most effective because they're afraid of the costs.

      And if you don't believe this, then just look at the numbers. Other countries spend far less of their GDP (with far less GDP per capita to begin with!) than we do, and they live longer. By having a national healthcare system, they spend sometimes half to a third of what we pay and often live 1-5 years longer. What exactly are we paying for, except a misguided principle that puts a mirage of economic liberty (which simply doesn't exist in healthcare) over human lives?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    92. Re:Fucking idiots by Alsee · · Score: 3

      They also re-elected a GOP majority in the House

      For the House, Democrats got a MILLION more votes in than Republicans. The Republican majority was elected by gerrymandering. I accept that the system is imperfect and sometimes sucks, I'm not denying the legislative authority of the duly elected legislature. However it does completely invalidate your attempt to associate that house majority with a completely fictional popular-public mandate.

      As to the claim but electing Obama was a referendum on the ACA that is equally stupid.

      Considering Obama made it a central issue of his presidency, and a central issue of his campaign, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to claim an anti-ACA mandate based on the negative one million votes by which the Republicans won the house.

      Polls show half the country thought the law was already fully in effect until last week

      Firstly, polls show a majority against Obamacare only when you include the percentage who "oppose Obamacare" only because it didn't go far enough and establishing a Single-Payer system.
      Secondly, a comical percentage poll in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" and opposed to "Obamacare". A substantial percentage of opposition have no clue that ACA=Obamacare, and that a substantial percentage of oppositions is nothing more than clueless echoing of hollow "Obamacare is somehow bad" soundbites.

      That is why our government was designed to operate with Checks and Balances. The budget ( and requiring it to start in a specific body at that ) is a clearly intended to put a hard limit on how far away the other two entities President and Senate are allowed to deviate from the will of the House. If the House ( the peoples body ) really hates something they absolutely should be able to kill it using this method.

      It's interesting how you conveniently forget that one of the checks is that the House can't legislate anything, including budge decisions, without approval of the Senate. And they can't do so without Presidential approval, unless they can get a 2/3 mandate from both the House and Senate.

      It also doesn't much help your case when the "will" of a majority of the House members is to drop the current shutdown bullshit and pass a clean budget, and it's John Boehner blocking blocking that easily passed bipartisan budget from coming to a vote. For internal party-politics reasons Boehner is allowing the radical minority TeaParty wing to burn down the house if they don't get what they want.

      Does anyone who has really thought about this want the budget to become a political nuclear weapon?

      Yes it absolutely should be.

      Okey dokey... how about the Senate refuses to pass any budget.... zero dollars for border control.... zero dollars for the military... unless it's attached to some issue... lets say radical gun control. Here's a list of what sorts of guns are illegal, and it's a felony prison sentence if you don't turn in or destroy any illegal guns. There ya go. Using the budget as a nuclear weapon.

      This is exactly why the TeaParty idiots are unfit to govern, and why the Republican party as a whole has become unfit to govern for letting the TeaParty wingnuts run the show. Because BurnTheHouseDown ideological extremism is DESTRUCTIVE. It's hurting the economy, it's hurting people, it's hurting the Nation. In a Democracy we're supposed accept that sometimes we just don't have the votes to get what we want, and we don't fucking threaten to blow up the goddamn country with nuclear weapons like a bunch of terrorists if laws aren't passed/changed/repealed to our liking.

      It's not even like they are fighting over the budget, and saying they don't want to provide funding for ACA. They are demanding a change in law be passed, completely unrelated to the budget, and using the budget as a nuclear weapon to fucking blow up the countr

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    93. Re:Fucking idiots by Alsee · · Score: 2

      If you mean taking the simple number of voters per winner

      No, he was talking about total number of votes. One point four million more people voted for Democrats in House races than voted for Republicans.

      One million then it's a meaningless statistic due to all the obvious factors.

      It doesn't make the current legislature any more or less legitimate than other legislatures. The system is imperfect, sometimes it sucks, whatever.

      However is a completely meaningful and valid point when it's being used to refute the notion of the Republican-House-Majority reflecting or measuring the popular will of the people.

      The prior poster was suggesting that a majority of the people voted for Republicans in the House and that Obama won the presidency because some percentage of them split their vote in order to vote against Romney. And that's just plain wrong. A majority voted Democrat for president, and a majority voted Democrat for the House. There was no "split" in popular vote there.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    94. Re:Fucking idiots by Alsee · · Score: 3

      We'd be better off with a slim majority republican house and senate

      Considering that in the last election 1.4 million more people voted Democrat than Republican for the House, and 10.1 million more people voted Democrat than Republican for Senate, your proposal sounds Fair and Balanced.

      Just about everyone on here will want to blame the Republicans but in reality it takes two tango and the Democrats don't want to negotiate

      Yep.... it takes two to tango... if the Senate voted 41 times to pass a draconian gun control law knowing they didn't have the votes to ever pass it the House, and then the Senate refused to pass any budget unless the budget also contained the gun control law they wanted, yep..... the House Republicans would be equally at fault for "failing to negotiate" when they repeatedly voted a budget without the unrelated Gun Control legislation attached.

      The House Republicans aren't trying to pass a budget with reduced or eliminated funding for Obamacare.... they are trying to attach a non-budget piece of legislation to the budget bill.... threatening (and following through on the threat) to nuke the goddamn national economy if they aren't given their unrelated new non-budget law.

      the Democrats don't want to negotiate they want to use the shut down as a political tool

      You're right the Senate Democrats didn't negotiate.... the Senate Democrats passed the Budget sent to them by House Republicans.
      That warrants emphasis.
      Senate Democrats passed the Republican's budget.
      They passed the budget from House Republicans without argument and without modification, other than dropping the non-budget legislation that the House sent along with the budget.

      There is no middle ground anymore theres the far left and the far right

      Some people say the sun rises in the east, others say the sun rises in the west. Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle.

      There were all those radical rightwing TeaParty legislator elected, and all those radical leftwing Occupy legislators elected, and the Republican Party letting those TeaParty nutjobs run the show, and the Democrats letting those Occupy nutjobs run the show, and both sides are equally to blame.

      Oh wait, no.... Democrats haven't been electing wingnuts, much less let them take control.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. What happens to non-essential staff? by Open+River · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do they receive other benefits? Bummer being sent home in the run-up to the holiday season.

    1. Re:What happens to non-essential staff? by Guest316 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're free to do whatever, as long as they're ready to return to work with only a day's notice. Then they get paid for all the time they were out of work once the budget's resolved. It's basically a paid vacation, except you don't get paid until it's over, and you can't really travel out-of-area. Source: Was furloughed during Clinton's reign.

    2. Re:What happens to non-essential staff? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do they receive other benefits? Bummer being sent home in the run-up to the holiday season.

      It's worth mentioning that House and Senate representatives and President - and perhaps at least some of their staff - are considered "essential" and will get paid through the shut down.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:What happens to non-essential staff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't true. There is no guarantee that furloughed workers will be paid for their time upon their return.

    4. Re:What happens to non-essential staff? by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was under the impression from comments in the news that it's not guaranteed that you get back-paid?

      I don't know the details but perhaps in the Clinton era shut down they simply opted to? It doesn't mean they will this time from what I understand.

    5. Re:What happens to non-essential staff? by water-and-sewer · · Score: 5, Informative

      You guys both have it slightly wrong.

      The last time this happened, everyone was split into two groups: "essential staff" was required to come to work, but for no pay because even in absence of a budget it was dangerous for them to not perform their duties (the guys who fix broken traffic lights, for example, and others). The other grou was "non essential" and sent home with no pay.

      After the budget was resolved, everyone came back to work and was paid for those days. But the essential staff complained that although everyone got paid, the "non-essential staff" basically got a free vacation and were paid for it, while the 'essential staff' had to work for their money.

      The economists agreed it was basically unfair. So while at some point the political folks can make a decision about whether to pay back-pay or not, there's no guarantee. In fact the fair thing to do is not pay back salary for the non-essential staff, since they did not perform their duties.

      Point is: they have to decide what to do, and there's no guarantee anyone will be paid for their time, which sucks.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  3. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So how about diverting some NSA domestic spying funds to keep retirees from going hungry?

    1. Re:Priorities by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you suggesting that preventing terrorism is not essential?

    2. Re:Priorities by pahles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has this "preventing terrorism" lead to anything up until now?

      --
      Sig?
    3. Re:Priorities by narcc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I don't see any terrorists around, so it must be working!

      It's just like the rock I keep on my nightstand to ward off tigers. Sure, it's not a recurring cost, like the war on terror, but it has a similar effect.

      Proof for you naysayers: I've yet to be so much as scratched by a tiger in my sleep.

    4. Re:Priorities by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, "preventing terrorism" is not essential. It kills very few people compared to, oh, I dunno, being poor, for one. Any anyway, you cannot actually prevent terrorism. If someone is really determined to do something we label terrorism, they'll find a way, and no amount of state apparatus can stop it.

    5. Re:Priorities by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At some point you have to do a risk and cost benefit analysis. Sure I lock my door, but am I willing to spend >50% of my income on locks for my door?

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    6. Re:Priorities by liamevo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a locked door sure, but I don't have a 10 inch thick armored steel plated vault door installed in my house either.

    7. Re:Priorities by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Locking your door has a low cost and a fairly high rate of effectiveness. The fact that most of the terrorists are morons prevents far more terrorism than the NSA does.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Priorities by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Locking your doors won't keep out determined burglars, but do you leave your house unlocked when you're not there? Why do you even have locks?

      We seem to be more in a position where the door has more locks than Maxwell Smart's front door, but the windows are wide open.

      Fortunately, terrorists are just as obsessed with doors as the US Government.

      Unless they start taking their cues from Kenya.

    9. Re:Priorities by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't even take a determined terrorist to have a successful attack. Simple easy to get at targets that are unsecured:
      1. The security line full of people at the airport(bomb or shoot up)
      2. Drop a 2 liter bottle bomb in the liquids disposal bin at the airport
      3. Drop ad bomb in a trash can at a packed mall during black friday
      4. Spray and pray with a shotgun with buckshot from the upper levels of a large mall into an open area during black Friday
      5. Vehicles packed with thermite ignited on major bridges main support structures.
      6. blow up some railroad birdges

      These are some really simple easy targets that would be trivial to hit but the reason we don't see attacks like this is two fold. One there just aren't that many terrorists in the US, and two the ones that are here are so incompetent I am shocked that they don't choke on their own tongue. So tell me how the billions we currently waste prevents these sorts of attacks since it does nothing. These are also the types of attacks that don't need outside support and with a small group like the 9/11 group could be carried out across the nation without arousing suspicion.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  4. That's weird... by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...I don't feel any different at all.

    1. Re:That's weird... by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh thank god this comment is marked as informative and not insightful.

      Actually you will feel something. It'll be like boiling a frog. At first it'll just be a few rich folks getting hammered on the stock market, then it will be questioning the credit rating of the country, then there's the knock on effects to the economy of not just taking 700000 people out of the workforce, but government contracts and other spending which underpins many businesses all over the world will be on hold too. Long term expect another recession.

      Ultimately if it continues you WILL feel something. Either that or you have some kind of inability to feel anything in which case I take it all back and your comment deserves the informative mod point it got.

    2. Re:That's weird... by marsu_k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually you will feel something. It'll be like boiling a frog.

      No, it won't.

  5. The Blame Game by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:The Blame Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you kidding me? Let me summarize the situation:

      * The Senate passes a bill to continue federal funding as required
      * The House passes a bill that also kills Obamacare completely
      * The Senate rejects it
      * The House passes a bill that delays Obamacare for a year, kills the medical device tax, and kills women's contraception coverage
      * The Senate rejects it
      * The House passes a bill that kills the individual mandate (the only thing that would make Obamacare work)
      * The Senate rejects it
      * The government shuts down

      Here's the strategy of the Republicans: shut down the government and then threaten to default (this happens on Oct 17th if the debt ceiling isn't raised). The government shutdown is simply a way for the Republicans to show that they are serious. It is an annoyance, but it is not an economic calamity. But the debt ceiling is. If the government defaults, everything is going to hell. So far the Republicans have just shot one hostage. Now they are threatening to kill them all.

    2. Re:The Blame Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's just B.S. The house wasn't sending a budget bill to the senate, they were trying to subvert the democratic process by transforming an appropriations bill into a way to attack Obamacare.

      They've tried 50 times to vote it out, and since that hasn't worked they've just gone ahead and tried to backdoor it.

    3. Re:The Blame Game by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit

      The Republicans are holding the budget hostage as a last resort to prevent a law that legally passed from taking hold (The Affordable HealthCare Act). They've been bitching and moaning for years about it, and now that its time for the majority of the law to go into effect, they decide that if they can't get their way (defunding the law) then NOBODY can have a budget

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    4. Re:The Blame Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. I blame the ones who have manufactured this situation. You know that this isn't a "real" crisis, right? It's only a crisis because the Republicans in the house caused it. The blame is squarely on them.

    5. Re:The Blame Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well it's tempting to applaud your sentiment, and in general I think my friends and family are blind to the many wrongs -- including what I'd call unprosecuted war crimes in the form of double tap strikes -- of Democrats, this particular situation is entirely a recent invention of Republicans. One party using these procedures to try to repeal laws that they already failed to stop from passing is relatively rare historically, but is becoming extremely common amongst recent Republicans. It's a move utterly lacking legitimacy, which is why the only reasonable response is a polite "fuck off." Anything else damages the legislative branch; nearly all laws could be easily undermined.

    6. Re:The Blame Game by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blaming both parties means blaming nobody. Open your damn eyes.

      That's what Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate and NYT columnist says. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/krugman-rebels-without-a-clue.html He calls it "false equivalence."

      Its purpose is to make people feel cynical and hopeless, so that they won't participate in politics and the plutocrats with the big money can take over.

      The Democrats are pretty bad. The Republicans are fucking lunatics who are willing to destroy the country in order to serve their Koch brothers billionaires. They're even willing to destroy themselves, because they don't understand what they're doing. They're like the guy who saws off the tree limb he's sitting on.

    7. Re:The Blame Game by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay. So I demand you give me $60, and you say no. So I demand you give me $30, and you still say no. I was willing to bend, you weren't. Why won't you compromise with $30? I'll even be nice and drop it to $15. It's cut and dry that it's your fault we can't compromise and move on.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    8. Re:The Blame Game by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The government shutdown is simply a way for the Republicans to show that they are serious. It is an annoyance, but it is not an economic calamity. But the debt ceiling is. If the government defaults, everything is going to hell. So far the Republicans have just shot one hostage. Now they are threatening to kill them all.

      Here's a few articles by Paul Krugman which go into those ideas in more detail.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/krugman-rebels-without-a-clue.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/opinion/krugman-the-crazy-party.html

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/default-notes/

    9. Re:The Blame Game by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the house of representatives represents the will of the gerrymanderers. Theres a reason why the senate and president are Democrat controlled, while the House is republican controlled. Heres a hint: The republicans redrew district lines to increase republican votes!

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    10. Re:The Blame Game by Comen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTF? No this was a vote about the debt ceiling, not about Obama Care. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times without this kind of BS.
      The very thought that the Republicans would play chicken at all with an economy that is trying to come back from a collapse is fucking totally ridiculous.
      The people voted Obama back in to office with Romney running against Obama Care, they lost! and since then have tried everything they can to stop it, threating to shutdown the government was just another way of them not wanting to admit they lost the election and therefore do not get to overturn the presidents landmark Health care bill.
      This was nothing more than Republicans hoping they could force the president to overturn Obama Care by holding the economy hostage, pure and simple. I do not see how any rational person would see this any other way. They should have voted to raise the debt ceiling for no other reason than that's what they are there for.

    11. Re:The Blame Game by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never a truer word was spoken...

      A country does not always get the government it needs, but it always gets the one it deserves....

      The "people" need to stop pretending they are not to blame for this.

    12. Re:The Blame Game by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      "Sure he shouldn't have strapped a bomb to his chest. But the hostage negotiator should have worked harder to get him the money in the vault, so really they're both to blame for the explosion."

      --
      I stole this Sig
    13. Re:The Blame Game by drfred79 · · Score: 2

      Check the polls bro.

      Everyone wants affordable healthcare. No one wants Obamacare. Those are two separate statements. 51% of the country voted for Obamacare over 49% for Romneycare. I bet the election would have been even more in favor of Republicans without Romney and without the IRS illegally silencing dissent to the President.

      The Democrats keep promising to provide affordable healthcare and I can't wait for the trainwreck of Obamacare to hit. That's when people will truly see what a convoluted, corrupt mess a command economy is.

    14. Re:The Blame Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The R's are desperate to stop ObamaCare. If it was going to be a train wreck they would just let it go and reap the political benefits. They realize that once enough people start actually benefiting from it it will become politically impossible to do away with just like Social Security and Medicare. dfw

    15. Re:The Blame Game by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      There was a survey on CNN yesterday. They asked which party is acting like a spoiled child:

      * Obama 47%
      * Democrats 58%
      * Republicans 69%

      In other news, a Danish TV station I was watching yesterday had one of those round table discussions where everybody was scratching their heads over this strange situation. One of the panelists cited a survey that found that Congress has a 10% approval rating which it amused him to contrast with the fact that apparently socialism/communism has an 11% approval rating with the US public. If those percentages are correct, that last one is surprising. I figured the approval rating for socialism in the USA would be hardly measurable.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    16. Re:The Blame Game by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're an idiot, you know that? The House of Representatives represents the will of the people. The people want to get rid of Obamacare.

      You realise that in the last election:

      • The Democrats won the Presidency.
      • In the Senate, of the 33 seats that were up for election, 23 were Democrat and the Republicans only needed to take 4 of them to have a majority. Instead, they lost 2.
      • In the House elections, the Democrats won the majority of the popular vote, got 3.4% more of the popular vote than last time (the Republicans got 4.8% less than last time), gained 8 seats, but still don't have an overall majority because of the way constituency boundaries are placed.

      Or, to put it another way, in 2012:

      • In the Presidental election, 51.1% voted Democrat, 47.2% voted Republican.
      • In the Senate election, 53.7% voted Democrat, 42.1% voted Republican.
      • In the House election, 48.3% voted Democrat, 46.9% voted Republican.

      So, in terms of popular vote, the Democrats go a (very slim) majority in two of the three elections, the Republicans didn't manage it in one. In the election where the Republicans did best (the Presidential race, 47.2%), they didn't get as much of the vote as the Democrats did in the election where they did the worst (House, 48.3%). Neither party got anywhere close to the percentage of the vote that enables someone who doesn't lie for a living to claim to have a mandate from the people.

      Now, I realise the state of mathematical education is pretty poor in the USA, but being able to tell which of two numbers is bigger than the other is surely something that is covered.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:The Blame Game by bfandreas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never a truer word was spoken...

      A country does not always get the government it needs, but it always gets the one it deserves....

      The "people" need to stop pretending they are not to blame for this.

      The problem is that a large population of voters follows the hysteria that's been going on in US politics for some time. Just to remind you what's been going on the last few years:
      Death panels
      Obama was born in Kenya
      Climate change isn't happening
      Evolution is not a thing
      Homosexuality is contagious
      ...
      The people who subscribe to this vote for people who support their beliefs by means which at best can only be described as populistic. And this is a fraction of the GOP that holds the rest of the party hostage. They have a weak chief negotiator who fears for his post if he budges just one bit. The rest of the party also doesn't want to be "that guy". So negotiations are nearly impossible. And the major issue of contention is something that's been done by a majority of developed countries for decades, in some cases over a century.

      The momentary shutdown is expected to cost more than Katrina. People can't pay their bills, contractors don't get payed, things go untended. This is already bad. If it indeed comes to a US credit default then the US will suffer for decades to come. All this over a bill that has been discussed in both houses, that's been drafted and redrafted to make it acceptable to be passed. It already is a reasonable compromise. And yet it gets blocked by a minority of a party that bullied the other bits of the party to vote against it. Meanwhile the rest of the world watches the US becoming a failed state.

      This is insane and the result will be the GOP tearing itsself to pieces as in the following weeks members will not follow the party line dictated by a bunch of crazies. This is what you get when you embrace the lunatics to get some more seats in the vain hope to dominate the house. In reality they don't even have power over their own affairs.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    18. Re:The Blame Game by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 2

      there were more total votes for democrats in the house than total votes for republicans. Both sides use gerrymanders to protect seats of incumbents, I used to live in a district that was essentially broken into two large pieces connected by a strip that ran down the center of an interstate highway. the strip was only about 10 feet wide and at least a couple of miles long,

    19. Re:The Blame Game by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      AFAICT, Big Money is behind the traditional Republicans, not behind the tea party Republicans. And as you point out, the traditional Republicans still dominate in terms of head count. However, every one of them is afraid of a primary challenge from the far(ther) right if they don't go along with the True Believers.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    20. Re:The Blame Game by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. The reason is because the senate has 6 year terms. Obama was elected because the republicans put up a poor candidates against him. I mean seriously, mccain the maveric who campained with "you will never know what i"l do" and "47 percent of you don't mater" romney would have lost to al gore given the chance.

      You are making shit excuses.

    21. Re:The Blame Game by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government shutdown is simply a way for the Republicans to undermine democracy.

      FTFY. They lost the big game, and like sore losers turned vandals, they're trashing the equipment and the field.

      Just like they did the last time we had a Democrat for president.

      It's their standard strategy these days. One of their big-name "thinkers" was caught on tape recommending it.

      But the voters who insist on voting against their own economic interests are to blame. Yo, 98% of Republican voters, that means you. Stop propping up the super wealthy. They are actively preventing any hope of realizing your own economic dreams.

      When your party platform is plutocracy, you have to operate by convincing the masses to vote against their own economic self-interests. So since ~1960 the Republican party has increasingly relied on racism, religious intolerance, fear mongering, etc. to win elections. I.e., appealing to our worst nature rather than our better nature.

      Now the inmates are running the asylum. And Angry White Retirees are simultaneously outraged by the existence of entitlements and terrified that Those Damn Democrats (tm) are going to take away their social security and medical benefits.

      That's what a few decades of hate-wing radio and a propaganda outlet posing as a news outlet do for a country.

      The good news is that the Republican party is about to explode. The bad news is that there is going to be a lot of collateral damage when it finally does.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    22. Re:The Blame Game by Eddi3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Would you perhaps be referring to Illinois 4th district nicknamed 'Earmuffs?" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/IL04_109.gif

    23. Re:The Blame Game by Eddi3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Other things that are more approved of than congress include: Lice Root Canals Cockroaches Traffic Jams Colonoscopies Yes, literally. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/congress-somewhere-below-cockroaches-traffic-jams-and-nickleback-in-americans-esteem.html

    24. Re:The Blame Game by CauseBy · · Score: 2

      Yeah but the 10% rating is nonsense. America re-elected 91% of its House reps last year so I think the only fair poll is the election: Congress has a 91% approval rating.

    25. Re:The Blame Game by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact, 2.7 million more people voted for Democratic candidates for the House than voted for Republicans. So no, Republican candidates were not better. Even if you zoom down to states, you see this. For example, in Pensylvania, Democratic candidates got about 80K more votes, which got them only five of the state's 18 Representatives.

      The reason the Republicans in the House are acting like elections don't matter, is because for them elections don't matter.

    26. Re:The Blame Game by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Congress has a 10% approval rating which it amused him to contrast with the fact that apparently socialism/communism has an 11% approval rating with the US public. If those percentages are correct, that last one is surprising. I figured the approval rating for socialism in the USA would be hardly measurable.

      I actually saw a report looking into that once. I turns out that a lot of younger voters don't remember the Cold War at all. All they know about Socalisim is that those raving idiots in Congress seem to reflexively hate it. So in their minds, clearly it can't be all bad...

    27. Re:The Blame Game by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      The US House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvannia, 2012.

      If you don't like the Wikipedia's nice presentation, then you can get the same numbers from the secretary of state's office. Across all elections, Democrats had a solid lead, but only took 5 of 18 seats. The 12th district was the only closely contested seat, with the 1st and 2nd being the most blatantly packed (majority minority districts around Philadelphia).

      Also for your perusal.
      Ohio (51% R 47% D vote, 12 R & 4 D seats; 51%->75%)
      Michigan (46% R 51% D, 9 R & 5 D seats; 46%->64%)
      North Carolina (49% R 51% D, 9 R & 4 D seats; 49%->69%)
      Florida (of course) (52% R 46% D, 17 R & 10 D seats; 52%->63%).
      Illinois (Democrat example) (40% R 57%D, 6 R & 12 D seats; 57%->66%).

      All of these are states in which partisan bodies (e.g. legislatures or governors) draw the district lines. Also, you can find the popular vote totals in the box at the top right on the main page for the 2012 House election.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  6. You know this makes America ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... the laughing stock of the western world, right? No other country has such an idiotic system (or as much partisan bickering).

    1. Re:You know this makes America ... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh you were that long before this.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:You know this makes America ... by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My parents warned me about strangers offering candies. They never mean well.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    3. Re:You know this makes America ... by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Italy has a government.

    4. Re:You know this makes America ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wouldn't say laughing stock. Although the country I live in has national health care, and the budget gets passed every year. I broke my elbow earlier this year. I saw 3 doctors in a local clinic, 1 E.R. doctor in a major hospital, 2 E.R. orthopedic surgeons, had 4 x-rays (about 6 weeks from start to finish), 1 (non-E.R.) orthopedic surgeon, about 4 nurses, and 1 physiotherapist. I had a splint for a week, tensor bandages, gauze with medical grade polysporin, medical grade tylenol and advil. I saw the last orthopedic surgeon 4 times, the physiotherapist 7 times. At no point did anyone ask for money. I pay taxes. I don't claim to live in the richest country in the world, but *somehow* I went from losing 1/4 square inch of bone and about 6 square inches of skin and muscle (about 1/4 inch deep), to being able to lift about 80 pounds with arm/elbow without pain, no visible scarring, and about 99% of the range of motion that I had before, all in about 10 weeks (I have 2 weeks to go before they consider it completely healed). I know Americans get huffy when people in other countries say they can do things that Americans can't. If it was sports or technology, there would be a shouting match on the web. Well the country I live in can have national medical coverage, and apparently, you cannot. Its not so much of a boast. I think America would be better off with what my country has. But that causes shouting matches *within America*. All I can say is "if you knew what I know, saw what I see, you would want what I have". But there are people who live in your country with vested interests in keeping medical costs very expensive, and unfortunately some people have to die because of it, needlessly. I think some of it is that I don't buy health Insurance, but pay taxes to health care. It costs about $20 per month per person (about $240 per year). I make about $30 per hour. This doesn't break my bank. Somehow I didn't pay a nickel in hospital for a broken elbow, and no one sent me a bill. Yet it worked for me, and works for everyone else where I live. No other countries in the world with medical coverage like what I have are laughing at the US. They are perplexed, bewildered, even quizzical over how so many Americans could be sold so crappy a bill of goods. There are no medical insurance companies getting rich here. There is no 'denied coverage' here. There are no 'pre-existing conditions' here. We don't have 'Health Insurance', we have 'Health Care'. Obamacare isn't even half as good as what I have, and people (Americans) are shouting over it. Bizarre! All the hospitals/clinics I visited are less than 10 years old, 1 is 6 months old, the x-ray (medical imaging machines) were less than 1 year old, laser guided, computer controlled. Economies of scale could work in the US too.

    5. Re:You know this makes America ... by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Halloween must have sucked for you when you were a kid.

    6. Re:You know this makes America ... by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, us Europeans may have a bunch of culture clashes when it comes to lawmaking, but we never had half the parliament take their ball and go home.

    7. Re:You know this makes America ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Avoiding the US centric partisan flamebait here; from the outside looking in what people should be furious about is why during the entire period of Obamacare being introduced to being written into law, being challenged, then to 3 years late is why no one pointing out that the real problem you have in america is the pricing of health services regardless of who is the one trying to pay for them.

      You guys pay between twice to ten times as much for the same procedures or services as are paid in other countries (considering equal quality service). I'm not talking about going to mexico for back alley cosmetic surgery here, I mean proper care you find in places like Canada or the UK or Germany.

      And I'm not talking about the cost to the patient either, I mean the actual amount paid out in the end to the providers of the services. Obamacare just says things need to be paid for, but leaves out the problem of your current costing and the fact that your premiums will rise in all categories to cover the difference in claims.

      Your whole country is being taken for a ride and this drama is just another part of keeping the eyes away from the actual problem.

    8. Re:You know this makes America ... by M1FCJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You did not get what Obama wanted (a proper, public health care system like NHS), you got what Republicans wanted, called it "Obamacare" and now Republicans don't even want that being passed.
      Don't you Americans read news or watch newspapers? I am shocked with the level of misinformation when it comes to your own laws.

    9. Re:You know this makes America ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Before Obamacare was Obamacare it was the republicans' idea. Hilary Clinton promoted a single-payer health care system. Then when it failed they wouldn't let her talk again until she took a bunch of Big Pharma money and got on the bandwagon with all the other assholes. Then we got Obama, the conservative Democrat, to promote the Republicans' health care system. Now they are campaigning against it in order to make it benefit their constituents maximally; not The People, but the corporations which pay for their campaigns, write legislation, etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:You know this makes America ... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

      Don't you Americans read news or watch newspapers? I am shocked with the level of misinformation when it comes to your own laws.

      Absolutely we do! Where do you think all the misinformation comes from???

      Ignorance is easy. Being that badly misinformed takes real effort.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    11. Re:You know this makes America ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The country my wife is from, is not a rich European country, rather one where its just as common to see a donkey on the road as a car.

      Yet, for some reason the UN ranks their national health care system above the US's.. Thats because when my wife's aging mother has a medical issue she goes to the doctor, sits in the waiting room for a 1/2 hour, pays the eqivilant of about a $1 as a co-pay and gets medical attention similar to what my wife gets using our shitty insurance in the US that costs us thousands a year, and has co-pay in the hundreds.

      Funny thing is that the "best"/$ insurance my wife can get in the US, is probably a plane ticket home.

    12. Re:You know this makes America ... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      It's pretty much what Reagan, Dole, and Romney originally proposed as a health care solution (and in Romney's case, implemented in his state).

      The fact that not a single Republican voted actually says a lot about the Republican party.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  7. They say they'll shut it down but they NEVER DO! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quoting a post on the Daily Paul:

    When they have a "government shutdown" they DON'T shut it down!

    They don't fire the bureaucrats. They might send some home and hold back some of their pay - but they make it up afterward. They have some of them come in and give back pay to the others later, after they "restart". They still arrest people. They still run courts. They still bust people for breaking their laws and regulations when the "crime" occurs during the so-called "shutdown". They still tax us on any work we do during the "shutdown", any money we make, and the money they CLAIM we made when the currency inflates between the time we buy and then sell something. And on, and on, and on.

    No matter how much we WISH they'd actually SHUT IT DOWN AND GO AWAY, leaving us to take care of our own problems and run our own lives, they never do.

    Promise them anything but give them tyranny. It's right in character. It's just like the way they break ALL their promises, whether it's campaign, effects of new laws, government programs, ...

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. What a great way to run a country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Murica! Where the government closes when they can't talk it out due to childish behavior from different parties.

  9. Third World Governance by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Third World Governance by Swampash · · Score: 2

      The women are hotter in Venezuela.

  10. Lawmakers should be considered non-essential by Barnoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Oh no! by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!!?

    1. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, it's not really anonymous.

    2. Re:Oh no! by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      never know who is listening in.

      Whoever they are they would do well to remember the fate of the Stasi in East Germany when the wall came down and the people finally had their revenge. I believe that the chant from the crowds on that day was something along the lines of, "the ropes are ready and the knives have been honed". Yeah, that wasn't a good day for the ex-watchers.

    3. Re:Oh no! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Who will give my money to people who don't work?

      Are you really so obsessed about the tiny percentage going to humanitarian programs? The vast majority of your taxes goes to the military, and the (distant) second largest chunk goes to the retired. I think we can probably stand to cut military spending a percentage or two before we chuck your mother or grandparents out on the street, don't you?

      I usually ignore ACs, but in this case your lie really needs correcting. Tied for first place is pensions (Social Security) and health (Medicare); defense is 3rd place.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. Looking in from the outside. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but the way the US political class appear to act is absolutely fucking pathetic.

    1. Re:Looking in from the outside. by Memroid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, but the way the US political class appear to act is absolutely fucking pathetic.

      Thanks for this insightful outside perspective; our beer goggles must be deceiving us.

    2. Re:Looking in from the outside. by Tom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks for this insightful outside perspective; our beer goggles must be deceiving us.

      Apparently, because you keep election these fuckers.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Looking in from the outside. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Apparently, because you keep election these fuckers.

      Impassioned errors aside (I make those too) this is a load of shit. The People tried very hard to avoid electing many of these fuckers. Obama may actually have been elected (and re-elected) but we never elected Bush. And many others have given citations on the issue of gerrymandering to stuff the house.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:They say they'll shut it down but they NEVER DO by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because what we really need is anarchy, right? No way that could end badly.

  14. Thanks by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    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.
  15. Not really by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. How Australia handles this by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:How Australia handles this by GumphMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We also have section 54 in our constitution, which prohibits bills for appropriation of funds to run the annual business of government from dealing with any other matter. This seems to be the weak point in US law that is repeatedly exploited; holding funds for normal running to ransom over unrelated items.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    2. Re:How Australia handles this by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Even if we had that here, it wouldn't help. 90% or more of the seats are completely safe: if we had a new election we'd just send back most of the same people. If you forbid the individuals from being reelected, somebody from the same party holding the same position would be elected instead.

      The Congress as a whole has a very high disapproval, but most people have a high (or at least, high-enough) approval of their own individual Congressman. The problem is all those other unreasonable people; we must stand firm against them by never compromising.

  17. Easy, kill the TSA... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Easy, kill the TSA... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      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...

      The problem with this is that without all the billions of dollars in US aid Israel would not be able to afford to defend itself as they spend all the money on buying weapons from the US. This would also mean that the US defence industry would then suffer as some of the cool stuff they come up with they are currently only allowed to sell to the US or Israel.

      The other amazing advantage of giving all this stuff to Israel is that they actually use it, and mostly against Russian tech that the Arabs around them have. That gives the US a great place to field test stuff and see how it holds up without actually having to invade Russia (which could be costly). It also lets them test stuff that the US would get too much crap for deploying in the field (like White Phosphorous as an area effect weapon instead of a smoke screen) safe in the knowledge that the blame falls on someone else.

      So in many ways the money the US gives to Israel in aid is actually just part of the US defence research and development budget :)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  18. The mechanics were (are?) interesting. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The mechanics were (are?) interesting. by omtinez · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but I find hilarious just thinking about all the DMV people WAITING IN LINE. Some would call it karma

    2. Re:The mechanics were (are?) interesting. by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      I wouldn't exactly call a building full of bureaucrats "high value" - especially since they've all just been designated non-essential. Going after the nearest packed stadium would probably provoke more terror, especially since more people go to stadiums that work for the federal government.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  19. Victory! by solidraven · · Score: 5, Funny

    A victory for the British Empire!

  20. Retirees by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2

    Retiree checks will continue to go out on schedule.

  21. Re:Hang on to your wallets! by nbauman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  22. Re:US deficit and debt. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2

    Well, I don't know what the theory is and to be honest, I'm not sure I'm entitled to an opinion being from the UK, not the US. It's up to you how you run your government. But it seems to me that whatever you're doing at the moment cannot be sustained indefinitely. Someone, at some point, has to start cutting.

  23. Non Essential Employees by tengu1sd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Non Essential Employees by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      And that works out really well for corporate mergers where immediately after the sum value of the two companies typically drops. Then there is what non-essential means in the corporate world vs the government. This is more like outsourcing you engineering, IT. It works at first and then after a few months everything turns to shit.

    2. Re:Non Essential Employees by gbobeck · · Score: 2

      The worst thing will be having to fondle yourself at the airport.

      Been there, done that... A few years ago, I had to give myself my own pat-down at the Augusta Regional Airport because they didn't have a single male TSA agent on duty.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    3. Re:Non Essential Employees by stymy · · Score: 4, Informative

      By non-essential they only mean that for the short term. For example, according to the BBC, the people who process visas and passports are now on furlough, so obviously that can't go on for very long.

    4. Re:Non Essential Employees by u38cg · · Score: 2

      That's a slightly different issue - the problem being that most mergers are carried out for the glory of the managers involved rather than the fundamentals.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:Non Essential Employees by Bowlich · · Score: 2

      People here don't seem to grasp what essential and non-essential means. They have a particular meaning for the government. Non-essential does not mean that they don't perform necessary work that must be done. Non-essential means that if they happen to be laid off for a week or a month the country is not going to descend into anarchistic chaos.

      Take the Forest Service for example, law enforcement is essential and will be kept on staff (less loggers make a run on the forest while no one's enforcing), fire crews are essential since we don't want to just pull them off fires and just let it burn until congress sorts things out.

      Civil Engineers and DOT funding are non-essential. So road construction, replacement of bridges, culverts, --- repairing all that flood damage in Colorado. Out the window until the government comes back. If a bridge is out right now, don't expect it to be fixed. If a flood washes a bridge out and it's your only way to get into town? Hope you know how to build a rope bridge.

      Take the little Idaho town I'm in right now. A ridiculous portion of the population heats their homes with wood fuel for the winter. Yes, the smart ants went and got their permits in the spring, but there's a good number of people who've waited until the very last minute to stock up. The snow is already flying, and timber sales? Non-essential. They will not be able to get permits in time for the winter. Which means they'll either have to wait and hope the snow stays off until the government comes back or risk getting caught illegally cutting in the forest.

      I talked with a lot of locals last night who did not understand this concept at all. People seem to think there's some kind of trove of useless bureaucrats who do nothing that are going to get cut. It's not that, its all government services, any government service you rely on or make use of is going out the window and the bare minimum to maintain social order is going to stay on board -- although, and here's the kicker, without getting paid.

  24. Re:Obvious but baffling that it's not done yet by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  25. Re:Hang on to your wallets! by Seumas · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  26. Government In Action by SiliconSeraph · · Score: 2

    The national parks employees are nonessential. NASA is nonessential. Those friendly men at the NSA who read all your email? They're totally essential.

  27. I like an illustration of how bad this is by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine the Republicans are in the same situation some time and a democratic congress adds a clause into a budget enacting gun control. Fair?

    1. Re:I like an illustration of how bad this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Imagine if the Republicans stopped beating the horse they killed long ago.

      Imagine if the Democrats actually did something other than scream about Republicans wanting to destroy the Federal government. (For fuck's sake, a person would have to be completely batshit to believe any elected asshole wants that. Disclaimer: Pelosi is completely batshit.)

      Imagine if either party actually represented the people they were elected to represent.

      Imagine if the executive branch was restricted to the powers it legally has. Imagine if any of the three branches were restricted to the powers they legally have.

      Imagine if Congress just finally manned up and stopped this bullshit of throwing random, completely unrelated shit into pieces of legislation.

      It's fun to imagine.

    2. Re:I like an illustration of how bad this is by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine if people stopped the "both parties are just as bad" false equivalence bullshit.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:I like an illustration of how bad this is by CauseBy · · Score: 2

      "Imagine if the Democrats actually did something other than scream about Republicans wanting to destroy the Federal government. A person would have to be completely batshit to believe any elected asshole wants that."

      You think? Really? I think of today's Republican party as the inheritance of the anti-Federalist movement during our founding, which has propagated/festered through the centuries. I think it's perfectly reasonable and evidential to say that the right-wing of the Republican party wants to dismantle and disband the Federal government. I don't even think that would be denied by a large number of Republican representatives and constituents.

    4. Re:I like an illustration of how bad this is by Xaedalus · · Score: 2

      Imagine if either party actually represented the people they were elected to represent.

      Here's the problem: they ACTUALLY DO. That's what gerry-mandering means. Those elected representatives ACTUALLY represent the will of the people. What we're seeing isn't a problem of Congress. What we're seeing is one American cultural tribe (ultra-conservative whites) going all-out to retake their fading dominance over the American culture at large.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  28. Re:Non-Essential Employees by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  29. Agreed, but I will also blame gerrymandering by Burz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Agreed, but I will also blame gerrymandering by Burz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most of us did NOT vote for them. Republicans won the House with a minority of votes because of gerrymandered districts.

  30. magnitude of the problem by smash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:magnitude of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, you're just lying about Krugman. He only says long term budget issues should not affect our short term policy goals.

      This Is Not A Crisis
       
       

      The point is not that we should completely ignore issues of fiscal responsibility. It is that we are nowhere near fiscal crisis; we aren’t even looking at anything like a fiscal crisis 15 or 20 years from now. So budget deficits, entitlement reform, and all that simply don’t deserve to be policy priorities, let alone dominate the national discussion the way they did for the past few years.

    2. Re:magnitude of the problem by CauseBy · · Score: 2

      Yeah man, totally. My grandpa used to say that shit to me when I was a child in the 1970s. Someday, man, someday! It might be centuries from now, but eventually grandpa will be right.

      The key that unlocks your dilemma there is "things change".

  31. Re:Hang on to your wallets! by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:Obvious but baffling that it's not done yet by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  33. Re:They say they'll shut it down but they NEVER DO by anagama · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  34. Re:Hang on to your wallets! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    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
  35. Re:Whole Federal Gov is non essential by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  36. Re:Whole Federal Gov is non essential by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole US government is non-essential.

    Not just non-essential, a counterproductive drain.

    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.
  37. Re:sudo by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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. . . .

  38. It's about time by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    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.

  39. Re:Congress approval = 10%, all-time low by tburkhol · · Score: 2

    Congress has a terrible approval rating. Individual representatives and senators each have approval ratings above 50%, generally above 60%, and will all be safely re-elected whenever their term is up. This cognitive dissonance, where "my" representative is the only decent person in congress would be really fascinating, if only it weren't happening in my own country and fucking up my own government.

  40. Don't Worry by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  41. SAme story here : perplexed by aepervius · · Score: 2

    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
  42. Re:Trying the same thing over and over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  43. Re:And there's the rub by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

    The vast, vast majority of senate and house representatives have no need for the money they are paid. Nearly all of them are wealthy long before they enter politics. It would be incredibly stupid to put a small number of them in the position that they can be leaned on to vote one direction or the other simply because they are one of the few who actually depend on their paycheck.

  44. Re:800,000 workers. . . by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    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.

  45. Quick question by Kleen13 · · Score: 2

    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}
  46. Correction: The Republican party shut off the USA by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  47. Re: Republican idiots by TheSeventh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  48. When this happens over here... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2

    ...we have an immediate general election in order to try and get a government that can govern.

  49. Already one local guy dead due to this by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    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! --
  50. Hopefully no new wars by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    Hopefully we won't be able to start any new wars while the government is in shutdown.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire