Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed To Furlough 3,000 On Monday, Layoffs Also Kicking In
Dawn Kawamoto writes "Lockheed employees are the latest casualty in the government shutdown, with the defense contractor announcing Friday it plans to furlough 3,000 workers on Monday. But what they didn't mention is they are laying off workers too, says a Lockheed source on the hush-hush. Lockheed, of course, isn't the only defense contractor taking it on the chin. Other contractors include United Technologies, which has furloughed 2,000, and BAE Systems which cut 1,000."
The Democrat controlled Senate rejected ALL OF IT.
Yes that is how it works. They can accept it or reject it. There is no cherry picking. Bringing healthcare reductions into a vital bill after votes on repealing obamacare has failed over forty times is nothing more than a hostage tactic.
You cannot be fired over a government shutdown. You can be furloughed or laid off, but not fired.
That combined with your clear lack of understanding of civics, I am not surprised you do not have a job, but rest assured your children can still get healtchare.
Right now, it's one party that's has lost it's marbles. They could end this at any time. The reason is that Boehner won't allow a clean vote based on partisan reasons. That's the whole issue here. Partisan reasons. It's ridiculous, especially coming from the party that talks endlessly about being the party that doesn't like the spend. They are the opposite. I've voted Republicans before, but I'm not voting Republican tell they've kicked Tea Party and ideological and religious meglomaniacs out of their party. It mgiht be nice to have run off elections at the local layer. But we still need a press that can lay out the issues without making everything into some kind of partisan war. It gets people all hot and lathered trying to defend their team.
No, the supreme court found the Individual Mandate constitutional. They also found the Medicaid expansion constitutional, what they found unconstitutional was the part that penalized states who didn't implement it. That was the part stripped. Which is why some states chose not to implement it, even though the federal government was paying for it.
Funny thing about the supreme court- they may have no authority to cancel part of a law, but they also have no authority to say a law is constitutional or not. They took that authority onto themselves, as part of Marbury v Madison. If they hadn't done so, there would be no power capable of determining that and Congress would be able to pass and the president enforce any law, Constitutional or not (for a great example, see the Alien and Sedition acts of the early 1800s). The right to cancel part of a law is pretty much necessary to do that job- if a bill has a tiny portion that's illegal, it's much closer to what Congress wanted to cancel part of it than all of it. If Congress then wants to tweak or get rid of the law in response they have that power. Two flaws in the Constitution that we've patched without official amendment.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I live in the middle of Austin, yet I'm represented by someone who lives in suburban Houston. My only option is to vote for or against the guy who is guaranteed to win thanks to gerrymandering.
How exactly can I fire him?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
It looks like those sites in that list are now all running on the same server (given they are serving an identical page, and nslookup returns the same IP address for all of them). Most likely they have one server running to keep that page displayed whilst turning off the rest of the servers that would be needed for normal operation (considerably more than one).
Also they are probably worried about the sites getting hacked or breaking whilst they're not paying anyone to fix them...
null
Lockheed Martin is a welfare queen sucking heartily on the tax payer titty for decades...boo fucking hoo.
Yes, but if Lockheed Martin is working on less defence stuff surely US taxers and Government spending should go down, right? Government spending won't go down - it's just misdirected elsewhere (wasteful and counter-productive entitlement programes). The problem is not simply the defence contractors - it is Government spending that citizens cannot constrain (in any country, but especially under the current authoritarian US Administration). The Republicans in the US are trying to take a stand (although clearly when in power they are part of the same spending problem).
The solution is for US citizens to demand Government be limited to enumerated Constitutional functions and ensure that the Congress makes the laws and approves spending and the executive implements the laws. That's what this p!ssing match is really about in Washington - Executive overreach of powers by the White House and its allies in the Senate and demands for unconstrained spending. Because the White House and Senate is not getting their way they refuse to accept any of the four spending bills that House of Representatives has put before the Senate. Hence, the Government shutdown is being caused by the Senate, not the House! defense contractors have nothing to do with this, but look to shed workers to avoid massive ObamaCare costs. ObamaCare is turning into the total clusterfsck is was always destined to be, and is badly hurting the people it was (allegedly) designed to help (US citizens).
There is never a problem that Government cannot make worse. ObamaCare is a prime example of this.
Nobody with a brain thinks state healthcare is "free", but most civilised people in every civilised country excepting The USA recognise that state healthcare is both more efficient, cheaper, and fairer than private insurance. Many people, myself included, also recognise that private health insurance, while more expensive, less efficient and less fair, offers better coverage, and so elect to have private insurance in addition to our state provided universal health care.
It's a very American way to look at fairness, a way that no other country shares, to view it as fair that if you are born with an illness or disease, or are unfortunate enough to be out of work or between jobs at the onset of a disease that you should just die.
A system that provides healthcare in a non-discriminatory manner can only be provided by government. How else would you do it? force health insurance companies to insure patients and cover pre-existing illness? No one would sign up for insurance until they had a serious illness. That spells disaster for an insurance company who operates on the principle that the well subsidise the sick. The only options then are discriminatory health cover, where the uninsured sick are left without option, as practiced in the US, and universal cover, as practiced in every other civilised country in the world.
And it's beginning to look like you guys aren't really that civilised.