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."
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