Another Science Facility Bites the Dust, Temporarily

An anonymous reader writes "Today, the latest victim of the U.S. government shutdown, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory shut its doors and essentially mothballed all three of its radio telescope facilities: the Very Large Array or VLA (think Jodie Foster, Contact); the Green Bank Telescope, and the Very Long Baseline Array or VLBA. While the ALMA telescope is not yet affected (mainly due to it being run by a consortium of European, Japanese, Chilean and U.S. organizations), the U.S. funds for that will soon also dry up. Not only does this furlough most of the ~550 employees, it has also thrown a monkey wrench into many long-term carefully planned observations (to the tune of wasting half a million dollars and a year's worth of work). Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society also has a commentary on the closure — and a plea to 'stop the madness.'"

Comments

Aw

[Anonymous Coward]

Well shit. :\

Re:Aw

[symbolset]

In two weeks when we have defaulted on the national debt you will forget these trivialities. We will have bigger stuff to worry about, like how to feed your family when dollars are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Re:Aw

[Osgeld]

they are not worth the paper they are printed on 10 years ago

Re:Aw

[philip.paradis]

This is why I place high value on firearms, ammunition, and basic supplies. I'm not exactly a "prepper" but I'm certainly not a fool, either. Bad times can happen any time, and people who understand how to find food and water stand a better chance of dealing with circumstances than those who don't.

I have two daughters, a son on the way, and barring mass extinction of wildlife I'll be able to feed the family. The other unfortunate complications of a true economic collapse are factors I'd rather not consider in depth unless I have to.

Re:Aw

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right on the money, or gun.. Not sure how that works. Anyhow, you don't have to be a "prepper" to understand what might happen any day now... Life can take a quick turn into disaster and if there's any hint that it's going to happen it's likely within the next 3-years. Whether it's a civil revolution or a takeover, you have to be armed one way or another. Plus, it doesn't hurt to be prepared in case some poor person comes in and tries to rob you at gunpoint. It may end up like a mexican standoff but at least it's better than being defenseless and dying without trying. I'm not a prepper either but I have weapons, ammo, and preparations for 4 people for medical, and if we need to travel long distances. This was mainly created in case of a tornado, earthquake or hurricane though and I advise everyone to at least have some kind of safety prepareness kit of some sort. PS. In case of Zombies, have a chainsaw and a sawed off shotgun ready at your disposal. The hipster crowd is growing rapidly and there's no telling when they will want batteries for their ipod if SHTF.

Re:Aw

[symbolset]

This is true, but at least back then we let people pretend they were worth something. Once we default, that game is over.

Re:Aw

[symbolset]

In these times it is best not to broadcast that you have guns and ammunition, even though most folks do.

Re:Aw

[philip.paradis]

I'm happy to broadcast it, despite the risks associated with such a broadcast. I'll gladly support anyone subjected to illegal seizure by any means necessary, and for those who would attempt an amateur grab: try it.

Re:Aw

[mysidia]

In two weeks when we have defaulted on the national debt you will forget these trivialities. We will have bigger stuff to worry about, like how to feed your family when dollars are not worth the paper they are printed on.

This is why i'm planning to borrow millions of $$ from the bank, and stock up on things like Guns and Ammo, that won't be devalued by the US default on the national debt.

By the way; in the event of inflation, Real Estate, and commodities such as silver, copper and steel, can be expected to increase in face value, to match the amount of inflation. These commodities, and things like Bitcoins can then be used as a medium of trade.

Gold is probably not the best thing to acquire at this time, because it's already inflated.

I heard somewhere; that if you are one of the few that has guns and ammo: you should be able to find food in any economy. There will still be plenty of resources to survive; in a survival situation, you just need to be a good competitor.

It's also worthwhile to build a massive stockpile of long-shelflife foods and cooking materials: coconut oil, baking soda, lots of hard liquors of course, cornstarch, salt, maple syrup, pure honey, dried wild/white/jasmine/basmati rice, sugar, dried fruits, dry beans (pintos, kidney beans, blackeye beans), canned beans; freeze-dried stuff, pure vanilla extracts, distilled vinegar, buckwheat, dry corn, kamut, millet, barley, rye, oat groats, flour

But you can't stock up on these at home --- you need to make sure you have a secure, confidential, defensible location for resource storage.

Re:Aw

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Buy gold and silver now. Before it's too late..

Re:Aw

[ShanghaiBill]

... even though most folks do.

Actually, most folks don't. About 34% of American households have a gun.

There was a bump in ownership after Sandy Hook, when gun control proposals were in the news. About three million additional guns were sold. If those guns have the same rate of fatalities as existing guns, it will be equivalent to another Sandy Hook every two months. I suppose that counts as an unintended consequence.

Re:Aw

[davester666]

If you really believe your dollars become worthless in two weeks, having say a pound or two of gold or silver isn't going to make a difference to you [assuming you can actually physically get the lump of gold, as currently it's on backorder (as in, you need to wait for them to mine it)].

You will need guns and lots of ammunition, and a compound in the middle of nowhere.

Re:Aw

[davester666]

Those deaths don't count, because they were "accidental", which makes them seem unavoidable, inevitable.

What's out there?

[noh8rz10]

Makes you wonder what we'll miss in the night sky. If I were an alien that read slashdot, I would know that the time to strike us now!

Re:What's out there?

[Mitchell314]

If an alien were to judge us based on slashdot, they'd strike immediately no matter what. :P

Re:What's out there?

[houstonbofh]

"That's no moon..."

Re: What's out there?

[allan572]

If aliens read slash dot they would skip earth and move on to find intelligent life! :-)

Re:What's out there?

[Bite The Pillow]

They would strike, then strike again 12 hours later, then spend the rest of the millennium bickering about arcana while one idiot bastard alien kept sending messages saying "Hi I'm from earf, you missed one," and "Commander Xeebo is a diddlepeen who eats natalie portman for frosty piss."

Oh sorry, that's what would happen if slashdot attacked aliens.

Re:What's out there?

[VortexCortex]

If an alien were to judge us based on slashdot, they'd strike immediately no matter what. :P

"Look at these humans! They're all fatted up and complacent!"

Well done.

"Well done?"

Yes, leave none rare. Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Re: What's out there?

[Iskender]

If aliens read Slashdot they'd use their superior, high-performance tech toFhR05TY PI22 0MG P0NIES C0WB0YNEALS BREARD

many gov sites down but

[shirosenshi]

They have closed many national parks and government websites, but The Healthcare Insurance Market Place is open. Are not 'selective shutdowns' illegal for political gain? U.S. Pres acting like a dictator. Also noticed he shutting down private businesses. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/04/park-rangers-guard-inn-parking-lot-from-guests-during-shutdown/

Re:many gov sites down but

[__Paul__]

You conveniently forgot to mention that the military is still being paid.

You could save a fortune if you defunded them and brought them all home.

Re:many gov sites down but

[houstonbofh]

Kinda... Base pay. But hazzard pay, and many other bonuses that can be up to half the paycheck are still out. And base comasaries are closing as well.

Re:many gov sites down but

[sumdumass]

The majority of the ACA is mandatory funding, not discretionary...which makes the Republican's government shutdown all the more moronic.

not if you paid attention to what they want to do. Only portions of the aca is mandatory and they tried to remove the mandatory itself. Now they just want to remove thr medical device tax which several democrats agree with doing, remove the subsidy scheme oboma designrf for congress, and either delay the personal mandate as long as big business is exempt or remove the exemption.

Re:many gov sites down but

[dbIII]

What they want doesn't matter as much as the way it's being done. This shutdown is like taking a thermonuclear device to a ping pong match. They are damaging the US economy for what, a minor tweak in health insurance? This sort of crap has to be stopped before it becomes the default option to repeal laws.

I this keeps on going any bets as to when Cruz gets a medal from Putin and Xi?

Re:many gov sites down but

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

The military is still being paid, but they are no longer sending feeds of sporting events ( including the NFL ) to the soldiers.
They are however, keeping Camp David and military golf courses open ( which he plays a lot on ).

On other notes. Republicans in the House passed a resolution to keep funding NIH research ( into things like childrens cancer ), but a party line vote in the Senate killed it. They also "shutdown" the WWII monument. This despite the fact that it remained open during other shutdowns. This despite the fact that it is open 24/7 but only manned during working hours. Veterans arriving found the monument blocked off by "Barry-cades". They were not to be stopped and simply went around. So to save the money for the shutdown the adminstration hired people to wire the Barry-cades together.

Oh and the White House chefs are considered essential. They have not been furloughed. Guess they are needed to bake the cakes.

Re:many gov sites down but

[Anonymous Coward]

That is some petty, small-minded thinking. Of course the Republicans are going to push for gradually refunding the government in a series of small bills, it alleviates public pressure on the shutdown. If they had their way the shutdown would only pertain to Obamacare.

So they put forth these bills that they know won't pass so they can blame the Democrats on keeping things closed. It riles up their base of narrow-minded twats who get 90% of their daily news intake from ultra-conservative loudmouths on talk radio and Drudge Report.

But that talk radio will conveniently omit the fact:

1) The bill is law. The debate is settled. It's been signed into law. The court has ruled. The president has been re-elected, he has been endorsed by the majority of voting people to be on the right track.
2) Conservative lawmakers planned on using "the power of the purse" to get their way -- i.e. shut down government.
3) The House is chosing to abide by the "Hastert Rule" and impeding a vote on the senate's version of the bill. That bill would pass, but unless there is a "majority of the majority" likely to vote on the bill the bill will not come to a vote. This means the Republican Party, already fracturing from their reeling defeats in previous elections, is hostage to the Tea Party, a party that holds views dramatically right of most people.

Re:many gov sites down but

[Swave An deBwoner]

The "Pisga Inn" is a privately operated concession in a building owned and on land leased from the federal government.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/pisgah-inn-closes-because-government-shutdown/nbFm2/

That I think implies that the site is protected by federal police, and in light of the widespread shutdown it seems plausible that they felt it couldn't be properly supervised. They may have their hands full as it is.

Re:many gov sites down but

[symbolset]

Actually, the US military does not have more guns than the US citizenry. In the US guns outnumber people to operate them.

Re:many gov sites down but

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. There's nowhere to go after the Supreme Court.

You're saying that they ruled it a "tax". That's not their ruling. If they ruled that way, that would imply they could make a law constitutional, but by ruling in such a way, the law is then unconstitutional. They cannot make up a paradox like that, that's not how the court works. Especially not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.

Re:many gov sites down but

[cyberjock1980]

Actually, the cost of bringing them all home would be VERY expensive. It cost money to get them there, and it costs money to bring them home. But, if you bring them home for long enough then you might save money in the long term. But since the military is paid salary and not hourly, I'm betting the cost savings would take years to reap.

And if you think you'll bring them home "during the shutdown" I can guarantee that you'll definitely be spending more money in the long run. But I don't think this was your intention based on your comment.

But ignoring these fact, if you chose to stop paying the military you'd have serious problems on your hands. Do you know what happens when the people holding the guns defending you do when you stop paying them? Well, let's just say "you don't want to find out". And the reality of it is that my military brothers and sisters would have serious problems because they can't expect to go get a temporary job while the wait out the shutdown nor do they have large sums of money to sit at home and still pay their bills.

I remember when Sept 11th happened and all sorts of government buildings were closed there was a lot of rumors that the military members might not get paid on time. Lucky for us many banks like Navy Federal Credit Union agreed they'd deposit our normal paycheck size into our accounts even if we didn't get paid. Many apartment complex came out and said that if we didn't get paid they wouldn't charge late fees if we didn't have our rent checks on time. Fortunately we did get paid on time and didn't have to worry about such things.

The last thing us military people needed to worry about when we were suddenly forced to go to sea unexpected(I was in the Navy) was to worry about if our family was home starving with no money and I was in the middle of the ocean unable to contact them to find out if they were even alive. Remember, the safest place for a ship is at sea. So guess where all the ships went when Sept 11th happened? That's right, to sea. Unfortunately many of us had families that were in panic over the Sept 11th attacks, and all that any of us knew was that we were going to sea for an indeterminate period of time, might or might not get paid on time, and no clue if we were going to war immediately or not.

So please think about the people defending your right to comment on this website before you start talking about not paying them. Because it stinks of shit when people like you talk out of your mouth with such rubbish. They didn't want the shutdown. And the very people that should be telling our Congress and President to go to hell when they do stupid things like this and voting them out are the same people that should be responsible for whatever consequences(good or bad) that come from not acting. So I don't feel too bad when the Grand Canyon, the WWII memorial, and the Statue of LIberty close. We wanted this. We asked for it by voting in these idiots. And by "We" that just means the majority. For the rest of us that didn't vote in these clowns, we should have worked harder to keep the clowns out of office.

So everyone enjoy the spoils from voting in these incompetent losers. You wanted it and you got it. And the worse you want it, the worse you'll get it. I know next election I'll be trying to get some fresh air in there.

Re:many gov sites down but

[UnknowingFool]

They also "shutdown" the WWII monument. This despite the fact that it remained open during other shutdowns. This despite the fact that it is open 24/7 but only manned during working hours. Veterans arriving found the monument blocked off by "Barry-cades". They were not to be stopped and simply went around. So to save the money for the shutdown the adminstration hired people to wire the Barry-cades together.

The Democrats and Barack Obama did not personally call the Parks department to "shutdown" particular monuments if that's what you are implying. I'm pretty sure the Parks department has a detailed plan for the shutdown that didn't involve the President or the Senate. It doesn't have to make sense to you and me but that's their call as the Parks department is in charge.

What you have really is that the Republicans want to shut everything down but don't want the political blame for shutting things down.

Re:many gov sites down but

[Bing Tsher E]

You're right. "What they want doesn't matter." All that matters is: "Icky, icky poo poo! Republicans! Yuk!"

Putin is about to get a Nobel Prize, to match Obama's. They should dress as twins, though it's obvious who would be the bossy twin.

Re:many gov sites down but

[dbIII]

Republicans are not the problem, it's the hatching of the cuckoos eggs laid inside that bunch that are the problem. The health care proposal is trivial compared with what Nixon was going with yet these weirdos are doing so much damage in an attempt to stop it. They are prepared to bankrupt America just to stop less than 1% of the population from getting health insurance - how petty is that? The only people that will not be hurt much by it are the 1% at the other end.

Re:many gov sites down but

[khallow]

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled two parts of Obamacare were unconstitutional. They even overturned one of those two.

You're saying that they ruled it a "tax".

That is correct. The Supreme Court also ruled it wasn't a tax. Justice Roberts was the person who voted both ways.

They cannot make up a paradox like that

They did.

Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.

Just like the other parties above "respected" the Constitution? That's hypocrisy to demand of us to respect only laws that you want.

The mess should be reversed. It'll be cheaper and far less suffering to do it now than in twenty years or a century. Then we could do what Obama failed to do back in 2009 and craft some sort of health care law that is an actual reform of the industry.

Re:many gov sites down but

[wbr1]

Hazzard pay? Is our military jumping muscle cars over ditches and running from Roscoe P. Coletrain?

Re:many gov sites down but

[Anonymous Coward]

Controlling our border is the law too. We don't do that though.

Re:many gov sites down but

[khallow]

The Democrats and Barack Obama did not personally call the Parks department to "shutdown" particular monuments if that's what you are implying.

[...]

What you have really is that the Republicans want to shut everything down but don't want the political blame for shutting things down.

Let's not get hasty here and claim things that just might not be true. Last I checked the NPS really was going out of their way to close things down which hadn't been closed down in previous shutdowns. Who knows, that might have been due to a direct call from Obama or merely strongly implied in a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior.

Second, Republicans are known to want to shut down Obamacare to the point of forty-something votes to that effect.

Re:many gov sites down but

[Mashdar]

You're absolutely right. When you have a Honda and want a Porsche, first you trash the Honda, then you try to figure out how to get the Porsche.

Also John Roberts ruled that the mandate was effectively a tax and therefore fell within the powers of Congress to legislate. Where the bill "originated" is an arcane arguement with little clarity... Per the constitution, in the case of appropriations the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills,"

Re:many gov sites down but

[Teckla]

Republicans in the House passed a resolution to keep funding NIH research ( into things like childrens cancer ), but a party line vote in the Senate killed it.

You should be happy the Democrats aren't willing to negotiate with the terrorists (Republicans). The Republicans are trying to do an end-run around democracy itself. That the Republicans are willing to do this should scare the hell out of everyone, no matter what your opinion of Obamacare is.

Re:many gov sites down but

[sumdumass]

When the opposite is I will work with you as long as you want to do everything I want to do is often the only other option, I can understand why some republicans thought this might be a good idea. I don't think it was the best idea ever, but it isn't crazy or moronic like the GP implied.

Ultimately, the best option would be for the senate to take up an actual budget and pass it, work with the house to agree on one, and go at it. The continuing resolutions come around every 6 months specifically because the senate refuses to do so and it seems to be the only time the republicans get real input to meaningful and important legislation.

As for damaging the US economy, that might be true, but the republican's position is that the ACA is doing so also and will do it a lot more in the coming years. A lot of businesses said they were going to reduce hours, restructure to get under 49 employees, or change benefits available to employee's spouses when the mandate hits them. The president knows this and delayed the implementation of the mandate for large businesses for a year specifically to avoid this clashing with the opening of the Obamacare.

It is interesting that you bring up Putin, it seems that the president has to stand solid on this red line because of how he caved to Putin on the last red line. Perhaps he is thinking it is safer to deal with a couple pissed off rednecks with sporting riffles then to deal with a pissed off Russia.

Re:many gov sites down but

[_Sharp'r_]

"1) The bill is law. The debate is settled. It's been signed into law. The court has ruled. The president has been re-elected, he has been endorsed by the majority of voting people to be on the right track." - The "shutdown" is also law, signed into law by President Obama himself. The debate here is about a new law authorizing new discretionary spending. The Republicans in the House were also re-elected and endorsed by their constituents while running on a platform of repealing the ACA. Elections have consequences, right?
"2) Conservative lawmakers planned on using "the power of the purse" to get their way -- i.e. shut down government." - Since the power of the purse for raising and spending money was explicitly given to the House of Representatives by those designing our system of government because they, having the smallest constituent/representative ratio and being required to run for re-election every 2 years are the closest to the "people" who are supposed to be truly in charge, it's a bit disingenuous to imply that the House functioning exactly as designed, using the power of the purse to defund an unpopular law, is somehow a bad thing in and of itself.
"3)" - I won't quote your whole complaint, but the majority of the House agrees it's in the best interests of their constituents to stick together.They're the elected representatives, so that's their right to decide.If you don't like it, feel free to run for Congress in the next election and make your case. No one who could walk out the door any time they want to is a "hostage" as you state. The Representatives in the House are free to vote however they want to, they aren't "hostages" to a rule they themselves agree on and are supporting.

Re:many gov sites down but

[_Sharp'r_]

That I think implies that the site is protected by federal police, and in light of the widespread shutdown it seems plausible that they felt it couldn't be properly supervised. They may have their hands full as it is.

Right... even though federal police are considered "essential" and are still working? These private business reports are places with contracted leases that weren't closed during previous "shutdown"s. They produce revenue for the government, they don't consume it.

What right do the Interior Department people have to violate their lease and keep them from operating? Because they're trying to throw the biggest bureaucratic temper tantrum possible?

Re:many gov sites down but

[mrchaotica]

We wanted this. We asked for it by voting in these idiots. And by "We" that just means the majority.

Nope. The Republicans control the House of Representatives despite not having a nationwide overall majority. They are in power solely because the voting districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to amplify their power and dilute the Democrats'.

Re:many gov sites down but

[UnknowingFool]

Let's not get hasty here and claim things that just might not be true. Last I checked the NPS really was going out of their way to close things down which hadn't been closed down in previous shutdowns.

Please bring up a credible citation other than some GOP website that heard it from someone who overheard from their friend. Something official. I bet you can't. Besides that point, the NPS != Democrats or Barack Obama. The NPS is made of career government employees, many of whom have (and will serve) multiple administrations.

Who knows, that might have been due to a direct call from Obama or merely strongly implied in a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior.

After what you said above, now, you are going to insinuate unsubstantiated rumor or lies? Personally I don't think that the President gets involved with these details. People somehow I think the President is responsible for every aspect of everything in government. He isn't. It's his administration and he in charge overall but he doesn't make these detailed decisions. If a city gets leveled by an asteroid (because the asteroid monitoring program is shutdown) are you going to blame Obama as well?

Second, Republicans are known to want to shut down Obamacare to the point of forty-something votes to that effect.

And the GOP wanted to roll back civil rights legislation as well and reinstate DOMA. So?

Re:many gov sites down but

[sumdumass]

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. There's nowhere to go after the Supreme Court.

No they did not. They ruled the ACA is not unconstitutional based on the arguments presented to them. The Supreme court does not deem anything constitutional, it determines if something violates the constitution and infers the constitutionality of it when it is not unconstitutional. Don't let the wording trip you up. When a court's opinion says something is constitutional, it is only in reference to the arguments of it not being constitutional that was presented to it.

The distinction there is that a law or aspects of a law found to not be unconstitutional under one set of arguments can be unconstitutional under another. For instance, segregation and the voter rights act have been in front of the supreme court several times and by the same mentality *deemed constitutional* but ultimately were found unconstitutional. The supreme court is only supposed to decide on the issue in front of it, not the entirety of a law or the policy within the law. Stop and Frisk has been deemed constitutional but the way New York is applying it, it will likely be determined unconstitutional. The DC gun ban is also an example of this where certain aspects of the law were perfectly legit and even if implemented and enforced differently would have remained so but according to the court but it was ultimately unconstitutional.

You're saying that they ruled it a "tax". That's not their ruling. If they ruled that way, that would imply they could make a law constitutional, but by ruling in such a way, the law is then unconstitutional. They cannot make up a paradox like that, that's not how the court works. Especially not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

Boy, you sound just like the dissenting opinion on the Obamacare case. You should actually pick up the opinions and read them- they are available from the Supreme court's website.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

It clearly states in the opinion around page 58 of the PDF,

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congressâ(TM)s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congressâ(TM)s power to tax.

In the dissenting opinion by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, it clearly says

In answering that question we must, if âoefairly possible,â Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. âoeââoe[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .â or judicially rewriting it.â(TM)â Commodity Futures Trading Commâ(TM)n v. Schor, 478 U. S.

Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.

No future government will ever be constrained by a previous government unless

Re:many gov sites down but

[sumdumass]

Democracy would seem to require the input of all involved. Not negotiating would literally be the end run around democracy. Perhaps you meant an end run around what you want?

Calling the republicans terrorist because they are using valid and existing tools of the trade to participate within this republic- and those tools have been used by democrats in the past 40 years as well, is just another symptom of a mindset that doesn't jive with reality.

In the last 40 years, there have been 17 shut downs, Of the 17 shutdowns in, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened when the democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. This isn't anything new, it just seems that way because even though G.W Bush was hated, he never got a shutdown (most likely because he never passed an opportunity to spend more).

You can validate those numbers here and here.+

This first link I suspect is a bit sided, but the second is wikipedia and I looked over the edits for the last 3 days only to find wording issues being changed (tonal and grammar)

So please stop with the Rhetoric about terrorist. It is untrue unless you want to call all the democrats who many are still in office terrorist too. This is the problem with government- when party politics come into play, one party does something, it's all puppies and kittens frolicking in a sunny field. When the other does the same things, it is terrorist and evil dead part 99.

Re:many gov sites down but

[sumdumass]

If refusing to fund it- to the point of shutting down the government creates action on it, then maybe so.

However, the government remains shut down largely due to Democrats refusing to take up individual spending bills and refusing to concede on very minor points in the law. The republicans have decreased their demands from de-funding it to removing the medical device tax which is also popular with a few democrats, to removing the special subsidy that Obama somehow created for congress and it's staff that the regular citizens don't get and paring the individual mandate with the exemption Obama gave to large businesses. They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens. The democrats are not being reasonable on this.

So if I adopt the "it is a stupid thing to do" approach, I would be hard pressed to claim those who started it remain the ones acting stupid if it is still a stupid thing. If I kept the "something needs to be done" approach, given the insistence to keep the law intact without any changes- even if it is simply applying it equally to big business, government, and citizens alike, it seems to be the only way.

Re:many gov sites down but

[cyberjock1980]

But its not like we didn't know where the lines were drawn. All of these problems are created by humans, managed by humans, and controlled by humans. If we don't like the situation we've put ourselves in, then we should change them. If we didn't we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Re:many gov sites down but

[khallow]

There's really no arguing with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Well, I just did and will continue to do so.

Instead, the legislative branch should be legislating fixes. Instead, the House is refusing to vote on the Senate bill, and therefore blocking legislation, and therefore failing at their job as legislators.

Looks to me like they are. Once again, I find it interesting how easily certain people ignore and brush off fundamental law when it doesn't go their way and want to dot every "i" and cross every "t" when it does. Everyone is doing their job as I see it including the House.

Re:many gov sites down but

[khallow]

You're absolutely right. When you have a Honda and want a Porsche, first you trash the Honda, then you try to figure out how to get the Porsche.

That's a pretty good car analogy for Obamacare since it trashes private health insurance, the "Honda" of this example. I gather the end goal, the "Porsche" is single-payer.

Also John Roberts ruled that the mandate was effectively a tax and therefore fell within the powers of Congress to legislate. Where the bill "originated" is an arcane arguement with little clarity... Per the constitution, in the case of appropriations the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills,"

I didn't bring this up, but I really am not surprised that you think this is "arcane" rather than merely "unconstitutional". What's another violation when you've already brushed off so many?

Re:many gov sites down but

[_Sharp'r_]

The Hastert Rule is enforced by the majority in Congress. If a majority of Representatives wanted to get rid of Boehner, or change the rule, or even leave him alone and bring anything they wanted to the floor of the House to vote on it, they could. The Speaker can be fired anytime you can get a majority of Congress to go along. The Caucus rules can be changed any time a majority wants to.

While some Representatives have publicly said they'd support this bill or that one, that's not the same as actually signing a discharge petition, or wanting to vote on a particular bill so much they are willing to go against the other members of their Party. It's like when asked if they want ice cream, they say "Sure, I want some ice cream, but not so much that I'm willing to pay for some in order to eat it."

Re:many gov sites down but

[sumdumass]

However, I still disagree. To me this still sounds like rationalization of an unreasonable demand to defund Obamacare. The House has attempted 41 times to repeal Obamacare, and to my (admittedly limited) knowledge made no serious attempt to remedy the law.

There are so many things wrong with this law, including the premise it provides healthcare when it only provides insurance for a few more people, it is almost unfix-able. This is frustrated in how it was passed and how the supreme court reinterpreted the law in order to keep it constitutional. Now we have the administration making changes to it 17 times through executive order, some of which appears to be completely unconstitutional and at least one state is suing over- one change provides special privileges.

I look at our country, with our unreasonably high costs of medical care, and the fact that the ACA isn't that much different from Republican plans in the past, and can only conclude that Obama's plan isn't great but better than watching Americans go bankrupt because they got sick. I realize there are huge devils in a sea of details but remain optimistic that we can make lives better.

There are a few flaws in this line of reasoning. First, the ACA does nothing to reduce the costs of health care and actually increases the costs of medical devices that might be needed to provide healthcare with a medical device tax. What it does do is decrease the payouts for medicaid and medicare which the medical providers will need to supplement from increased costs to insured patients.

The reason for the high costs of medical care in the first place is because we half assed medicare back in 1965. Congress almost had a heart attach after finding out how much they were spending so they passed the HMO act in 1968 which gave authority of medical care to semi-trained officer clerks and secretaries. They did this in an attempt to control what was being spent by medicare at the time. Not only did the HMO's control the quality of care for the elderly, they also chose the spending levels.

Well, this didn't exactly have the right outcome so the government instituted an average payment schedule and a series of tests to determine if a procedure or specific treatment was needed or not. With this average, the US was divided into 5 specific economic regions and medical procedure costs were collected and averaged over those regions. The government would only pay the average and made a law that if the providers couldn't go after the patient for the difference else they couldn't accept medicare or any government assistance. What this led to was an incentive to jack the costs up. Hirer costs means a higher average. The government then responded with only paying a percentage of the average which enticed the increasing of costs again just to break even with what they really wanted to charge. The Insurance companies had a fit so congress exempted their costs from the averages as they negotiate discounts not available to the general public. This once again, increased costs to the people who were not covered by insurance or a government aid program.

Second, the biggest problem with it looking similar to republican proposals of the past is that those proposals never became law. Comparing something that didn't become law to something that is regarded as bad law is a bit of a misnomer.

Third, the Obama plan doesn't really stop people from going bankrupt. The problem with bankruptcy is that you need a reason to file other then you went shopping to often. The biggest or easier reason to file is because you have a substantial loss of income which usually happens when you get large medical bills. The medical bills themselves isn't what bankrupts people, it is the loss of income a person has after spending months off the job. The affordable care act does nothing to remedy this.

Finally, and this probably should be construed as a counter point, there are some things in the ACA that are actua

Re:many gov sites down but

[Mashdar]

You did bring up the Roberts opinion. And it was the majority opinion, which you seem to imply it was not... And the GOP appears to agree that arguements over bill origin are arcane and not winnable.

The fact of the matter is that the Constitution provides for revisions by the Senate to be sent back to the House, and that's exactly what happened. If your argument is that the bill was "invented" by the Senate, the onus is on you to prove that. Good luck.

As for cars, the Porsche is whatever amorphous dream-system you seem to want. I suspect you don't care about much other than winning your dogmatic battle.
The current system of health insurance is broken for anyone whose employer does not offer coverage. I don't have time to write an essay about how individual health "insurance" has not been insurance so much as a gamble that the insurer won't find some way to kick you off the plan if you get expensive.
Finally, I would not mind single payer (it is economically efficient, although has many downsides), but I'm perfectly happy with the conservative personal mandate.

Re:many gov sites down but

[khallow]

As for cars, the Porsche is whatever amorphous dream-system you seem to want. I suspect you don't care about much other than winning your dogmatic battle.

Didn't look that way to me.

The current system of health insurance is broken for anyone whose employer does not offer coverage. I don't have time to write an essay about how individual health "insurance" has not been insurance so much as a gamble that the insurer won't find some way to kick you off the plan if you get expensive.

Good for you. You would be wasting your time with an incorrect argument. There's nothing keeping insurers from violating the the terms of their contracts except contract law, enforced by the courts. Get a lawyer, do some discovery on how often your insurer does this practice, threaten to enlarge it to a class action lawsuit (since you're not magically going to be the first person they ever did this to), and then get them to settle in your favor.

Finally, I would not mind single payer (it is economically efficient, although has many downsides)

One of those downsides is that it is not economically efficient - how do they regulate consumption of medical services? How do they encourage more supply of medical services when supply is artificially constrained? I will admit that a decent single payer system would be more efficient that the current US mess, but my bet is that single payer would be screwed up, just like the current law was.

Re:many gov sites down but

[wwphx]

Kudos, sirrah. You win the internet for today!

Re:many gov sites down but

[Mashdar]

Are you trolling, or just selectively blind?
 
 

There's nothing keeping insurers from violating the the terms of their contracts except contract law, enforced by the courts.

Yeah, unless you die in the meantime. One example (off the top of my head):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nataline_Sarkisyan
Lawyering costs time and money. Now the insurer cannot drop you for "fraudulent" lack of disclosure. Quotes because the definition of fraud pre-AAA changed based on how expensive you were (they would gladly take your premiums until you got sick).
 

One of those downsides is that it is not economically efficient

This is a clear example of you either being a troll or totally un(mis)informed. Look at any socialized healthcare system. The complaints are not care/$ based.

Anyway, this conversation is clearly pointless, as you are just spouting garbage. Good day, sir.

Re:many gov sites down but

[charles2678]

They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to

Congressional staff gets special-cased because they're forced into the exchanges (this is a feature, not a bug!). Most people with full-time employment get employer contributions; the intent of the "special treatment" clause that everyone derides is basically giving Congressional staff the equivalent of a private employer contribution towards their insurance. But, here's the thing -- the Democrats would gladly accept this if it were offered to get things rolling again. I saw the glee when it looked like that was going to be the only, symbolic demand being made pre-shutdown; sadly, it didn't come to pass.

and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens

Has the House offered a proposal in which cutting off the subsidy for Congressional staffers and undoing the executive order giving big business a deferral was the only change made? I'm entirely serious here.

Re:many gov sites down but

[khallow]

The complaints are not care/$ based.

In other words, care/$ is not quite as glaring a problem with those other systems as it is with the US system, but they all have that problem.

that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

Obama is choosing what to close and what not to close. Closing these facilities, national parks, monuments, etc. is pure politics on his part. There are plenty of other things he could cut, and he could have cut a long time ago.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Because he was the one who sets the budget. The president can recommend a budget, but if you hadn't noticed there is a bit of opposition.

And the whole "We'll fund a piece at a time, starting with the popular things" is bullshit. How would you feel if your employer suddenly decided that making payroll wasn't acceptable, but he'll pay Janice two offices down, and Bob in accounting. And then maybe he'll decide to pay his administrative assistant. After that...hmm, you were a day late getting in that report. He doesn't want to pay you, even if you are an employee.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[hrvatska]

Obama is choosing what to close and what not to close. Closing these facilities, national parks, monuments, etc. is pure politics on his part. There are plenty of other things he could cut, and he could have cut a long time ago.

Without funding from a continuing resolution, how would Obama keep these facilities, national parks, monuments, etc. funded and running?

Re:that's Obama's choice

[NeutronCowboy]

You have absolutely no idea what happens when a budget doesn't get approved in time, do you? Here's some education for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/

Re:that's Obama's choice

[sumdumass]

Imagine an open field with rocks and trees. Now imagine putting up baracades and rangers to guard them. Some have edtimated that it costs more to close them then it did to operate. They are even paying overtime to sit rangers at the entrances of budinesses that get no federal funding at all in order to close them down only because they lease land from the parks or service patrons of the parks.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[kenwd0elq]

I was going to respond "President Obama has NEVER signed a budget", but other people have already made the point for me. The object of "cut spending" would suggest that the NPS should lock the gates and go home. But that's not what they're doing - they are (under Presidential direction!) doing ANYTHING THEY CAN to spite the American people, in an attempt to prod the populace into demanding quick action. When Nixon did that, few reporters called him on it. Now, the entire "press" is Obama supporters and will do or say anything to support "The One". But with this internet thingie and cell phones and Twitter, the "media" has lost their exclusive control of the "news".

And Obama's warnings of doom about the debt ceiling and our impending default - that isn't so clear, either. The Treasury is getting plenty of money, MORE than enough to pay all the debts that are due; bond payments and the like. The problem is that they're spending it even FASTER. So when we ram into the debt ceiling at Mach 3, somebody at the Fed will need to make a choice - make the bond payments and screw all the welfare recipients, pensioners, Michelle's vacation partners and Federal employees and NOT default, or default and give the money to other people. Or, keep borrowing and break the debt ceiling.

Defaulting or breaking the debt ceiling would both be impeachable offenses, but I suspect that he'd rather default and collapse the economy EVEN FASTER than he has been doing for the past 4 years.

I'm lucky; I'm old and probably won't need to worry about surviving the civil war that is coming. Because it IS coming.

Oh, one other tidbit; the Washington Post is ENTIRELY in Obama's pocket. He probably wrote that piece. It doesn't enhance your credibility to be quoting it.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

This is not about approving budgets because there are no budgets. Obama has failed to submit them, Congress has failed to pass them. This is about Obama demanding money willy-nilly and Congress refusing to pay it for equally chaotic reasons.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

(1) By avoiding the problem altogether and negotiating with Republicans well ahead of time.

(2) By setting different priorities; after all, most federal employees are still working, he simply sent those home that had the biggest PR impact.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with the mods. The parent isn't flamebait, it's unbridled idiocy.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Barry-caded, haha. Next thing you know, the evil dictator for life will be putting Barry-cuda in all of our drinking water. He'll outlaw Straw-Barry milkshakes, and Barry-cade your local breakfast aisle at the grocery so you can't buy your Boo-Barry Crunch cereal.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the Barrs in the national parks were being outfitted with Obama masks and provoked into killing intruders. Next he'll repeal our right to Barr arms right before the miliBarry takeover!

Re:that's Obama's choice

[symbolset]

If this plays out like I think it will, you will devoutly wish for a day when the Affordable Care Act, Obama, or partisan politics was something you might be concerned about. We are headed for a time when such concerns were the good old days.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[kenwd0elq]

Budgets..... Aye, THERE'S the rub. By the Constitution, all bills appropriating money from the treasury of the United States MUST originate in the House. The Senate can propose amendments, which then go back to the House for their approval. The President is, officially, "out of the loop" for budgets.

In reality, most presidents in the last 100 years have proposed their own budgets, and an obliging Representative then introduces "his" budget, and then it's off to the races. In this case, Obama has never proposed a budget, the Dem house didn't bother, and Harry Reid has blocked any GOP-submitted budget since the Dems lost the House in 2010.

That's how Obamacare got so badly screwed up to begin with. The House proposed the original version of Obamacare, larded up with every leftists' wildest dreams; the Senate was supposed to revise it to make it work. Then Teddy Kennedy went to his eternal reward, Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, and the Dems lost their filibuster-proof majority - and their only option was either to pass the House bill (which EVERYBODY KNEW WAS CRAP) without changes, or watch the Republican minority filibuster their changes to death. They passed it, with Nancy Pelosi's timeless line "You'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it!".

Now we're seeing, and a LOT of people are having buyers remorse.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Bite The Pillow]

they are (under Presidential direction!) doing ANYTHING THEY CAN to spite the American people

Source?

I'm old and probably won't need to worry about surviving the civil war that is coming.

Oh, nevermind. You really should take a break from your normal programming from time to time. I would have simply discounted you, but I've seen several posts mentioning the intentional painfulness with no corroboration outside the usual complete nutters.

Defaulting or breaking the debt ceiling would both be impeachable offenses

You are either the third most dedicated troll I have seen, or incredibly biased towards preconceived notions to the point that I would suggest considering if you have ever been brainwashed. Seriously. And I will be looking for a source, preferably from a place that doesn't mention Alex Jones, lizard people, the Illuminati, or Skull and Bones.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[vux984]

Now we're seeing, and a LOT of people are having buyers remorse.

Majority of the country favors obamacare. The majority of the country that republicans like to say support getting rid of it are split - 2/3rds actually think it goes too far... 1/3 doesn't think it goes far enough. that 1/3rd of so called group 'against the bill' doesn't want the act repealed ... they wanted it expanded. Couple that with nearly 50% that identify as supporting the bill and you have a clear majority.

So I don't really see buyers remorse yet, what I see is 40 odd republican tea party candidates from election proof gerrymandered disctricts that literally cannot lose no matter how braindead they act have decided to hold the entire country hostage.

As an aside, Bill O'Reilly while a guest on the daily show suggested, really, the most sane compromises I've heard.

The US government is so absurdly screwed up -- giving state governers the electoral powers they have was idiotic. All aspects of elections should be run by completely non-partisan groups with no interfering with the state or federal political parties. From identifying districts to running the election itself.

That same episode of the daily show had another good factoid -- 90% incumbency rate, 10% approval rate. It's broken.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Hognoxious]

putting up baracades

Fences made of carnivorous fish?

budinesses

Commercial enterprises run by friends? Or ones that sell shit beer?

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Bing Tsher E]

And you should stop biting the pillow. Or is that how you cope when Rachel Maddog comes at you wearing a strapon?

Re:that's Obama's choice

[Pino Grigio]

If my employer ran a deficit for 25 years we'd all have been fired years ago.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[khallow]

The US government is so absurdly screwed up -- giving state governers the electoral powers they have was idiotic. All aspects of elections should be run by completely non-partisan groups with no interfering with the state or federal political parties. From identifying districts to running the election itself.

I nominate myself as the sole non-partisan group needed to carry out this great mission and promise to execute my numerous foes, both real and imagined, as humanely and efficiently as I can given the unfortunate situation.

That same episode of the daily show had another good factoid -- 90% incumbency rate, 10% approval rate. It's broken.

You forget the most important aspect. Everyone votes for a single representation and a couple of senators. The rest of that august body doesn't serve your interests nor should.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[NeutronCowboy]

Holy crap - are you truly that ignorant? The president can never originate a budget. It HAS to come from the House. Yes, he can suggest budgets, but he can't actually submit them.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to understand how the country you work functions, you have three options:
1) Shut the fuck up.
2) Shut the fuck up.
3) Leave.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[sumdumass]

Was posting from my phone while traveling. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to derive the true wording and meaning from the context they were used in. Do you think pointing out grammatical errors somehow defeats the comment itself?

Re:that's Obama's choice

[hey!]

So -- Obama should order even more national park employees to work without pay? You do realize that the folks policing the barricades aren't being paid, right? Congress holds the power of the purse, and for now the purse is closed.

If it were *your* paycheck that was being withheld, you wouldn't call not being forced to work without pay "pure politics".

It's not a matter of Obama choosing to "cut" some things and not others. He can't pay anyone to work, but as president he can order some of them to work nonetheless. Even that is regulated by Federal law, since making somebody work incurs an obligation that must be paid later, something Obama can't do on his own. At most he has some leeway in interpreting which jobs are essential, and a lot of that is common sense. The park ranger who patrols the WW2 memorial is essential to public safety. The groundskeeper who picks up their trash is not.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[hey!]

I once worked for a company that ran a deficit ten years running, and stayed in business. The secret was that it was growing; income and expenditures were on parallel growth tracks, but income lagged slightly. By the time the bills came due there was cash on hand to pay them.

When governments do this, it's called "Reaganomics".

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

Holy crap - are you truly that ignorant? The president can never originate a budget. It HAS to come from the House. Yes, he can suggest budgets, but he can't actually submit them.

Holy crap, how stupid can you be? The budget process begins with the president submitting a budget request to Congress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

By the Constitution, all bills appropriating money from the treasury of the United States MUST originate in the House

Yes, but the president needs to let the house know what the executive branch needs. That's how the process starts. And the president knows it because when he was a senator, he was complaining bitterly about a lack of leadership.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

If this plays out like I think it will, you will devoutly wish for a day when the Affordable Care Act, Obama, or partisan politics was something you might be concerned about. We are headed for a time when such concerns were the good old days.

Oh, you are so right, because the way I think it will play out is that the Democrats win and keep raising taxes and spending more and more on useless federal programs benefiting Obama's donors. And the result will be to bankrupt our nation and destroy our economy. And we will all wish for the good old days then.

(And before you accuse me of partisanship, Republicans had their own serious problems, but even Bush wasn't this dysfunctional and stupid.)

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

So -- Obama should order even more national park employees to work without pay?

No, Obama should have shown some presidential leadership and ability to compromise to prevent this mess altogether. That's his job.

If it were *your* paycheck that was being withheld, you wouldn't call not being forced to work without pay "pure politics".

But they are getting paid; they will receive back pay when the shutdown ends.

Right now, the shutdown means a paid vacation for government workers, and these are non-essential government workers to begin with.

Would I take a few weeks of extra paid vacation for a comparable delay in receiving my paycheck? You bet!

Re:that's Obama's choice

[hey!]

Would I take a few weeks of extra paid vacation for a comparable delay in receiving my paycheck? You bet!

That's fine for you, if you've got plenty of cash sitting in the bank. The people who empty the trash bins and wash the floors probably aren't sitting on a couple of months of living expenses in cash.

And what about the "essential" employees? The police and the park rangers and animal keepers at the zoo? Just what are they getting out of this?

There's nothing for Obama to compromise with here; we're talking about a "continuing resolution", whose function is to keep things running *as-is* until Congress works out a new budget. If the Tea Party wants to de-fund Obamacare, they can put that into the *budget*. Nothing is stopping them, except their lack of votes.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[kenwd0elq]

Yes, the Federal government is entirely screwed up - and has been for 100 years.

Our Constitution provides for a LIMITED Federal government with CAREFULLY DEFINED powers; Article 1, Section 8 has eighteen "Enumerated Powers" of the Federal government. The 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the Bill of Rights, says "AND THATS ALL!!!" All other powers are reserved to the people, or the States.

It really started getting screwed up with the 17th Amendment, providing with direct election of Senators. The House is supposed to represent the PEOPLE; the Senate represents the STATES. (The States have their own governmental structures.)

In the current Federal government, probably 2/3 of all Federal spending has precisely zero Constitutional authority, and should be eliminated. There's no constitutional authority for national parks or "federal lands", for example. California, for example, is severely impacted by the closure of national parks and forests, which shouldn't be controlled by the Feds. I've suggested elsewhere that Jerry Brown ought to "de-nationalize" all federal parks and forests, and take them over for the State of California. He won't DO it, of course, but it would permanently resolve THIS problem.

The Department of Education should be abolished, for example; it wastes billions of dollars, and schools are far WORSE than they were 50 years ago. States - or better, cities - should manage their own educational systems. The states that screw this up will suffer; states that do this well will prosper. California, for example, is close to the top of the heap in spending, but close to the bottom in educational outcomes.

But we're going to suffer the consequences of a century of expansive, expensive Federal government that has grown far beyond its legal limits. Either the United States of America must return at least somewhat to its roots, or we'll develop the new Federal Empire that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want.

Vote accordingly.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[sumdumass]

Interesting, so you decided that what you perceive as personal attacks are superior to arguing facts about what has been said. I guess no matter what you think of me or what I post, I can sleep comfortably knowing I am always a couple rungs higher then you.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

If you haven't saved a few months worth of income, it's your own fault. You can do that no matter what your income may be.

And it's something every one of us has to deal with; a government furlough certainly beats bankruptcy or job loss, something all of us have to face.

As for what the Republicans want, they use whatever means they have of pressuring the president. I think they are playing this wrong, but their political ineptitude doesn't make Obama's failures any less significant.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[NeutronCowboy]

Dates of presidential budget submissions: http://www.bbg.gov/about-the-agency/research-reports/budget-submissions/

Furthermore, from your own link: "When newly elected President Richard Nixon began to refuse to spend funds that the Congress had allocated, Congress adopted a more formal means by which to challenge him. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and directed more control of the budget to it and away from the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). "

The submission by the president of a budget to Congress has become much less important than what Congress decides to do with the budget.

In the meantime, I'll take my own advice and shut the fuck up about the budget process until I've read more.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

Dates of presidential budget submissions

Yes, they were late and were a joke at that.

The submission by the president of a budget to Congress has become much less important than what Congress decides to do with the budget.

Nevertheless, it's the procedure. And since Obama seems to have very particular ideas of what the budget should be like, it's his job to articulate them clearly and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House.

Furthermore, when Obama was a senator, he himself considered getting a balanced and sensible budget the responsibility of the president. We should hold him to that now that he is president.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[NeutronCowboy]

Yes, they were late

Yep.

and were a joke at that

Eye of the beholder, irrelevant to the question.

And since Obama seems to have very particular ideas of what the budget should be like, it's his job to articulate them clearly

Sure.

and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House.

Impossible. The Republican-led has made the decision to obstruct and chastise the president for every decision made. If he would propose a budget that had been secretly worked on by the Heritage foundation, Republican leaders would still blame it for putting the US on the road to socialism. See only commentaries made by House leadership on his decisions to visit Germany and what to do with Libya. In both situations, Republican leaders displayed remarkable cases of amnesia about what they had asked him to do previously. Nifty because in the case of visits to Germany, he was chastised when he went, and then chastised when he didn't go. In the case of Libya, he was first chastised for not acting, then chastised for acting. It was hilarious to see McCain twist when told that he was criticizing the President for doing what McCain himself had asked the President to do just earlier.

Furthermore, when Obama was a senator, he himself considered getting a balanced and sensible budget the responsibility of the president. We should hold him to that now that he is president.

Absolutely. Question: what's a sensible budget? Trick question: the country is far too divided to come up with an answer that will please everybody. I'll settle for "a balanced budget."

Finally, I'm just wondering: do you judge every president by whether he has presented a timely budget? Feel free to check out this list here if you have trouble answering that question: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43163.pdf

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

Eye of the beholder, irrelevant to the question.

Not at all. Submitting a budget that has no chance of passing means the president dropped the ball.

"and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House." Impossible. The Republican-led has made the decision to obstruct and chastise the president for every decision made.

Obama has decided again and again to push through decisions against Republican objection, with the justification that his win entitles him to that. Well, he is learning that that's not the way it works.

Absolutely. Question: what's a sensible budget? ... I'll settle for "a balanced budget."

A balanced budget without tax increases.

Finally, I'm just wondering: do you judge every president by whether he has presented a timely budget?

No, only if the country ends up at the brink of default due to a breakdown in negotiations.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[NeutronCowboy]

Eye of the beholder, irrelevant to the question.

Not at all. Submitting a budget that has no chance of passing means the president dropped the ball.

The question is about the budgetary process. You're again conflating the process with the content. Nice try, but still irrelevant. You also missed the part where it is the official mission of the House majority party to oppose and denigrate every action the president takes. Even if it is something they were advocating days earlier. At that point, blaming the president for his budget not getting approved is merely advocating that the House controls the executive. I'm sure you agree that that is bad news when your team doesn't control the House anymore.

Obama has decided again and again to push through decisions against Republican objection, with the justification that his win entitles him to that. Well, he is learning that that's not the way it works.

And the House majority is learning that trying to push through the repeal of Obamacare by not agreeing to fund it is understood by everyone do be an endrun around the legislative process.

Absolutely. Question: what's a sensible budget? ... I'll settle for "a balanced budget."

A balanced budget without tax increases.

Says you. Furthermore, it again has nothing to do with the budget process.

No, only if the country ends up at the brink of default due to a breakdown in negotiations.

Negotiations require two parties. I'm just wondering why you think the current president needs to follow the wishes of a small faction in the majority party of the House of Representatives, whose reach doesn't even extend into the other chamber of Congress. That wouldn't happen to be because that small faction happens to be your home team, would it? No, I'm sure it's because you always oppose all tax increases. Including those that happened in the previous 2 decades.

Re:that's Obama's choice

[stenvar]

The question is about the budgetary process. You're again conflating the process with the content. Nice try, but still irrelevant.

This isn't grade school where you get an A because you followed all the rules. The president is measured by the results he achieves.

Negotiations require two parties. I'm just wondering why you think the current president needs to follow the wishes of a small faction in the majority party of the House of Representatives

Obama chose to push through his health care law against enormous opposition by Republicans and has angered Republicans on many other issues. Now he has to deal with the fallout.

Obama has also failed to show leadership or initiative generally on achieving a balanced budget.

That wouldn't happen to be because that small faction happens to be your home team, would it?

No, it's not my "home team"; I'm an independent. I was as critical of Bush as I am of Obama. I think both suck(ed) as presidents, but I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that Obama is even more incompetent than Bush. I may not have agreed with every position Clinton took, but he was much more competent than either, and, unlike Obama, he was unfairly hounded by Republicans.

Revenue

[mfwitten]

Maybe you should find some less fickle patrons.

I remember working at the VLA

[varmfskii]

In the early 90s and losing my job due to lost funding.

Re:I remember working at the VLA

[Macchendra]

Hey fellow Socorroan. Literally across the street at TERA (now EMRTC) they were having happier times poisoning the town with their depleted uranium research.

Selectivity

[OptimalCynic]

They should include legislative salaries in the shutdown, that would encourage them. Put in a constitutional amendment - when a budget for the United States is not in effect, Congressional representatives and senators shall not be paid.

Re:Selectivity

[artor3]

That gets brought up every time, and it's a terrible idea. It would feel good, sure, but you gotta remember that most Congressmen are already filthy rich.

Emphasis on most. Some of them aren't, and they would be forced to cave in order to afford their rent. This country is enough of a plutocracy as it is. We'd best not give the rich yet another tool to extract concessions from the people.

Re:Selectivity

[dkf]

They should include legislative salaries in the shutdown, that would encourage them. Put in a constitutional amendment - when a budget for the United States is not in effect, Congressional representatives and senators shall not be paid.

I'd rather defund the salaries of congressional security workers. Let legislators continue, but let them do so while worrying about what some crazy with a gun might do.

Re:Don't worry, it's all a scam!

[Anonymous Coward]

But i guess the news didn't report a parks officer saying he got orders to make the shutdown as painful as possible or a top whitehouse official say they were fine with the shutdown because they were winning if obama actually cared about it.

With some thorough research, I have discovered that yes, the news DIDN'T report that, only fundamentalist blogs whose next story was shape shifting reptilians creating the Obamacare Death Panels were reporting anything of the sort.

Re: Supernova

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, there are observatories in other countries not being torn apart by incompetent, know-nothing teabaggers who can pick up the slack.

citizenry and government go hand in hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when people vote with their arshole. The american people get the government they deserve, and right now they have decided to give the keys of the kingdom to a bunch of science hating, bible thumper, retarded tea baggers republicans.
Maybe the few intelligent republicans still in Congress should fork the party. Call it Republican 2.0. Otherwise the US of A will be the laughing stock of the world for decades to come (ot at least until the next world war).

Re:citizenry and government go hand in hand...

[Bing Tsher E]

This is what happens when one party passes a law that they otherwise wouldn't be able to pass, using a gimmick called 'Reconciliation.'

ONLY because...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans shamed him into doing it by sending him a stand-alone "fund the troops" bill (which he signed) even though he insists he cannot and will not sign such bills as a matter of principle... the apparent principle being that he will keep everything defunded that hurts his opponents but will happily allow funding to flow to anything so politically dangerous that it might burn him

And you wonder why?

[Anonymous Coward]

and China is building the world biggest.....

The Five hundred meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) is a radio telescope under construction located in a natural basin (),[1] in Pingtang County, Guizhou Province, southwest China.[2] As of June 2011 construction should be complete by September 2016.[3] It will be the world's largest and most sensitive radio telescope and three times more sensitive than the Arecibo Observatory.[4] It will have a cost of 700 million yuan.[5]

-Source Wikipedia-

At last the libertarian dream is upon us!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote tea party to make this permanent!

HAARP - is it raining yet?

[scsirob]

Has the HAARP project been impacted yet? If so, can you folks tell the change in weather patterns? Lotsa rain, I'm sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

Not all parts of your lovely govt are shut down

[boorack]

Despite shutdown US decided to extend military training program for syrian terrorists (err ... "rebels") stating that only "moderate rebels" are being trained that is propably yet another of its never ending stream of lies. FOMC is still peddling cheap money to stock markets, so all those Wall Street parasites calling themselves "investors" receive their checks. It's funny as they're just recipients of yet another government giveaway, albeit conceived a noth as instead of directly receiving government money, they're "earning" it from financial markets massively pumped by government via FOMC and similiar mechanisms. Call it socialism for rich people.

In short, two most important functions of US government today - that is funding wars and Wall Street bankers - are alive and kicking.

So the government is a victim of itself?

[Emperor Shaddam IV]

Both sides won't compromise so its both party's fault. Meanwhile, there are the funds and staff to update various websites to say they are shutdown, close down parks, blockade monuments, etc. And the healthcare.gov website is dysfunctional for almost a week?

And we are supposed to feel "sorry" for the government and its employees because they are a victim of the incompetence in Washington and they depend mostly on the federal government for funds?

Those of us in the private sector working outside of government still have to pay taxes and make our payroll deductions, or the IRS will come after us with a vengeance. When our "companies" and "businesses" get shut down, we get laid off or lose our jobs or investments or even our homes, instead of just being "furloughed".

I would say the rest of us that aren't in government or directly working for government are the real victims here.

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[Xyrus]

Both sides won't compromise so its both party's fault.

I keep seeing this and it's bullshit. The house won't allow a vote on the senate budget bill because the neo-fascist Tea-Party won't allow the vote to take place with ACA funding in the bill. They're holding the budget hostage because they have failed on numerous other occasions to get ACA repealed using legitimate legislative channels. So now they're resorting to sleazy tactics like this one (and now that they've done it, how much do you want to bet we will see more of this?).

The senate has ALREADY APPROVED the budget. And if they could get a vote in the house it would already have been approved there as well. But these Tea Party jackasses won't allow to come to a vote. Now a number of republicans are trying to distance themselves from these yahoos because they know the American public is more than fed up with this crap.

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[Mashdar]

Groups A and B agree that item 1 should be passed. Group B believes that item 2 should be passed. Group B will not vote for item 1 until item 2 is part of the deal. There is no way to say in this circumstance that Group A is a faulty party, as both groups agree that item 1 should be passed and Group A would pass it immediately. The only leverage Group B extracts from withholding item 1 is the "gun to your head" sort. Everyone agrees that item 1 should pass, but Group B will not vote for it because they want to use the chaos of not(item A) as a bargaining chip.

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[Emperor Shaddam IV]

And group "C' - citizens - are feed up with the bull.

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[inode_buddha]

Tea party *certainly* doesn't speak for me. I voted for Reagan BTW. He harmonized the capital gains tax rate with normal income. *That* would go a long ways toward actually paying the bills.

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[hey!]

Both sides won't compromise so its both party's fault.

One does not logically follow from the other. The details matter.

Suppose I'm holding three apples that belong to you. When you ask for them back, I announce that I'm going to keep two of them. By your logic both of us are at fault, because there's a compromise position: I give you two apples and keep one of them. Both of us get less than we want, but more than we might get if we continue bickering until the apples rot.

By *my* logic, I'd be at fault because I failed to do something I ought to have done, namely give you back your apples.

I hear these false equivalency arguments all the time, and quite frankly they're idiotic. They could only be true if both sides in a dispute were always equally right.

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[Mashdar]

Sadly the voting habits of C do not support that theory. :)

Re:So the government is a victim of itself?

[supernova87a]

"Both sides won't compromise so it's both their fault?" What a moronic statement. I hope that if you ever get mugged on the street, the police will sit back and declare that it's your fault you got shot because you refused to compromise.

Harsh realities

[argStyopa]

I desperately love science and space exploration. I find the lack of funding for such an almost-criminal neglect of our longest-term future.

HOWEVER....

At some point, we simply can't afford everything we want.

The US has been overspending for what, 55 years? We are the wealthiest country ever in history, yet we cannot pay for everything we want to have. We are now $16 TRILLION in debt.

This is NOT a partisan issue - both parties cheerfully castigate the other for spending, while pouring money at their special interests whenever they have the chance. Sadly, the response to the debt HAS become partisan, thus nothing ever gets fixed.

Democrats' response to the debt has sadly been "what me worry? - our bonds are still the highest-rated in the world, so clearly it doesn't have much of an impact, and there are many more important, immediate things we need to spend money on."
Republicans' response to the debt is to demand fiscal responsibility, but in a hypocritical way...when the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency, there was no contraction, no slowdown in government spending either.

At some point, some grownup should step in and insist that yes, it IS an issue. No, it doesn't have to be done in a way that brings our country to a screeching halt, either. (I've heard but don't know enough to know if it's true that simply freezing federal spending without automatic growth numbers would mean that our budget - even as badly whacked as it is - would be balanced in 6 years.)

But sadly, if you were $300,000 in debt, verging on unable to pay your loans and food and carpayments...you might not have the spare $$ to buy a telescope to look at the stars, either. Not today, anyway.

Re:Harsh realities

[iggymanz]

both parties are in the pockets of various large corporations that *make money* from government spending. lawmakers invest on the basis of their insider information and infuence. they pay lip service to the debt and spending, but they really don't want to turn down the gravy spigot.

Re:Harsh realities

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

Science research and development, and related technologies, are what drives economies in the long term. Without doing the things you need to do in space science, medical research, geology, AI, philosophy, mathematics, etc. eventually you will be economic and technolgical sitting ducks -- like the indiginous populations around the world were in times of colonization. Many in the US know this, and it is not as stupid a country as it seems. Worrying completely about internal social problems IMO is self-defeating and counter productive for the long term economy.

What majority?

[iceperson]

Prety much every poll shows more than half of Americans don't want Obamacare. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/three-years-later-obamacare-arrives-little-understood-and-not-well-liked/

Re:What majority?

[NeutronCowboy]

And pretty much every poll that asks questions about provisions in Obamacare instead of just whether people like Obamacare shows that people love the provisions in Obamacare. Yes, people are that stupid.

Re:What majority?

[martinQblank]

Sadly it appears that a shocking majority of Americans are morons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE (Jimmy Kimmel - Six of One)

Posted as a frustrated and sad American.

Already Plans for Permanent Closure

[PastTense]

Has everyone forgotten the previous Slashdot story:
derekmead writes "Data from the enormous Green Bank Telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has been used to test some of Einstein's theories, discover new molecules in space, and find evidence of the building blocks of life and of the origins of galaxies. With 6,600 hours of observation time a year, the GBT produces massive amounts of data on the makeup of space, and any researchers with reason to use the data are welcome to do so. The eleven-year-old GBT stands as one of the crowning achievements of American big science. But with the National Science Foundation strapped for cash like most other science-minded government agencies, the NRAO's funding is threatened. In August of this year, the Astronomy Portfolio Review, a committee appointed by the NSF, recommended that the GBT be defunded over the next five years. Researchers, along with locals and West Virginia congressmen, are fighting the decision, which puts the nearly $100 million telescope at risk. Unless they succeed, America's giant dish will go silent."

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/28/1513208/astronomy-portfolio-review-recommends-defunding-uss-biggest-telescope

Anyone know what the current status is concerning this permanent planned shutdown?

Re:Don't worry, it's all a scam!

[sumdumass]

With some thorough research, I have discovered that yes, the news DIDN'T report that, only fundamentalist blogs whose next story was shape shifting reptilians creating the Obamacare Death Panels were reporting anything of the sort.

I'm sure you think you are doing thourough research. And in your fantasy land, it might be as good as it gets. In the real world, we have this thing called the internet and search engines. Now I will admit that my wording was slightly off as I was posting from my phone about stories piped to me by the news app on the phone and trying to do it from memory and the confusion could be your inability to intelligently discern the differences between what was reported, the phrasing I used, and what you want to think. Of course posting anonymously like that, I can only assume you were trying to deliberately mislead like Baghdad Bob was doing during the beginning of the Iraq war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579113781436540284.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senior-admin-official-we-are-winningit-doesnt-really-matter-us-when-shutdown-ends_759185.html?nopager=1

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

BTW, whether you want to believe it or not, those are news sites. Just because they don't spout the narrative doesn't make them any less.

Re:Don't worry, it's all a scam!

[sumdumass]

Yeah, because partially funding the government is the way to operate, just like cooperating with extortionists is always the proper way to behave. It's the people who resist such criminals who should be ashamed of themselves!

If they would have taken up a budget and passed it like they are constitutionally supposed to do, we likely wouldn't be in this situation. So lets not act like it all isn't half assed to start with. Yes, partially funding the government is better then the way it was operating- no, it is not how it is supposed to operate and neither is passing a continuing resolution in order to skirt around providing a clear accounting of the operations of the government to the people like a budget is supposed to do.

Crying that something isn't a good thing and we will have to put all those other programs as risk simply because you want it all is bullshit.

Because the news is reporting that? Of course, they're also reporting that Republicans are passing these individual funding bills to try to get people to not realize what's going on, and that Republicans are quoted as refusing to just pass a whole spending bill because they need to have some win out of this affair. They're also reporting a Republican Congressman telling a park employee she should be ashamed of herself, and others crowing how Americans will realize they don't need that government.

Yep, and all along, when you analyze that statement, it appears that you are angry because A, the republicans with their piece meal approach offered a way out of harming the majority of citizens not directly linked to government which the Obama administration is trying to use to inconvenience the people as a way of scoring political points and B, refusing to fund those specific popular programs are necessary in order for the democrats to insist that government must be large and in charge instead of the people realizing all that is done that they could actually do without.

Shit man, you think it's not about politics on both sides? I'll take the one that isn't trying to fool me with a hypocritical bullshit appearance of virtue.

It's about politics on all sides. This is the government which is a political body after all. The point I was making- and rightly so- is that Obama has options other then defying the law and US constitution if he sincerely thinks something needs funded. The pattern he has displayed so far is to make things uncomfortable as possible for as many people as possible while blaming the republicans while surprisingly the republicans seem to be trying to do the opposite while not giving up their position.

Re:Imagine the parks or museums were left open

[sumdumass]

But unattended.

Homeless people, drunks, addicts and hippies will be able to move in because there's nobody to clear them out.

Meanwhile, everyone there is walking on the grass, throwing rubbish about and vandalising stuff.

And when they are close and unattended, the same is true. However, being guarded is also the same as being open and attended minus the ability to actually be on site.

And because there's nobody paid to clean up or look after the place, it gets worse and worse.

Which is why those being paid to clean up the place are still coming in with the parks closed down- they are just doing it less and with less of them. But the increase in guards and installation of gates and barricades at a lot of these places is costing more then a skeleton staff that could keep them open.

Imagine the vet memorial were left open. Lots of antiques to nick in there. Easy money. Nobody looking after the place. Nice target.

What? IT is a memorial, not museum. It would take a truck and about 10 guys to move the smallest objects from them. You have the nerve to claim I'm a dumbass and you didn't even bother doing a cursory google search to learn what you were talking about? I can see why you posted AC. Let me ask you something, are you a paid troll or do you actually think you are helping?

Re:Don't worry, it's all a scam!

[_Sharp'r_]

In addition to your comments, "partially funding the government" is a misnomer. The government is what has been legally funded by Congress in a appropriations bill that must originate in the House. Unfunded bureaucratic departments aren't "the government" anymore. They might be "what the government used to do", but hey, things change and the funding ran out.

Re:Yet when it comes to a register

[philip.paradis]

I don't get pissed off at public records being made available to the public. I get pissed off at unreasonable legal requirements that lead to things being entered into the public record in the first place, and I fully support every individual's right to make his/her own decision on whether their ownership and use of firearms should be a matter of public record or not.

People who follow the law in this case wind up unreasonably burdened and subject to information disclosure beyond their control. People who do not follow the law aren't burdened by it, and do as they like without the mere existence of the laws or threats of prison sentences doing anything to stop them from committing violent acts. Put simply: neither nanny state mentalities nor "tough on crime" policies actually work very well. See how this works?

Do you support privacy rights? I certainly do, and I support equality as well, meaning I don't pick and choose which citizens deserve privacy and which don't.

For the record, if you're planning on creating your own app to show who owns firearms, you can add me as your first entry. I gladly volunteer this information; kindly respect the privacy of others until you're told otherwise. Have a nice day, champ.