Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: How Does the US Gov't Budget Crunch Affect You?
The partial government shut-down that the U.S. is experiencing right now is about to enter its second week. Various government functions and services have been disrupted (including some web sites, whether it's a good idea or not), and lots of workers on the Federal payroll have been furloughed. But since the U.S. government is involved in so many aspects of modern American life, you don't have to work for the government to be affected by the budget politics at play. So, whether or not you work for the government in any capacity, the question we'd like to hear your answer to is this: What does the shutdown mean to you, in practical terms, whether the effects are good, bad, or indifferent?
I work at McChord AFB (Joint Base Lewis McChord). The last âoefurloughâ, I did not work and so was not paid. They spread the days out such that you could not get unemployment. As well, we could not use earned leave (even though that's my leave which they must pay me for anyway).
This time around, I was classified as a âoemission essentialâ employee, so I have to work or lose my job. But I will be paid retroactively, and not until the budget is passed. So again, no pay and because I am working, no unemployment or other low income services.
The thing is, for some reason a lot of people think that Federal employees all make six figures. It isn't so. The vast majority make $50,000 or less. I'm not complaining about my pay scale. But having lost around $2500 in savings with the last âoefurloughâ, my accounts are a bit thin.
I wonder if my landlord and the electric company will take âoeretroactiveâ payments? I suspect not. As my wife has MS, we are a single income family. And again, I'm not complaining about my pay rate, I took this job, no one twisted my arm. Fortunatly for me, I have a large family that will pitch in and help me out. Others are not so fortunate, this will hurt a lot of worker bees.
The only good thing out of this is that the Republicans â" most of whom would vote to end this if Boehner would allow a vote â" are slitting their own throats because they are scared of a minority of Tea Baggers. Next election, the House will belong to the Democrats, and the Tea Baggers will return home frothing at the mouth. Good for them.
The republicans have *always* relied on the votes of the stupid, by telling them that they (the Republicans - the greedy business elite) are just like them and are on their side. Now their dupes are the govt-haters who don't want to pay their taxes. Not long ago it was the bible thumpers and Jesus lovers, who hoped the "moral" Republicans would put down those pinko atheist Democrats. Before that, before they changed their name, the Republicans were âoeSouthern Democratsâ who yelled "The niggers are taking over and want to marry your lily-white daughter." The Republican politicians are just careerists who take money from the elite in order to remain in office. *Their* goal is power and the perks.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
... it only affects me by having too many stories about it on /.
Well, I've subjectively seen one effect -- a huge spike in the number of telemarker calls I've received in the past week, apparently due to no longer being able to report them to the DO NOT CALL registry (which is shutdown due to the gov't shutdown).
In aspirational terms, the time the government is shut down is money in my tax-payer pocket.
In actual terms, the time the government is shut down is time that the people not working during it will be back-payed for it and -- at best -- my tax-payer pocket will be pilfered just as much. At worst, all the sensational bullshit of this event will be used to justify taking even *more* out of my tax-payer pocket.
So, really, the only way it impacts me is that either absolutely nothing changes or things get slightly financially worse, but they were headed that way anyway, so whatever.
Well, paid-vacation with the chance of not being able to pay your bills and maybe losing your apartment or home or car or other things which will seriously mess with their lives and well-being, if their full paychecks are delayed long enough. Just because they'll eventually get paid doesn't mean that they wouldn't be negatively impacted in the meantime, if they are in a position that forces them to live paycheck to paycheck.
Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency.
...I've been affected by the way that the "leader of the free world" has once again demonstrated its disdain for democracy: if the right wing don't like something passed by representatives of the people, it seems they can just deny everything else. If I can't keep a few million of you in desperation, FUCK YOU I'M TAKING MY BALL HOME, &c.
I look forward to my country following this awful example.
They get paid later, time/money thing. Seriously, it is just more posturing like the other times.
Mainly what it means to me is an excellent illustration of how Federal government has gotten WAY too big.
Generally speaking, considering the way our Union was designed, except for foreign trade and defense the Federal government should be able to pretty much shut down for a year, and I would barely even notice.
The fact that it's NOT that way is the whole problem.
Gas prices are down 30 cents a gallon since the shutdown. I don't care if those lying motherfuckers ever come back.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power. Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them or they will threaten to take away the government teat like what is happening right now. Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care. Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care.
The only effect it has had on me so far is that I a lot angrier reading my facebook news feed. Misinformation and blaming from both sides. I guess it's a break from freaking baby pictures.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0930/Government-shutdown-threat-sends-oil-prices-near-three-month-low
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Honestly, the most this whole mess has affected me, a college professor at a state university, is to fill my head with thoughts of taking my bare hands and strangle the life out of some of these yahoos in Washington. I know of many people who have been furloughed, as I am involved in federally funded research and have many colleagues who work under the umbrella of the federal gov't, some of whom have been furloughed, some of whom have not. My thoughts lately are about the looming debt ceiling "crisis" and how perhaps we are truly approaching the moment with the United States of America goes the way of every other superpower the world has ever seen... only we still have nukes and billions of guns. Sadly, if this happens, it will have come from within, not the result of a worthy enemy. And make no mistake about it: Pull away the curtain and this is all the doings of the ultra-rich who are pulling the strings. These people have nothing but pure disdain for the commoners and the poors and do not care that they are playing roulette, since all chambers are loaded and the gun is not pointing at them.
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
All us contractors who are also furloughed will not be getting our pay when a budget is eventually passed. Same with all the cafeteria workeers, etc at those agencies. At some agencies, us contractors outnumber the government employees.
My life has been 100% the same. If I didn't hear about it, I wouldn't have noticed a difference whatsoever.
If anything this shutdown has exposed one fact, most of government is "non-essential".
Fire all of the non-essential workers!
I work for the government half time and am a graduate student the other half. Of course I am furloughed, but on top of that, all the data for my research comes from NOAA which has shut down all its websites! Basically I am stuck doing diagnostics on data I happen to already have. Just loving my gov't right now....
Like which orifice Miley Cyrus is sticking her foam finger up that day.
I just sit watching the stories eating popcorn seeing another try to power grab at the government. It won't have a happy ending (that would be default in 10 days), so no matter how much noise and blame they spill everywhere, nor the government care about it (the 5 billons they spent the night before show how much they really care), nor the opposition, and while that circus happens still more will be invested in what affects me more, like snooping/infiltrating/sabotaging everyone/everything through internet.
And there is just no risk of default (unless they intend to reach it to do an even bigger power grab) because the legislators that don't agree yet will, or else some delicate information around him be disclosed, spying on everyone, even in legislators, have this kind of consequences.
The president has said he won't so much as discuss anything until he gets exactly the bill he wants, with only his changes to Obamacare...
So what you're saying is, the entire shutdown is his decision and his responsibility. I hope everybody who voted for him remembers this when the 2014 elections come around.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The shutdown has not yet affected me, save to the extent that we can get a heck of a lot more work done without the government contractors constantly throwing spears and interfering with forward movement for the sake of satisfying their own egos. The rest of my industry's getting hammered--NASA in particular--so I know how fortunate I am. Still, I can't help feeling that the shutdown as a whole is experiencing a great deal of hype, and I'm tremendously disappointed in the way which so many officials are doing their best to exaggerate and exacerbate the impacts ("shut down" Twitter feeds, websites, and parks being the three best examples).
I should be 100% clear about exactly what Obama said and when.
Three days ago he said "I will not negotiate". When that polled very badly, it changed to I am willing to negotiate after they pass a "clean" bill - one with no changes other than the ones Obama asked for. In other words, "give me everything I want, then I'll take your phone call".
It's affected me about as much as the sequester did. Meaning, not at all. And I work for a heavily federally regulated and subsidized industry. My best friends wife works for the the VA and she was told that she was "Critical" and would have to work without pay until the budget was passed. She suggested she felt the flu coming on and suddenly she was getting a paycheck again.
This is all for show. The government quite literally prints money. They don't need a budget, they don't need dept. All of the money they bailed out the banks with was quite literally created out of thin air. We're once again being distracted from the real news. Enjoy the show.
Since congress already voted to pay all furloughed workers for the days they missed, what is exactly the point of not having them come into work anymore?
Er... have you been reading the news haven't you? OK, I'll explain.
It's never been about saving money. The GOP wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but doesn't have the votes in the Senate to do it, much less override the veto that would inevitably provoke.
So plan B was to take funding for implementing ACA out of the budget. But they don't have the votes to do that either.
Now when you are arguing over the budget, you still have to keep things running; soldiers and air traffic controllers have to be paid. But the president doesn't have the constitutional power to spend money; he has to spend what Congress tells him to spend, neither more nor less (a lot of Americans don't seem to understand this). He has a lot of influence over the budget, but ultimately Congress has the power of the purse.
So what Congress does when it can't resolve its budget differences on time is pass something called a "continuing resolution". It pretty much says "continue on as you were under the last budget for so many days or until we hash this out." Congress is behind on its budget work so, it's time for a continuing resolution.
What the House Republicans tried to do was slip the budget stuff they didn't have the votes to pass into the continuing resolution. When the Senate stripped that stuff out and sent the CR back to the House, the Republican leadership refused to bring the CR to a vote until their demands were met. Those demands have been a moving target, running from a long laundry list of priorities (including stuff like the Keystone pipeline), to anything that will allow them to claim victory. Boehner has also floated a cut of a certain size to yet-to-be-named budget items as a condition, but this was precisely the gambit that was tried in 2011. Those cuts never materialized, triggering the sequestration cuts across the board this year, including defense. That's not very credible. So the only way the House Republicans come out of this with something that looks like a victory would be to get ACA de-funded, which is not going to happen.
The House Republicans are technically within their rights not to bring an continuing resolution to the floor, but they're using it to undermine the Constitution. They don't have the votes to get what they want, nor have they anything offer in exchange that will persuade anyone else to vote with them, so they're trying to *compel* the Senate to vote the way they want by shutting down the government.
Honestly, it feels like final years of the Roman Republic, when wealthy, ambitious men competed to carve power bases for themselves out of what had been offices of service to the Republic. Crassus Boehner, anyone?
Now they basically get a free paid vacation. If the taxpayer is on the hook for their salaries, they should be doing their jobs.
I agree with you. They should be back at their jobs, and being paid on payday as usual (you do know that essential employees aren't getting paid). But that's not going to happen until one side or another cracks under the political pressure. Already the US Chamber of Commerce is wading in with promises of primary support to Republicans who vote for a clean CR.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Those of us who are funded at least partly by NSF grants are potentially in trouble. For people who have money in their account from an active grant that will last a few months - all the better. For those whose paycheck depends on the next installment from a grant, tough luck. The worst affected will be folks who had payments and grant reviews in progress.
More info @ http://www.nsf.gov./ The most relevant portions:
Payments: No payments will be made during the shutdown.
Issuance of New Grants and Cooperative Agreements: No new grants or cooperative agreements will be awarded.
Attempting to do some basic research for a contract and I need access to geomagnetic data from NOAA and their websites are down. Now I have to wait to see if a fitting function based on historical data works on current real-time data.
It hasn't affected me personally, but it's hit a lot of my friends who either work for PSNS or are contractors at PSNS, Keyport, or Bangor. The place my wife works has a lot of military/DoD civilian/contractor customers.... so, it'll hit home for us sooner or later. (Thank $DIETY their busy season is over, else it could be even worse.)
"Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency."
ROFL. You seem to be seriously out of touch with "average". The AVERAGE person lives paycheck to paycheck and can't pay every bill every month, the AVERAGE person knows how far behind you have to be with company x before they shut off service.
Why do you Americans treat the words of your Founding Fathers like religious edict?
Dude, your security agencies' behaviour has a lot less support than the PPACA, and a lot less democratic oversight, but that's allowed to continue. Ditto for your endless wars, and ANY given opinion about abortion, marriage, taxation, private ownership (consider e.g. gun ownership and property taxes)...
If you really were a country which only did things when supported by an overwhelming majority, you'd do pretty much fuck all except have the police stop people murdering and attacking each other, and stopping people from actually coming to your country and attacking it. Slavery would also have carried on nicely. The whole "only if the overwhelming majority of people" thing is quaint fantasy.
I completely disagree w/ the PP, but it's not a troll or flamebait. It's an opinion. Don't mod it down just because you disagree w/ it.
I got a very nice job offer 3 weeks ago that involves government security clearances. The shutdown has brought this process to a crawl. I've been out of work for 2+ years, it would be nice to have income again.
I don't get to have my NASA.gov fix, I mean, I know it's not a finacial thing, but I still do with I could check out what there launching these days. Also I wish Weather.gov was fully up and running. I still yank down the files I really want and rely on for planning, but still, I can't just browse around the site anymore. Since everyone seems to be talking about where they place the blame: The two kids whining on the playground that the other person hit them. [Wo]man up and deal with it. Democrats, stop being such babies, and compromise a little/ Republicans stop treating it like a game that you need to get something out of, stick with your original plan, or just go with the democrats, no need to drag this on for the sake of hurting people. Independants, enjoy the ride, because baby, you might come out of this looking like a champ.
You gotta admit though, mob rule would be so much simpler. You'd know the score right away, and there would be no questions as to who has final say.
Life goes on in the rest of the world...
With just a slight chuckle into our sleeves.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
It makes me drink more and play more GTA V.
My wife wants to go all Ted Cruz on me and filibuster about how "grown men" shouldn't be playing "video games", but I just whipped out my gavel and told her that all I need for cloture is 50 plus 1 and I got the tie-breaker hanging right here.
I think I might be in trouble now. I heard my car alarm going off a few minutes ago, and I'm afraid to go look.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What I find fascinating is this: In most other democracies, if the government can't pass a budget, then the legislature is dissolved and an election is called. New people are elected and they try again. Seems crazy to me that there's no framework of this in the USA - If the government is at loggerheads it's time to let the people decide via an election.
I would certainly hope that, as several of you writing above have said, that they have to continue work but will be paid retroactively. It really would be taking the piss if they insist that others work unpaid but they continue to take an income when they are the ones who are causing the rest of you pain.
Myself: I am a Brit, so I just look across the pond and shake my head in puzzlement.
My wife and I started our 2-week vacation to all the nation parks on September 29th. We managed to get in Badlands NP and Mt. Rushmore. On October 1st, we were turned away from the gates of Yellowstone National Park -- we couldn't even drive through to the other side (2 hours) and were told we had to drive around (8+ hours). The rest of our destinations were at national parks around the west.
We drove back to Denver (our start point) and hopped a plane home. 1600 miles of driving over 4 days and we didn't even get to see the main attractions of our trip, spent over $400 in hotels, almost $150 in fuel, and another $200 changing our return flights.
Thank you, asshole government.
I am lucky enough to still be working. About half the people I work directly with were furloughed immediately. Very hard to get work done when I need their expertise and coordination. Kind of pointless to be there honestly. Yes I can catch up on some things, but most "real" work needs their assistance. Also, lost a roommate who was here for FAA class. He was sent back on that Tuesday. Gov paid for it all. Now he will not get his promotion for being certified. Also, he will have to fly back and Gov will pay for the class a second time. I lost that income as well as a roommate.
Mark
The United States was very explicitly NOT created as a Democracy.
News flash: it's the 21st century, not the 18th. Sorry about the continuing evolution of the English language, but the meaning of words change. In the 18th century "democracy" more or less meant direct democracy. In the 21st century (and the 20th) it's a more general term that is often (and correctly) used to refer to a republic.
Elsewhere in the news: pantalones have largely replaced the previously fashionable breeches and hose, powdered wigs are out, and we've had an industrial revolution.
The "United States is not a democracy" line has been regurgitated so often than it's little more than code phrase for a certain faction. Nobody else takes it seriously, and I don't bother to read the rest of any comment that starts that way.
$2.99 when I left town a week and a half ago, $2.98 tonight.
Then again, I don't live in a town with a large number of government or government hourly-contract employees so we have seen almost zero effect. Oh, well, all the republicans around me who never actually go to the National Park day use areas down the road are complaining that they've hears stories about those places being closed, and what an abomination it is (though they regularly rail against the waste which includes maintaining such areas that they never even use).
When I worked for NASA it was sort of a big deal, but almost as much a game. Not for the question as to whether we would get our pay checks, but what our "excuse" was to tell the guards so we could go in and monitor our projects and keep flight hardware on schedule. Lost coat, extra house key we left in our desk, favorite mug - we used 'em all.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency." ROFL. You seem to be seriously out of touch with "average". The AVERAGE person lives paycheck to paycheck and can't pay every bill every month, the AVERAGE person knows how far behind you have to be with company x before they shut off service.
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Yes and no. The last time the government shut down furloughed workers were paid in arrears.
This last fiscal year, that just ended Sept 30, I was furloughed for 19 days due to budget cuts and sequestration. Those days will not be paid in any fashion whatsoever. Also I was not allowed to take any saved/earned vacation time that I will lose at the end of the calendar year if I can't manage to take them before Dec 30.
As it was, before the shutdown I was already trying to find time to take my earned vacation days, if the shutdown drags on for any serious amount of time I will not be able to take those days.
So there is a potential for me to lose another 5 days of pay.
Why? Are you a military contractor or employed directly or indirectly by the DOD?
Otherwise, you don't need the military at the size that it is. Do you really think that the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq actually benefitted US citizens?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The EPA has furloughed 95% of their employees as Non-Essential. Be careful government. We may realize we actually don't need you after all. Shutdown may point to some great redo of government services. So far....it seems the only thing we have learned from this shutdown is: Not enough of the government has been shut down yet.
What the fuck do you need a military for? Canada isn't going to invade, and neither is anyone south of Texas or from the Caribbean. 2000 miles of ocean separates us from our closest "enemies" - and they're totally fucking dependent on our dollars to keep their economies running.
If you and your friends have guns you don't need a military.
Of course, if you do decide to shut down the government there do happen to owe each other about $8 Trillion (bonds and ss debt), and there are a few other debtors for about $7T who might think ill of us. And border patrol - gonna be a lot of folks coming north. FAA might be useful, though if you don't fly you probably don't care. You probably don't believe in vaccinations either, so you'll be fine without the CDC. As long as your rich, or you home school, losing federal ed money shouldn't matter. Of course, there will be another 3-5 million, mostly white collar, workers put onto the streets, but - hey - at least we won't have to worry about having to play any unemployment benefits!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That was a long straw man.
It takes an American to believe that anything in America is remotely on the left of the political spectrum.
Until there is one party which supports worker control of the means of production, nobody's even left of centre.
Unless one party supports a comprehensive welfare state (in the French, Spanish or even German sense), none is even at the centre.
My colleagues and I work at a non-profit research institute affiliated with the State of Florida university system. We just do research. No students, no classes. It's all soft money and the vast majority of our funding, maybe 90%, comes as contracts and grants from Federal agencies. There are two huge problems that are hurting us right now. First, if the government cannot make the incremental payments to us on existing grants or contracts, then we don't get paid. That is happening right now. Not only are we not hiring, people are taking salary cuts or going to half time or worse. The payments from the government come at different times throughout the year and are different depending on the grant and the agency, so it is not a issue of the lights suddenly getting turned off. But the impact, however incremental, is very real and it is NOW. I have enough cash on hand from my largest existing grant to keep myself and my group going through December maybe. That brings up the second problem, which is the whole proposal process. Continuity in our research projects requires that we are always in "proposal mode." Grants and contracts are for limited amounts for limited duration. It can take a long time and a lot of effort to get funded since the level of competition is very high. (Competition is ok - I welcome being pushed to do my best.) Right now I have proposals and white papers and discussions with program managers that are all in limbo - and the clock is ticking. Even if they are approved, it will take many months, maybe half a year, to receive the first increment of funding. What's more, the tendency of program managers when they are uncertain about the funds available to their program is to be VERY conservative about making new commitments, regardless of proposal quality. They are also really p.o. 'ed about being furloughed and this makes them surly. In such circumstances, it is difficult to talk about research continuity.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
A friend of mine and the group of guys he works with on a nearby Army base got fired on Tuesday. They MIGHT all get hired back once the government turns on again. For now, they collect state unemployment and look for other work.
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
Of course. If anyone, ever, has problems making ends meet it is solely due to moral failings. Let us all judge them now and condemn them.
Knowing the game and what quarter we currenty in will provide insight on the future required moves.
We are currently in the game of choosing sides. The deadline is the 18th or 17th. We have until then to divide the public into credit is income, and we spent too much already and we can't afford another entitlement. Because the public knows so little about the borrowing of money by the government (payments need to be made.. no problem just borrow more to make the payments until our entire income goes to makeing payments with no other payments being made. Someday that train will wreck. Oh, back on topic.. The game plan,
The other side's plan is shutting down the government. You public need to get educated and join our side or the conquences will be dire. This posturing will run until default at the earliest, maybe later. This is a race to place more canidates of party X or Y in the house and senate at the next election. Nobody can agree on anything until then.
I'll check for updates on the 19th. Wake me up then.
In the meantime, the play by play is a news reporters dream. 2 solid weeks of political drama.
The truth shall set you free!
Fiscal conservtives are trying to save money supposedly ...close the guvmint damn it because the deficit is too large...and yet they voted yesterday .. ...the centrist to the righties...(there are no elected lefties in the US except for may be the Vermont Senator) ...its like trying to drown a carp !
all of them
to pay and make us stay home...
Yup great fiscal conservatism.
The problem is not government it is idiots running the government.
First, don't pay your phone bill, that way creditors can't call. That's why it's best to have a land line and cell phone. Then, to get you back on feet, skip your car/insurance bills
rewriting history since 2109
[Getting back to the "Ask Slashdot" question...] When I left work last Tuesday after doing my "shutdown activities," I noticed that people largely fell into two categories: 1) those that have some money saved (they were the ones that left feeling not too worried and acting pretty relaxed) and 2) those that are living paycheck to paycheck (those were the ones that looked really stressed out and scared). Knowing that retroactive pay is in the offing makes this shutdown bearable in the short term. But that doesn't help the folks in the second group.
When they default and the market tanks it will be a great buying opportunity.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Someone "decided to wait until the last minute".
The Republicans passed theirs March 21st 2013, seven months ago. That's before Obama submitted his proposal.
Obama keeps submitting proposals so bad that not a single DEMOCRAT will vote for them. Think about that. Not one member of his own party will put their name on the crap Obama has been submitting since he took office. I dont recall if any of his five annual budget proposals got even one vote of support - I do recall that at least two or three years he couldn't get even one junior house member to sign on to his crap.
Those of us taxpayers who run businesses have been HAMMERED by the Obama administration with THOUSANDS of new rules and regulations while also having our taxes increased, and being continually insulted by the jackass-in-chief; we've had our energy prices driven up and the economy has been essentially flat-lined for his entire time in office (Yeah, the mega-corporations who are in bed with him are making huge profits, in-part by a lot of overseas activity and by out-sourcing production, but smaller firms are having a hard time). Now we are told to pay hugely inflated health insurance rates (about 300% in some cases) for our employees (with no booming economy to soften that blow) or else upset them by dumping them into the public exchanges (like kicking them in the teeth and shoving them into medicaid with the bums)
If you guys in academia who live off our backs were punished HALF as severely as those of us pulling the wagons you are riding in, you'd have turned on Obama (and dumb Republicans like McCain) years ago... instead you go-on using OUR tax dollars to propagandize OUR kids to worship your messiah, oppose everything we believe, and support all the foul political and economic theories Americans used to oppose. I'd happily support the permanent de-funding of all of modern Academia... you guys are turning out "graduates" now who are dumber than the average 1960's high school dropout, but you have raised all the tuitions to keep up with (and absorb) all the increases in student loans so that these youngsters with fresh new (and nearly useless) diplomas will be in debt for much of their work lives. I need REAL engineers who can DO things, not social engineers who can properly deploy condoms, say all the right things about {insert favored minority of the month}, detest all the evils of American history while making every imaginable excuse for the bad behaviors of our nation's enemies and then frosting this cake of insanity by trying to figure out how to make all our products free... (all stuff people have always been free to believe on their own time, but that now seems to have displaced serious knowledge and rational thought)
Read back what that person wrote. Then read your reply. You're the one inserting morality into the discussion and the only person calling for absolutism. If it were an accountant talking to a single person, would you jump all over that accountant? How about a grandmother talking to her kid a couple years out of college?
It's good advice mathematically. It doesn't apply to all situations, nor is it always able to be taken, just like most good advice -- but nor does it claim to. The simple math of personal budget doesn't carry any moral bias.
I know a guy who is a single Dad - newly so after spending cash on a divorce. He's on the beach awaiting this mess to be over and pretty stressed out. Yeah, he has SOME savings but it's not much and he's not exactly making huge dollars. His friends, including me, will help him out but if this goes on too long he's going to be in huge trouble! Let's not forget that all of the govt. contractors that aren't deemed essential are out too. Sure, the Govies get paid - guess who does NOT? Yup, the contractors. Companies that have large Govt. contracts are taking in NO cash right now and furloughing left and right. Make no mistake - this will impact the profit projections and stock market...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
We have until then to divide the public into credit is income, and we spent too much already and we can't afford another entitlement. Because the public knows so little about the borrowing of money by the government (payments need to be made.. no problem just borrow more to make the payments until our entire income goes to makeing payments with no other payments being made. Someday that train will wreck
And when Clinton left office, the government had a surplus. Rather than use that surplus to pay down the debt, which would have created more surplus, and a positive feedback cycle (up until the point when 9/11 slammed the brakes on the economy). But, rather than do the fiscally-responsible thing, Bush decided he wanted a tax cut to bump his approval rating, so that when the economy hit the wall, the lower tax rate compounded the problem... and rather than let those tax cuts expire, the Republicans would rather continue to kick the problem down the road a little further so that they don't face the political backlash of having *gasp* raised taxes.
Posting anonymously for a reason. I'm a postdoc at a government lab, and have been deemed nonessential to the bare-bones activities on site (namely security and minimal equipment maintenance). My experiments are on hold. I can't submit my manuscripts. Since I'm technically a contractor, I don't even know if I'll get paid this month (retroactively or not).
I understand that there are people in this country who see what I do as nonessential. They ask, "why should I pay so Anonymous Coward can play around in a science lab?" The truth is that we are all beneficiaries of basic research that was done decades ago that paved the way for the technological progress we take for granted today. I am not claiming that my research is special or that it will lead to revolutionary breakthroughs, but there is a chance that it will help those who follow.
I have no desire to get into a partisan politic debate. I understand that those who vote Republican want to blame the President and the Senate, and those who vote Democrat want to blame the Speaker of the House and the Tea Party. I do want to point out that if tying demands to continuing resolutions or the debt ceiling becomes the norm, this country will become ungovernable very quickly.
Can basic science in this country continue without the federal government? I think not. There is little basic science funding from industry, particularly for research that has no immediate payoff. Should the shutdown drag on long enough, expect to see disruptions to academic research on top of what's happened already. If that happens, expect to see an exodus of world-class scientists leaving America for Europe, Asia and South America.
Once upon a time, the organs of the body got into a dispute about which was most important.
"Without me," said the eyes, "man couldn't see where his food is."
"Yes," the mouth declared, "but without me he couldn't ingest it."
The hands though this a silly notion. "What good's seeing or ingesting if you can't put it in your mouth?"
"But all your digestion is worthless if I don't pump blood," objected the heart.
"But everything has to obey what I say," said the brain. "So clearly, I'm the most important."
"That's not what the penis tells me," replied the legs.
And so the argument continued back and forth until one organ decided to makes its point. It didn't reason with the others, it merely decided on its own to shut down. It constricted and tightened, and allowed nothing by. Everything was stopped up. The the digestive track stopped working. The heart had no nutrients to pump. The legs and arms had no strength left. The brain suffered a horrible headache and the eyes couldn't see straight. At last they all surrendered and admitted this one organ was really in charge.
What organ, you ask? Why the sphincter. Which goes to show that to be in charge you needn't be the smartest, have the best sight, the longest reach, or good taste. The only thing you need to be in charge is to be an asshole.
Government has proven to be more and more expensive and has zero effectiveness at defending out liberty, counter productive to a healthy economy and rapidly showing signs of communism, they run out and clearly pick fights with double standards, play world cop, and stick the people with the check while the elite line their pockets, they have practiced deficit spending so long that it is highly unlikely we will as a nation find light at the end of the tunnel. Shutdown? I say, fine, don't come back, ain't been earning your keep anyway.
So you're basically saying if we can't borrow money from ourselves, to pay ourselves, we default. Hmmm. I think default happens when we can't pay interest on the debt owed to foreign creditors. Which is about 250 billion a year, currently.
You mean the tax cut that Barack Obama just made permanent? That one? I got some news. The tax cut happened in 2001. The tax rates have been in effect since then, or 12 years. More than a decade. Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house when we balanced the budget. Spending and taxes originate in the House, and no matter how much Barack Obama wants it to be true, they will never originate in the White House.
Ronald Reagan raised the debt celing 17 times without negotiation. GWB raised the debt celing 7 times without negotiation. There have only been 4 balanced budgets in the last 50 years and they were under Bill Clinton. Democrats have the votes in the house to pass a clean CR as there are 20 to 30 republicans who have said they are willing to vote for it. However, John Boehner won't bring it forward for a vote. Why??? He has had the past 6 months to negotiate a budget when the senate passed a budget and the president unveiled his. The only thing they have been doing in that time is voting to defund and/or repeal Obamacare. They have not even proposed a replacement. Seriously, all they have been trying to do for the entire year is to repeal a law that was the topic of the election, which they lost. This is not democracy. You can't hold the US economy hostage if your party does not win the election.
Actually they do have the votes to take ACA out of the continuing resolution, since there is no point in passing a budget right now (the Senate won't vote on a budget as long as the Democrats control it). The problem is the Senate won't pass such a continuing resolution. Of course, since the Senate can't initiate a spending bill (as the Constitutional provision on revenue bills is currently interpreted), they can't do anything about it.
And yes it does feel like the final days of the Roman Republic. Of course, I was thinking more along the lines of Julius Obama myself. After all, when the President unilaterally suspends portions of a law that he himself pushed for, it makes you wonder if there is any point to Congress anymore.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's my home page. Now the universe is gone. Just a blank white space.
The US Bureau of Industry and Security isn't taking any more registrations for cryptography. However, it's also illegal to distribute crypto programs (that aren't laughably weak) without registering them with the government. I came up with a nifty homeomorphic key exchange, but I can't use it in any of my products or even test it on my servers. It started as an investigation into addressing some problems in the current PKI system, namely how the Hong Kong Post Office can simply create a cert for Google.com without their permission; However, I'm not even allowed to post the source code online or describe it in any detail. So, I've just decided to keep it under my colorless hat for now.
My game needs a certificate system with public key crypto properties so that end users can validate mods and updates are signed by their trust chain. Right now I only have symmetric stream cipher in it. So, since the shutdown is preventing me from continuing with the asset signing system I turned my attention to the stream cipher used in authentication. PKI isn't used during logins -- only used during initial server account creation to exchange the pre-shared key. I added some massive key stretching to slow down brute force attacks if a DB of passwords gets compromised, and increased the speed by changing a couple of implementation details. The regulations say that if you register the source code of a cipher via URL, you don't have to email a copy to the BIS & NSA when the functionality of the source changes. I emailed them a copy anyway (for their convenience), and incorporated the changes into the server.
I've had to change the schedule of the feature roll out for the collaborative editing system, which cost me and others of the dev team a good chunk of time. That back & forth left me with some more time to think about the symmetric cipher. I realized that I can build a trap-door out of a hashing function so that the server can quickly verify a proof of work at the client's end, so I can vastly reduce the load of authentication & mitigate Denial of Service attacks. I can even increase the difficulty of the work to be done dynamically for failed authentication attempts simply by adding more required solution bits... Sort of like Bitcoin.
In some ways the government shutdown is affecting me, and in other ways it's just affecting itself. The government better start back up soon, or I just might invent a whole new branch of cat based crypto: Eccentric Hairball Encryption.
Let's see, Alice x-rays and frees a selection of small encrypted woodland creatures.
As proof of Bobcat's receipt of the key he leaves a present by the back door.
Mal can't discern the guts of the key since only Alice and her Bobcat can discern what bits will appear in the verification hairball... Hmm...
If they can afford to cut back, then their employer can afford to pay them less.
Welcome to capitalism, slave. Now get back to work!
And this, here, summarizes perfectly why things keep going to Hell. Emphasis mine.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Finally, we agree on something; the NSA is entirely out of control, the Homeland Security Department is an abomination, and everybody involved ought to be in Leavenworth.
But it's Emperor Obama himself who has overseen the worst of the abuses.
The IRS intimidation tactics? Obama SAID he would audit his enemies. Even Nixon never did that. The Attorney General is equally complicit; Obama appointed Eric Holder for a reason, and the reason is "Do what I say!" (It's long been known that the easiest way to commit the perfect crime is to be the guy in charge of the investigation.)
I have before worked for an employer who said he could not pay me for a while, but I should keep working.
That happened a few times over a few years. Eventually I got my money back but it took a long time and there was a significant back pay that floated for a year.
So knowing that was a pattern, what did I do? I left to find other work.
Government is NO DIFFERENT. If you are going to obviously be screwed over every time the Government needs to figure out a yearly budget (hint: they can't) or bump against the debt ceiling (hint: very often), then you need to LEAVE.
You didn't say if you were enlisted or not but it seems like not. Most people take government jobs because they are easier but if you are not liking this new tradeoff you need to leave, which is what every worker in the private sector would generally do... the mistake is thinking that delayed pay and worse is something that only happens to government workers during a furlough, because in real life it happens to people quite often.
I hope more government workers figure this out, and fast - and that it takes the shine of government work for others also.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's exactly what moderation is for. We get enough false equivalency from mainstream news sources. Some statements are just plain wrong, and should be modded down. Or do you mod up creationists?
the average government employee is a freeloading scumbag who is to lazy or incompetent to work in the private sector.
...and is teaching your children.
Oh, you mean Federal government? That'd be a soldier. Oh, you want to exclude the armed forces, too? And probably the DHS and FBI as well?
Getting down into the weeds, here... "The average member of the Secret Service is a freeloading scumbag who," etc., perhaps?
The Communist Party USA begs to differ with you about the lack of an American Left. The American far Left exists, it just has little support.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Presidential overreach is not a partisan issue. W did it well enough himself. It's just the natural progression that comes from the current legislation, from the Constitution down. Barring extremely unlikely citizen action, chances are the dynamics will continue as they are until demographics topple the current political balance. Then we'll have some years of single party dominance, the losing party will change their position dramatically to bring it all back into balance, and we'll be back in square one.
the shutdown makes no difference in my life, other than having to listen to a bunch of unemployed gov employees. While I sympathize with them due to the stresses that unemployment can cause, I also believe that 1) If you have been a gov employee long enough, you know that this can happen and could have been prepared for it, and 2) BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! that's what you get for choosing to work for a bunch of inept morons who have no interest in your well-being nor a good firm grasp on reality. ...
How exactly is this different from private sector work? Please, I have time. Having worked on both sides of the fence, neither appears to have a lock on inept morons.
One thing we can all agree on is that the government (whoever is in power) is spending too much money. Invest when times are good, and cut back when times are bad. The economy is not doing well (for a while now) so we should be spending accordingly.
I'm not for/against Obamacare. What I am against is raising the debt ceiling. The government needs to start cutting its debt, not increasing it. For all the discussion about rich vs poor, no one is talking about tackling the fattest cat in town: the government.
I am in the middle of a cattle watering project that is funded by a USDA grant. They would like us to get our cows out of the river and are willing to reimburse us for part of the costs. Benefits the public with clean water, benefits the total amount and quality of cattle production and allows us to afford it. Due to furlough we have a hugh hole in the field we can't fill in until it is inspected... where all the inspectors at.
These people are a tiny percentage of the republican party nee dixiecrats who are not democratically elected but elected by Gerrymandered districts where they face no competition and are only elected by the bat shit crazys in the primary and the rubber stamped by moderates in the general election who vote Republican becasue their father and grandfathers did but those forbearers would had the dixiecrat racist fucks as much as I do.
See, the trouble with your BS assertion is that it's so easy to google "7450 Affordable Care Act" and find all the articles disproving it...
Oh, and the PDF you're linking to says nothing about the cost for a family of 4. It's just talking about lower overall health spending. Are you an Astro turfer or do you just not research your sources?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The federal government is in the dangerous territory of impressing on the average person a sense that the entire federal government is an extraneous waste of money. Putting 20% of their workers on paid leave and calling it a "shutdown" is I think disingenuous.
IMHO, I think they should expand the list of "non-essential employees" on a month by month basis until congress is pressured in to action. Then we'll have a vague idea of what aspects of the federal government are actually valued by the voting public, even if this methodology would unfairly discriminate against more long-term focused expenses such as scientific research and public health.
Of course, if you've read "The Road To Serfdom" you would be justified in your suspicion that they would lay off the most useful portions of the federal workforce preferentially in order to give the false impression that the remaining workforce must be REALLY important. Unfortunately, the process for getting to the real truth of the matter is not so simplistic and resembles something called a "democracy"(in it's ideal form), where a fixed pool of money is distributed experimentally based on merits(such as ROI & opportunity cost as an example).
Here is how it would work in theory:
-The Treasury Department is able to spend money according to revenues & not in excess. This would encourage bubbles in times of prosperity and aggravate recessions during depressed markets. In exchange for this necessary evil, the impact of the inflation tax would be minimized, & government spending would be restrained by the laws of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Mark-to-market_accounting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market_accounting#Effect_on_subprime_crisis_and_Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
-The impact of increasing or decreasing the distribution of funding to any specific government function would be evaluated based on rational qualitative criteria.
-Public officials would be selected based on ethical integrity and moral consistency, as defined primarily by the values of their constituents.
-To avoid the tyranny of the masses, influence over this process would be proportionally distributed based on two separate means of allocation:
1)For 50% of the voting rights, a simple head count would be used to distribute voting power on a regional basis. This voting power would provide even the least affluent stakeholders a say in their own destiny. Provided with a quality education, this informed, discontent, & informed electorate should be capable of preventing the formation of a plutocracy.
2)For the remaining 50% of voting rights, voting power would be distributed primarily according to financial investment. Government bondholders would be given an incentive to invest in this "Republic", feeling secure in the knowledge that their influence is adjusted for financial exposure to risk.
Although the above description follows the formula of satire, I think the reforms of congress described in 1) & 2) are at least interesting in theory. Unlike stocks, government bonds carry with them low liquidity. In theory, this inefficiency would be associated with increased incentives to make decisions based on long-term implications rather than the much shorter term quarterly earnings which drive the corporate raiders & vulture capitalism seen with stocks.
I'll punctuate my naïve libertarian pseudo-intellectualism with some (apparently misattributed?) quotes:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dict
by bringing massive amounts of money to bear on local elections. Sarah Palin is a great example of that. She had massive resources for a pretty unimportant political position.
As for the popular vote, he's referring to the fact that as a raw percentage Democrats won more vote. In a parliamentary system they would have a majority in the gov't and popularist legislation would be making it's way through the gov't process. That's pretty much why we have a Republic. It protects the interests of wealthy land owners...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Which statement of the GP's is "just plain wrong", and what is your proof of that?
No, they'll just "quantitatively ease" the bonds out of existence and tax us all with inflation. How's that for helping the poor?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I give you the Iron Law of Wages:
"The Iron Law of Wages is a proposed law of economics that asserts that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
This is merely a special case of the Zero Profit theorem: Competition tends to reduce economic profit to zero.
Economics has certainly earned its moniker of "the dismal science".
I'll take a paid vacation with a delay in my paycheck over being laid off any day, and that's what most people have to deal with.
Everybody needs to save up enough money to live on for 6-12 months. And if you're a government worker, you certainly can do that easily.
i have to listen to all these people with good jobs, bitch and whine about having a week or two off, with a paycheck waiting when they return, and cry because even though they all have good jobs, they apparently have never heard of savings accounts, can't pay their essential bills for a couple weeks from savings or just their usual checking account balance. don't want your job? i'll take it and work through the shutdown before getting even a first check. be thankful you have that job, don't EVER COMPLAIN about having a government job, even this time of year when congress plays.
Yeah, I don't think people realize that the Federal Government actually employees a LOT of Private Sector companies.
/Former private sector employee employeed by the Federal Government
//Many years ago
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Yes, the great anonymous park ranger whose quote has been running the rounds in the Conservative blogosphere.
"This is all a ruse by Ted Cruz destabilize the country enough that when the next 2 election cycles come around, Republicans can scream 'incompetence' and take over the Senate and Presidency." -- Anonymous Congressman
See how that works?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...
This ruse is only working because people aren't aware of the subtleties of how governments are financed; particularly OURS. We're a country where just calling Obamacare the ACA increases favorability by 10% or more. And, pointing out what it actually does increases it by more than that.
Look at some of the uninformed, superficial arguments being regurgitated here "but Republicans presented 4 proposals and Obama refuses to negotiate!"
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Uhh.. living paycheck to paycheck is living within their means ..
I am surprised how many people still believe otherwise!!!
Well:
"Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care."
Since the vast majority of people will continue to pay unsubsidized price of their health insurance to private companies, there is no possible way this statement, which is the crux of his entire statement, can possibly be true.
"Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them"
The federal programs instituted by FDR have been around for about 70 years now, and Democrats have most definitely NOT stayed in power that whole time. Even if there was the slightest bit of truth to this claim, all the Republicans have to do is promise not to take away Obamacare, and they're right back on-par with Democrats, aren't they? Besides, Republicans are facing a demographic shift that is promising to make them non-viable in national politics in just a decade or so, meaning Democrats don't have to do ANYTHING to undermine them. The Republicans have done a superb job undermining themselves.
"What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power."
In fact Obamacare was terribly unpopular, and numerous Democratic senators lost their seats specifically because they voted for it. They must have voted for it for other reasons than political expediency.
"Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care."
Except it's always Republicans threatening to shut down the government, and taking away or "privatizing" government services.
Every single sentence in his post is quite easily provably factually incorrect. And the implication of some vast, sinister conspiracy makes it troll/flamebait.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No, not "anyone, ever", just the AVERAGE person.
It's similar in the UK and Canada too - failing to pass the budget counts as a vote of no confidence in the government which triggers a general election. Having lived in the US for several years though I think the problem with their system of government is that it has not been updated in over 200 years. It started off as a brilliant, world-leading system for the late 18th century but it has so many checks and balances in it that updating it is all but impossible without an overwhelming consensus that is rarely achievable. The result is that they are left limping along with a 200+ year old governmental system that was designed when communication with the capital took days or weeks by horse.
The "shutdown" hasn't effected me one bit. I don't use any of the agencies that are shut down. When I worked (I retired a year ago) I worked for a computer company and the folks I worked with see no difference right now. Frankly, I wish they'd refund me some of the taxes ($20k/yr.) I paid for not their working. We should be saving money due to their not being paid. As far as I am concerned, they can shut down more stuff if it saves me money because I fund my own retirement and don't use hardly any government services. YMMV as they say.
I am currently with my fine arts gallery attending the (e)merge art fair in DC. While the shut down situation has seemed to lessen traffic around the city, and some visitors were able to attend because they received furloughs and are absent from their offices, the consensus among galleries and artists is that the psychological effects of the circumstance may have hampered sales significantly. Coming from another city with many pieces of artwork, and having paid an entry fee to participate in this annual event, sales are a primary motivator for us. To see the potential to break even on this event plausibly decreased by the shut down has been demoralizing for all of the participants. This feeling will also follow us back home to the gallery, where it will linger for weeks.
On a side note, why does it have to be anonymous coward? Sure, trolls, flamers, whatever. But so many /. posters seem to support online anonymity, and being that I may not want my post here to be associated with my employer, I do also support it in this case. Why the contradiction? Why the insult?
That surplus had nothing to do with either Clinton or Gingrich (even though both like to take credit for it.) That surplus was entirely the result of excess tax revenue resulting from a bubbled economy. There never was a true surplus that could have lasted, as soon as the bubble popped it was going to become a deficit no matter what. The stupid thing is that both of them added more entitlements while we had that surplus under the foolish assumption that it would last forever. Well guess what, now we have an even bigger deficit than we had before. That deficit that we have today can be partially attributed to both Clinton and Gingrich.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
If indeed, he did receive the orders close to what is being quoted, he has very good reasons to worry about his continuing career or even employment, if he is ever deanonymized. Thus, despite his anonymity, it is quite believable. And there is other corroborating (if not outright confirming) evidence too...
For one, Congressmen have little to fear except their constituency. They are also a lot fewer in number than rangers, so they aren't hard to identify anyway. Lastly, yes, it is, of course, "created" by Republicans — in order to defeat Obamacare — and thus stabilize the country.
To summarize, some anonymous statements are believable, and some less so. Witness the occasional high-moderated Anonymous Coward post on this very site.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, it took me a few months out of college and into the $40,000 salary range (nothing special but more than a lot of people make, so I'm not complaining) to start saving. By new years I will have - depending on how much I spend on christmas gifts - 3 months of income / 5 months of living expenses saved up. It feels wonderful. But I'm also pretty frugal, aside from toys and pure luxury items, I live on around $25,000 a year with an income of $43,000 and no debt to pay. I could actually live on two McJobs (One full time one part time, same hours I work for my salary) if I had to, which is pretty reassuring.
Oh, good. Another all or nothing, black and white argument. I love those.
Is there no one who could cut back on consumption and stockpile a month of savings? No one who is at the minimum and could not cut back? It has to be one or the other, or you both sound like window licking fools, so which is it?
Average is an ambiguous term. Typical is more like it.
Same for "typical". Anybody near the center of the income distribution or above, i.e., the great majority of Americans, has no reason to live month-to-month. If they do, it's because of poor financial planning.
It seems to me that Republicans overlook many aspects of the health care plan being enacted are design features created in response to Republican criticisms.
The system that is being enacted is not single payer, it doesn't end the business deductibility of health insurance for employees, it is not a socialistic giveaway, it isn't a state system like Canada or Britain. All of these "isn'ts" reflect decades of Republican and political conservative editorializing and theory spinning.
The fact is that health care expenses have been destroying American families for decades and this proposal is going to slow down the destruction of American families by medical bills.
What I would like to see is Republicans start paying attention to the two big individual American problems. Your average American is in debt most of his or her adult life and your average American is a petroleum slave obligated to burn typically 1 or 2 gallons of gasoline per day to get to work to make payments on his or her debt. There is plenty of room for changing the economic rules of the game away from debt and the commuter rat race.
In short, a Republican that works for the benefit of the common man exists. Health care has arrived. Time for Republicans to move on.
Why can't the government be shut down all the time? I love it. I'm happy all the time now. It's as if I'm taking huge doses of oxycodone or something. Anarchy is awesome! I never thought anything could make me so happy. It's like being in love. Up on cloud 9 all the time.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
You know what happens to people in real life when they are laid off, even if temporarily? They find another job. Being a mechanic you'd think he could find some work pretty rapidly if he needed income badly.
How easy is it to find work when - as I understand it - you can be called back to work on a day's notice? Not many employers need an employee that could disappear in a puff of smoke at any time. Of course you could be clearing out a work backlog or something like that, but yeah...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ah man, now I want to see Boehner give an address on the steps of the Capitol holding a sawed-off shotgun...
I know this will sound terrible, but I felt a frisson of delight at that image. I don't know about Boehner; Any honest Congressman giving an address on the steps of the Capitol while holding a (fully intact) shotgun, saying something genuinely constructive... yes, that would make me very happy.
tempus fugit
Once most people are buying insurance through Obamacare
... You do realize there is no insurance plan that is "Obamacare". The public option was nixed in the Senate before the ACA was voted on. What we have now is are minimum standards which any health insurance provided can provide.
This is as idiotic as saying that the safety regulations imposed by the NHTA on automakers will lead to a "takeover of the auto industry. Just give it time and the NHTA will be the only game in town!"
Seriously, read up on the law.
I wish our energy was really spent figuring out why healthcare costs so much
If only our energy was spent on that and not wasted on putting the brakes on unsubstantiated rumors and right out fabrications.
Funny you mention medicare considering they run a 1% (6% if you include the privatized portion) overhead compared to the ~15-20% private insurers are bitching about having to adhere to .
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Everything you said from start to finish is 100% factually incorrect, and easily provable. It's a paranoid rant that is directly contrary to reality.
"The Obamacare bill as passed was not what the Democrats wanted"
The bill was passed ENTIRELY by Democrats, with zero Republican support. How can it *possibly* be something they didnt want?
"Once implemented, government programs only get bigger, never smaller. The Democrats know this."
I find it funny that morons blame Democrats for all the big government spending, when it's REPUBLICAN presidents and congresses that have had the largest deficits in all of modern history.
And it's completely untrue that government programs always grow and are never elminated... MANY programs under FDR didnt work out as planned, and were eliminated. Programs that had run their course were dropped. Under Regan, all the state mental health institutions were shuttered, which is a major cause of the mass shootings we've seen lately. NASA has been very aggressively pared back, year after year, for decades now. There are innumerable other examples. The programs that stay with us are the ones everyone sees to be working, and doing a useful public service.
I hope you get help for your mental disabilities as well. Start off by taking Fox News off your TV, and Rush Limbaugh stations off your radio.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You believe that the GOP represents an "unhinged minority"? I don't think that is true. Or rather, I think that there are many, maybe even the majority, who aren't well represented by either party. The current Democrat regime is all about deregulation, privatization, anti-labor and ceding wealth to Wall Street. By "Wall Street", I don't refer to the financial sector. Consumer finance, life insurance, small business banking, accountants and actuaries do productive work and contribute positively to the economy. Most of Wall Street isn't even Wall Street any longer, just a few massive investment banks, private equity partnerships, hedge funds and Carl Icahn-types. All of Obama's second term cabinet members are scions of very wealthy families, his ambassadorial appointments were chosen from financiers who were major campaign contributors, with zero diplomatic experience. It wasn't like this in 2008, but it is now. They call themselves Democrats, but they are more venal and corrupt, in terms of (selectively) favoring big business and other special interests than we've had in a long time.
The GOP has not offered an appealing alternative, though they would be wise to try.
One could just as easily say, "If the Democrat Party wins, then American democracy loses". Everyone loses if we have one-party rule.
tempus fugit
In Australia we have a section of our constitution which would prevent this kind of stunt. Basically any bills dealing with matters of financing the government can ONLY cover matters of financing the government. The house wouldn't be able to hold the government to ransom as bills adding some weird condition to continuing to operate the government wouldn't legally even get through the house.
The only way this financial situation would lead to a double dissolution would be if the government of the day was actually suicidal, in which case they could just call an election and save everyone the heartache of rejecting a bill twice.
You also forgot one important note. Since all seats are open the requirement to win a seat is different from a normal election and as such a double dissolution changes power in more places at once than a normal election. This helps ensure we don't end up with the same people causing the mess getting voted in again, though that has happened in the past.
Tell me again how living, paying bills, eating, paying a mortgage, from paycheck to paycheck isn't exactly the definition of living within their means? Isn't that kind of the definition, and people who aren't living within their means are accumulating debt rather than repaying it?
Also tell me again how someone suddenly cut off from their only source of income shouldn't expect their life to be jolted around. Anyone sitting on that amount of cash should really consider investing it somewhere.
Knowing the game and what quarter we currenty in will provide insight on the future required moves.
We are currently in the game of choosing sides. The deadline is the 18th or 17th. We have until then to divide the public into credit is income, and we spent too much already and we can't afford another entitlement. Because the public knows so little about the borrowing of money by the government (payments need to be made.. no problem just borrow more to make the payments until our entire income goes to makeing payments with no other payments being made. Someday that train will wreck. Oh, back on topic.. The game plan,
The other side's plan is shutting down the government. You public need to get educated and join our side or the conquences will be dire. This posturing will run until default at the earliest, maybe later. This is a race to place more canidates of party X or Y in the house and senate at the next election. Nobody can agree on anything until then.
I'll check for updates on the 19th. Wake me up then.
In the meantime, the play by play is a news reporters dream. 2 solid weeks of political drama.
I'll tell you guys (our American /. contributors) how the budget crunch is affecting me. My ears are hurting because of the legions of Americans arguing about who is right and who is wrong about Obamacare. It's a healthcare bill for god's sake, it has been voted on, Republicans ran on a platform of getting the law repealed and failed to get a majority. The people have spoken and the Teabaggers in particular should get over that fact. Obamacare is not the end of American civilization as we know it, however, failing to make reforms, failing to make cuts in entitlements and cutting down the gross overspending on the military that has been going on in the USA will be a big body-blow to American civilization if the USA defaults 15-20 years down the line. I wish you guys would just stop acting like 4 year olds in a sandbox and look up the word 'compromise' in the Oxford English dictionary.
As a researcher in mathematics, I am fortunate to have a great position and supportive research environment. I still get a paycheck and my day-to-day life continues more-or-less the same, but there are a number of thoughtless consequences indirectly for me, mainly due to the National Science Foundation being currently unfunded. My NSF grant money was delivered some time ago to my grants office and I can spend money as usual for my postdocs and students, so it isn't affecting me there directly. Instead, we have the following consequences:
To my mind, these are a big disruption. For people in the lab sciences whose funding is disrupted, projects that have been ongoing or building up can be seriously affected. For people whose funding record will have a big role in their hiring, tenure, and promotion situation, this is a huge stress-inducing situation.
Blegh. This is a completely unnecessary disruption to thousands of scientists and researchers. Science research funding in the US has always been a pain, even when things go smoothly. Excellent researchers have left for Europe over the years due to frustrations with the NSF system, and things like this will exacerbate that problem.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grant system is even larger scale and is also totally on hold, with consequent disruptions. And with the life sciences, uncertainty in projects can be more problematic as it is often harder to put things on hold. I feel sorry for people whose funding needs to be renewed, is under consideration, or needs adjustment now as this is a huge hassle.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
Simple as that is it? Fuck off.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The teabaggers are right insofar as America does have to get rid of the structural deficit.
What is also clear is that there will be dead bodies of the poor in the streets if anyone lets them supervise the job. Because for some reason their political ideology is mostly built around the idea that there are two kinds of people in the world - people like us and those other people in our country that we hate and would exterminate if no one was looking.
There in a nutshell is the dilemma that America faces from the perspective of the UK.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
I'll go for the middle option and be a widow licking fool please.
It has to be said. America is a danger to the world. Their whole psychology is about power, conflict and violence. No one trusts them, no one likes them.
We can only look on aghast at the politics which apparently have been bought lock stock and barrel by business. The presidents seem to serve no purpose except to be the figurehead to blame for all the shit that happened under their office. The media we see from the country always expresses things in the most emotive and hate filled lowest common denominator terms as if the entire American population are morons.
Seriously America looks like a total basket case from outside, thank god I don't live there.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Yeah, it's barely relevant, just like atheism was barely relevant across much of the world before C20.
We moved to the metro D.C. area last year (small town in Maryland, not far from Rockville or Bethesda). I took a private sector job doing I.T. support, and my wife eventually found a job as a govt. contractor.
The "shutdown" means her pay situation is uncertain. Her contractor promised they'd receive the next couple paychecks but no details after that. (She's caught in sort of a grey area too, because she's doing work for one of the places the Federal govt. has decided is actually doing "essential" work, yet her particular office/building isn't directly involved with the essential part of what they do. So we simply don't know if she'll be out of work or not, yet.)
If you want my opinion (and one i believe my wife shares)? The Federal govt. is massively bloated, inefficient and spending WAY too much money for too little in the way of useful results. As she says her own job illustrates every day -- the primary reason govt. has "over 800,000 contractors" they're furloughing right now is because they've hired useless, inept people as EMPLOYEES for so long, they need the contractors to do the work their regular staff isn't able or willing to do!
IMO, this is intentional because Federal govt. feels a need to keep the unemployment figures as low as possible, to give the illusion that our economy is on more solid footing than it really is. By hiring people who are otherwise unemployable (due to poor social skills, laziness, lack of education, plenty of formal education but no common sense, etc.) -- they keep people from becoming unemployment statistics and as a bonus, from increasing the numbers collecting from govt. assistance programs (another measuring stick of economic health).
There's a strong "entitlement culture" that's developed in the D.C. area as a result. The govt. workers become "lifers" who can't fathom life without a govt. issued paycheck (since frankly, they're not competitive as hires in the private sector), and by and large, their pay is pretty good. The twisted thing is, the entire market is priced around these govt. wages too. As a result, you find that when private sector businesses open a presence in the D.C. area, paying the same wages they pay elsewhere in the U.S., they're too low to maintain a decent lifestyle here. (Govt. workers typically receive "perks" that private sector businesses can't or won't match, such as compensation for the cost of using public transportation to get to/from the job every day.)
If they're still shut down April 15th, do I still have to...? Seriously, I haven't noticed a thing. I've always maintained 80% of what the federal government does, no sane person would want them to. What people WILL notice, come April 15th, is the fines for failure to hand over your soul to some insurance company. Once people start having to pay that, it'll all hit the fan and they'll have to eliminate that provision - effectively defunding Obamacare anyway. Smarter to get it out of the way now, before too much time and money are spent building the bureaucracy of a program that HAS to go away at some point, regardless.
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
First of all, we should be thinking median income rather than average. On average, you and I and Bill Gates never have to work another day in our lives.
The median household income in the US is about $29,000. Suppose you're a family of four with that median income, and you live in a relatively cheap urban neighborhood. You're probably paying $1400/month (average in Mattapan, Boston's cheapest neighborhood) in rent and $1000/mo (average for US family of four). That leaves you a grand total of $16/month for things like clothing and transportation. So you economize. You live in the worst slum in the worst neighborhood and save $200/mo there. You cut down on your food purchases and save maybe another $200. You deduct utilities, clothing, transport, and the conclusion is that the "average" American is living pretty close to paycheck to paycheck.
Of course the average federal employee is doing considerably better, with a median salary of $74,000. But going with out pay for a month would be a major hardship for a lot of those workers who fall beneath the median line -- the janitors, groundskeepers and maintenance guys at the bottom of the pay scale. A lot of these guys are "non-essential", and if the shutdown goes for more than a few weeks they'll be hurting.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It kind of depends on who you mean by "poor." Young, middle-class low-net-worth folks would actually benefit from inflation (assuming their salary keeps up) because it would deflate their fixed-interest-rate debt (e.g. mortgages and student loans).
Genuinely poor folks get screwed of course, because their debt is variable-interest-rate revolving and their housing costs increase with inflation.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, the tea partiers are wrong because they (hypocritically) claim to want to get rid of the deficit while being almost entirely willing to actually do what's necessary (namely, drastically cut Medicare, Social Security and the military while leaving important stuff like national parks, NASA and the CDC funded) to accomplish it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker
Though what constitutes "sustaining life" has significantly increased over time. When the "law" was first proposed, it really meant the wage necessary to prevent starvation and/or death from exposure. Our definition of poverty is much more generous today, and I fully expect it will continue to rise. In the west it may take a short-term hit as wealth levels equalize across the globe, however.
It's also worth pointing out that the Iron Law of Wages is not really accepted by modern economists as even a strong tendency, much less an iron law.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Actually they do have the votes to take ACA out of the continuing resolution,... the problem is the Senate won't pass such a continuing resolution.
Then why won't Boner bring the CR to the floor that the Senate passed back to him? If the House passed it and the Senate didn't, it'd be a GOP win all the way.
largest deficits in history are currently held by....Obama
Yes, but what you leave out is that he got an economy in freefall, because of a financial crisis so bad that his opponent (McCain) had to suspend his Presidential campaign to head back to Washington to vote on a bailout for the financial system (he even wanted to skip out on the debates). His predecessor had turned the Clinton surpluses into deficits with tax cuts and two wars. So, he started with huge deficits and an economy shedding about 200,000 jobs a month and had a choice between austerity and stimulus. He chose stimulus and now we have anemic job growth and deficits that are headed back down. I've been to Greece recently and am grateful that he didn't choose austerity. Now, faced with a weak economy the GOP is shutting down the Government because they can't repeal the Affordable Care Act and they'll shave a couple tenths of a percent off GDP growth, making deficit reduction that much harder.
I assume you meant unwilling?
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
And tire rotation...
=)
By their own words, Obama care is merely the first step to single payer.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Sorry, but if you look at the differences in inflation adjusted spending and tax revenues for the last 30 years or so it's pretty obvious that while federal revenue has grown over time, federal spending has just grown much faster. It's pretty hard to make an argument that any sort of tax cut is the reason for spending having gone up so much.
Revenue generally tracks the economy, while spending just goes up and up. That's the problem causing huge deficits. The government will have to get spending under control (which flattened a little in the last "shutdown"s in 94-95) in order to stop adding to the debt constantly. It won't even take much, just a reduction in the increase in spending would balance the budget over the long run.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Check out mrmoneymustache.com; it sounds like you'd like it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Cause there are many laws, including one to restore right to keep and bear arms. That are not implemented because they've been defunded.
Happens all the time. Oh guess what, this process is part of the LAW. So it's all according to the LAW>
You will buy insurance, or be fined - up to thousands. You're going to be taxed 28% if you have good insurance. We passed this through a procedural hack where we create a law, pass it, then change it entirely and send back to the House. Then reconcile the bill. So that we don't need as many votes to pass it. And we did this essentially with a 50+1 majority.
Oh crap, it was so bad, we lost the House (commons), which controls the purse. They're using a procedural act to defund the legislation. Heck, they're not even trying to eradicate the whole thing. Just a few elements. And delay some things. (What's the big deal about delay, many elements don't go into effect until 2016 (after the President leaves office).
So nice to pass legislation that won't cause problems until you're OUT OF OFFICE.
My wife does not work for the federal government, she is manager of a county wide organization. Her office, however is maintained by the department of Agriculture so neither she nor any of her non federal co-workers can work, or get paid since getting paid depends on using federal computers that are now off limits. The shutdown has MUCH wider effects than many, especially in the press, seem to understand. The ripple effects through the economy as all those people stay home, don't eat in restaurants, limit their shopping to necessities, etc. probably multiply that by 2 again. The morons in the extreme wing of the Republican party have instantly added another 2-3 million to the unemployment rolls, even if it is (nominally) temporary. In a reasonable world they'd be voted out, with gerrymandered districts and billionaire backers they will comfortably cruise to re-election even if their constituents hate them.
Because it does not have the support of the majority of the Republicans in the House. The CR which the Senate passed includes funding for the ACA. I did not say that the Democrats did not have the votes to pass a CR with funding for the ACA. I said that the Republicans had the votes to take funding for ACA out of the budget. That means they currently have the votes to prevent the passage of any CR that allows the implementation of the ACA to be funded. They have even passed several bills to fund portions of the government that are non-controversial (National Park Service, NIH, Veterans Affairs) but the Senate has refused to vote on those because it is more important to the Democrats to fund the ACA than that these other portions of the government keep functioning.
One of the things which John Boehner promised in order to get the votes to be re-elected Speaker of the House was that he would not bring up for a vote any legislation that did not have the support of the majority of Republican representatives in the House. The CR passed by the Senate does not have the support of the majority of Republicans in the House. The fact of the matter is that what is going on right now is going on exactly as the framers of the Constitution intended.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I find it funny that morons blame Democrats for all the big government spending, when it's REPUBLICAN presidents and congresses that have had the largest deficits in all of modern history.
Deficits can be caused by excessive spending OR insufficient revenue collection, i.e. taxes. Check you facts. Democrats tax but also overspend like drunken sailors, Republicans don't tax and also spend like drunken sailors.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I repeatedly see a misconception being repeatedly. How can a minority party hold the whole government hostage. I believe that most foreignors are unfamiliar with the structure of the U.S. government. We do NOT have a parlimentary style government. Much of the world has a parliment where the controlling party (or coalition) appoints the President/Premier, etc. Thus corresponding to the majority party.
The U.S. is rather different. We have the President, Senate and House of Representitives. And these loosely correspond to Prime Minister, House of Lords and House of Commons. However, in the U.S. the President does not have to come from the majority party. And at present, the House of Representatives (which most closely corresponds to the House of Commons) is held by the Republicans. This means that in the U.S., the Republicans are the closest to the majority party.
The President is a Democrat, and the Senate is essentially Democrat controlled.
President = Democrat
Senate = 55 Democrats/45 Republicans
House = 232 Republicans / 200 Democrats
In the House, the Republicans are the MAJORITY party. And if you base majority traditionally on who controls the "common house" of a government. The Republicans ARE the majority party. In the U.S., sole budgetary discretion lies with the House of Representatives. (Though some parlimentary tricks exist to side-step this, and in fact, that was how it was first passed.)
In fact, guess what the original name of Obamacare was? "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009", that is the bill that was passed. Then changed into Obamacare via a parlimentary trick.
At the time, the Democrats controlled the House 257 members to Republicans 178, a 79 member advantage. Following the passing of Obamacare, which upset a very large chunk of the American populace, the Democrats lost control of the House. The following term the balance of control was 193 Democrats to 242 Republicans, a 49 member advantage in favor of the Republicans.
Note, this was a shift of 129 seats in a body of 435. Literally 1/3 of the seats switched from Democrats to Republicans over the issue of the passage of Obamacare. That's a pretty huge, 30% shift. That's essentially a mandate. So the Republicans are now doing EXACTLY what they were elected to do.
Something to keep in mind. Is that one of the major issues with Obamacare was that it was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses and the presidency. The result is, that they did not compromise, they railroaded it through. And even then they had to use a parlimentary trick to get it passed.
So is it any wonder that it is causing problems today. Especially, as the Democrats have refused to cut spending and engage in any activity to work toward balancing the budget. Thus endangering the entire global economy.
so because of the problems between your ears your were miserable, you didn't have a dire condition and instead of getting off your ass like man and doing something you were whining like adult baby and your wife had to step up. obamacare changes everyting alright, the adult babies who don't solve their own probems get to sponge off others.
Great. Problem's solved. The deficit has significantly decreased in the past two years. Hell, it's down 35% since last year. Yay. Problem solved.
--AC
Unless interest rates spike, then the U.S. will have a hard time covering that debt and that will cause the deficit to spike.
Whoops! Yes, I meant "unwilling." Thanks!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I can't get my goddamn home purchase closed because nobody's home at the USDA. Then again, looking at the hundreds of thousands of employees out of work, I feel like my problems are minimal. Nothing good can come of this.
It's earned the "dismal" part, but I'm not so sure about the "science."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Fact:
The SURPLUS was this:
We spent $100 on program X last year - that we borrowed some amount to support. We have a budgeted increase of 10% for next year - that required borrowing. In that next year, we only spent $105. Therefore, we have a surplus of $5.
No, we don't. We still spent money we didn't have, all we did was not spend money we never had in the first place.
The surplus only existed on paper. We were still running the country at a deficit.
Obama continues this bold faced lie. When he doesn't spend 100 million on something, he declares we saved 100 million.
If you don't understand government accounting "encumbrance accounting" then please don't display your lack of knowledge by making such absurd claims. What you're saying is that today, you didn't borrow $50,000 to buy a new car you couldn't afford, so you saved $50,000. No, you did not.
Murphy was an optimist
Having zero margin for error because you unrealistically expected nothing to go wrong ever means that you are guaranteed to be in the "accumulating debt" category sooner or later. So no, living paycheck-to-paycheck is not living within your means, in the same way that water in a cup filled to the brim is no longer "within" the cup when the cup gets bumped and sloshes it over the edge.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No it's not, because (a) their "means" includes not only the flush times, but the lean times as well, and (b) "within" does not mean "on the edge".
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It makes perfect sense that the President can't spend more than Congress budgets, but how is he prohibited from spending less?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yes, I was referring tot he genuinely poor, whose minimum wage or near-minimum wage salaries do not keep up with inflation. They also are more sensitive to increases in things like food, energy, and housing prices. A yuppie can get a crappier car or a smaller apartment . A yuppie can buy store brands. A poor person - if they have a car - already have the crappiest car they can get away with using. A poor person already is living in a crap apartment (or public housing). A poor person is probably on food stamps and is already economizing on food.
Now, I'm not a Ron Paul anti-fed type, mind you. Inflation can be good - for instance, sometimes salaries "need" to go down, but they don't because people don't take kindly to that. Inflation is a way to reduce salaries without superficially reducing them. But doing this to minimum wage people kind of subverts the point of minimum wage in the first place - it probably should be tied to inflation. Inflation can also be good because it means we aren't having deflation. Deflation is a serious problem.... why would I spend any of my money when it is going to be worth more tomorrow? That said, printing money should be limited to controlling inflation/deflation, not for getting out of debt.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
We do need a military. It is a major part of our political clout and serves as our "Big Stick". It is a deterrent to North Korean aggression against the South, our political and strong economic partner. It is a deterrent against Chinese aggression towards Taiwan and Japan, our political and strong economic partners. It prevents the power vacuum that would exist without it and otherwise we would likely see more uppity states doing rash things. It is our deterrent against foreign terrorism because we have a long arm that will reach out and find the perpetrators of attacks on our citizens and interests. On the home front, it is the response to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and rampant forest fires. You miss the bigger picture.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
If they are making an average salary (ie, median), then yeah, once they get their spending under control, they will be fine.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So... blame it on Bush, again? What relevance does that have? Even if he personally tanked the economy, is this to be an excuse for the entire failure of the various Congresses and the President over the last 5 years?
There was no surplus. The social security contributions were counted in the general fund, which is either correct (which means the "trust fund" is a lie) or incorrect (which means we did not have a surplus and Clinton lied... again).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
As such, my needs and concerns are perhaps somewhat less immediate than someone who, say, doesn't have enough money to eat. However, this does affect me in the long run, since a lot of important agencies are functioning at a vastly reduced capacity:
* With the EPA not running, it's more likely that carcinogens and other dangerous pollutants will enter the air and ground water, which in the long run increase my chances of getting sick, including with life-threatening conditions such as many types of cancer.
* With the NIH currently unfunded, should I happen to come down with cancer or some other disease at a later time, research that might save my life might not be as far along.
* With the CDC currently unfunded, I have a greater chance of catching an infectious disease due to a lack of monitoring and control that might otherwise catch things before they become a problem.
* With the FDA unfunded, companies will be more likely to slip by with selling contaminated food, again increasing the risk of illness.
* With people not receiving food assistance, some people who can't afford to eat might become desperate and resort to crime. This could increase my chances of being a victim of mugging or robbery.
* My tax dollars for the duration of the shutdown are wasted, because it's unfair to *force* these federal employees to take time off without pay when, like the members of the house of representatives who are the cause of this shutdown, have mouths to feed and bills to pay.
Of course, the chances of being personally affected by any of these things are fairly low, provided the duration of the government shutdown is limited. If I *am* affected by these things, the chances of being able to *definitively* say it was due to the government shutdown are basically nil. On the other hand, these things do have a real effect on people, even people who believe themselves to be entirely self-made and independent. The trouble with these things is that in the short term they're easy to ignore, which people who believe that Government Is A Homogeneous Evil Fluid And There's No Such Thing As Good Government Only Bad Government seem to conflate with it being bad or unnecessary.
yea finding work now is dam near impossible.
I am a member of the Army Reserve. Since the shutdown we are not conducting our usual once a month drill. While this does not personally cause me financial distress, many of the Soldiers in my unit are like your average American living pay check to pay check. It definitely hurts them and their families when a (normally) reliable part of their income is suddenly taken away. Some of those same Soldiers have outstanding pay owed to them that they currently cannot get resolved because civilian workers who handle pay issues are furloughed. The Reserve Components (including the National Guard) make up 2/3 of the nation's military manpower. So while Congress pats itself on the back for managing to fund active duty service members' salaries and continue to play their political game, the rest of us suffer. We have been asked to fight and bleed just as much as our Active Component counterparts, yet like so many other Americans feeling the ripple effects of this pointless shutdown, we have been forgotten.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are living in both flush and lean times. Paycheck to paycheck does not mean on the edge... Seriously....
The fact of the matter is that what is going on right now is going on exactly as the framers of the Constitution intended.
Yeah, right. You know the intent of the framers; just like everyone else thinks they know. I don't believe the framers intended for this majority of the majority nonsense.
Thank you for asking.
My only question is why should the FEDERAL government be providing funding for a high school team to participate in a competition in the first place? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the local government or at the highest, the State government (although private finding would be the most preferred)?
Not that a robotics competition isn't a good idea to get kids involved in but why should it be the Federal governments responsibility to pay for your team? Does the Saint Paul HS (MN) marching band not get to go to their chosen competition because the Fredericksburg HS (VA) debate team has already used up the allotted funds. Or should they both be screwed over because your robotics team made it to the trough first?
Making the Federal government pay for everyone's pets projects is what gets a country into this mess to begin with.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
The framers of the Constitution intended that if one group of people (in this case the leaders of the Democratic Party) managed to force a change to the government with strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace, the House of Representatives would be able to stop the change from going into effect by denying funding to implement the change.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
As someone that works in the real world - producing wealth rather than consuming it - I agree. If you work for the government, why not quit and get a real job?
I just wish they would permanently lay off about 80% of government workers.
Shutdown has no effect on me.
Are you serious? Do you realize that not everyone will receive back pay during this time?
You honestly see this as a vacation? Tell you what... Why don't you take all of your paychecks during this time period and send them to a charity. Because for non-essential personnel that's pretty much what's happened to them in the past and what will probably happen to them when this is over. Oh, and those same people you see as having a vacation were already not being paid for a few days a week before this whole thing started because of the budget issues.
But the majority of the ones I see apparently don't care about those affected. As a Disabled American Veteran I am appalled that I gave my time and efforts for people like that.
Yes I'm affected by this, I will survive because I have a good job but I'll be loosing 1/3rd of my monthly income if this continues to the end of the month. Think about all of the disabled Veterans who will be struggling to survive because they rely on that income. The same Veterans that gave of themselves so that you can complain on this forum.
The framers of the Constitution intended that if one group of people (in this case the leaders of the Democratic Party) managed to force a change to the government with strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace, the House of Representatives would be able to stop the change from going into effect by denying funding to implement the change.
Even if you assertion (regarding the Framers) were true, the "strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace" is unfounded.
Many many folks IN the private sector are also not being paid and won't be paid back....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Amtrak does indeed lose money, but that's probably because gas taxes are far too low, and the state and federal government are losing huge amounts of money building and maintaining roads and bridges as well... If driving was more expensive, trains would be a better barrgain.
The USPS is a terrible example. Up until this year, they would have been profitable, if not for congress forcing them to pre-fund their retirement/pension plan, like no other company needs to do. USPS has been trying to drop Saturday service for years, which would bring them back to profitability, while still having better service than UPS which also doesnt do Saturday delivery withoout an extra fee. But UPS isnt saddled with congress pushing them around with ridiculous restrictions.
Fedex is a slightly different story, but with their "SmartPost" service, they are basically depending on the USPS to do their parcel deliveries for them, so if USPS disappears, Fedex wont be profitable, either.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I see this quite differently. Programs like SS and Medicare have caused a great many ( millions) to become dependent on the government. Think about it. How many elderly could get along without Social Security and Medicare? We have over 45 million on food stamps. Over the years I've had many thousands of dollars taken out of my pay check. I'm an active, small investor. Had I invested that money with the same success as my other investments I would be a multimillionaire. So in my eyes, the government stole that money from me, (course they stole it from the the program and used it for other things) but as it is, I have to depend on SS to keep a decent standard of living. I did plan ahead for retirement, but like most of the young I didn't start soon enough, yet my investments have allowed me to do many things since retiring and I still have as much as when I started. I blame Liberals and conservatives pretty much equally, but I blame Obama and his administration more than both together. He took the disaster that was Bush and made Bush look good and that is truly an accomplishment. One of the core courses taught at least in high school should be money management along with practical decision making. Credit Cards and credit should always be kept paid off or used for emergencies. Their use can easily double the cost of items. Learn how to invest in relatively low risk items. Gain is less but more secure. Get a good financial adviser who gains nothing from your investments. I would guess that most slash dotters have at least a Bachelors degree in a useful field, yet many, maybe the majority, earn useless degrees while piling up debt to get that degree that isn't capable of paying off those loans. AS a GA I taught a simple class (intro to computer science). I had 5 classes for a total of just shy of 200 students. Most were business majors, but less than 10% could type and about half of them did not appear to be suited for college. Students not suited for college, useless degrees, and a large debt load are a formula for a very unhappy life. If they don't have what it takes to earn a useful degree, they should save their money and time to be much farther ahead. Unlike a high percentage of slash dotters I'm a firm believer in Capitalism and rewarding effort. I earned a degree in science that paid well and my grades were good enough to earn a graduate assistant-ship.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the strong opposition is unfounded. Are you saying the opposition is not from a large portion of the population? Or are you saying that their opposition to this expansion of government power into people's personal lives is unfounded? If the first, you are wrong and merely need to look at various polls taken on the subject, those who oppose the ACA outnumber those who support it in every poll I have seen. If the latter, I am sorry you have such a low opinion of your own decision making ability.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Good luck: http://www.terrywahls.com/
"For four years, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis confined Dr. Terry Wahls to a tilt-recline wheelchair. But by using Functional Medicine to create the Wahls Protocolâ, Dr. Wahls has transformed her health and body: now she walks easily without a cane and commutes by bicycle. Dr. Wahls uses these diets and protocols in her primary care and traumatic brain injury clinics and is leading a clinical trial to test her protocols on others."
See also Dr. Joel Fuhrman's writings on "Nutritarianism" and similar.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=260
"I heard about Dr. Fuhrman and made an appointment. He told me on my first visit that MS is not a problem and we could handle this (my wife broke down in tears). Dr. Fuhrman explained everything, gave me a diet to follow and I was on my way. I have only had one follow up visit with him because I have steadily improved (no more numbness when I bend my neck, no more touching cold things on my legs and feeling like they are hot). I have absolutely no symptoms.
Since then, I have sent many people to Dr Fuhrman, some with MS, some with Lupus and they all are doing better. I regularly buy his books by the case and give them out. I tell every one who will listen about my story. I firmly believe that there are no coincidences in this world, everything has a purpose including my diagnosis. I am grateful for the opportunity to be helping Dr Fuhrman with his life purpose by sharing my story. Thank You!"
Anyway, hope some indirect good might come out of this shutdown for your family if this information helps.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Sure, I'd prefer an absolute reduction in spending, because we're funding lots of things I'd personally prefer to do away with at the federal level (Large portions of the NSA, the drug war and associated prison federal costs, big chunks of the military's overseas bases, corporate welfare, including the ACA, I can think of plenty...), but too many people don't realize how much we've increased spending in constant dollars at the federal level over the years.
But at least slowing down that spending increase would be a start...
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Actually income protection insurance covers that. It's just plain strange that Americans seem so hell bent on their own destruction that they don't have basic workers rights or universal medical insurance, let alone workers compensation or payouts if laid off without cause. Furloughs are also illegal here.
I have zero margin for error and I realistically expect that even if something major were to go wrong that I'll be just fine.
It costs so much because of the regulations that allow companies to carge much more fo drugs here than they do in other countries. Then add liability. Tort reform would get rid of frivolous lawsuits, not valid ones. A Dr in private practice pays more for liability insurance than most people make. The independent family Dr probably makes little more than many of us in the computer industry. The specialists OTOH are the "deep pockets" the lawyers target. As juries are selected based on how little the individuals know about the subject, or law. Want out of jury duty? Have an immediate family member who is a lawyer, nurse, or doctor. You might get called as a witness. How's it work? Two lawyers in the breast implant case years back made several times what the entire group claimants received and it was all based on junk science. Certainly, any time you stick a foreign substance in the human body a small percent will have a negative reaction, but no where that many. I was a project manager installing Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS). We had to go through FDA validation. That meant for the operation we had to prove every single operation the system could do. Log in? Print screen, leave acc and pw blank, hit enter, print screen. enter valid name and pw, print screen, press enter, print screen, enter valid name and PW + one character, print screen, enter valid name + 1 character and a valid pw, print screen, hit enter, print screen and so add en nauseum., We started with a stack of entries less than 1" thick. The results formed a pile of print outs over 4' tall. Everything had to have a records trail, from monitors to routers, to switches, to coax. It was a royal, expensive, time consuming, PITA. It'd take pages to describe how complex it was and much of it would not affect the data integrity. It is extremely expensive to develop a drug or medical appliance in the US
Is there then a category below "genuinely"? Because I'm too poor to have debt.
My social security check just covers the rent on a place of ~180 sq.ft.; I get a much smaller check from SSI and a very small amount from the state - both of these last to bring me up to some level of mandated minimum, as I understand it, for a total which works out around 75% of poverty level.
I'm "good" until any of the checks stop. If Medicare goes, I die, given the events of the past year and their continuing consequences. It keeps things simple enough, even if I'm not genuine.
Don't misunderstand - I'm grateful to have as much as I have; folks such as Frosty Piss have my sympathy. Retroactive pay is good, but the possibility of losing most everything before it kicks in doesn't make things easy. And for those without even that?
The worst part of this whole mess, apart from people's losses, is that by the time elections roll around, folks won't remember, and if they do, they'll likely remember it wrongly anyway.
No, you're just too smart to have debt. A lot of similarly poor but less smart people turn to payday lending/loan sharks and spend their lives running from collection agencies. There's always somebody willing to lend no matter how poor you are, as long as the rates are usurious enough.
Are you in subsidized housing? Are you getting food stamps? If not, it kind of sounds like you should look into them...
Nah, people will believe what they want to believe (i.e., what the talking heads tell them), just like they do right now.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"Income protection insurance" covers your furnace breaking? Or an accident (automobile or otherwise) for which you are at fault? Or getting arrested (whether you deserve it or not) and needing to bail yourself out? Or any number of other things which aren't covered by insurance that a person with a reasonable emergency fund could take in stride, but which would completely screw over someone living on the edge?
We have that. The problem is that the maximum it pays is minimum wage, and you're only eligible if you're a full-time employee (not a contractor).
If you actually have insurance for everything, don't you realize how inefficient that is compared to self-insuring with an emergency fund?
And what about the flip side: where there's an opportunity that requires extra money in order to take advantage of? Say, an incredible deal on some investment, or you win a vacation (but you still have to pay for food while you're there), or something like that? Wouldn't you have to refuse because you don't have the extra money?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's not some insidious scheme that makes the public believes that Social Security provides a valuable public service, and that it's the morally responsible thing to do. Before SS, there were still plenty of seniors, they just had to go to extremes like eat cat food to survive. On moral grounds, the public does not believe in letting people fall that far, even if they've made foolish investments, so that's the program we have.
The numbers certainly don't lie. Centuries of charity didn't reduce or eliminate poverty. Modern government programs have proven vastly more effective at doing so.
With a high-risk strategy, there is an opportunity for high rewards, but also complete losses. Social Security is more like an extremely safe investment, where you don't have ample growth, but you do have a guaranteed return. Just consider it one part of your diversified investment, instead of money "stolen" from you.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No, in fact I know that you're utterly wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
I'm not sure how you got those numbers, but I assume it was something simple like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That's not true in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
I'm not sure how you got your numbers, but I assume it was some simple error like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That's not true in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
I'm not sure how you got your numbers, but I assume it was some simple error like failing to account for inflation, or by accounting for it in absolute numbers, trying to make him responsible for all the debt incurred by GW Bush that Obama merely inherited.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No, poster said "liberal's" and "Obamacare". You are taking one tiny bit I quoted, and taking it completely out of context to make an absolutely idiotic, inaccurate argument.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Erm Home insurance covers furnace breaking, car insurance covers writing off your car even when you're at fault, income protection covers getting arrested (yes it does).
Yes I realise it. I did the basic maths. You see insurance for everything happens to also cover things that no sufficient self-insured emergency fund can cover. I've heard the self insurance arguments before, yeah house insurance to cover an appliance is nonsense, but self-insuring against your house burning down is effectively not possible in our world. Same goes for cars. My car is worth $1000. I don't care if I write it off. Yet I happen to know someone who wrote off a piece of shit as well wiping out around a corner and drove it straight into a telecom exchange. His insurance covered the $100k bill as well as his $3k car.
You think people should save money and self insure.
I think people should have full comprehensive insurance and invest every remaining cent into their future (that does not mean store it in a bank).
The military is a waste of money. If the standing army was abolished tomorrow, there isn't a country on the planet that could invade the US and hold anything in the contiguous 48 for more than a day or two. There are more guns in private hands in LA than in the waterborne Chinese army. Try taking LA with the chinese army, and you'll end up with a bunch of dead chinese and some artillery damage to LA. The army is useless for defense. They were designed and placed for a Russian invasion after a limited nuclear war. A chain of massively improbable events, but the only one that justified a military about the equal of the rest of the world combined.
Abolish the army, and pay off the debt. It's the best choice.
Learn to love Alaska
No it doesn't; home insurance covers when some external event damages your furnace, but I'm talking about when it breaks by itself because it's worn out.
But what about some other kind of general liability? Do you really have insurance that covers every kind of accident you could possibly cause?
So you seem to agree with me, but you're not making sense otherwise. If you agree that you should pay to replace your own appliance, how do you do so if you have zero savings? Say your income (after taxes and retirement account funding) is $3000/month and your spending is $3000/month (which is what "living paycheck to paycheck" means!). Then something petty and stupid, like your microwave breaks and you need to spend $50 to get a new one. Well congratulations, that $50 put you in the hole. Now you need to buy it on credit, but the credit payment isn't in your budget either, so interest accrues. This process accelerates until you're bankrupt. And all because you couldn't be bothered to set aside literally a couple bucks a month.
What living paycheck to paycheck means is that you have zero flexibility to absorb that kind of minor unexpected expense. Do you really not see how insane that is?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the strong opposition is unfounded. Are you saying the opposition is not from a large portion of the population? Or are you saying that their opposition to this expansion of government power into people's personal lives is unfounded? If the first, you are wrong and merely need to look at various polls taken on the subject, those who oppose the ACA outnumber those who support it in every poll I have seen. If the latter, I am sorry you have such a low opinion of your own decision making ability.
The former. Yes, polls that use the "Obamacare" term show low support - especially when those polls are from rightwing shills like The Heritage Foundation or Fox News. Check out polls that actually ask about the details of ACA - you will see support far outnumbers oppostition.
Even polls that use the term Affordable Care Act show higher opposition than support, even when done by arms of the Democratic Party such as Public Policy Polling. Yes, there is support for elements of the ACA, but people disapprove of the way it was passed, and of the way those elements were put together in it. The Affordable Care Act was passed in a manner which has reduced the legitimacy of the U.S. government (I was going to write "perceived legitimacy" but I realized that a government that is perceived as illegitimate by the people it governs IS illegitimate). The way that the current Administration has handled the government shutdown causes me to not just dislike the ACA, but to fear it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The way that the current Administration has handled the government shutdown causes me to not just dislike the ACA, but to fear it.
The government shutdown has nothing to do with the ACA, except in the minds of Republicans who are holding the government hostage.
Do you really want your health care managed by a government that shuts down parks out of spite?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Do you really want your health care managed by a government that shuts down parks out of spite?
Do you really want a House that shuts down the government out of spite?
Not smart, poor. Unless you count smart as not getting in deeper straits than I am already in. Given some of the people I've met over the years, I can feature some of them hitting the check cashing places, but I know no one the past twenty years at my lowly rung of the demographic ladder who does so.
No, no helpful housing; an application is in, but with a felony on record it's iffy. Very iffy, as in usually not bloody likely. Yes, I get food stamps, only way I can make it. I'm still not fit enough to walk to any of the meal sites nor stand long enough at a bus stop, which puts a crimp on things even now.
I have no idea of what your comment on belief was about or in reference to regarding something I said. The last time I spent even a few minutes listening to a 'talking head' I found him to be just as shallow and un-insightful, just as dedicated to (or making money from) one of the usual transparent agendas as he and his ilk have tended to be, especially more so since the Reagan years when there seemed to me to be a shift towards greater polarization of what passes for political "discussion".
If it was a general reference to "the big lie" kind of thing, then sure, that's life in the information age where winnowing useful data, fact, and insight is often a non-trivial act.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. The fact that you realize you can't afford to have debt separates you from many (most?) people, including those at the same income level.
Oops! I quoted the wrong part of your message; that was supposed to have been in reply to "The worst part of this whole mess, apart from people's losses, is that by the time elections roll around, folks won't remember, and if they do, they'll likely remember it wrongly anyway."
The point I completely failed to make was that folks don't pay attention to what's actually going on either now or later; they just parrot what [Fox News|CNN] says without thinking about it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
By established constitutional case law. A president doesn't have a line item veto, either formal (striking something down with a signature) or informal (pretending it isn't there).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let me be clear: the constitution is not the end all be all of protecting freedom. Please do not assume motivations on my part. It remains true that gridlock mostly serves to protect freedom, and that the constitution as written helped make it possible. There is nothing inherently pro-freedom about democracy (although it's better than monarchy). The two are not synonymous. Having been passed by a pure party line vote (actually, opposition was a little bipartisan), using procedural tricks, it has very little legitimacy compared to things such as the Iraq war. Play political hardball to get something passed, and it's going to be subject to every sort of political trick people can dream up to get rid of it when the opposition gains power. As, in fact, they did in the immediate following election.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Ah, gotcha, both bits, and thank you. I'm a little slow today. Well, not just today.
It's a funny thing; I find as I get older that it's more apparent the need to attend various viewpoints, even when they're unsupported opinion so as to see what un-thinking folks are, um, not thinking, but that the energy and fortitude to do so is not always easy to come by. Crap, it's trade-offs all the way down.
If I ever get anything figured out, I am not going to write a book. People who already know stuff won't need to read it and those who might could use it wouldn't believe me. I'd likely be wrong anyway, but at least have a chance to make a few bucks somewhere in there.
I know a local couple, nice, good people the both of them, own a high-end yet down-to-home cigar and regular bar; bought the business, later bought the building, expanded the bar, live music several nights, and a good and mixed clientèle, no false airs. He does real estate survey and appraisal and is quite good at it. His wife does the bulk of the bar management.
Guy is a stone un-examined, un-examining Republican somewhere in the vein of a Goldwater-McCain ore. Yet he gets the bulk of his political information from Fox. We've made several tries over the years to talk politics and gotten nowhere fast, to the point that a few times things have gotten stiff and stilted for a space. So we're left with commonalities in discussing local business and local politics in a collegial [yeah, the spell checker doesn't like it either] way - which is quite OK, whether we agree or not. I'm not judging here, don't want to anyway; it's that sometimes finding the mutual limits to discourse can have minefields. That, and seeing a good mind in there, it seems... wasteful. And if it makes sense, I'd rather hang around people who disagree for well-founded reasons than those who agree for unsupportable ones.
Umm, cite? Outside of the military, there have been many calls for cuts in Mandatory spending. They ask for it every time and the Dems are never willing to put it on the table. Hell, Boehner just asked for Mandatory cuts just recently in response to White House demands for a "clean" CR.
Except that the Dems have traditionally always made gains against their opponents with claims of "they're going to take away your [insert FDR program]". Remember when Bush wanted to private Social Security? And now again with Obamacare. And regardless, it's not necessarily about power -- some of it is about just about having a terrible program stick around forever. Republicans know that once enough people start getting all the "free" stuff, they won't want to lose it. Americans are notorious for wanting all kinds of programs, but never being willing to pay for them. This is the problem Republicans are trying to avoid.
I'm not convinced that's the case. I think politically they thought it would be a victory -- remember, they believed they were given some kind of "mandate" to be as partisan as possible (many still believe it). Hell, I think some of them simply smugly think they know better than the American people. Still others figured that "anything" was better than "nothing" since it was Obama's primary agenda -- failing to pass it could have been seen as a bigger political failure than passing it in its crappy state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States#Federal_government
Note all the Blue under the "House" column.
The wage gap is larger than ever -- poverty is at an all time high. Effective, you say?
Says who? All signs point to the program being broke (or the terms heavily modified) by the time I get to take advantage of it. My money would be far safer in an account I own and have full control over.
We spent $2.9 trillion (out of $2.5 trillion in revenue) on "mandatory" and defense in 2012. In other words, we were already $400 billion in the red before we even spent a penny on national parks or NASA or roads or any of the other stuff people actually want the government to do. In 2012, all that stuff cost only $615 billion, which is small peanuts compared to the "mandatory" junk. Clearly, all this whining about cutting out little chunks of programs, like the Tea Partiers are doing, is pretty much worthless.
More to the point, they're certainly not talking about cutting "mandatory"+defense by 36%, which is what it actually would have taken in order to balance the budget in 2012. Even Paul Ryan's plan would have an ~$850 billion deficit in 2013 and a ~$525 billion deficit in 2014!
(2012 revenue total came from here; the rest came from here)
Not to mention, of course, I could also cite stuff like this and this....
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Umm, I think you're confused. The Democrats are the one pushing for the Discretionary small change. The Tea Party (and the Republicans in general) want grander reforms to Mandatory spending (part of the reason they target Obamacare). However, the only cuts the Democrats are willing to put on the table are discretionary (that's why Obama's sequestration plan dodged mandatory cuts entirely).
Yes general wear out is covered by some policies. Just like the definition of motor burn-out is very wide and can be applied to a 50 year old fridge if you want. It all depends on your insurance.
Yes I have car insurance that covers every type of external liability. Actually for medical and personal liability it's compulsory in my country. It covers everything except 3rd party property, and 3rd party property is the minimum coverage on the non-compulsory insurance. The insurance even covers some illegal circumstances (speeding, drink driving etc).
You seem to have a disconnect between the entire discussion. If I needed an extra $50 I would likely skip a trip to the movies or something similar. Most families that live paycheck to paycheck to do comfortably and temporal discomfort is something that is quite easily absorbed. That's the kind of average families we're talking about. Hell the reason they live paycheck to paycheck is due to uncontrolled loose spending. Losing a microwave or a fridge is a small issue. Losing a months paycheck on the other hand is incredibly disruptive without some coverage, ... which brings me back to income protection insurance.
Here in the US we call that kind of thing a "maintenance agreement" which is usually separate from "insurance" and typically expensive enough that a substantial fraction of people (especially the smarter ones who have savings) don't bother to get it.
When I asked "but what about some other kind of general liability?" I was talking about non-driving-related liability. Like -- I don't know -- if you were walking around somewhere (like a shop or a friend's house) and tripped and broke something expensive. Obviously, your car insurance wouldn't cover that.
The general point I was trying to make is that surely there's some circumstance in the infinite universe of possibilities where something could happen to you that would cost you money to fix, but would not be covered by any of the various insurances you have. And that that's what you'd need an emergency fund for.
No, it's not -- in fact, maybe that's the whole problem here. In the US, "living paycheck to paycheck" means that by the time you get done paying rent, utilities, commuting costs (gas or bus fare, etc.) and the bare minimum groceries you are done and have no money left over. Having $50 to spend on the movies means that you are not "living paycheck to paycheck" but rather that you have $50 left over as discretionary funds, which you choose to spend on the movies.* "Living paycheck to paycheck" means, by definition that you cannot easily absorb any unexpected expense. For the kind of households I'm talking about, getting a flat tire means they have to choose between having the lights on or eating (or paying on credit and starting a downward spiral to bankruptcy and homelessness).
(* Technically, it can also mean you do have $50 to spend on the movies -- or cable TV, or eating out, or whatever -- but consider it a mandatory expense in the same priority as rent because you're an idiot. I mention this because it's way more common than you might think.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So you can selectively pretend words you don't like were never said by whomever you're defending... It's called "selective memory". I guess that's a convenient disability to have.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Neither is true in the slightest. There has recently been a slight regression, but it's pure IDIOCY to claim an "ALL TIME HIGH". Just look back to the great depression, when these programs were formed, to see VASTLY WORSE.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Well this comes back to volcano insurance right. I don't have that either. On the same note you don't often find people who can't afford something really expensive walking through really expensive stores and breaking things.
As for living paycheck to paycheck your idea may be right but it is definitely not the topic of discussion here. In the rest of the thread the average american lives comfortably but still does paycheck to paycheck, i.e. they are quite bad at saving and don't typically keep the kinds of thousands of dollars laying around that will allow them to laugh off a month of lost work. Mandatory expenses as you rightfully say is the lower-middle class way of saying "preserving my lifestyle".
In any case these people would get quite screwed around with a sudden loss of sizeable income unless they have some kind of insurance.
I put myself into this category. $5000 in the bank to me sounds like $5000 that should be in the stock market or reducing my homeloan interest or dedicating to pay off the car earlier.
First of all, this entire time I've been including things like investments and extra debt repayments as "savings" (they may not be as easy to get to as cash in the bank, but it's still possible to use them as emergency funds). If you make $4000/month, spend $2000 and put the other $2000 in stocks, that's what I call having a 50% savings rate (and living way, way below your means -- if you keep that kind of thing up, you can retire at 30 like the mrmoneymustache.com guy).
Second, I think you've got some overly-optimistic ideas about how the "average American" lives. They not only don't keep cash in the bank, they don't have any investments either. They don't even have any retirement savings (other than Social Security)! In total, the median saved for retirement by all US households is $3,000. The "average American" really is living paycheck-to-paycheck according to my definition, not yours, and gets entirely screwed by his own stupidity when the slightest thing goes wrong.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And you're going to do that when there's six unemployed people for every job opening? Know how employers are reluctant to hire candidates that are "overqualified" for the position? How about hiring a worker that could be called back to his old job any day now?
Yeah, the one he just extended. But Obama's fail does jack and shit, respectively, to change the fact that Clinton left the government with a surplus that was gutted by Bush's tax cuts, and Jack left town.
But budgets originate with the President, not the House. Jack says "sorry, you lose, teabaggers".
Sorry, buddy. Revenues increased during most of Bush's presidency. It was increased spending that ended the surplus, whether as a result of 9/11 spending, or the spending party when Dem's took congress and the Senate at the end of 2006.
And on budget origination, your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired. If the President is going to propose a budget, maybe he should propose one that at least gets votes from his own party. I'd even settle for it if he'd make his proposal on time as specified by law, but he can't even seem to do that. President incompetence talks a good game, hut his execution leaves much to be desired.
I see we've reached the part of the conversation when your storyline runs into the wall of reality, and you start throwing out word salads.
Sure, if you ignore those useless tax cuts for the rich adding trillions to the national debt. Funny math you guys have there on Planet Rand.
Eliminate Bush's wars and Bush's tax cuts and we might still have a surplus. We definitely wouldn't have doubled the national debt.
Or the Flying Spaghetti monster attacking New York, as long as we're pulling events that didn't happen out of our asses.
And now we've reached the part of the conversation where your eyes start moving in opposite directions. The Senate, where the majority of the Senators are from 'Obama's own party', have passed a budget. It's the House - not controlled by the Dems - that has been voting down any budget that doesn't defund Obomneycare.
By many measurements, it's definitely true, but you are right that total poverty is below depression levels:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/supplemental-poverty-measure_n_1080160.html
http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2013/09/17/us-working-age-poverty-remains-near-record-high-in-2012/
Way to go!
/. needs many more like you. Disagree without being disagreeable. /. sniffs like the other side of fox news: you know what their position is before you even hear it. since /. is self moderating, like zip codes , MD vs VA, etc, you end up with pockets of folks just like you.
oops, my post didn't read right. Meant you end up with pockets of folks *who all think alike*
Actually SS doesn't work that way. It is simply a trust fund that earns nothing. So on one hand the Trust Fund loses value due to inflation and in theory would be little better than money under the mattress, SS was designed to be supported by those working and would be able to pay benefits to retirees for the rest of their lives. Two things happened that will cause this to fail. It may be a Trust Fund, but the government raided it, using money for other purposes and the work force is getting smaller even with out the so called recession. So, even with out the government raiding it, SS is paying out much more than it's taking in. The workforce is shrinking while the number taking money out of SS is growing rapidly. This means that those entering the work force, or who have even been in there for a generation are going to pay more, wait longer, to get less. SS is anything but a secure investment and that guaranteed return is looking less sure all the time. Many younger workers don't ever expect to see a dime from SS and although I believe they will be served they will pay more and wait longer for less. There are only two ways to save SS. Support it with taxes which will hurt, or go to the Capitol Accumulation Plan approach which in the long run is much safer. It earns money with "low risk" investments. About the only way it would fail is if the economy tanks and at that point, SS would be broke as well. If inflation goes to the point where it was in the early 80s SS will be of little value. I had CDs that paid close to 20% back then. If I'd have been smart, I'd have settled at 16% for 30 years. 20% doubles your money every 3.8 years, but conversely that high inflation makes what you have worth much less. There are better investments, with guaranteed returns that earn money. Like any investment, the less the risk, the less the return, but they keep up with inflation, or outpace it a bit and unlike SS are not hostage to the idea that the work force is always increasing and is guaranteed to lose value to inflation which is far higher than the official figures that do not include food and fuel. So, no, I can't look at SS as a safe investment, let alone, extremely safe. The government tells us that within the next 10 to 20 years it is going to take extreme measures to save SS. That does not build confidence. I have far more faith in the capitalistic approach than the way SS works. We have a name for how SS is supported and private industry is not allowed to use that approach because it always fails. We will never completely eliminate poverty under any system.
This is one thing:
"Anybody near the center of the income distribution or above"
This is quite another:
" i.e., the great majority of Americans"
The problem is you are using the term "income distribution" and it is a term financial analysts use very loosely, specifically, how it is calculated and presented isn't a concrete and defined thing. Unfortunately, census.gov is down so I can't see if there is data there I can use to get a REAL set of stats on "income distribution." But I will do my best to unfuzz the conversation and get to some actual numbers.
Let's start with the table of household incomes from 2011 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States.
Checking this, we see aprox 50% of the income earning households are making <$5000-$45,000. Most of those (33% of total US population) earn between $10k-$40. Most of those earn between $10k-$25k. So the most typical income in the US between $10-$14 at 5.89% but the gap is within 0.21% in the $10k-$25k range so it is fair to call that whole range typical (more Americans fall in this income range than any other) and the median of that range is $17,000 for a household. In other words $17,000 is the most typical average income for American households even though the majority of the population with income make more than this (it's estimated that 40% of american's don't file taxes and the typical cause is having little or no income to report so MOST american's actually make less than $10k but we are using the chart for now).
So lets see how far that goes trying to maintain a minimal US standard of living. That's $1416/month gross if we ballpark 30% for mandatory withholding it is $944/mo. If you hunt you can find a tiny and crappy hole for $600 in many places and you will by necessity be living in one of those places. That leaves you $344 for utilities, phone+internet (both ARE essentials in the modern age even if you will have to go minimal), food, healthcare, car+gas, car insurance, and entertainment (yes a certain amount of entertainment and social interaction is essential for a human being to be happy) for you and your family (this is household income not individual). Where is the margin for savings? There isn't much of anything there to plan. Utilities alone is going to eat $200. That leaves $144. Even just going to work and back you are going to need $80 for gas that is unavoidable. That leaves $66 for all the rest. You have a pay as you go phone and use it as little as possible. You use the cheap unadvertised internet for $15. Now $51 - phone usage. Insurance? You don't have it. Healthcare? Emergency room and you don't pay the bills because you can't afford them. Food? Food Stamps, because the typical american household makes so little they qualify and they should they NEED them in order to eat. You are down to MAYBE $51 after "welfare" and it's doubtful you are putting it in a savings account, $51 just doesn't go far and that is all you have for phone, incidentals, and entertainment. There is no way that's going in a savings account.
If you are at the top end of typical at $25k you've got another $333 a month but then you don't qualify for the food stamps. Someone here is probably going to spend the difference on some of the stuff that was simply not paid by $17k guy. They certainly aren't likely to accumulate savings. Car trouble alone will eat more than they can save. And lets face it, they have next to nothing for entertainment, they are probably going to spend a chunk on cable to waste the time away.
I chose my words carefully, and yes, the two statements are equivalent.
At $1416/month, withholding (and tax) is about $61/month. On the other hand, you don't qualify for food stamps because at that income level, you aren't poor.
What your attempt at a budget actually tells me is that you're rich (if you have 30% withholding, you have to be) and don't know how to budget yourself because your budget is way off.
It starts with your silly assumption that the only way to get housing is to go out and rent a $600 apartment by yourself. Your Internet and utilities estimates are also way off.
According to a calculator I just ran it's about $75/week or $300 a month.
http://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/salary/
Weekly Gross Pay $354.00
Federal Withholding $38.17
Social Security $21.94
Medicare $5.13
New Mexico $9.90
WC $0.15
"On the other hand, you don't qualify for food stamps because at that income level, you aren't poor."
Actually you do, because housing and utility cost are considered and if you don't think that is poor you are out of your mind.
"It starts with your silly assumption that the only way to get housing is to go out and rent a $600 apartment by yourself."
I suppose you could try to pack your wife and kid into a room for rent/roommate situation somewhere but you still aren't going to shave more than $100 off doing it.
I live on less than $1000/month and I'm not even trying to save money; if I did, I could shave off a couple of hundred dollars off that. No, that's not "poor".
If you make $1461/month, you shouldn't get married to a stay-at-home wife, and you certainly shouldn't have kids until your income increases. If you do anyway, it's your own fault.
And if you're a single guy, you can easily get a roommate and cut rent and utility bills nearly in half and save even more.
You said "30% withholding". "Withholding" is what the IRS does for federal taxes. Federal taxes are around $723 on that income for a single person; divide by 12 to get the monthly withholding, it's not rocket science. I don't know why PayrollCity gets $34.33 per week, but it's wrong. Social Security and Medicare do add another $100/month, of course.
For the record. Here it is the evening just before the debt limit is crashed.
"Weeks of bitter political fighting gave way to a frenzied night in Washington as Congress passed the bill that would prevent the country from crashing into the debt ceiling."
Just as predectid, no deal before the last minutes. We get to repeat this in January or Febuary. Oh joy.
The truth shall set you free!