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.
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).
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.
The whole problem?
I'd love to send some of these small government fetishists back to the start of the 19th century to see what it really felt like for the average man (or, worse, woman).
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?
In other words, 'we had a year to come up with a budget and you decided to wait until the last minute and blackmail the rest of the government to get your way. If I give in to that, this crap will never end...guess I can't negotiate." Your POV is a little skewed.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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!
> Both, equally.
Exactly ... well, perhaps not exactly equally, but that's part of the problem. People think that because their particular politicritters are fractionally better on some things, that makes the other party a true Crowd of Hoodlums.
Both parties may have different policies and beliefs and different strategies for firing up their base(s) and winning elections, but anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.
The attempt by both parties to blame this current shutdown on the other would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
It's interesting to watch this from the outside. I don't quite understand how you got into this situation. In Australia, if the Senate blocks supply of funding for the government to run, that triggers a double dissolution of parliament. At that point, a general election of both the Upper and Lower houses of the Government is triggered. All seats are open. The public then gets to vote on which idiots we want to run the country. Generally, the voters side against the politicians that caused the mess in the first place. So it rarely gets to this point.
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.
No no no no! They had 7 months to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget that BOTH groups passed. 18 times the Senate tried to get a committee together to work on those differences. 18 times the HOUSE refused to appoint anyone to do so. Now that the shit has hit the fan the HOSUE says sure we'll talk so long as the health care plan is axed, the president said "eat shit".
Lets be VERY clear here - the HOUSE has a bill that would fund the entire Govt sitting on their desk. All that has to be done, because the majority over there has agreed to pass it, is put it up for a VOTE. Boner the Repub leader REFUSES to do so.
Lay the blame where it belongs - on a MINORITY of Republican asshats in the House being led by Bahner aka Boner. Yes, I WILL remember this come election time - no doubt!
here's a refresher on the process for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
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.
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!
Actually, yes, through a quirk of the Constitution the clowns in D.C. are indeed getting paid.The 27th Amendment prohibits changes to Congressional salaries from taking effect until the next election. The original intent was to keep Congress from voting itself a raise, but according to some legal experts it means we can't stop paying them either.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
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
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.
It's a lot more likely that you will get fired and lose your Medicare coverage, than it is for the government to turn tyrannical and stop providing health care funding. I'm Canadian. Our public health care provides me with peace of mind. It's like employment insurance - you never know when you're going to need it. I'm 31 and probably won't need it for another 40 years, and yes, it's a waste of money until I do. But I wouldn't give it up for anything. There are a few advantages: first, there is no upper limit on how much treatment you get - whereas with insurance-based systems often you are only insured up to a certain amount. Second, there are no co-payments; getting sick won't bankrupt me. Third, I don't have to worry about paying for sick relatives - I know people in the USA who have lost everything paying for treatment for sick family members and friends. Our health care system has some problems (e.g. long wait times in some areas, high cost), but I would take it over a private system any day.
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/
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.
Every point in your post is the complete opposite of the truth. It's the Republicans who repeatedly threaten to take away the Government when they don't get concession on top of concession. And most of the safety net programs are designed to keep you from becoming destitute and therefore remain employable instead of becoming a social burden. And the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is not Government health care; It's the opposite of that. You are required to take responsibility for yourself and get yourself insured so we don't have to pay for you when things go wrong, but beyond that it's up to you to make a deal with your own private insurer. They even provide an online free market system in which to do it. It's a Conservative wet dream, but they can't let Obama get credit for it. That's why they have no plan themselves, just repeal and go back to the old system.
So now they're demanding we bring back pre-existing conditions, re-enstate lifetime insurance caps, make it harder for low-income and working class women to control their fertility, make us pay for some uninsured YOLO's emergency room visit, keep graduate students or people starting their career from staying on previous insurance while they're getting on their feet, eliminate preventive care for diabetics and other high-risk individuals forcing them to go to the emergency room when things get bad, eliminate vaccination programs, allow insurers to raise rates to increase their profits arbitrarily, prevent individuals starting businesses to self-insure in an open competitive marketplaces or else they'll shut down the Government, refuse to negotiate a budget, and default on the debt. Yeah. That makes sense.
E pluribus unum
Yeah, it doesn't work that way here. There is no mechanism to force a non-scheduled election of Senators and Representatives. Right now there is no authority for certain departments that run off of a budget (we have plenty that don't -- Medicare and Social Security, for instance) to spend any money. This can theoretically continue indefinitely. Also in our system, the lower house must originate spending bills, but the upper house has equal rights to amend those bills.
The more interesting crisis is the debt ceiling vote coming up. It used to be that every time Congress would need to issue debt, they'd do it "manually" by voting to do so. When that became too cumbersome, they put in place a limit to how much debt the Treasury could issue. From time to time when tax revenue is less than spending, they have to vote to raise that limit or else we are in default.
It's an odd situation. Congress says $X must be spent on Y, but less than $X comes in via revenue, but they also say that no debt can be issued to make up the shortfall. It's contradictory instructions, and I believe we're alone in the civilized world in this regard.
It's basically the same story in Canada (and, I suspect, many commonwealth nations) - if the government tables a budget and it's defeated, the country has an immediate election. And since random elections are generally not appreciated by the public, any party seen as "responsible" for the election basically lives or dies on their reason for bringing down the government. Was the ruling party off their rocker? They're probably going to get turfed. Was a minor party just jerking the entire country around for political points? They can expect a massacre at the ballot box. Thus, we too rarely get into situations where the government is in such a tizzy that they can't even pay the bills. So watching the US government throw a hissy-fit that puts the entire country (and much of the global economy) at risk is something very, very strange to watch. I hope they resolve it soon, because playing chicken with a US default isn't something that anyone wants to see.
PS: We're really super jealous of your elected senate up here. Ours is basically a big pit that we throw money into, and all of the PM's buddies get to dive into it like Scrooge McDuck.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.
No, of course, they are both "owned" by their corporate masters (including unions, PACs, et.al.) and differ only in the flavor and consistency of their BS. It's been building a long time, but the 2010 Citizens United SCOTUS decision was a major tipping point -- over the proverbial cliff.
Since this results from a Supreme Court decision, the only way to fix is with a constitutional amendment. If you would like to change it, check out MoveToAmend.org and Wolf-PAC.com. Sign and propagate the petitions. Get active. Contact your representatives at all levels.
The 26th Amendment was proposed and ratified in just over 100 days, back in 1971. This can be done.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
It's not both.
It's a law. Like any other law, if a group doesn't like it, they should try to get it hanged or repealed. In this case, the Republicans, after having passed the law, tried to get it repealed 42 times, including a jaunt into the Supreme Court.
Since they failed in every conceivable fashion to get the law repealed through the normal channels, they decided to take the budget hostage. While procedurally they aren't breaking any rules, this is an incredibly dickish move.
At least the public seems to be aware of why this is happening. And the republicans have now granted the democrats use of this new tool. Hoisted by their own petard.
~X~
For the senate to compromise with the Tea Party is like you having to compromise with someone that is threatening to shoot you.
Tea Party: I want to shoot you in the head, OK?
You:No.
Tea Party: OK, let's compromise. How about if I just shoot you in the stomach?
You:No.
Tea Party:Be reasonable! Then just let me shoot you in the hand. This is my final offer.
You:No.
Tea Party: So you won't negotiate. So, I'll just put up roadblocks everywhere so nothing can get though. And it's all your fault!