The Cost of the US Government Shutdown To Science

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Cost of the US Government Shutdown To Science

Posted by Soulskill on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:30AM from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Schiffman writes in The Guardian that the Republican-led shutdown of the U.S. government caused significant damage to many scientific programs. For example: shortly before the shutdown started, over a hundred scientists had gathered to perform critical equipment tests on the James Webb Space Telescope — Hubble's successor — and that work was unable to continue without the government around. 'Not only did this delay cost the program an estimated $1M a day, but, given NASA's tight schedule, some tests may never get done now.' It doesn't stop there: 'This is only one of untold thousands of projects that were mothballed when Congress's failure to approve a budget defunded the US government at the start of the month. Federal websites were taken offline, scientists couldn't receive emails, attend meetings, or interact with their colleagues. Crucial environmental, food safety and climate monitoring programs were either suspended, or substantially scaled back.' Schiffman provides a few more examples, including one project that's losing a year's worth of work and equipment that will end up buried under snow in Antarctica. But it goes beyond even the basic funding issues; in many cases, scientific work is simply too intertwined with the government to continue without it. Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' center for science and democracy, said, 'It is all so interconnected now. Federal researchers collect data that is utilized by researchers in academia, by people working in industry, at state and local levels, so when you ask how dependent are we on the federal government in terms of science, it's a bit like asking: do you need your left leg?'"

355 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:32 · Score: -1

Did Obama let it happen?
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:33 · Score: -1
  
  because Ted Cruz touches himself at night.
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:36 · Score: -1
  
  because Ted Cruz touches himself at night.
  No one touches you, ever.
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:37 · Score: -1
  
  i think abut you and touch myself
4. Re:Why? by publiclurker · 2013-10-20 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you think you can still try to blame the victims?
5. Re:Why? by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 02:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The short answer is because the demands were unreasonable, and ending health care reform to appease a small minority of the country's demands doesn't make sense. The longer answer can be found in across a thousand other websites and is completely off-topic. Try going to another website if you're interested in talking about it. I mean, there's probably a youtube video related to the politics where you can get a vigorous text war going.
  
  To redirect back on topic: why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science? I don't hear a lot of discussion about what rules need to be changed for the next shutdown. Here's my suggestion: in the event of a shutdown, absolutely no congressional support services will be provided. No staffers can answer the phone from their congresspeople. No electricity in the capitol. No fucking gym open. No paychecks including back pay for congress persons. No security guards will be protecting the reps. None. Congressmen can hold meetings at a starbucks or something if they feel like it. Conversely, science research will absolutely not be affected.
  
  I'd start a petition on change.org or writing a letter to congress urging that, but I think my time might better be spent wishing on a star.
6. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-10-20 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science?
  Because making "Science!" unessential could be parlayed into news articles.
  Face it, a news article about the fact that government bureacrats had to empty their own trash wouldn't have nearly the appeal of "This Science! project was delayed by two weeks, and some of it may NEVER be done now! It was going to cure death, but now we've lost any chance of that, thanks to those EVIL Republicans!!!"
  Note that running the National Parks was also considered nonessential, even to the extent that a lot of EXTRA work was done to shut them down - I especially like the traffic cones blocking the highway shoulders OUTSIDE Mount Rushmore - only put up in places from which someone could pull off the road (outside the Park, remember?) to take photos of Mount Rushmore....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  People made hay out of the fact that shutdowns have happened many times in the past; it would stand to reason that if the shutdown was done improperly, you should be able to point to how it is different from other shutdowns.
8. Re:Why? by hallkbrdz · 2013-10-20 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  > Did Obama let it happen?
  Let?
  Congress - the House and the Senate must work together to pass a BUDGET before the current one expires. That is then signed into law by the current President.
  This CR business is a real problem, and the Senate seems uninterested in actually doing to work to create one. Instead of normal, yearly budgets passed in the spring, in plenty of time - we just keep taking onto what we had the previous year in a "crisis" mode not long before 1 October. That honestly IS in a good part Obama's fault. The democrat held Senate has not passed a budget since April 2009! And democrats still had the majority in spring 2010, so no excuses there.
9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Note that running the National Parks was also considered nonessential, even to the extent that a lot of EXTRA work was done to shut them down
  It costs money for a proper shutdown, you can't just walk away from a place, otherwise that's violating actual obligations to maintain the properties.
  
  - I especially like the traffic cones blocking the highway shoulders OUTSIDE Mount Rushmore - only put up in places from which someone could pull off the road (outside the Park, remember?) to take photos of Mount Rushmore....
  Actually, those traffic cones were put up for a safety issue, so people didn't just drive around willy nilly, but had lanes to use. Really, they weren't any kind of effective barrier, they were just a way to help people drive a little safer.
  But do believe the story you've been fed about it.
10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  "This Science! project was delayed by two weeks, and some of it may NEVER be done now! It was going to cure death, but now we've lost any chance of that, thanks to those EVIL Republicans!!!"
  Eh. Science! wasn't the only thing closed, nor was it the only thing in the news. For instance, there was that tiny little office that decides what kinds of beer you can sell, that was threatening to keep all the microbreweries from selling their halloween and thanksgiving brews.
  News here is that apparently the Tea Party was too busy grandstanding to pull the jesus dildo out their ass and fix the laws so people could get drunk without their approval. It remains to be seen if they'll act on reducing the size of government through eliminating regulatory bodies now that the crisis is over.
11. Re:Why? by Patent+Lover · 2013-10-20 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  In their defense, the towel service at the gym was unavailable during the shutdown.
12. Re:Why? by Guppy06 · 2013-10-20 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  To redirect back on topic: why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science?
  Because the standard used for "essential" is "Would stopping this put life and limb into immediate jeopardy?" As you'll note from the constant complaints about science funding or the lack thereof, spending on scientific research and development is the epitome of a long term investment, which generally means that turning it off won't cause any immediate hospitalizations.
  And everyone wants to see their own special interest declared "essential." The Tea Party wanted the exception to be certain war monuments, for example. Why is a space telescope more essential than, say, Head Start? This is how politics works.
13. Re:Why? by jbolden · 2013-10-20 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly are you going to strip congress of the authority to declare staff essential? Moreover, frankly congressmen being able to get information I'd consider a heck of a lot more essential than things that did remain open like air travel. If congress is cut off from their staff we don't have the capacity for the democracy to respond to new and changing information.
  The shutdown is stupid. Let's not make it more stupid by breaking important stuff.
14. Re:Why? by jbolden · 2013-10-20 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  The Republicans like to point to this. But the way a budget into the Senate is for it to be a House Budget not a House Republican conference budget. That means it passes with wide bipartisan support not narrow partisan support. Which means negotiating with the committee co-chairs and Nancy Pelosi.
  If that were happening I'd be onboard blaming Harry Reid. Otherwise it is just Republicans wondering why Democrats won't pass the Republican budget. Why would they?
15. Re:Why? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  The short answer is because the demands were unreasonable, and ending health care reform to appease a small minority of the country's demands doesn't make sense.
  Portraying this as the "demands of a small minority" is b.s. The debate is about a disagreement about the future of the country. People opposing Obamacare believe it's a very bad idea, and the country as a whole at least is sitting on the fence about it.
  Furthermore, Obama is responsible for this: he chose to ram through his health care reform without bipartisan support, and then he chose to take a "no compromise" stance on budget negotiations. The obvious consequence is that Republicans are going to hate him and torpedo everything he does. Obama is evidently unable to negotiate, administrate, or make compromises; he made his career as a "community organizer", i.e., getting people angry and sowing dissent.
  I think the Republicans picked the wrong fight and handled this badly. Obamacare wasn't worth picking a big fight over; it will simply collapse by itself anyway. But make no mistake about it, both Bush and Obama have been dismal failures as presidents and their failures will haunt this country for decades to come. Both will be the laughingstock of historians to come.
16. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  What a fucking moron. You think they had the NPS telling where to drive before the shutdown? Those cones were put up because your little man whore wanted to affect people in the worst way and cunts like you swallowed it all. No surprise there, I bet you swallow.
17. Re:Why? by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  he chose to ram through his health care reform without bipartisan support
  In partial defense, what was he supposed to do? The Democrats basically took the plan created by the Heritage Foundation and enacted by Mitt Romney in MA, because they thought that was the most progressive reform that could win any Republican support. (And contrary to what progressives might think, it was probably the most that could rely on support from the more conservative Democrats.) The Republicans said no anyway. So should Obama have simply scrapped the whole idea of health care reform?
  I agree that the new bill is a huge mess, but the Republicans have offered nothing that would both reduce overall costs and make insurance more accessible (and affordable) to the people who don't already have it. And if they think that Heritage's plan is some radical leftist abomination that sends us down the road to serfdom, just imagine how they would have reacted if the Democrats tried to pass a national single-payer insurance plan.
18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because spending way more than you take in is entirely reasonable... It's how the intellectual elite spent their way to prosperity!
19. Re:Why? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  In partial defense, what was he supposed to do?
  He probably shouldn't have antagonized the Republicans from the start. He might have done more horse trading and made more sacrifices elsewhere: the budget, gay rights, financial regulation, whatever.
  Where he could have become active is scale back the abuses of the Bush era, the NSA, and all the other things he promised to do but has failed to. Health care reform could have waited a little longer.
  
  I agree that the new bill is a huge mess
  Or he could have simply not passed health care reform. Maybe the economy needed to recover first. Probably a Republican president would have been better for passing this; in fact, if Romney had become president, we probably would have gotten reasonable health care reform, because he could have passed something better and more consistent with bipartisan support.
20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  All of this blame game stuff is non-sense. The god damn bill has made it through all three branches of govt. What the F!@k are right-wingers still belly aching about?? If you remember your poli-sci classes you would know that the Congress is responsible for paying the bills not the Prez. Anywho, shouldn't we all start working on getting these folks in govt limited terms?? Think about it, most enterprises have some sort of experation policy on passwords. It should be the same for representatives in govt. ONE term and you're done. Finished. This country's real problem is that we have CAREER POLITICIANS. The job should be so difficult and thankless that no one would rightfully want to do it.
21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  The debt ceiling was raised seven times during George W. Bush's administration. By your argument, when Bush was running up massive Federal deficits with the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich, the Senate (regained by the Democrats in January 2007) should have held up raising the ceiling until Bush agreed to end the war and reinstate the taxes.
  That would've been the Tea Party/Ted Cruz/Soviet/North Korea style of negotiation. Just what our forefathers envisioned when they drafted the Constitution, right?
22. Re:Why? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-10-20 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Right. And the house gym was essential because house members are too cheap to lease a proper Washington apartment. They live in their offices, and the place would be a little rank if they couldn't shower for free.
23. Re:Why? by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 04:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  He probably shouldn't have antagonized the Republicans from the start. He might have done more horse trading and made more sacrifices elsewhere: the budget, gay rights, financial regulation, whatever.
  As far as the budget was concerned, he was in a rough spot with the economy - it was just spectacularly bad timing for dealing with budget problems. I'm not convinced that changing his mind on financial regulation or gay rights would have done any good, since the steps he took in those directions were fundamentally so small. And from what I can remember, the repeal of DADT was the first major policy change on gay rights and that came well after the Obamacare passage.
  Where he could have become active is scale back the abuses of the Bush era, the NSA, and all the other things he promised to do but has failed to.
  God, I wish - this was the main reason I voted for him in 2008 and he has been a spectacular disappointment on these issues, which is why I stayed home in 2012. But, again in partial defense, even his good-faith efforts were blindly opposed by the GOP, which went out of its way to prevent him from closing down Guantanamo. (Admittedly with some Democratic support, and may those legislators rot in hell.)
  Health care reform could have waited a little longer.
  Unlikely, since he probably would have lost Congress in 2010 regardless of what else happened. Either the right wing was going to accuse him of being a radical socialist, or they (and everyone else) were going to blame him for not doing more to improve the economy.
  Probably a Republican president would have been better for passing this; in fact, if Romney had become president, we probably would have gotten reasonable health care reform, because he could have passed something better and more consistent with bipartisan support.
  It's a nice fantasy, except both Romney and the Republicans have moved so far to the right that anything they passed was likely to be even more favorable to the insurance companies and even less effective at bringing insurance to the people who don't have it. What exactly is their plan to reduce costs? Malpractice tort reform? Screwing over the trial lawyers, while it might be a worthy goal on general principle, would barely put a dent in the price of insurance. And people with pre-existing conditions are simply fucked.
24. Re:Why? by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To say he passed it without bipartisan support is completely disingenious. It implies bipartisan support was possible. Republicans came up with Obamacare in the first place during clinton, and Romney enacted Obamacare years ago. Liberals wanted single payer. We compromised in a way that gave republicans everything they wanted, save Obama's name not being on it. Bipartisan support was never going to happen unless it was called "Republicancare" and Obama resigned as part of the deal.
  
  He "rammed it through" after it was obvious to anyone paying attention that republicans wouldn't allow healthcare reform until it was a republican president doing it.
25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  i thought let us shut down government, lots waste, then i read about tourists, ppl come to visit USA, and get denied entry we should not allow that to hapen, i travel a lot overseas i tell people hey you should check some of our musems out, i particulrly like WPAFB air for muse, and the marine museume is also excelent, then all the stuff in D.C. natural history ...some people took time of work, paid to travel to usa and all are national parks were shut down!?
26. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  So the government's evil master plan involves inconsequential and easily circumvented traffic cones?
  Obama is a fiend! Coming up with such a horrible way to disadvantage nobody who actually wanted to stop.
  He should have gone with the helicopter plan.
27. Re:Why? by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-10-20 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If it is outside of the national park area then it is under the jurisdiction of the state government, none of which shut down during this period. If it really came down to that, they could have just dispatched their state troopers just like anything else.
  This is just a stupid typical politician move to get people to pay attention to them. This is also why we can't have a balanced budget: Instead of taking away useless programs, they decide to cut funding from things that people will complain the loudest about, that way they can keep all of their pet projects.
  People like you eat it bait, line, and sinker.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  He probably shouldn't have antagonized the Republicans from the start.
  Great, except they were already opposed to him in a monolithic block that sheds even the semblance of honesty.
  Just look who they threw up against Obama, the lying sociopathic Mitt Romney who had previously created the same plan in his state, and proclaimed it a plan for the nation. Then instead of saying he changed his mind, or had a better plan, he prevaricated around it.
  
  He might have done more horse trading and made more sacrifices elsewhere: the budget, gay rights, financial regulation, whatever.
  He made sacrifices in each and every one of those areas. The budget? He conceded on the tax cuts, on the spending reforms, and more. Gay rights? Yeah, he stopped supporting DoMA and DADT, which he had previously not opposed. Financial regulation? Seen any Wall Street types prosecuted yet? Nope, instead they quietly walked away with their bailouts.
  
  Health care reform could have waited a little longer.
  
  I agree that the new bill is a huge mess
  Or he could have simply not passed health care reform.
  Just like all the Presidents since Nixon, screwing the American people the whole time.
  
  Maybe the economy needed to recover first.
  Republicans opposed the very steps that would have helped the economy spending in their hysterical pleas for Austerity.
  
  Probably a Republican president would have been better for passing this; in fact, if Romney had become president, we probably would have gotten reasonable health care reform, because he could have passed something better and more consistent with bipartisan support.
  Romney, the guy who passed the model for the ACA, then couldn't own up to it, because it would have spoiled his political chances, could have done better?
  Well, yeah, because Democrats wouldn't be blinded by their own partisanship to try to make Republicans completely own it, but would actually work on it?
  This is not a good argument for the Republican side or for Obama to do nothing. Especially citing the most Mendacious candidate to run for public office in decades.
29. Re:Why? by Mateorabi · 2013-10-20 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just life and limb. Protecting property is also considered "essential". So critical tests to prevent the loss of a billion dollar satellite that couldn't not be performed at any other time should have been essential enough to bring in the government employees needed. I like to blame the Republicans as much as anybody, but if the summary is true then it's the NASA manager who didn't call his people back and jeopardized the telescope work who done F'd up this one.
  That the potential loss in property was a future-cost is not relevant, the early Oct. time-frame was the only time the schedule would allow the tests, even if the failures wouldn't be noticed till after a (explosive?) launch. The THREAT to property was immediate if not the consequence.
  
  --
  "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
30. Re:Why? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Liberals wanted single payer.
  Frankly, it doesn't matter what "liberals" want. What matters is what the vast majority of the country wants, and until the vast majority of the country has settled on anything, the status quo should remain. Even if Obama had a thin majority for Obamacare, that wouldn't have given him a mandate to impose it on the country.
  
  He "rammed it through" after it was obvious to anyone paying attention that republicans wouldn't allow healthcare reform until it was a republican president doing it.
  Yes, and that might well have been the best choice, also so that the economy would have had time to recover. Obama should have done what he ran on and got elected for: rein in the NSA, restore the rule of law, and restore Constitutional protections of civil liberties.
  I voted for Obama in 2008, and I think he has ended up a worse president even than Bush, and that is saying something.
31. Re:Why? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  But, again in partial defense, even his good-faith efforts were blindly opposed by the GOP
  I don't think he has made a "good faith effort". I think he has tried to do what he believes is the right thing on every issue and has been unwilling to give his opponents the benefit of doubt. In fact, his rhetoric alone is clear and uncompromising.
  
  Unlikely, since he probably would have lost Congress in 2010 regardless of what else happened. Either the right wing was going to accuse him of being a radical socialist, or they (and everyone else) were going to blame him for not doing more to improve the economy.
  By "a little longer", I mean a couple of presidencies. There was no reason for Obama to take this on; he had more than enough other things to do.
  
  It's a nice fantasy, except both Romney and the Republicans have moved so far to the right that anything they passed was likely to be even more favorable to the insurance companies and even less effective at bringing insurance to the people who don't have it.
  I can hardly imagine a bigger giveaway to insurance companies than Obamacare, with people being forced to buy coverage and services they don't want, and a nearly complete lack of cost control measures.
  My family wouldn't have chosen expensive end of life care and we have had high deductibles, but you bet that with Obamacare, we are going to get every test and treatment we can talk and force doctors into giving. Why not? Someone else is paying for it.
32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  If it was outside the national park area, then why would national park workers do it?
  If there's anybody who is swallowing the bait, it's somebody who believes a bunch of orange traffic cones represent some nefarious plan to cause great outrage in the community.
  I'd be more likely to believe it's a false flag operation to make it look as if the park service was trying to make things look bad, but that requires a bit too much of a conspiracy oriented.
33. Re:Why? by overshoot · 2013-10-20 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is just a stupid typical politician move to get people to pay attention to them. This is also why we can't have a balanced budget: Instead of taking away useless programs, they decide to cut funding from things that people will complain the loudest about, that way they can keep all of their pet projects.
  Add up Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt, the Defense Department, and Veteran's Affairs. Subtract tax revenues. You're already way into red ink. I'm not counting the CDC, FEMA, FDA, NIH, or any of the other nickle-and-dime line items.
  So, according to your definition of "useless programs," which would you propose to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Veterans Affairs? Do please be specific.
  
  --
  Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
34. Re:Why? by jbolden · 2013-10-20 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Congressmen work pretty long hours. What's the upside of having congressmen traveling more?
35. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  The short answer is because the demands were unreasonable, and ending health care reform to appease a small minority of the country's demands doesn't make sense. The longer answer can be found in across a thousand other websites and is completely off-topic.
  After the administration has handed a long list of waivers to the ACA to large organizations, and has now delayed the employer mandate till 2015 (which will have a variety of implications), It isn't clear that delaying the individual mandate, the same as the other delays, for a piece of legislation that is planned to ultimately fail, would be a bad thing at all.
  
  Here's my suggestion: in the event of a shutdown, absolutely no congressional support services will be provided. No staffers can answer the phone from their congresspeople. No electricity in the capitol. No fucking gym open. No paychecks including back pay for congress persons. No security guards will be protecting the reps. None. Congressmen can hold meetings at a starbucks or something if they feel like it. Conversely, science research will absolutely not be affected.
  
  One could get the sense that you consider the Government-Science complex more important than anything else the government does.
  I think your comment is more +11 dreamy, not +5 "insightful".
36. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  All of the above.
  Social Security? Time to means test.
  Medicare? The US government spends $4,100 per citizen on medical care, the British government spends $3,300. Why can't the US government give us universal coverage and an $800 refund instead of always demanding more for less?
  Veterans' Affairs? See above.
  Defense? Why do we have troop in Japan? In Germany? In Korea? These are first-world nations. If they want more troops they can grow their own armies. Demobilize these soldiers along with the ridiculous robot cheetah and iron man programs.
  Cutting these programs to realistic levels will allow you to default on the ~$5 trillion in debt held by Federal agencies, reducing interest payments as well.
37. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · 2013-10-20 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd run that through Babelfish if I knew what language it was supposed to be.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
38. Re:Why? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-10-20 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  Congress is on track to work 119 days this year. Long hours? Hah!
39. Re:Why? by prop_trader · 2013-10-20 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  There aren't enough people to means test off of social security to make a real dent. Don't worry we will be having universal coverage. Personally I don't believe that we will see any decrease in the cost of care. But say we did, using your numbers we would save $264B which is a nice chunk of change, but not hardly enough to arrest the growth in debt. No love for the robot cheetah? That little guy is awesome. I could not agree more about demobilizing troops, but come on lets cut some real money. Lets cut the F35. Defaulting on securities that certain non-Fed agencies hold. The fed should buy them for cash and then just retire them. I don't believe this is legal under current law but maybe Obama can just insist on it in the next shutdown. This would also give the government the ability to run infinitely large deficits which it will need to do. Of course the money may be worthless at some point but it should buy us a few years.
40. Re:Why? by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Liberals wanted single payer.
  Frankly, it doesn't matter what "liberals" want
  Pay attention to the thread: I was using that as proof that Obamacare WAS a compromise, not a bill that was rammed through without discussion like you were saying.
  
  He "rammed it through" after it was obvious to anyone paying attention that republicans wouldn't allow healthcare reform until it was a republican president doing it.
  Yes, and that might well have been the best choice, also so that the economy would have had time to recover. Obama should have done what he ran on and got elected for: rein in the NSA, restore the rule of law, and restore Constitutional protections of civil liberties.
  Again, you're ignoring context. I was pointing out that there was never going to be any bipartisan support.
41. Re:Why? by leenks · 2013-10-20 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you missed it, but clearly $3,300 isn't enough - http://slashdot.org/story/13/10/17/2337204/british-nhs-may-soon-no-longer-offer-free-care. Partly because much of the NHS is already stealth privatised no doubt though.
42. Re:Why? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Pay attention to the thread: I was using that as proof that Obamacare WAS a compromise, not a bill that was rammed through without discussion like you were saying.
  Just because liberals staked out an extreme and unworkable position doesn't mean that Obamacare is a "compromise". The "compromise" I was referring to wasn't even between different health care positions, it could have involved lots of other issues.
  
  Again, you're ignoring context. I was pointing out that there was never going to be any bipartisan support.
  And as I was saying: if Obama couldn't pass health care reform with bipartisan support, he should have passed nothing at all. There was no urgency to pass health care reform, and there certainly wasn't any urgency to pass the turd that Obama actually passed.
43. Re:Why? by gd2shoe · 2013-10-20 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  And everyone wants to see their own special interest declared "essential." The Tea Party wanted the exception to be certain war monuments, for example.
  Bad example.
  An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have? Please. That wasn't a decision to save money on non-essential services. That was a decision to punish Republicans.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
44. Re:Why? by Guppy06 · 2013-10-20 13:21 · Score: 2
  
  An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
  Groundskeeping, maintenance and security are not free. The federal government is charged with maintaining (i.e. not abandoning) the sites, and the cheapest and easiest way to maintain anything is to close off public access.
45. Re:Why? by WindBourne · 2013-10-20 13:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  LOL.
  Boehner screamed 'shut it down'
  Cruz screamed 'shut it down'.
  Cantor screamed 'shut it down'.
  All tea baggers screamed 'shut it down'.
  Most neo-cons screamed 'shut it down'.
  The few remaining real republicans said, lets compromise and create a deal.
  
  But it is Obama's fault.
  Just amazing.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
46. Re:Why? by Guppy06 · 2013-10-20 13:56 · Score: 2
  
  An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
  I even got you some numbers to satisfy my own curiosity:
  According to the National Park Service's FY13 Greenbook, the National Mall and adjoining shrines and memorials (which include the National World War II Memorial) are treated as a single item and cost the National Park Service $32,282,000 to maintain in 2012, or over $88,200 each day.
  These costs do not include Park Police, which are listed as a separate $79,763,000 expenditure in the DC area alone in '12.
47. Re:Why? by WindBourne · 2013-10-20 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Here in Colorado we have republican judges that I think that would charge a rape victim money and say that it was money owed for services rendered. It seems like the GOP has lost sight of what a balanced budget, real science, and even justice operates. Basically, they have forgotten how to lead. And the corruption in that party is just horrible.
  Sadly, it is not much better in the dems.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
48. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  > The short answer is because the demands were unreasonable, and ending health care reform to appease a small minority of the country's demands doesn't make sense.
  This is basically decrying the function of the congress as representative. If a subset has the political power to do so, it would be against their represented interests not to wield it. The fact that you do not agree with the tradeoff, is irrelevant. They are not representing you in this regard.
49. Re:Why? by WindBourne · 2013-10-20 15:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  BS.
  The tea baggers have prevented the gov. from raising taxes, even though they are at an all time low.
  In addition, teabaggers and neo-cons constantly blocked cuts that they did not like.
  for example, both teabaggers/neo-cons continue to push the SLS which will cost us 30B and not be ready until 2022 at the earliest (it is now expected for man's first flight on it at 2025, and several studies say that it will run closer to 50B). So, where are they getting the money for this nightmare? By gutting private space inside of NASA. Even now, when it was agreed to that private space would get a TOTAL of 2B, for funding 3 companies to be ready by 2015, the neo-cons cut that and has forced NASA to limit the downselect to ONE private space company.
  Then we have again, both neo-cons/teabaggers pushing the nightmare of keeping our M1A1 tank lines going. Yet, the DOD IS SCREAMING THAT IT IS NOT THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT FOR FUTURE wars. Worse, we have plenty of core M1A1 tanks. But the house is blocking the stoppage of the line.
  It continues over and over and over.
  
  The problem is not that we are not making spending cuts.
  | The real problem is that 49 teabaggers in the house are blocking compromise on ANYTHING from happening, and the neo-cons are going along because the teabaggers are threatening them at the next election.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
50. Re:Why? by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  One could get the sense that you consider the Government-Science complex more important than anything else the government does.
  Hey man, "news for nerds"!
  
  I think your comment is more +11 dreamy, not +5 "insightful".
  It was a suggestion, not a prediction. I realize that leaving congress completely unprotected if they fail to do their job, and keeping science going when politics have failed at a basic level is unrealistic. But I'd rather err on that side than err on the side of congress gets to do whatever the hell they want without consequence (thanks gerrymandering and voter ADD) and scientific research gets impeded because of that. Or anyone else for that matter, but the article is specifically about science.
51. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  This post is what happens with you give computers and internet access to Alzheimer victims.
52. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  People like you eat it bait, line, and sinker.
  Thank God I didn't eat the hook too
53. Re:Why? by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-10-21 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security would be a good start. It's actually designed from the ground up to never pay you anything unless you "beat the odds" so to speak. Literally. The government produced a propaganda video that somebody shoved in my face at slashdot which says its an insurance program that provides you benefits for when you retire, die, or become disabled. The reality is that it only really does one of those things. The death benefit is a WHOPPING $250 no matter how much you paid into it, and it only goes to your spouse if you were married at the time of death. No spouse? Spouse dead? Divorced? Well then no death benefit. Quite an amazing insurance policy when in the US it is basically illegal to handle a dead body without a license - you are forced by law to pay somebody amounts starting at $1,000 to carry the body from the coroner's office. And then of course, whatever happens after that costs even more (be it cremation, interment, etc.)
  Age 65 was originally chosen because they expected most people to never actually live that long to retire. Even if they did, they wouldn't collect for very long. It's like going to a casino where the odds are always in favor of the house. The shitty thing is, you're required by law to gamble in this casino. Social security is now breaking though because people are living longer than the government intended.
  Quite a good deal for the government anyways though, because it gets to keep $6 billion per year to keep the lights on in the social security administration offices, and if that is too much money then it just comes out of what the so called beneficiaries take in - the government gets its cut of the pie first.
  Personally, because my health is what it is (renal failure) I fully anticipate that I'll never live past the age of retirement. I've also already been denied disability, even though it's hard to work because of complications of nephrotic syndrome. But, I still have to pay into social security anyways, knowing full well that it'll never pay me back. So not only will I call social security useless, I'll say it's just a downright drain. My dad paid at least $100k into it over his working career (he maxed it out for about 15 years or so, and came pretty damn close to maxing it out for another 10,) died at 55, and because he was divorced he received no death benefit. Social security gave absolutely nothing in return, neither to him nor his heirs - it's such a wonderful program.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Better model needed by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-10-20 02:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Science is too important to be dependent on a funding source that is 17 trillion dollars in debt. It's *all* going to dry up at some point, and probably rather suddenly when it does. Talk to the history department if this is unclear.
With all the great thinkers in science, perhaps research into better funding models would be worth the effort.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Kickstarter!
2. Re:Better model needed by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-10-20 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  The answer is to find a better model for how government operates. 17 trillion is a problem for more than just science. And shutting down government in order to make a political statement is flat out deranged.
3. Re:Better model needed by jcr · 2013-10-20 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo. I couldn't agree with you more.
  Even more than the fiscal unreliability, the big problem with government funding is that it makes science a political football, with brain-dead demagogues getting to decide what is and isn't studied according to their religion.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
4. Re:Better model needed by Mitchell314 · 2013-10-20 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  And the alternative - corporate funded research - is immune from financial instability and PBHs deciding what is and isn't studied?
  
  --
  I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
5. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Talk about blaming the victims. There are plenty of solutions, but unfortunately most of them don't result in the richest of the rich getting to steal even more of the nation's wealth.
6. Re:Better model needed by green+is+the+enemy · 2013-10-20 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  The funding problem seems to be harder than the science itself nowadays. There's so much science and technology research we could be doing, but aren't, or at a very slow pace. The main issue is finding funding for fundamental research (for which applications haven't yet been found) and research with a very long payoff period. Historically, this is the type of research that has enabled the bulk of our rapid progress in the last couple of centuries. However, governments around the world are under pressure to cut spending, and this research is slowly but steadily being cut. I think this is a side-effect of the long period of peace we have been enjoying. Now, even the cold war has ended. It seriously looks like our progress will stagnate pretty soon.
  Anyone have suggestions on how to improve the funding situation? A sadistic suggestion might be "start a world war," but modern weapons make this pretty much infeasible.
7. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bite. The current people spending like crazy won't even talk about responsible spending, they won't even talk.
  What would be your suggestion to make them at least listen to options to become responsible? In the last 5 years, government shutdown or threat of shutdown has been the only way to reduce any spending at all, it was called the sequestor.
  There are millions of people out there that would like to hear a suggestion that might get a result other than shutdown, but so far that is the only thing that has produced results at all.
8. Re:Better model needed by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  There are actually some crowdfunding tools out there. One issue is that it's hard to explain highly technical experiments within the required 6 pages or so for a grant, let alone something that a crowd would be willing to read. Another issue is that a lot of basic research has no payoffs that are certain, which seems important for kickstarter. You can't exactly promise beta access to the data to an experiment which may not yield results.
  
  Also, just putting this out there, and sorry if it ruffles any feathers, but funding from the federal government is still more reliable than crowdfunding. At the very least, if the debt catches up to us and "dries up," I'm thinking it will be more likely that I'll be trying to crowdfund my next meal than I would be trying to crowdfund a research project.
9. Re:Better model needed by rmstar · 2013-10-20 03:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The answer is to find a better model for how government operates. 17 trillion is a problem for more than just science.
  17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US. Given how gigantic the US is in terms of assets and operations, and in political and economic power, 17 trillion is quite ok.
  The biggest structural problem the US has is its insane right. The debt ceiling standoff was very, very dangerous, far more dangerous than even 20 trillion $ of debt would be. It would have taken very little additional bad luck to triger a financial calamity of biblical proportions.
10. Re:Better model needed by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-10-20 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  And the alternative - corporate funded research - is immune from financial instability and PBHs deciding what is and isn't studied?
  *The* alternative? Nobody could think up something better? We have lots of smart people on this planet - I'm hopeful that somebody can think up a way to fund science that involves neither one nor 435 PHB's making such decisions.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
11. Re:Better model needed by hallkbrdz · 2013-10-20 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly.
  The answer is first SHRINK IT. Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.
  Look at this list of departments and agencies and tell me you have even a clue at what half of these do for us taxpayers - and how they don't overlap other federal or state agencies. The size of the federal government is obese and needs to be put on a diet. Simply getting rid of departments and agencies that do not have to be at the federal level would be a good starting place (e.g. Dept of Education). Others like pure science, NASA, etc. should remain at the federal level.
  http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/
12. Re:Better model needed by rmstar · 2013-10-20 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  In the last 5 years, government shutdown or threat of shutdown has been the only way to reduce any spending at all, it was called the sequestor.
  Thinking of spending without thinking of revenue is just plain stupid.
  Government shutdown, by hurting revenues, actually increases deficit and exacerbates the problem.
13. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  There are millions of people out there that would like to hear a suggestion that might get a result other than shutdown, but so far that is the only thing that has produced results at all.
  The tea party could start cutting government any day now, simply by eliminating regulations and the government offices that enforce them. Since it's hot in the news from the shutdown, they could start on the law that says the government has to approve whatever flavor of beer you're selling. There's plenty of organizations that are just there to tell people "no", and everyone hates being told "no". Closing them would be a political no-brainer. You close a few, build up momentum, then keep going.
  Chances are, though, the tea party is perfectly happy with telling other people what they can drink and smoke. They gave up on fiscal restraint to appease the bible belt.
14. Re:Better model needed by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you could site a reference? Also the use of "funding", that alone shows the sand under your knowledge base. The easiest way to understand something is to try and do it. And maybe who knows, you'll find the cure for Farm Subsidy Entitlements, (a.k.a. FSE)? There's also a need to find a cure for Oil Industry Entitlements, and Hedge Fund Manager Entitlements. Be the first?
15. Re:Better model needed by GryMor · 2013-10-20 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  17 trillion in debt, borrowed at negative effective interest rates... I need problems like that.
  
  --
  Realities just a bunch of bits.
16. Re:Better model needed by jbolden · 2013-10-20 03:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That funding source also has the unlimited ability to print money. And there is no source more viable than the government.
17. Re:Better model needed by M.+Baranczak · 2013-10-20 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  If somebody gives you money to do something, there's always the risk that they'll try to stick their noses in. Doesn't matter if it's a government, a corporation, or an eccentric billionaire.
  You could go around to rich people's homes, steal all their money, and use that to fund your research. The rich people would have absolutely no way to interfere with your research. You'd be your own boss. There are some moral problems with this approach, which I frankly think are overblown, but the bigger problem is the logistical side: rich people are very good at holding on to their money, that's why they're rich. Robbing them is hard work. Scientists already waste a lot of time trying to secure grants - now they'll have to waste even more time buying guns and dynamite, and serving the occasional prison sentence. The current system looks pretty good in comparison.
18. Re:Better model needed by jbolden · 2013-10-20 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bite. The current people spending like crazy won't even talk about responsible spending, they won't even talk.
  What would be your suggestion to make them at least listen to options to become responsible? In the last 5 years, government shutdown or threat of shutdown has been the only way to reduce any spending at all, it was called the sequestor.
  
  Of course they will. We know that with the grand bargain talks in 2011. Their have been numerous proposals put forth by Democrats to shift and decrease spending, especially in areas of corporate welfare. Obamacare itself was a large attack on private and public spending, the problem of the cost curve. You'll remember that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tried to run for office against the savings from it.
19. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:01 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  The Tea Party is just a group that wants the government to spend responsibly and tax fairly. They have no actual power in the government.
20. Re:Better model needed by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-10-20 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.
  Even the FairTax people (who advocate a National Income Tax) recognize that everybody pays the income tax, at a rate of 22-23% on top of their base rate, as being embedded in the cost of goods. It's horribly regressive, for that reason.
  The best way to deal with the Income Tax is to repeal the 16th Amendment and not replace it with anything. Let the States do what they will.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
21. Re:Better model needed by dkf · 2013-10-20 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  *The* alternative? Nobody could think up something better? We have lots of smart people on this planet - I'm hopeful that somebody can think up a way to fund science that involves neither one nor 435 PHB's making such decisions.
  The simplest way is to prohibit free access to publicly-collected data and research outcomes (papers, presentations, etc.) and instead require direct and immediate payment for anyone to see the data concerned. Then it can all become a self-financing activity.
  A very large number of businesses would utterly hate that.
  The real problem is that there's plenty going on, but it can't be done for free, for nothing. It's too hard to do and (overall) too important to leave to the random whims of gentlemen amateurs; that model worked through to the back end of the 19th century, but it's been found to be not sufficiently effective for modern society. Directly paying people to do research works better, as it stops people from having to become independently wealthy first before embarking on a scientific career.
  If you've direct paying of people to do research, you'll also have to have some sort of mechanism for deciding how to distribute the money (as there's never going to be enough to pay for every idea that anyone might think of, ever). The least sucky way of managing that found so far has been to have a board of people, typically some senior scientists and some money-men, evaluate what are the best ideas out of a bunch submitted and to fund just those. This encourages competition between scientists to do good work so that they can justify being funded in the future, but does tend to end up looking rather bureaucratic, whatever organisation is ultimately paying. (Most private charitable funders aren't as bureaucratic mainly because they don't get as many applications, haven't as much money to give away, and aren't being quite as closely hounded by bosses to ensure that no money is wasted.) If you don't have people having to regularly do a pitch to get more money, you're then going either by the independently-wealthy model (mostly fairly slow and doesn't really build collaborations) or you're planning to just give people carte blanche to spend whatever way they want (and if you want to do that, I want to conduct a scientific investigation into holidaying on a beach for the next few years. For Science!) Any other models? Crowdsourcing is just a minor variation on the standard model that is going to be better at funding the PT Barnums of this world rather than those doing anything innovative.
  I always think it is ironic that some of the biggest wasting of money is due to the efforts to prevent wasting of money. There's not enough facepalm in the world to cover just how stupid that is.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
22. Re:Better model needed by mspohr · 2013-10-20 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Going around to rich people's houses and stealing money...
  This is what some people call taxes.
  Government collects them and decides how they are spent.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
23. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  The US national debt is NOT like a person's debt. The US does not have to pay its debts each year. In fact, the world economy would collapse if countries did that. Further, the US pays aproximately zero percent interest on that debt because -- at least before the shutdown and debt ceiling threats -- US "sovereign debt" was the safest investment in the world. Given the near-depression of 2008, consumer spending is down. People have lost jobs or fear that they might lose jobs. They save. With less demand, corporations build fewer plants, buy less material, hire fewer employees. In this situation, only the US government has money that can start a cycle of hiring, purchasing, expanding. For evidence, look at 1936, when FDR'd administration decided to cut spending to balance the budget on the assumptions that (1) the Great Depression was over, and (2) it is good economics to balance the federal budget: it was good "orthodox" economics back then. The result was "phase 2" of the Great Depression, which lasted until the US began to spend to arm for WW2.
  For a recent example, look at how "austerity" has worked in Europe since 2009.
  Incidentally, deep science has been funded by the US government because the government -- that means we, the people of the United States -- does not have to turn a profit on every investment and report it every quarter.
24. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Tea Party pretends to be a group that just wants the government to spend responsibly and tax fairly.
  This may indeed accurately describe some of them, but several of the people operating under that banner have other agendas, ranging from punishing non-Christians, homosexuals and minorities, to being stooges of the corporate oligarchy.
25. Re:Better model needed by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 04:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Even more than the fiscal unreliability, the big problem with government funding is that it makes science a political football, with brain-dead demagogues getting to decide what is and isn't studied according to their religion.
  The structural problems go even deeper than that. The demagogues don't actually directly interfere that often, although it's especially annoying when they do. The bigger problems are a) the supply-and-demand problem created by poor and/or inconsistent government policy, and b) the uncertainty created by crises like the shutdown and the sequester. Naturally, neither of these problems is unique to government service! People working for companies have the same problems all the time, and I can't imagine that being stalked by MBAs much more fun than worrying about Congress. But most scientists in the public sector have made an implicit trade: we accept lower salaries in exchange for decent benefits, decent job security, and the freedom to study what excites us without worrying about "how do I bring this to market within 18 months?" Most of us spent our 20s in school just to qualify for these jobs - which is not quite as bad as it sounds (we get a small stipend at least, and flexible hours), but most academics postpone having children until relatively late, and we get to watch our more financially motivated peers make vastly more money, often with less formal education. The base starting salary for an NIH-funded postdoctoral fellow is $40,000; that is by definition someone with a PhD, usually around 30 years old. There are some truly mediocre postdocs out there, but many brilliant ones - and if they want an academic career, they basically have no choice but to spend several years in such a position. Meanwhile, their friends with real jobs are probably making at least twice as much.
  On top of this, the success rate for grants has dropped precipitously, and the sequester has made it even worse. The biomedical research sector grew with NIH funding, and now that funding is contracting, there are more people competing for less money. So even the long-term job security isn't very good any more.
  I'm relatively lucky; I managed to only spend a little more than a year as a postdoc before getting a more permanent position, and the research group I work for is well-funded, non-controversial, and very successful in our field. But I still make tends of thousands less than my grad school friends who work in industry. And it's far from certain that we'll continue to get funding. More importantly, a large fraction of the people who control the purse strings think I'm a lazy, useless welfare queen, and want to close down the department I work for and send our jobs to China. Or, barring that, they're happy to do that temporarily just out of spite because they think the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan is a socialist takeover. So, after spending most of my adult life working overtime (unpaid, of course) while assuring myself that the implicit bargain was worth it, leaving academia is not a hard decision for me to make. Fuck this, if you want to treat me like shit and continually threaten me with unemployment, you'd better fucking pay me for it. None of the public (certainly none of Congress) understands what I do anyway, so why should I care whether or not I'm contributing to human health and knowledge?
26. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Tax the wealthy more. Cutout loopholes in the tax code, especially the ones that allow certain corporations to pay no taxes.
27. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  One issue is that it's hard to explain highly technical experiments within the required 6 pages or so for a grant, let alone something that a crowd would be willing to read.
  But a reasonable thing to expect.
  
  but funding from the federal government is still more reliable than crowdfunding
  The government doesn't even care if you don't make any sort of scientific progress at all. If a truck were to back into the James Webb Space Telescope and hopelessly total it, there would some blame finding (with the truck driver instantly fired and some other people after a suitable period of public reflection via committee), but the end result would be a collective shrug and the signing of new checks. That's because most of the money for JWST has been spent. As far as Congress is concerned, JWST is already done and over with.
28. Re: Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  but several of the people operating under that banner have other agendas
  First time ever that someone had an ulterior motive! Unless your tastes are so particular and refined or your groups highly select so as to exclude anyone else other than you, then maybe your associations have this problem as well.
29. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 05:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US.
  LOL. Maybe to a galaxy spanning civilization this would be small potatoes, but it's kind of big for the US.
  
  The biggest structural problem the US has is its insane right.
  They keep holding back the suicidal left which is a bad thing apparently.
  
  The debt ceiling standoff was very, very dangerous, far more dangerous than even 20 trillion $ of debt would be.
  As I noted elsewhere, anyone who cared about a few week default of US on short term bonds had already sold them off.
  
  It would have taken very little additional bad luck to triger a financial calamity of biblical proportions.
  Reminds me of that Heinlein quote about "bad luck". There's a simple solution here: spend less at the federal level and stop getting in the way of people who create wealth.
30. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  And the alternative - corporate funded research - is immune from financial instability and PBHs deciding what is and isn't studied?
  There are plenty of research institutions which use a non profit model. SETI or March of Dimes doesn't use the "corporate funded research" model.
31. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Historically, this is the type of research that has enabled the bulk of our rapid progress in the last couple of centuries.
  
  No, it hasn't. As I've noted many times before, that fundamental research of the past had near future application at the time. This often devolves into a game of people naming research and then I countering with the near future expectations that people doing or funding that research would have had.
  
  Anyone have suggestions on how to improve the funding situation?
  Make researchers more accountable for the money they spend. I suggest doing it by eliminating most public funding of science which inherently is unaccountable.
32. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  The US does not have to pay its debts each year. In fact, the world economy would collapse if countries did that.
  The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. So the US doesn't have to refrain from collapsing the world economy! One wonders why they still pay their debts, if that's the only obstacle!
33. Re:Better model needed by SuperTechnoNerd · 2013-10-20 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Stop gerrymandering
  Limit campaign funding
  Curtail Lobbying
  Impose term limits
  Realize corporations "are not people too.."
  Improve education
34. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The Tea Party is just a group that wants the government to spend responsibly and tax fairly. ... who mysteriously showed up after a white President started multiple unnecessary wars was followed by a mixed-race President who didn't.
  Funny how that works.
35. Re:Better model needed by CanadianMacFan · 2013-10-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Some people call taxes going around to poor people's houses and stealing money. The rich can afford to use loopholes and escape paying taxes.
36. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  You complain about being 17 trillion in bent, then put the blame where it belongs, on Starve the Beast.
37. Re:Better model needed by cayenne8 · 2013-10-20 07:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I think what the goverment shutdown showed is...how much the bloat that is there is really NOT NEEDED...but is only self serving for the federal govt. entity itself.
  Very FEW average citizens were in any way affected in any significant way, and for many of us, if the 24/7 news machine hadn't been railing how much of a 'disaster' this was....the majority of the US public would have never noticed that the federal government had 'shut down' at all.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
38. Re:Better model needed by zippthorne · 2013-10-20 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Who benefits from the growth of knowledge itself (other than the benefits society receives from the practical application of that knowledge by engineers)?
  Why, the people who sell it, of course. Colleges and Universities. The price of which has been outpacing inflation for quite some time, which suggests that there is quite a healthy amount of profit in there that could easily be spent on growing the business, if someone else weren't already spending on growing the business for them.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
39. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  The Tea Party is just a group that wants the government to spend responsibly and tax fairly. ... who mysteriously showed up after a white President started multiple unnecessary wars was followed by a mixed-race President who didn't.
  Funny how that works.
  Might have something to do with the fact that the mixed-race President increased the national debt by more than any other president before him--including his immediate white predecessor who started multiple unnecessary wars. Sometimes enough is enough.
40. Re:Better model needed by smaddox · 2013-10-20 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  Historically, this is the type of research that has enabled the bulk of our rapid progress in the last couple of centuries.
  No, it hasn't. As I've noted many times before, that fundamental research of the past had near future application at the time. This often devolves into a game of people naming research and then I countering with the near future expectations that people doing or funding that research would have had.
  I partially agree with you, since government funded research basically always has at least one fairly near-term application in mind. However, I think you underestimate how poor we are at predicting how useful basic research will or will not become. There are plenty of examples of fundamental advancements that were offshoots of other projects. Take the laser, as a relatively recent example (50 years); no one understood the full implications of developing the laser, they basically made one because they realized they could. This is an important point because it shows that some of the research that is not funded because there's no obvious applications could actually have been more important than the research that was funded.
  
  Anyone have suggestions on how to improve the funding situation?
  Make researchers more accountable for the money they spend. I suggest doing it by eliminating most public funding of science which inherently is unaccountable.
  No offense, but you seem to have very little experience with publicly funded research. Even basic research projects are continually held accountable, and funding is cut if results are not produced.
41. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  > it was called the sequestor.
  No it wasn't.
42. Re:Better model needed by smaddox · 2013-10-20 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly.
  The answer is first SHRINK IT. Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.
  Sales tax is unfairly regressive. It hurts the poor far more than the rich.
  
  Look at this list of departments and agencies and tell me you have even a clue at what half of these do for us taxpayers - and how they don't overlap other federal or state agencies. The size of the federal government is obese and needs to be put on a diet. Simply getting rid of departments and agencies that do not have to be at the federal level would be a good starting place (e.g. Dept of Education). Others like pure science, NASA, etc. should remain at the federal level.
  http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/
  There are very strong arguments for why education should be regulated at a national level. Also, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having overlap between federal and state agencies.
43. Re:Better model needed by Hognoxious · 2013-10-20 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Phew! Lucky you pointed that out or I might have made a fool of myself.
  I thought the other guy was just being sarcastic or something.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
44. Re:Better model needed by green+is+the+enemy · 2013-10-20 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  We're already using your model for the vast majority of research, so it hardly qualifies as a "better model." If that were sufficient, there would be no need for discussion. What I imagine the OP is asking for is a better model to finance research with a very far-away goal and a poorly understood path to it. Should we continue projects like the LHC, ITER, JWST? What is a better way to get funding for things like this? Something like the JWST does not have a clear economic goal. However, it is still heavily optimized to produce the best science possible for the money. A lot of wrangling goes on over it's funding. I'm fairly sure a lot of people consider this project poorly managed, or "unaccountable" in your words. This is a complex topic. Projects like this are becoming less and less likely in the future.
45. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's too hard to do and (overall) too important to leave to the random whims of gentlemen amateurs; that model worked through to the back end of the 19th century, but it's been found to be not sufficiently effective for modern society.
  Do you know of any literature that has gone into this topic in depth? The gentlemen amateur phase seems to have been one of the most productive and innovative for western science. As a grad student I am totally dissatisfied with the current funding models and have determined that the best path may be to attempt to become independently wealthy then return to academia. It appears very difficult to perform honest research otherwise.
46. Re:Better model needed by volmtech · 2013-10-20 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think the crowd you will be in is called a mob and the preppers you are trying to "mob fund" from will be quite well armed.
47. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  In medical research the prevailing attitude is also against independent replication. This situation makes it impossible to be confident in any of the recent literature and makes me wonder if it is not just all a waste of time right now anyway. People seem to think stats can replace replication but it can't. Jumping ship and calling your 20s a sunk cost due to a niave mistaken understanding of how "science" works may be the best way forward.
48. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  Even basic research projects are continually held accountable, and funding is cut if results are not produced.
  I think this gets to the root of the problem. There is no good way to algorithmically tell if "results are produced" from any research on its own. People wish p values did that and act according to that fantasy but it just is not true. The only way is to fund the research then fund a second competing group to do the research as well and see if the results match up. Even then you do not know for sure unless there is immediate practical use for the results that can be shown without stats.
49. Re:Better model needed by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  In medical research the prevailing attitude is also against independent replication.
  I wouldn't say there's an attitude against independent replication, but there isn't policy and funding in place to support it. High-profile fields typically have multiple competing labs trying to answer the same questions, but once one of them publishes a result, the others will drop the question and move on to whatever is their next best chance for a high-impact paper. Replicating someone else's result can be time-consuming and expensive, and there's no incentive (at least compared to fishing for something more interesting).
  This situation makes it impossible to be confident in any of the recent literature and makes me wonder if it is not just all a waste of time right now anyway.
  Depends which literature you're looking at. I work in structural biology, which is mostly fairly reliable - and since data deposition is required for most publications, we have a mechanism for verifying the analysis (it's awfully difficult to convincingly fake the data). A fair amount of crap gets published anyway, but it's not really all that difficult to detect. But I would be automatically suspicious of any paper which relied exclusively on Western blots as evidence for a mechanism, and those are much more work to validate.
50. Re: Better model needed by LurkerXXX · 2013-10-20 10:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Funny how the racists always leave out the part about the white president leaving the country spinning into a massive depression loosing 750,000/jobs month, and that the spending was to avoid an all-out depression.
51. Re:Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-20 11:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Had G.W. Bush not gone nuts giving his buddies tax breaks and if he hadn't dragged the U.S. into another war, we wouldn't have that debt now. When Clinton left office, we were slowly paying it down.
  So yeah, crazy Republicans.
52. Re:Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-20 11:19 · Score: 2
  
  You realize that the deficit has been steadily falling, right? Like most Democratic presidents, Obama is making steady progress on that front. If yopu want to look at the people who routinely blow the budget, look at the Republicans.
53. Re:Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-20 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can hold my breath for a brief time and not suffer in the slightest for it. According to you that means oxygen isn't needed.
54. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  One effect is that it weeds out fraudulent and redundant or minutely incremental research. My take is that there's a lot of research out there which has the low expectation of generating a certain number of published papers. That's it and it has no value to society. Something wonderful might come of just throwing money at research, even of fraudulent research, but that is hit and miss without any attempt to improve the odds.
  
  It's also worth noting that the laser was used almost immediately to make holographs, a big advance in imaging.
  
  No offense, but you seem to have very little experience with publicly funded research. Even basic research projects are continually held accountable, and funding is cut if results are not produced.
  There are a number of big ticket counterexamples in my neck of woods (space development) such as the International Space Station and the James Webb Space Telescope. The two combined are chew up over $2 billion a year for rather mediocre results.
55. Re: Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-20 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  You mush have been asleep since mid September. Feel refreshed now?
56. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  We're already using your model for the vast majority of research, so it hardly qualifies as a "better model."
  If that were true, then widespread use is evidence that it is a better model.
  
  What I imagine the OP is asking for is a better model to finance research with a very far-away goal and a poorly understood path to it.
  And I gave it. Make it a bunch of steps of near future research with near future goals.
57. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Here's where I stood on that. Way back then, I was trading on a play money prediction betting market called "Foresight Exchange". As of 2000 and early 2001, my biggest bet was a sell against the claim that the US would have a balanced budget including off budget/mandatory spending. When 9/11 happened, I won big because the government spigots opened up. I would probably have won anyway because people didn't understand how much of the 1999-2000 revenue was due to one time stock capital gains.
  
  But it was clear that Bush wasn't going to continue for very long the policies of Clinton. 9/11 just provided a huge opportunity to spend like a drunk sailor. Same thing happened when Obama got elected. I figured out especially from his numerous "big plans", a lock on both branches of Congress, and complete lack of care about TARP that it was be a real spending doozy. And I was right.
  
  Crazy Republicans and even crazier Democrats.
58. Re: Better model needed by sumdumass · 2013-10-20 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Tea Party actually started at the end of Bush's terms. It was the result of the bailouts and stimulus packages. Obama being elected and his race is ancillary to this. If you remember right, even during the election, Bush tried to get a bailout going McCain suggested suspending the presidential debates, cancelled an appearance on Letterman, and told senate leaders he would help in any way they needed. The Tea party, or a bunch of concerned citizens at this time started protesting the bailouts as fiscally irresponsible and even caused congress to falter on what was considered a done deal. Congress eventually allowed the bailout and those concerned citizens started having mock tea parties to symbolize with the Boston Tea Party that was a protest on taxes. From these tea parties, the name Tea Party came about when a couple of idiots thought it would be funny to ask old ladies who likely had no clue, if they were tea baggers now.
  It is only the race baiters who claim the the tea party people are all racists that ignore this fact. The Tea Party existed before Obama was ever elected. They just weren't as organized and called the tea party before then but were before Bush left office and continued to protest the wild and out of control spending. You can say they were silent during everything that led up to the problems requiring the bailout, I would say that was the straw that broke the camel's back for many, but some were pissing and moaning about it all through Bush's term too.
59. Re: Better model needed by LurkerXXX · 2013-10-20 12:15 · Score: 2
  
  People who cared about the deficit have been complaining since Reagan was in office, and against Republican spending sprees. The democrats have been the fiscally responsible spenders since the early 80's when Reagan began the deficit spiral.
  This is new, and only happend after a black guy got elected. Joining the Republicans for deficit responsibility shows the utter ignorance and racism in those involved.
60. Re:Better model needed by sumdumass · 2013-10-20 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. When Clinton was in office, we had a balanced budget but were not paying the debt down. The Debt increased every year Clinton was in office as well as Bush and Obama. The difference is in the rate of increases. Yes, Bush increased the debt, but not as much as the bailouts and stimulus's have. Bush is part of that bailout process too.
  The Tax Rates is largely a non issue as the CBO scored Bush's first two budgets including the tax breaks as a balanced budget. The lack in economic activity after 9/11 turned things around but even Obama himself refused to increase taxes while the country was recovering so it shouldn't remain an issue. The war spending was off budget until Obama took office so they do not count to deficit spending on budget but they do increase the debt. From fy2001 to fy2014, the total spend on the two wars is $1.492 trillion. I know it isn't 2014 yet, but appropriations for the wars have been made until the end of the 2014 fiscal year. The total debt in 2001 was $5.807 trillion in 2013 is it $16.738 trillion and growing. The amount of increase is 11.9 trillion over both Bush and Obama's terms. The best estimates I can find on the costs of the Bush Tax Cuts is that if everything were economically the same, they costs the country 1.6 trillion and another $800 billion from Obama's extension of them. Together, that is about $2.4 trillion
  If we take the $2.4 trillion and add the 1.492 trillion, we get a little over 3.82 trillion. So we can clearly say the two wars on a credit card and the tax cuts are 3.82 trillion of the $11.9 trillion in debt that has increased since Bush Took office. This leaves us with $8.08 trillion dollars in increased debt that are not accounted for by the wars or tax cuts.
  Now I went through all this in hopes that you will actually read down this far without knee jerking into some response. With 8 trillion dollars in additional debt outside of what you appeared to be pinning it on, it should be clear that we have more problems then unfunded war or tax cuts. The wars are over or will be soon, the tax cuts have been over, and yet we still see the debt climbing because there are other problems with the US government spending. It is not just Crazy Republicans nor only democrats. When Clinton had a balanced budget, it was both, republicans in congress and Democrats in the white house.
  I sincerely hope you actually read that and think about it for a bit. Nothing will ever be fixed if we continue along the same path and only blame part of the problems.
61. Re: Better model needed by sumdumass · 2013-10-20 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore the history of the Tea Party movement. I don't really care as it doesn't mean much to me.
  I stated what happened to form the tea party, you can bother to look it up if you want. Anyone can look into it. That is what happened and if you need to hold on to your ideal that the tea party is racists because of false information, then I cannot really do anything to help you or persuade you otherwise. I will accept that you want what you believe to be true no matter what the truth of the matter is and write you off as another loon.
62. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who rages against either blue or red teams is a nut at this point. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over even though it does not work?
63. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed on all points except I don't have enough background to make any statement regarding the pitfalls of x ray crystallography and such. I do animal behaviour type work myself and have limited experience with western blots. When I did do some it seemed that any slight deviation from experiment to experiment could totally change the results. Should we be trusting quantification of western blots at all? I searched around the internet before and found tons of people with similar worries but there is nothing published about this problem I have seen.
64. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  > 17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US.
  What? The yearly INTEREST has already exceeded the GDP. That MUST be a typo and you meant 17 billion.
65. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  No, that's called practice.
66. Re:Better model needed by mrchaotica · 2013-10-20 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bite. The current people spending like crazy won't even talk about responsible spending, they won't even talk.
  Nobody will talk about responsible spending.
  The Democrats won't because they like the spending (they just want to raise taxes to compensate.)
  The Republicans -- even the Tea Partiers -- won't because they're beholden to their base, which is old hypocritical white folks with the attitude of "waaah, I'm sick of all you losers sucking on the government titty but DON'T YOU DARE FUCK WITH MY SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!"
  Everybody else can't because they're not even at the negotiating table.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
67. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  Make Politicians Volunteer there time
  Put a term limit off 4-6 years
  Make it illegal for them to take any money, brides, from lobbyists
  NSA there communications and lives for any sign of "company favors"
  Stop allowing banks, and other markets to dictate when regular citizens become even poorer.
68. Re:Better model needed by kermidge · 2013-10-20 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps one problem stems from such a tight commingling of political system with economic system such that flaws or disturbances in one greatly perturbs the other. Are there alternate or less entwined ways that could work?
  Not to mention de Tocqueville and others pointing out that when the populace discovers that they can control the purse strings all is eventually lost.
69. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  You can't exactly promise beta access to the data to an experiment which may not yield results. .
  Every scientific experiment yields a result. It may not be a positive result, or expected one, but if there are no results there was no scientific experiment in the first place. "With a setup like this, no good data could be collected on anything" is a result. Next ones who study the same thing now know how not to do it.
70. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  and stop getting in the way of people who create wealth.
  The workers? The people involved in the basic agriculture and mining and fishing and things like that? I'm pretty sure you had some other groups in mind here, but you are wrong. Capitalists and bankers create nothing. Capitalists just take a cut from the top, and bankers shift peanuts around, taking a cut from the top. They also invent false wealth. Which is ok, and works as long as the people keep believing in smoke and mirrors. ( Yes, you are rich, here, take a look at this number, you have this much money. No, it's not smart to actually use it now for food, or you will be poor! )
71. Re:Better model needed by rmstar · 2013-10-20 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, 17 trillion is a good estimate. See here. That's about GDP, and the interest payments are much less.
72. Re:Better model needed by jcr · 2013-10-20 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why is that the only alternative you can imagine?
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
73. Re:Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-20 21:19 · Score: 2
  
  So, how do I get my mortgage and car payments 'off budget' so the bank won't count them against me? Are you saying the money just materialized on his desk?
  And under Clinton, the deficit did briefly go negative.
  The deficit is currently positive but declining.
  I'm not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but I know how to read a graph and the deficit most certainly trends down for all Democratic presidents since Carter and up for the Republicans.
  The other 8 trillion happened under Bush's watch as well, regardless of the cause.
  Again, I'm not a staunch Democrat, but ignoring facts certainly isn't going to get us out of debt. If you want lower debt and acknowledge that the next president will be an R or a D, go for a D.
  Personally, I would prefer a third party that will slash TSA, NSA, and DEA as well as pulling back from the world police role as well. I'm just not holding my breath.
74. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  Improve education
  Make Politicians Volunteer there time
  NSA there communications and lives for any sign of "company favors"
  Let's start with education.
75. Re:Better model needed by khallow · 2013-10-20 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure you had some other groups in mind here, but you are wrong.
  Employers. And I have to actually be wrong to be wrong.
  
  Capitalists and bankers create nothing. Capitalists just take a cut from the top, and bankers shift peanuts around, taking a cut from the top.
  A completely irrelevant observation first, because it is wrong - a common capitalist trick is to create new capital or make existing capital more valuable. And bankers turn money that otherwise would have been rotting in a matress somewhere into capital via lending. That's their primary job.
  
  They also invent false wealth.
  Wealth is simply stuff we value. We can collectively change our opinions as to how valuable something is. And as long as there has been trade, someone has been trying to present the thing they want to get rid of as being more valuable.
  
  No, it's not smart to actually use it now for food, or you will be poor!
  Since it can be used for stuff you value, such as food, it is wealth.
76. Re: Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  The Tea Party is just a group that wants the government to spend responsibly and tax fairly.
  Sorry, but this claim first.
  Disputing it came as a response.
77. Re:Better model needed by cyberchondriac · 2013-10-21 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's not what he said at all, that's a terrible analogy. He said much of the *bloat* is not needed, not that government isn't needed.
  He may have overstated the fact, but OTOH, do you seriously think every single service and funding target of the feds is absolutely essential, and none of them might be basically just pork?
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
78. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  ROFL..yeah we blew the deficit out to +1T$/year and now we're making modest reductions in spending thanks to the sequester and even those small decreases in spending increases are, to hear our messiah proclaim it, the literal end of the world. This year we may actually get below $1T!
  BO is a fiscal hawk all right.
  At the current rate (ha!) it will be 2018 before we're back to a budget deficit that was as BAD as Bush II's last year of office and that deficit (a mere $450B or about 2x the previous 20 or so years) was enough to hand control of Congress and the White House to the Democrats.
79. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, it doesn't really work that way. A lot of what government does is unnoticed, if it's running smoothly. And generally, for some period after it's stopped running. But then, someone wants to do something... get a radio license approved. Get a passport or visa (some embassies abroad managed to keep functioning by creative accounting). Look for pollution sources. Respond to natural disasters (and some of THOSE folks were considered essential but not all). I know of one case where NWS could not do a damage assessment because the rules made that less than critical. It's all "little" things that no one thinks about 'til it doesn't get done, then people get mad.
80. Re:Better model needed by Specter · 2013-10-21 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  "There are very strong arguments for why education should be regulated at a national level."
  I'd like to hear them. I don't think the evidence has been very good that the D of Ed has had any positive effect on educational outcomes despite ever escalating expenditures on education.
81. Re:Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-21 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  I have no doubt there is pork an waste in the government. The shutdown does not demonstrate that nor point to where it might be.
82. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  This kind of polarized thinking is quite dangerous.
  When Clinton entered office, the national debt was 4.177tn. When he left office, the national debt was 5.662tn, and average annual increase of 3.9%.
  When Obama entered office, the national debt was 10.670tn. At the end of last year, the national debt was 16.433tn, and average annual increase of 11.3%.
  I get that it's popular to believe that the democrats, and specifically Clinton, reduce the debt while the republicans increase the debt, but it's patently not true.
  The public needs to wake up and stop participating in the distraction tactics being played by the two parties. Both parties are driving this country over a cliff, and you're arguing about who's the better driver.
83. Re:Better model needed by Hognoxious · 2013-10-21 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are a number of big ticket counterexamples in my neck of woods (space development) such as the International Space Station and the James Webb Space Telescope. The two combined are chew up over $2 billion a year for rather mediocre results.
  
  You're qualified to make that judgement how, pray tell?
  You don't even know what they do there.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
84. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US.
  
  Ah, so the Federal Government can just keep taking people's money until the people run out of money?! The GDP doesn't belong to the government. The nation's wealth doesn't belong to the government. They belong to the people. The government is consuming more than 20% of that right now. That's plenty, thank you.
85. Re:Better model needed by intermodal · 2013-10-21 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't call it unlimited. The limits may not be purely defined on paper, but in practice, we've all seen what happens when people exercise that ability.
  I also wouldn't call it viable. Governments come and governments go. Bankruptcy is a pretty good way to end one government and see another rise in its place (or to see subjugation at the hands of another government of course)
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
86. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Going around to rich people's houses and stealing money...
  This is what some people call taxes.
  Government collects them and decides how they are spent.
  I'll just leave this here for you, copy paste without click-bait fear.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
87. Re:Better model needed by interkin3tic · 2013-10-21 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying congress is still more reliable than kickstarter, and since congress hands the specific decisions about which projects to fund off to real scientists, the evaluation process is done by people more familiar with the research than you'd get from an average person. Free market is not something you want funding all research that the government currently funds.
88. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  The "people who create wealth" are the middle class who have recently been sucked dry by the people you believe actually create the wealth. Until the myths you buy into finally die, we're never going to be rid of the mess they put us in.
89. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. Because Obama spent that money, and it wasn't the result of irresponsible banks repealing Glass-Steagal and going on a drunken binge selling toxic debt as AAA debt or anything.
90. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong on all counts. Thanks for playing! Employers create no wealth whatsoever. Never have, never will. Their capacity to employ people is entirely based on demand, which stems almost exclusively from a well-treated middle class that has plenty of money to spend because it's not being bled dry by a corporate infrastructure that takes zero-production rent-seeking to the level of an art form.
  But for reading a single Econ book and thinking you know everything, you get a cookie!
  The cookie is poison, but the free market will deal with that. Eventually. Right?
91. Re:Better model needed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  But corporations *are* people, legally: That's the entire point behind the centuries-old and very necessary idea, and the very reason they're called that - they are the legal "embodiment" (incorporation) of a group of people enabling them to act as a single entity, with all the essential rights that individual people have, including the right to speak (even politically!) and enter into contracts.
  Doing away with corporations would make any kind of group cooperation effectively illegal. (At the very least, it would make operating any entity as a group completely infeasible - as a shareholder, would you *really* want to have to approve each and every contract that Google or Airbus enters into? Does anyone really want to give that idiot in the tinfoil hat absolute veto power over everything? Becasue that's the world without corporations!
  Oh, and since The War Between the States nearly 150 years ago, even our governments have been reconstituted as corporations, too... (At least in the US: State and Local for sure - not certain about Federal...) So if corporations are not people, then even our governments lose their legal ability to act on behalf of (even if only very rarely in the best interest of) their citizens.
92. Re:Better model needed by sumdumass · 2013-10-21 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  So, how do I get my mortgage and car payments 'off budget' so the bank won't count them against me? Are you saying the money just materialized on his desk?
  In short, yes, with the government, the money magically materialized and spent itself. Look into the differences between deficit and debt and the difference between on and off budget. Basically, off budget is all spending that wasn't budgeted for and generally is considered emergency spending. The US spends money off budget all the time. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for instance were all off budget until Obama Put them on it.
  
  And under Clinton, the deficit did briefly go negative.
  deficit is not debt and deficit is not budget deficit. The deficient spending never stopped under Clinton. However, all budgeted spending was balanced for a year or two and there was extra at the end of one. However, you can tell from this page that the debt increased every single year while Bill Clinton was president (1992-2000).
  
  The deficit is currently positive but declining.
  And it is still higher then when Bush was in office. However, this is pointless to argue as it is meaningless.
  
  I'm not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but I know how to read a graph and the deficit most certainly trends down for all Democratic presidents since Carter and up for the Republicans.
  I would like to see that graph. You are correct that the a democrat president (it would be technically incorrect to claim democrats in general because the democrats under Carter actively worked against him, and Clinton had a republican congress.) has presided over the smaller increases in debt but that is a misnomer. Both Clinton and Carter were restrained by congress. Reagan and Bush seemed to get away with anything they wanted.
  
  The other 8 trillion happened under Bush's watch as well, regardless of the cause.
  Well, no. 2 of the other 8 trillion happened under bush and the other 6 not attributed to wars or tax cuts happened under Obama. You can probably play off part of that on the recession that happened at the end of bush, but you can't completely blame that on Bush either. The ACA itself is supposed to cost 1 trillion dollars and another 1.7 over the next ten years according to the last CBO numbers I have seen.
  
  Again, I'm not a staunch Democrat, but ignoring facts certainly isn't going to get us out of debt. If you want lower debt and acknowledge that the next president will be an R or a D, go for a D.
  That is a little simplistic seeing how Obama is technically defunct on this observation. The deficits being run currently are still larger then when Bush was in office. Certainly voting for any party based on what other presidents have done for the debt is a bit misconstrued. It completely ignores their platform statements as well as historical events. If a democrat runs claiming he would increase the debt, you would be a complete fool to elect him.
  
  Personally, I would prefer a third party that will slash TSA, NSA, and DEA as well as pulling back from the world police role as well. I'm just not holding my breath.
  I agree with this except the last bit. The world has historically demonstrated it would sit idle while some country ended up starting a world war. Someone needs to tell some of these ambitious tin pot dictators to sit down and shut up. However, I think our current president is on the receiving end of that with the red line BS that backfired on him.
93. Re:Better model needed by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-10-22 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not much? It's MORE than the GDP of the US.
94. Re:Better model needed by samwichse · 2013-10-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is probably the best list of any kind I've ever read on Slashdot.
  Sam
95. Re:Better model needed by sjames · 2013-10-22 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  11 T you attributed to Bush. You explained away 3. Now you want to blame Obama for the additional 8 that was spent during Bush's term? How so?
96. Re:Better model needed by sumdumass · 2013-10-23 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm
  Look at the dates again. Obama has been in office over 5 years now. Those obama years are included in that 11 trillion. What i tried to do was be realistic with portions of debt increase under obama that could clearly be attributed to bush policies like the war and tax cuts as well as a bailout.
  I'm posting from my phone so it is a little dificult pasting links but all this is easily availible with a google search. The site above is a good place to start and provides some explainations to some of the increases.
Thank you by careysb · 2013-10-20 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thank you G.O.P. and the Tea Party
1. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You're welcome. Please remember to vote in 2014 and 2016.
2. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Obama: Its unpatriotic to blindly increase the debt limit without dealing with spending.
  I believe the GOP was just following Obama's words of wisdom.
3. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  You act as if this was a one-sided argument.
4. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:47 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Special shout out to Reid and Obama who refused to negotiate with the GOP and threw a tempter tantrum unless they got their way.
  Oh and super special shout out to Reid and Obama who've refused to pass a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED BUDGET for 3 years since the Republicans have held the house and forcing the budget from 2009, which contains all the billions of above and beyond economic stimulus funding to save the economy in 2009.
  (Which still, btw, isn't saved...)
5. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  A characteristic of unsuccessful people is the inability to "delay gratification." Or put another way, they don't understand the concept of "pay now, play later."
  Our government has fallen into the same trap. Addicted to spending, they sacrifice the future for the present, buying votes with money they don't have, implementing poorly thought out policies that bankrupt this country's coffers and spirit.
  If you think this shutdown was bad, just imagine how bad it will be when the dollar loses reserve currency status. Then you'll really see a government shutdown.
6. Re:Thank you by tompaulco · 2013-10-20 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  It takes two to tango.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
7. Re:Thank you by jcr · 2013-10-20 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the other brand of the Ruling Party. Their responsibility for the debacle is exactly the same.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
8. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  And now it becomes clear why the intelligentsia tend to favor big-government statists. They're simply "too intertwined" with the government and they'd starve without government spending. Stop scientific welfare now.
9. Re:Thank you by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-10-20 03:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  > CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED BUDGET
  The idea that Congress is constitutionally mandated to prepare a budget is one of many tea party memes that is easily debunked. The fact is the word budget doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Here's what factcheck.org has to say about it:
  http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/palins-constitutional-stretch/
  Here is what the Constitution says about it:
  Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
  In addition, as John McCain recently pointed out, Congress has not followed a basic budgeting process for 20 years. Your attempt to stick this on Obama and Reid is moronic and unjustified by any reference in the Constitution.
10. Re:Thank you by mark_reh · 2013-10-20 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Right! After all, we don't get anything from those leeches...
11. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Do you think Monsanto researchers manage to find results favorable to Monsanto? Do you think government-funded researchers find results favorable to the government?
  Scientists dependent on federal dollars to feed them are going to vote for people who fund their meal tickets.
12. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly, you can't have a rapist without a victim. You can't have a hostage situation without a hostage and someone to hold them captive? Now can you?
  Captcha: Campaign
13. Re:Thank you by gtall · 2013-10-20 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  For this G.O.P. and Tea Party, the cut back in research is considered a victory, not the least that climate research has been cut back. They and their fellow travelers, the Libertarians, have no use for government funded research.
  As for finding other sources of funding, nothing comparable to the fed. dollars is on the horizon anywhere.
14. Re:Thank you by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There are multiple conversations. You might be thinking of the small vs big government argument. However, realize that's not the conversation that actually lead to the shutdown. The GOP reps in the house aren't actual small government types. The closest thing is "starve the beast" republicans which is simply code for "Cut taxes on my benefactors and leave cutting spending to someone else."
  
  In other words, yes, the conversation that lead to the shutdown was one sided. There could have been two sides to it, but one side got crowded out by billionaire funded insanity. Take back control of your party from the tea party. I'm a hardcore liberal, but I'd welcome a real two sided argument in Washington any day over what we have now.
15. Re:Thank you by cold+fjord · 2013-10-20 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  That is one of the harsher descriptions of Obamacare that I've seen.
  
  --
  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
16. Re:Thank you by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think the Tea Party might find more enjoyment by using another host?
17. Re:Thank you by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Poor AC, "all or nothing" is not negotiation.
18. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Special shout out to Reid and Obama who refused to negotiate with the GOP and threw a tempter tantrum unless they got their way.
  Oh and super special shout out to Reid and Obama who've refused to pass a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED BUDGET for 3 years since the Republicans have held the house and forcing the budget from 2009, which contains all the billions of above and beyond economic stimulus funding to save the economy in 2009.
  (Which still, btw, isn't saved...)
  Even were a budget "constitutionally mandated" (which it isn't), it is not up to Obama, or any president, to pass a budget - the house and senate pass a budget which the president then signs (or doesn't). I didn't see a budget anywhere that passed the house and senate and made it to the presidents desk. If you don't like that, well, there's elections next year and you can vote for (some) of the candidates in the house & senate of your own choosing, and if they win maybe they'll add votes to change things the way you want them. Of course, if they lose maybe your ways still won't get the votes needed. Either way, it is how the government of this country works, and has worked for 200+years. Stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum all you want, but any good parent will tell you that letting a child get their way by throwing tantrums is only going to make them intolerable in the future with more tantrums & demands.
19. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  For this G.O.P. and Tea Party, the cut back in research is considered a victory, not the least that climate research has been cut back. They and their fellow travelers, the Libertarians, have no use for government funded research.
  As for finding other sources of funding, nothing comparable to the fed. dollars is on the horizon anywhere.
  I'm sure they will make exceptions to fund any research that says the earth is only 6000 years old, man walked with dinosaurs, and that women are inferior and should stay shut up in the kitchen and have no say about their own bodies.
20. Re:Thank you by roman_mir · 2013-10-20 04:40 · Score: -1
  
  Tea Party didn't do its job. It lost the battle here, when it gave up and allowed the debt ceiling to be raised.
  The only way Tea Party could have been thanked (not sarcastically, but as a matter of fact) would have been as if it managed to prevent the rise of the debt ceiling, thus forcing an actual true reduction in government spending by forcing complete stop to the deficit spending.
  Tea Party lost, I don't see any reason to thank it. It lost completely in this case and hurt its brand immensely by losing.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
21. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  I wasn't describing Obamacare, I was describing the Republican party and others trying to blame either the Democratic Party or both of them for the shutdown over Obamacare using the excuse "It takes two to tango" when in this case, it was solely the fault of the Republican Party with the Tea Party at the helm. The other party in the two to tango myth in this are not in the situation willingly but by the force of the other party.
22. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and you were also describing Obamacare as well which was ramrodded through the congress who were cut out of the situation willing by the force of the Democrat party.
23. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Your source doesn't say it is completely false either.
  "Douglas O. Linder, professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School, said, “I think it’s kind of a stretch to be honest to say it’s a violation of that section. I think most constitutional scholars and most courts would disagree with her.” Linder added that that’s “not to say there’s absolutely nothing to her argument.” There are various interpretations to constitutional matters, after all."
  But by all means, let's keep slinging partisan shit, because that'll take care of the $17T debt.
24. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum all you want, but any good parent will tell you that letting a child get their way by throwing tantrums is only going to make them intolerable in the future with more tantrums & demands.
  Which is all Obama's ever done and yet he got re-elected...
25. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  And when the republicans tried to negotiate, Obama and Reid refused.
  The DEMS are the all or nothing crowd. The Tea party just wants fiscal sanity, but in a house (and senate) full of insane people, its hard to see sanity when everything you are comparing against is nuts.
  We shouldnt be spending nearly as much at the federal level, at all. For those folks who want the free ride, go to democrat states, and let the states raise taxes. For those folks who feel you have to work for what you get, go to cons states, get less from the state and pay for more yourself.
  Why dont we, as was intended by the founding fathers, allow the states to be sovereign in their own territory.
  Let us see which states produce more, generate more wealth, and have a better standard of living. And then if you don't like it, you can move to another state.
26. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  It is fulfilling to be funded by money you didn't earn. What makes it much more fun is when the guy giving it to you didn't earn it too. He just took it from some jerk.
27. Re:Thank you by Kerstyun · 2013-10-20 09:32 · Score: -1
  
  Don't need re-search for that, it's mater of biblacal fact.
  
  --
  Keep the whitehouse white, vote Trump & Palin 2020.
28. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  If you still, after all the evidence, believe in red team vs blue team you are part of the problem.
29. Re:Thank you by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Poor AC, If ones personal time line is greater than 24 hours, one can see that the Tea Party has a mean streak that's a little cute. It looks like their pride grows by a combination of standing in the shadows and good people that do nothig.
30. Re:Thank you by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-10-20 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? 'Not completely false' ? Is this some new definition of truth? A budget is either required or it's not. Well, where does anything like this requirement show up in the Constitution? Or in the actual practice of Congress?
  Hint. ONE PLACE. Laws passed by Congress. In 1921 requiring the President to submit his budget, and in 1974 requiring a budget process because Nixon was pulling shenanigans with the budget including not sending allocated money. Prior to 1974 there was no comprehensive real budget process in the US. Prior to 1921 there was NOTHING. The 1974 process has been pretty much ignored over the past 20 years while the President still more or less follows the 1921 law.
  The idea the US has historically had a yearly budget according to a Constitutional requirement is simple flat out hooey.
  "I think most constitutional scholars and most courts would disagree with her."
  There is always SOMEBODY willing to take an opposing view. So you cannot say ALL constitutional scholars and ALL courts would disagree with her.
  It's quite clear there is no Constitutional Requirement that the Congress produce a budget.
  And as far as partisan shit, since when are actual facts like the actual wording of the Constitution and the law of the United States partisan?
  I do agree with your sentiment that we will not be able to address the real issues with the US government debt without dropping partisan bickering.
  It's also going to require a hell of a lot of reeducation on both sides to get it right. There are too many low information voters and Congressmen (consequence of the former).
31. Re:Thank you by elvis+the+frog · 2013-10-20 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  The idea that "The idea that Congress is constitutionally mandated to prepare a budget is one of many tea party memes" is also a strawman. But you Taxers of course always know what is best for us for us to think and do. I leave you with this delightful thought from C.S. Lewis, you little would-be dogooder:
  “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
32. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  "There could have been two sides to it, but one side got crowded out by billionaire funded insanity"
  You mean the Soros funded minion in the White House?
33. Re:Thank you by cyberchondriac · 2013-10-21 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  This, exactly. Because we need more and more debt on top of what we have - we've already forgotten Obama's 2006 criticism of Bush for extending the debt ceiling? Cite the Iraq war all you want, but under Obama, the fact is, the debt has grown far worse than it did prior. It makes sense to try to make some cuts somewhere. Blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything still, in 2013, priceless.
  I noticed the bias of this article, the "Republican" lead shutdown.. Well, Obama and Reid didn't negotiate *one iota* on anything, had they done their job as elected officials and been willing to make a few compromises in this thing there probably wouldn't have been a shutdown; but they didn't even try, they utterly refused outright to budge on anything. How mature.
  The Rs picked the wrong battlefield to make their stand, and for that, they too deserve blame, but not the whole enchilada by any stretch. I'm not buying the mass media bullshit that this was entirely the Rights fault.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
34. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I am still waiting for a realistic president's budget. Not only has he continually been late with his homework, for purely political reasons, its crap when it finally arrives. The shutdown was baked into the plans long time ago.
Living paycheck to paycheck? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:38 · Score: 0

These projects should put 1% aside starting on day 1 until they have a buffer that can let them survive 17 days without funding.
1. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by trdtaylor · 2013-10-20 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  You and third world dictators love their slushfunds. Government auditors don't though.
2. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by publiclurker · 2013-10-20 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Won't work. Then you would have the economically ignorant teabaggers claiming that they are betting too much money since they were able to sock away this slush fund. A fund that is uncountably going to be used to some nefarious motives like healthcare to minorities.
3. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by M.+Baranczak · 2013-10-20 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Not having money" wasn't even the problem here. A shutdown means that they're not authorized to operate at all.
  Except for the NSA, because they provide an essential service.
4. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by gl4ss · 2013-10-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  that's not how the government shutdown in USA style works.
  they might have their budgeted money on their accounts. they just would't be allowed to spend it - because the shutdown wouldn't have the same negotiating aspect otherwise. it's just all games and a symptom about how dysfunctional the system is.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  And who prints the money?
6. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by iamwahoo2 · 2013-10-20 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not expending 100% of funds and taking on as much risk as possible is not even close to the same thing as having a "slush fund". And government auditors do not care if you fail to expend 100% of funds and money goes back to the taxpayer.
7. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  "Not having money" wasn't even the problem here. A shutdown means that they're not authorized to operate at all. Except for the NSA, because they provide an essential service.
  And make no mistake: that reflects the administration's preferences, not any kind of legal necessity.
8. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by smaddox · 2013-10-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have misunderstood the situation. Federal government funded researchers were barred from entering their workplace, regardless of whether or not there was enough money in their accounts to continue operating. In many cases whole buildings were shut down even if they were only partially funded by the federal government. In some cases, entire experiments had to be scrapped at tremendous cost in both time and money, because a physical presence is required to maintain them.
9. Re:Living paycheck to paycheck? by someSnarkyBastard · 2013-10-21 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve is a private entity.
Who needs a left leg? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:39 · Score: 0

I've spent the last 30 years without a left leg, you insensitive clod....
1. Re:Who needs a left leg? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  Your left or my left?
2. Re:Who needs a left leg? by M.+Baranczak · 2013-10-20 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Spigot?
  I've nothing against your right leg... unfortunately, neither have you.
3. Re:Who needs a left leg? by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, coffee all over my keyborad, damn.
If science is this intertwined with govt. money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:40 · Score: 0

How intertwined is it with government politics and, worse, "outcome based research'?
Ta Da by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:47 · Score: 0

You can thank your local friendly* republican party for the pleasure.
* to their own business only
1. Re:Ta Da by tompaulco · 2013-10-20 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wow, the article actually correctly used the technique of "begging the question" by starting with the assumption that everything is the Republicans fault, even though neither side could reach an agreement. And of course, Slashdot, is more than happy to take the bait and run, of course.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
2. Re:Ta Da by mark_reh · 2013-10-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  This topic has been beaten to death everywhere. The only place where the Republicans look innocent is Fox news.
  There was no agreement to be reached except that the dopes in DC should do their jobs. Finally, the children realized they were starting to look bad and did something about it.
3. Re:Ta Da by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  It says "Republican-led," which is an accurate statement. It doesn't mention the Democrats, Libertarians, Green, Independent, and whatever other club association was also involved, because it was led by the Republicans who have voted eleventy zillion times to defund public healthcare and continuously talked about how their only goal in their political lives are to stop the Affordable Care Act (which is always called Obamacare because that makes it more evil).
4. Re:Ta Da by thrich81 · 2013-10-20 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The thing is, the majority of all the representatives in both houses of Congress were able to reach agreement once the requirement was dropped that the agreement had to have the support of a majority of the Republicans. This is where the system broke down -- a minority of all the representatives could force a shutdown over the wishes of the majority because the (not defined anywhere in the Constitution) 'rules' of the House allowed a smaller group to enforce their wishes on the majority. Why did they do this? Because the pro-shutdown group could not win enough elections across the country to set policy the way they wanted it, so instead they thought shutdown and default were legitimate tactics. That is all on the Republicans. As the President stated afterward -- if you want to legitimately set policy, go out and win some elections!
5. Re:Ta Da by msauve · 2013-10-20 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  " the (not defined anywhere in the Constitution) 'rules' of the House allowed a smaller group to enforce their wishes"
  
  That's like saying "the laws aren't defined in the Constitution." It's a red herring. The rules (no need to put that word in quotes, acting as if they're illegitimate) are in full accord with the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Article 1, Section 5.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
6. Re:Ta Da by ATMAvatar · 2013-10-20 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  An agreement *was* reached back in July. By his own admission, Boehner reneged on it (page 2 if you just want to read).
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
7. Re:Ta Da by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  What I find interesting is the Tea Party's attack ads on Republicans that don't agree with them. Who has that kind of money? Why is this referred to as a Win, Loss? Peoples lives are involved here. And this name calling of elected office holders is designed to create Hate. Why?
  
  Unless some perceive a value to be gained by it? Troubling conclusions based on others past actions.
8. Re:Ta Da by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-10-20 05:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The rules were recently changed so as to thwart bipartisan sensibility in the house.
  Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place. ...
  Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been "altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.
9. Re:Ta Da by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2013-10-20 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  As an outside of the country observer, it was obviously the party that said they would try and obstruct obama at every turn. Using history against you is not "begging the question".
  your opinion is intentionally dense, just admit it.
  
  --
  -
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 02:50 · Score: 0

The extremely partisan government removes funding for the scientific community for the equivalent of a blink of the eye and your entire life is ruined...
I think you have done more to prove the tea party's point about big government being dangerous. Tell me how living with an entity that is holding a gun to your head at all hours and has a proven history of being a soulless uncaring imbecile is the optimal outcome?
This reminds me of the legalization of gay marriage. Everyone had a raging debate over it yea or nay...no one seemed to ask why the governments opinion mattered at all.
The fundamental problem by cowwoc2001 · 2013-10-20 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is that the government is spending too much money. It doesn't matter how you try to spin this, the fact of the matter is they need to start cutting costs.
Notice I'm not blaming one party over another. I just think the American people are doing a disservice to themselves when they accept mud-slinging in order to distract them from this fact. Keep your eye on the ball and demand that *any* party that is elected into power balance the budget and start paying back the debt.
1. Re:The fundamental problem by gtall · 2013-10-20 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the government spends too much, but it is a large government and can walk and chew gum at the same time. 2/3's of the budget is entitlements. Even SS is now in the red every year. It still has its trust fund, but those are government I.O.U.s. The government has to borrow when those get cashed.
  From The Congressional Research Service: Federal Research and Development Funding, FY2012 research funding was $138.869 Billion (actually a lot higher than I figured). Obama requested for FY2013 $140.820 Billion. That was broken down into: seven federal agencies would receive 95.8% of total federal R&D funding, with the Department of Defense (50.6%) and the Department of Health and Human Services (22.3%, primarily for the National Institutes of Health) accounting for nearly three-fourths of all R&D funding. Also, Defense tends to do a lot of research in the health sciences to mitigate the cost of was on individual bodies, and there is the spinoffs into the civilian economy of military research.
  Obama didn't get all that, I'm unsure what Congress approved but since sequester and 2013's CR, we can assume the research for 2013 was somewhat south of $138.869 Billion. The 2013 deficit from the Congressional Budget Office isn't out yet because of the shutdown, but they were forecasting a deficit of $642 billion.
  Total foreign aid for 2012 was about $48 Billion (from the State Dept.'s Executive Budget Summary FUNCTION 150 & OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS). The Obama's request for the Defense Dept. for 2012 was $553 billion, which doesn't include the sequester or the CR which ran 2012's budget, so that total was south of that.
  The consequence is that if we completely whack the Defense Dept. and Science funding, we could just about cover the yearly deficit....except that it won't in the future. Economists expect the budget deficit to drift downward for the next 4 years and then spiral up as the Blue Haired really start demanding their several pounds of flesh from the rest. And whacking Defense and Science will have effects throughout the economy, not least of which losing control of the shipping lanes to some rather unsavory international characters. Also, whacking Defense tends to knock pts off the GDP so that will cause the deficit to reappear. Whacking science similarly except the effect gets greater the farther into the future one looks.
2. Re:The fundamental problem by cowwoc2001 · 2013-10-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the problem is entitlements.
  Case in point: my post got flagged as Offtopic. Anyone who thinks it is offtopic to say that we've got to cut science spending because we're spending too much money altogether doesn't seem to understand what is going on.
  Science spending is not a Human Right, nor is caring for the Disabled and Elderly. It is a very wonderful thing to do, but my point is that when you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Everything needs to get hit *including* things we care deeply about. The sooner people internalize this message, the easier it'll be to get out of debt.
3. Re:The fundamental problem by stenvar · 2013-10-20 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Also, whacking Defense tends to knock pts off the GDP so that will cause the deficit to reappear.
  The taxes used to pay for Defense knock off more points of the GDP.
  
  Whacking science similarly except the effect gets greater the farther into the future one looks.
  I generally favor federal funding for basic scientific research because I suspect has one of the best ROIs for all federal spending. But even that is merely a guess. Nobody knows whether it actually does.
4. Re:The fundamental problem by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Running a deficit artificially inflates GDP numbers, but a lower GDP will not necessarily cause higher deficits. If GDP drops, tax revenues likely will also drop, but if you've already cut spending, then perhaps the drop in tax revenue is sufficiently offset by those spending cuts.
5. Re:The fundamental problem by smaddox · 2013-10-20 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Also, whacking Defense tends to knock pts off the GDP so that will cause the deficit to reappear.
  The taxes used to pay for Defense knock off more points of the GDP.
  Perhaps, but I'm skeptical, especially when we're no where near the end of the rapids when it comes to recession. Government spending plays an important role in shortening and shallowing economic downturn.
  
  Whacking science similarly except the effect gets greater the farther into the future one looks.
  I generally favor federal funding for basic scientific research because I suspect has one of the best ROIs for all federal spending. But even that is merely a guess. Nobody knows whether it actually does.
  Too true about nobody knowing. Unfortunately the full impact is immeasurable. Nonetheless, I would bet that even the measurable impact is more than enough to justify the investment.
6. Re:The fundamental problem by stenvar · 2013-10-20 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Government spending plays an important role in shortening and shallowing economic downturn.
  Unfortunately, there's almost no evidence for that.
Can someone explain why websites were down? by OzPeter · 2013-10-20 02:51 · Score: 1

Can someone explain why websites were taken down during the shutdown? I would have thought that the expenditure needed to keep a site up and running would already have been paid in advance, and that the sites were not so fragile that they could have withstood 2 weeks unattended operation.
Was it a precautionary or political matter?

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Because they could, and they wanted the public to get pissed and blame the wrong people.
2. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  Because they are a bunch of whiners, that can only think of extortion as a reason why thy should be funded.
  For example NASA streaming there "we-can't-stream-the-live-SSI-feeds-because-we-are-so-broke-message" feed on U-stream, without actually cutting the up/down-links to the US part of the space station for a few weeks. They deserve a permanently budget-cut.
  Space-X can now claim to be longer in continues operation than NASA.
3. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you ran a popular public-facing website, would you allow all of your sysadmins and network folks to take a two week vacation simultaneously? And do you pay those people, as well as the power company and bandwidth providers, up front? :)
  Then again, they weren't down; they just served different content, so that is the part that confuses me. If they were going to keep the sites up anyway, why actively remove the content unless it was for political emphasis of the shutdown (like barricading national parks)? I'm confident that this is your answer.
4. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  If you are on call for a website, and aren't being paid, wouldn't you want to make that point clear to the visitors?
5. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by ColdWetDog · 2013-10-20 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  Because if Skynet had infiltrated the government web servers, then no one would have been around to spread the alarm.
  Jeez, you Australians just don't understand risk management, do you?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by drinkypoo · 2013-10-20 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought that the expenditure needed to keep a site up and running would already have been paid in advance, and that the sites were not so fragile that they could have withstood 2 weeks unattended operation.
  What? You should be checking sites several times a day. Hopefully, via an automated system... which you're going to have to check up on periodically.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  USA Today, amongst others, are saying not only are the employees geting paid for their two weeks off, but they are also able to collect unemployment benefits on top. Thats up to 150% of their normal pay.
  I would hardly call that being unpaid.
8. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I trust then that when you say "they" you mean obama, right? Because he ordered that websites be taken down to maximize the impact of the shutdown, even though it cost more to take them down than to leave them up.
9. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Patent+Lover · 2013-10-20 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Which ones were down? I saw a few that weren't updated, but none that were outright down. JPL's was up, for example.
10. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  They took down the website for amberalert.gov until that received too much negative press.
11. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by caseih · 2013-10-20 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  JPL is not a government-run organization. It's run by CalTech. However sites like The FCC and NASA were down.
  Honestly it probably cost way more to take the sites down and put up a "we're not home" page than it would have to leave them running with no updates. It's a political thing. It's the government's way of trying to influence public opinion on the shutdown.
12. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  If it were a faux-shutdown that lasts a few days, sure. But they have to pretend that it's forever, because they don't know how long it will go on.
13. Re:Can someone explain why websites were down? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  nope thats something only you people in the wrong hemisphere care about
vi duy by DuyViVan · 2013-10-20 02:54 · Score: -1, Offtopic

thiet ke biet thu
A government contractor here by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:00 · Score: 1

During the shutdown we were operating at 1/10th of the staff for our agency. No problems. All administrative and computer work was done on time, efficiently and the best thing about it -- the office was so much quieter. Kinda begs a question: Is it really necessary to maintain so many employees plus an employee union for any organizations in the Federal government if most of the days they do nothing but talk, drink coffee, browse web and watch movies?
1. Re:A government contractor here by LifesABeach · 2013-10-20 04:14 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Poor AC, maybe you should be let go of your cushy government paid job? Stand up for your rights and leave your job in protest of how much is paid to government workers; it's your right!
2. Re:A government contractor here by iamwahoo2 · 2013-10-20 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Similar experience here. It was not like the sequestration snuck up on everybody. Any program that was caught off gaurd by this was being severely mismanaged. In fact, I would say that the sequestration was a very good thing. It forced our organization to look at ways of improving operations. Our organization cut most travel and conferences. At the end of the year, not only had our division covered the budget cuts, but they actually ended up with an enormous surplus.
3. Re:A government contractor here by LifesABeach · 2013-10-21 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Poor A/C moderator, are we have a bad day?
websites down??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:17 · Score: 1

why would websites be taken down immediately??? does someone have to sit there and update them every day manually?? are they so unstable that they have to be monitored 24/7?? don't they pay for hosting services by the month, or don't they pay their power bill if they host themselves by the month like everyone else does??? i would have thought that most websites could have existed just fine without babysitting for weeks if not at least for a month... the only reason is spite, just like why they spent extra money to erect barricades at open air memorials in DC and other places... and why they paid extra for 24/7 guards blocking access to privately run restaurants on public property. and why they paid extra for cones and patrols to keep people from stopping on public highways to view mt. rushmore. it was all a big show, they only shutdown about 15% of the government anyway and just wanted to make everyone feel bad so they would be mad at those in congress who want to get spending under control.... its like the debt ceiling, they could have kept going for much longer without borrowing, especially with part of the government shutdown! there was no fear of defaulting on interest payments, those are actually much smaller than the monthly income from tax collections.
The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 03:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The short answer is because the demands were unreasonable, and ending health care reform to appease a small minority of the country's demands doesn't make sense.
Do you know why you're a moron? Or as Stalin would say, a "useful idiot"?
Because you actually believe it's only a "small minority" of the country who wants to get rid of Obamacare.
You believe this because it's convenient to your ego to believe it....but it has no basis in reality whatsoever.
At least half the fucking country wants to see Obamacare go. Even many idiot liberals who have been Obama cheerleaders for years, are starting to change their minds after getting their (greatly increased) Obamacare quote.
Why do you think the Obamacare web site doesn't work? On fucking purpose, so that masses of idiots will continue to believe in the narrative that everyone and their mom wants this fucking bullshit and it's only a "tiny minority" of "anarchists" and "extremists" which disagrees.
And of course this mistaken, idiotic belief will make it a lot easier for dumb asses like you to agree wholeheartedly when Obama decides to declare martial law and arrest the GOP.
Nazi Germany, part 2. Welcome to it......asshole. Are you ready to meet Jesus?
1. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's nice. If you want to remove it, pass it on the house, pass it in the senate, then have the president sign it.
  Any other way is contrary to way our government works and is supposed to work.
2. Re:The reason why you're a moron by jbolden · 2013-10-20 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think the Obamacare web site doesn't work? On fucking purpose, so that masses of idiots will continue to believe in the narrative that everyone and their mom wants this fucking bullshit and it's only a "tiny minority" of "anarchists" and "extremists" which disagrees.
  
  That's likely.
3. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's nice. If you want to remove it, pass it on the house, pass it in the senate, then have the president sign it.
  Any other way is contrary to way our government works and is supposed to work.
  Bingo. Hey, I have no great love for ACA, I think it's mostly a handout for the insurance companies, and gee, written by the insurance lobby - go figure. But it's a law, passed by the house and senate, signed by the president, and upheld by the SCOTUS. If you want it removed, then you write a bill to revoke it that passes the house and senate, and that will be signed by the president. That's the way the government works - and if you can't get it to pass, then stomping your feet like little children and holding everything else hostage until you get your way *shouldn't* work (and didn't, thankfully, it would set a horrible precedent for the future governing of the country).
4. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your post is a good example of why most Republicans can be classified as mentally ill.
  I'm assuming you are also a home-schooling, bible-thumping, gun nut with truck nutz on his truck and a rich history of run-ins with the law, and you demand marijuana should be legalized and are convinced you don't need to pay taxes.
  You need to be medicated.
5. Re:The reason why you're a moron by maccodemonkey · 2013-10-20 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  At least half the fucking country wants to see Obamacare go. Even many idiot liberals who have been Obama cheerleaders for years, are starting to change their minds after getting their (greatly increased) Obamacare quote.
  Ooooo, an easily testable claim! Let's get the latest poll numbers.
  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327937-poll-obamacare-gains-popularity-amid-shutdown
  "The survey released Thursday found 38 percent of people believe ObamaCare is a good idea"
  "A plurality of people, however, continue to have a negative view of the law. Forty-three percent think it is a bad idea, including 38 percent who feel strongly about their decision. And 17 percent have no opinion. "
  43% is less than "At least half the fucking country", but it's more than the people who support, so I'll kind of give you that one, cause the real key number is next...
  "Only 23 percent of people would continue a government shutdown in order to strip funding from the law."
  If you're going to pretend to be doing things on behalf of the people, at least pay attention to what they're saying.
6. Re:The reason why you're a moron by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me a little bit about your background if you don't mind. I'm curious as to what type of person thinks this.
7. Re:The reason why you're a moron by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  At least half the fucking country wants to see Obamacare go
  Yes, and half of those want it replaced with a far more progressive plan, e.g. national single-payer insurance. Far less than half of the country supports the Republican position that Obamacare is a radical leftist policy that must be destroyed at all costs.
  Obama decides to declare martial law and arrest the GOP
  This also has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you want to convince people that Obamacare is a bad idea, you'll have a much easier time if you don't sound like you just escaped from a mental institution.
8. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 04:57 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Bingo. Hey, I have no great love for ACA, I think it's mostly a handout for the insurance companies, and gee, written by the insurance lobby - go figure. But it's a law, passed by the house and senate, signed by the president, and upheld by the SCOTUS. If you want it removed, then you write a bill to revoke it that passes the house and senate, and that will be signed by the president. That's the way the government works
  Again you illustrate your stupidity. Yeah, it passed the house, passed the senate, and even the SCOTUS.....which is exactly why our government is totally fucked. Think about it.
  
  if you can't get it to pass, then stomping your feet like little children and holding everything else hostage until you get your way
  Did you ever notice how these days anyone who disagrees with the government is a "little child" who is "stomping their feet" or "throwing a tantrum" or any number of other similar analogies, if they disagree with a government policy?
  No of course you didn't notice. That's because you're too stupid to understand the nature of the stereotype you fit.
  I'm not a fucking child just because I disagree with your insane government policies, or because I believe this government has been irretrievably lost to the forces of evil. That just makes me an informed realist. Try educating yourself some time.
  I bet you also truly believe deep down in your corrupt, black heart that 90% of Americans actually support gun control too, don't you? LOL.
9. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 05:01 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Your post is a good example of why most Republicans can be classified as mentally ill.
  Your post is a good example of how fucked our country really is.
  Really, I'm mentally ill? Why? Just because you say so?
  I guess you didn't get the memo: claims of "mental illness" is a tool those in authority to use to control people. That's what they did in the Soviet Union. And that's what they're doing in America today. Unfortunately you're too stupid to understand just what a useful idiot you really are.
  
  I'm assuming you are also a home-schooling, bible-thumping, gun nut with truck nutz on his truck and a rich history of run-ins with the law, and you demand marijuana should be legalized and are convinced you don't need to pay taxes.
  That's because you're a dumb ass. In reality I'm a well educated intellectual who is far smarter and more informed than you'll ever contemplate being.
  
  You need to be medicated.
  Do us all a favor and go swallow a shotgun.
10. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 05:05 · Score: -1
  
  Ooooo, an easily testable claim! Let's get the latest poll numbers.
  Congratulations! You're a dumb ass.
  You really trust poll numbers? Look in the mirror, if you'd like to see a great example of why our country is fucking destroyed already. Look at that gullible idiot staring right back at ya. That's the dumb ass responsible for not only letting the tyrant get his way, but actively encouraging him every step of the way.
  Again: it's your ego that makes you believe most people support Obamacare. I bet you didn't even blink when Obama said 90% of people support gun control, either, did ya? Of course not. That's because you're a useful idiot.
  Do you know why democracy is a horrible form of government? Because inevitably some special interest group of retards will arise who will vote in a policy that enriches them while fucking over everybody else. For example, Obamacare. Then you can sit there and watch their righteous indignation as said fucked over people actually have the nerve to rise up and fight back. lol
11. Re:The reason why you're a moron by dugancent · 2013-10-20 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Grow up.
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
12. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 05:26 · Score: -1
  
  I'm a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. Two tours in Afghanistan. Secret security clearance. My career in the military (and for a few years afterward) was satellite communications. I also have a background in computer programming and electronics repair and have been self employed for years, first building electronic fuel injection systems for hot rods, and now work in the field of indoor hydroponic agriculture. I am an entrepreneur with a thousand viable business ideas I'm actively working on including a new type of computer system that will revolutionize the world, and a new type of "fast food" restaurant which will put McDonalds out of business.
  I grew up as a good ole boy who more or less followed the rules and did what he was supposed to do. I only became virulently anti government when my mother fucking right to drive was revoked for no good goddamn reason whatsoever. I am not a drunk driver, a reckless driver, or a danger on the road way in any way at all. I got some speeding tickets and no insurance tickets (cause I couldn't afford it) and then me license was suspended. Being as there was no choice but to drive I continued to do so, and had almost made it through the 60 day suspension when I got pulled over in 6 or 7 Soviet Union style roadblocks within a two week period. The judge didn't ask me if I was guilty or innocent, he just put all the tickets on one docket, declared me guilty, and demanded $3,500 in fines or I was going to jail. I didn't have the money so my mom had to come up with it out of nowhere to get me out. I got pulled over a few weeks later for a broken taillight and that's when I discovered my license was revoked. No way to fight back, or get a hearing, or to challenge it in any way. Period.
  That was in 2008. The revocation was supposed to be until 2011 but it continues to this day because of the horrible crime I've committed in the interim......that is, driving while revoked (OMG! shock! horror! The real crime here is "disobedience to the State.") I've paid probably $20,000+ in fines and fees and other bullshit over the years, stuck in a legal black hole, while others with multiple DUIs and reckless driving and other serious crimes simply paid a lawyer and got it dealt with. I finally got together $1,500 and sued the State of Alabama.... which caused my license to be temporarily reinstated, in Alabama, as long as I carry around a sheet of paper from judge. Except now I live in Michigan and it doesn't matter, because the state of Michigan claims I owe them $6,000 (for driving while revoked) ON TOP OF the fines and fees I've already paid in the court room for said violations, and my "Michigan license" (which I never applied or asked for) will be suspended until said fines are paid. Which will be never, since I don't negotiate with terrorists.
  Oh yeah, and I've had the FBI show up at my house to harass me after I sent some GOP asshole an email telling him to go fuck himself. I then sent an email to the FBI telling them to go fuck themselves as well........and the local police showed up at my house out of nowhere six days later with a search warrant looking for a "stolen cell phone." As they left their heads were bowed in shame, knowing that they'd been used to persecute an innocent person. My home doesn't look like the home of a cell phone thief. I don't even own a fucking TV let alone a smart phone. All I have in my house is a bare mattress on the fucking floor and some old military memorabilia. I live in poverty, off the sweat of my own back, not of others. And no I don't take handouts.
  So there you go. There's my story, and the story of a million other people who have been forced into state sanctioned slavery. It took being fucked over myself for me to open my eyes and realize just how bad this government really is. I used to look up to and respect police officers; now I despise them, even the "good" ones. If they were truly good they would realize the system they are participating in is evil and destructive. I am an implacable enemy of this corrupt and wicked U.S. government....and the masses of millions are building behind me by the day. We will have justice.
13. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  You think people are calling you a child because you disagree with "the government"? So, you have never considered that maybe there could be some other reason?
14. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and half of those want it replaced with a far more progressive plan, e.g. national single-payer insurance. Far less than half of the country supports the Republican position that Obamacare is a radical leftist policy that must be destroyed at all costs.
  Try spending some time in Alabama or rural Michigan and see how closely your radical leftist viewpoint matches reality. Hint: it doesn't. Just like I said in the first post which you so idiotically replied to without understanding how it applies to you. You believe what you believe because that's what you want to believe. If the government comes out with a poll which supports your beliefs, you don't question it, because it reinforces your idiotic beliefs. Never once would you fucking consider leaving whatever socialist shithole you reside in to go out in the countryside and ask the rest of us what we REALLY think about your Obamacare bullshit.
  
  This also has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you want to convince people that Obamacare is a bad idea, you'll have a much easier time if you don't sound like you just escaped from a mental institution.
  And you'd have a lot easier time understanding the truth of what's really going on if you weren't presently inside of a fucking mental institution. Or if you'd cracked a history book every once in a while. Do you even know how to read?
15. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  If you're too stupid to see the obvious pattern, that's a result of your idiocy, not mine.
  Open your fucking eyes and look around.
  People like you continue to call people like me children. You just love this analogy. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to see that it applies to you much more than it applies to us. Who is more childish: the person who wants to take care of himself, who wants to earn his own living and pay for his own prosperity? Or the mother fucker who is too stupid to live without the almighty Uncle Sam mothering and looking over his shoulder at every turn?
16. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To be honest, it sounds like you've put yourself in a shitty situation and prefer to blame others for it rather than accepting responsibility. I friendly advice: if you want sympathy, start by admitting your own faults instead of making excuses, regardless of the faults of others. The way you are going on now, you'll dig yourself into an ever deeper hole of anger and bitter resentment.
17. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 05:52 · Score: -1
  
  Insightful analysis there, shit stain. When you have something of value to add to this country feel free to join the rest of us. Otherwise please do us all a favor and bury yourself.
18. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Calydor · 2013-10-20 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  If not by polls, how do you suggest we figure out what the majority wants?
  Democracy is essentially a poll on a massive scale, so I guess you just threw that out the window. Should we just have an All-Knowing Emperor tell us what we want?
  If you think that just because an opinion seems the logical one to you that means it's the best one and/or the one supported by the majority then you are the, quote, gullible idiot.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
19. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I took a look at your posting history. I'm sure others have told you this, but you really should look at some anger management classes. Vet centers offer these.
  One of the things you might learn in classes like that is some perspective. There are people who have been really screwed over by the government (think drug offenses), but you are not one of them.
  You've got the freedom to fix this. You need to man up, take some personal responsibility, and quit spending all of your money on beer.
20. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  To be honest, it sounds like you've put yourself in a shitty situation and prefer to blame others for it rather than accepting responsibility. I friendly advice
  That's because you're a drone who's been programmed to believe it's YOUR fault when you are oppressed by a brutally corrupt, wicked society.
  Really, how is it MY fault for just trying to fucking live? What have I done to deserve to lose a fundamental RIGHT? Nothing. And there is nothing you can possibly do to convince me otherwise.
  
  if you want sympathy,
  I don't want sympathy, asshole. I was explaining to the other guy why I'm here. What I want is for you and your ilk to leave me the fuck alone. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?
  In other words: FUCK OFF.
21. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  I took a look at your posting history. I'm sure others have told you this, but you really should look at some anger management classes. Vet centers offer these.
  Go fuck yourself, with a sword.
  
  One of the things you might learn in classes like that is some perspective. There are people who have been really screwed over by the government (think drug offenses), but you are not one of them.
  Go fuck yourself, with a Predator drone.
  
  You've got the freedom to fix this. You need to man up, take some personal responsibility, and quit spending all of your money on beer.
  I don't drink, you stupid asshole. Go fuck yourself, with a broken beer bottle.
  You don't think when I posted up all those details of my personal life history, I didn't know there would be a peanut gallery of mouth breathing retards who would find some way to blame me for everything?
  Fuck you, fuck your family, and fuck everything you stand for, you ignorant piece of shit. I hope you die, slowly and painfully, in a fire. And then burn in hell.
  Is that clear enough for you? LOL
22. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 06:26 · Score: -1
  
  If not by polls, how do you suggest we figure out what the majority wants?
  I don't.
  
  Democracy is essentially a poll on a massive scale, so I guess you just threw that out the window. Should we just have an All-Knowing Emperor tell us what we want?
  That's exactly the route you're pushing our country towards.
  This country is NOT a fucking democracy, though many clueless idiots in America certainly want that.
  This is a Republic, full of free people who have the God given right to throw off any government which has been forced on them against their will.
  
  If you think that just because an opinion seems the logical one to you that means it's the best one and/or the one supported by the majority then you are the, quote, gullible idiot.
  If you think that the people of Alabama support Obamacare, or that the people of Mississippi or Michigan or Tennessee or Iowa support it, you are a gullible idiot. Try walking outside whatever socialist urban shithole you live in and experience the real America for once in your life.
23. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Carewolf · 2013-10-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  A republic is a form of government, it just means the head of state is not a king. Democracy is an ideal. It appears you don't like it, well, you free to prefer a dictatorship if you like, it is a free country.
24. Re:The reason why you're a moron by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  your radical leftist viewpoint
  Nothing in my post made any judgements about the virtues (or lack thereof) of Obamacare; I was simply citing what all of the polls have shown. Do you simply label anyone who contradicts you as a "radical leftist"?
25. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Hognoxious · 2013-10-20 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  claims of "mental illness" is a tool those in authority to use to control people.
  
  It's not always one.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
26. Re:The reason why you're a moron by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  it sounds like you've put yourself in a shitty situation and prefer to blame others for it rather than accepting responsibility.
  Bonus: I only had to look one page back in his comment history to find this gem:
  "That's because you're a poor person, who will always be poor, thanks to your poor person mentality."
  So, when other people are poor, it's because they're lazy and stupid; when he's poor, it's because the evil leftist government is oppressing him.
27. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody said it was, dipshit. But that is exactly what is happening at this very moment as we speak.
  That's why the DSM 5 manual was recently released to protest from mental health professionals, because it redefines everything so vaguely that anyone could be declared mentally ill according to its wording.
  That's also why the "mentally ill" has become such a big cog in the gun control "debate"...because the same rabid pro-gun fanatics who would blow someone's head off with a shotgun before letting anyone grab their guns, and would heartily oppose any gun control effort from any direction it might come......will gleefully cheer like the useful idiots they are when anyone suggests that the "mentally ill" should be locked up. They are too stupid to see how the term "mentally ill" can easily be (and WILL be) applied to them, too.
  Whether you recognize the pattern or not, a pattern exists: and the pattern is, the U.S. Government is going to come after the "mentally ill"--me and anyone else who loudly and angrily disagrees with their fucked up Nazi ideology, and put us in a FEMA camp...."for our own good" of course.
  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  Those who do learn from history, are doomed to watch everyone else repeating it.
28. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Holly shit. You really sound like an arsehole!
29. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Pull your head out of your fucking ass. I don't want a dictatorship you stupid asshole. By educating morons such as yourself, that is exactly what I'm working to prevent. Look around you. What makes you think a redneck in Alabama should be forced at the point of a gun to buy into a scam (health insurance) just because King Obama says so? Do Not Want. WAKE THE FUCK UP.
30. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-20 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Obamacare is an atrocity. The people of Alabama don't want it. The people of Mississippi, of Texas, of Iowa, of Montana, of Wyoming, Michigan, and Tennessee don't fucking want it. The fact that you are defending the abomination that is Obamacare, says all that needs to be said about you and your beliefs. Wake up and pull your head out of your fucking ass, before it's too late. I will fight and kill to ensure my right to be free from Obamacare. Are you ready to fight and kill to force it on me?
31. Re:The reason why you're a moron by the+gnat · 2013-10-20 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you are defending the abomination that is Obamacare, says all that needs to be said about you and your beliefs
  You're not reading what I wrote. I am not defending (or attacking) Obamacare; I am simply noting that the polls do not actually support your position.
32. Re: The reason why you're a moron by thorner1995 · 2013-10-20 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  You are acting like a child, that's why get called a child. Actually like a spoiled child with your tantrums. The only reason there's such a ruckus in the House is because decades of gerrymandering has allowed extremists to get elected who would destroy our country if they don't get their way.
33. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect the most childish person would be the one who can't have a discussion without calling the other person stupid, idiot, and mother fucker.
34. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  I don't drink...
  Then where is your money going? The dollar amounts you are talking about here are pretty damn small.
  ... there would be a peanut gallery ...
  You see, you really wanted to hear from the peanut gallery. You know they're right, so it just becomes another form of self-abuse.
35. Re:The reason why you're a moron by dugancent · 2013-10-20 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Better than your profanity ladder diatribe. On the plus side, it is an easy way to filter you from the grown ups.
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
36. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  You may not be Mentally I'll, but you certainly do have some anger management issues. Either that, or tourettes.
37. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  I will fight and kill to ensure my right to be free from Obamacare
  No you wont. You will sit on slashdot fuming and cursing but not doing a damn thing. Enjoy your cheetos, you earned them.
38. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  because we have decided that when that citizen of Alabama needs emergency care that he will be provided for regardless of his ability to pay.
  obamacare is essentially a regressive tax to pay for those costs.
  unfortunately the states do not have enough power over their economies to fix this problem on their own. the state of Alabama couldn't nationalize healthcare for example, and the federal government already paid for close to 40 percent of the healthcare costs before ACA. so ACA is kind of the least worst option.
39. Re:The reason why you're a moron by dugancent · 2013-10-20 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  laden*
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
40. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Hognoxious · 2013-10-20 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Try spending some time in Alabama or rural Michigan and see how closely your radical leftist viewpoint matches reality. Hint: it doesn't.
  
  Look at [arbitrarily selected range] and see how it reflects [arbitrary criterion upon which the range was chosen].
  For example, [Ireland, New Zealand] and [which side of the road they drive on], or [numbers from 31399 to 31469] and [whether they're prime].
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
41. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  43% is less than "At least half the fucking country"
  You're assuming that 100% of the country was getting laid.
42. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  people who have the God given right to throw off any government
  How do we know that? Do we take a poll? Only religious people are allowed to vote, or are we going straight to the source here?
43. Re:The reason why you're a moron by DarkTempes · 2013-10-20 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  You know that your redneck in Alabama doesn't actually have to buy health insurance, right?
  If he's poor enough he can pay nothing.
  If the cheapest plan would be over a certain percentage of his income, he can pay nothing.
  If he just doesn't feel like paying for it he can instead pay a fee.
  If he doesn't feel like paying a fee then he can pay nothing and the worst that happens is they take the fee out of his income tax return.
  If he really wants to he can do his taxes in a way that he won't get an income tax return and lose nothing.
  Though, honestly, if you look at the rates they are rather reasonable even for lower and middle income people. They're pretty high for people that are well off but I don't think Mr. Alabama redneck is in that group. And health insurance as it is right now, even without the Affordable Care Act, is not insurance like life insurance. It's already a socialized system where the healthy subsidize the sick.
  How would you fix the health care system? The system was obviously broken and costing way too much of our GDP for worse results compared to other countries. And the baby boomers are getting to that age where there's going to be a glut of people needing care. There's no way around that.
  I'm honestly more in favor of a single-payer system but I'm all for giving the ACA the benefit of the doubt. It's not like it can't be changed if it turns out that it just doesn't work.
44. Re:The reason why you're a moron by CyprusBlue113 · 2013-10-20 10:16 · Score: 2
  
  So you choose to speed, and drive without mandated insurance, and somehow this is government oppression that you be forced to not endanger others or maintain liability insurance, and then when cited for it, ignored the penalties and act like a victim when the consequences of your actions catch you?
  Seriously, you're part of the problem in this country.
  
  --
  a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
45. Re:The reason why you're a moron by gd2shoe · 2013-10-20 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think the Obamacare web site doesn't work? On fucking purpose, so that masses of idiots will continue to believe in the narrative that everyone and their mom wants this fucking bullshit and it's only a "tiny minority" of "anarchists" and "extremists" which disagrees.
  That's likely.
  That is the sort of thing they'd do.
  If they did that, though, I think they'd be lying about the number of people signed up through the exchange, instead of sidestepping the question every time it comes up. I think this one is probably raw incompetence.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
46. Re:The reason why you're a moron by jbolden · 2013-10-20 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  My "that's likely" was meant to be sarcastic. I agree it was just a mistake.
47. Re:The reason why you're a moron by gd2shoe · 2013-10-20 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  How would you fix the health care system?
  Bring down costs. If everyone has insurance, it still doesn't bring down actual costs, it just spreads them around. "Best practices" are often very wasteful. We need less testing for things that doctors know aren't at issue, but more testing of things that are common problems and frequently go undiagnosed. We need better continuing education for medical professionals. WebMD (et al) should not have information on non-rare conditions that the average general physician doesn't know. Doctors need to spend more time thinking about people as systems... in other words: diagnosing instead of guessing.
  Each of these would bring down costs of the whole system. This is just a very short list. A medical professional could go on like this at length.
  We can't afford to think about healthcare as zero-sum. Even with the ACA, costs will only continue to skyrocket. Government can fix some things (eg: some of the games insurance companies were playing), but many of the problems must be fixed from within the medical system itself. Adding another layer of government obfuscation and obstruction is only likely to delay needed change.
  
  but I'm all for giving the ACA the benefit of the doubt. It's not like it can't be changed if it turns out that it just doesn't work.
  Unsuccessful government programs can die, but they almost never do. No, we're probably stuck with it.
  Some of the ideas in ACA are worth exploring, but many of the details are horrible. The 49 employee "cap" is hurting companies (and the unemployed) across the country. Has no-one in government ever heard of gradation? Sheesh. This is truly ridiculous.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
48. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  I was sure that you were bashing out of context, but it seems you weren't.
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4309985&cid=45061643
  Moreover, the next statement is even more telling (IMO):
  
  In a sane and just world it would be none of anyone's fucking business if she made money off "insider info." Congress can legally trade off insider info, so for fuck's safe why can't we?
  Insider trading is a form of fraud, but he just can't see that.
49. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  He is right about pretty much everything though.
50. Re: The reason why you're a moron by thoth · 2013-10-20 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  People like you are why this site is circling the drain.
51. Re:The reason why you're a moron by gd2shoe · 2013-10-20 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yay for the Internet! Failing to relay text based sarcasm, once again.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
52. Re:The reason why you're a moron by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  I appreciate the honest answer. I can respect your point of view and can see why you would take exception to my "short answer". That part was at least contrary to my point (and was overly dismissive anyway) and I should have left it out. I'm sorry for that. I respect genuine small-government conservatism, it's some aspects of the tea party and the republicans who only want tax cuts that I can't stand. A lot of my fellow idiot liberals likewise have no real love for huge intrusive governments. The patriot act was offensive to plenty of us ACLU type liberals. Perhaps not resorting to calling us names would be more productive for you in the future. How about we agree to disagree on Obamacare and agree that the looming police state is an issue both parties have failed to act on, and if possible we need to demand improvement (AKA not shitting on the fucking constitution) from all sides of the political spectrum.
53. Re: The reason why you're a moron by WindBourne · 2013-10-20 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. To be honest, little of what he said has any truth. At best, it is spin, but far more likely, it is just his extremists views coming out.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
54. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  "and now work in the field of indoor hydroponic agriculture."
  That explains many things.
55. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  You are incorrect.
56. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  spoken like the statist moron that you are
57. Re: The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  No, you are.
58. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  it sounds like you've put yourself in a shitty situation and prefer to blame others for it rather than accepting responsibility.
  Bonus: I only had to look one page back in his comment history to find this gem:
  "That's because you're a poor person, who will always be poor, thanks to your poor person mentality."
  So, when other people are poor, it's because they're lazy and stupid; when he's poor, it's because the evil leftist government is oppressing him.
  Awesome.
  To the "blame others, first, last and exclusively", watch this video:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
  Also, you might want to look up the phrase "out of nowhere" - I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
59. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Hognoxious · 2013-10-21 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  In the absence of a quantifier then "all" is assumed. If I say "pigs are mammals" it doesn't mean some are. This is logic 101.
  Also, you were using that as a defense against someone who said you're a nutter. It would only be a valid response to that if there were no cases of genuine loonies.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
60. Re:The reason why you're a moron by shiftless · 2013-10-22 10:25 · Score: -1
  
  You know that your redneck in Alabama doesn't actually have to buy health insurance, right?
  If he's poor enough he can pay nothing.
  And what makes you think that is acceptable, you stupid fuck?
  
  If the cheapest plan would be over a certain percentage of his income, he can pay nothing.
  If he just doesn't feel like paying for it he can instead pay a fee.
  If he doesn't feel like paying a fee then he can pay nothing and the worst that happens is they take the fee out of his income tax return.
  If he really wants to he can do his taxes in a way that he won't get an income tax return and lose nothing.
  So that's OK then in your book? What kind of pathetic "reasoning" will you come up with to excuse it when the "law" is "changed" so it's no longer legal to "opt out"? When people are arrested and fined and jailed for not signing up?
  
  Though, honestly, if you look at the rates they are rather reasonable even for lower and middle income people. They're pretty high for people that are well off but I don't think Mr. Alabama redneck is in that group.
  
  That's because you're a brain dead fuck, who is too stupid to live.
  Do I need to break it down in intricate detail exactly why you are a dumb fuck?
  Because I am from Alabama, you stupid fucker, and my Facebook wall is filled full of people bitching and moaning about their insurance rates going up due to Obamacare.
  "You don't think...." EXACTLY YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.
  
  I'm honestly more in favor of a single-payer system but I'm all for giving the ACA the benefit of the doubt. It's not like it can't be changed if it turns out that it just doesn't work.
  "If it turns out it doesn't work." What a piece of shit slave you are, unworthy to reside in a free country. It DOES NOT work, as anyone with an IQ over 90 and/or a 101 level of economics could have told you. The people of Alabama and other places WILL FUCKING NOT put up with this.
  Do yourself a favor, and hang yourself. It will be better for everyone this way.
61. Re:The reason why you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  and my Facebook wall is filled full of people bitching and moaning about their insurance rates going up due to Obamacare.
  This counts as proof? Costs were increasing before the ACA - but the studies show that recent increases are smaller. The credit for that is tough to assign since most of the ACA hasn't implemented yet. The people complaining on your facebook wall probably put as much thought into it as you have (i.e., none).
Killer bees by Anne+Thwacks · 2013-10-20 03:26 · Score: 1

Has the time come to replace the present US governmental system with a swarm of bees? The present system is clearly grade C!

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Why Not Fund Things Individually? by White+Jesus · 2013-10-20 03:29 · Score: 2

what i don't understand is why government is funded by these large, all-inclusive funding bills. who spends money like that? what individual or organization of any kind(commercial, non-profit, religious, whatever) do you know that plans their entire yearly budget at once with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? let every funding measure stand or fall on it's own.
1. Re:Why Not Fund Things Individually? by amginenigma · 2013-10-20 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Governments whom have something to hide / or use as a bludgeoning weapon when they cannot get their way.
2. Re:Why Not Fund Things Individually? by Carewolf · 2013-10-20 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  what individual or organization of any kind(commercial, non-profit, religious, whatever) do you know that plans their entire yearly budget
  Almost all of them. It is what is usually referred to as a budget.
3. Re:Why Not Fund Things Individually? by u38cg · 2013-10-20 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, all organisations do that. It's how you know you're not going bust. May have something to do with the US's current problems...
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
4. Re: Why Not Fund Things Individually? by White+Jesus · 2013-10-20 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  really? no organization you know of debates expenditures individually? you sure? or have you never actually made a budget?
5. Re: Why Not Fund Things Individually? by u38cg · 2013-10-21 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not without reference to the overall budget, no.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
6. Re: Why Not Fund Things Individually? by White+Jesus · 2013-10-21 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  and do they simply stop spending money across the board if there is only one budget item that is being disputed?
Screw the Republicans like I will try to. by wisebabo · 2013-10-20 03:35 · Score: 0

Not only am I upset as a strong supporter of the sciences but as an investor I took out some (fortunately) relatively inexpensive options to protect my portfolio against a possible catastrophic default on the debt (which would most likely caused the stock and bond markets to crash).
These options (betting the market would go down) were relatively inexpensive because most people thought the Republicans would blink which of course they did. However since I'm retired and most of my assets are in equities and bonds, I would've been very upset if there was a huge drop in the markets like the recent crash even if it was just a short term hit. Thus my insurance policy.
To (hopefully) teach these idiot assholes a lesson, I plan on donating an equal amount of money that I spent on my options to whoever is challenging them in the mid-term elections. Unfortunately, the real root of the problem is the gerrymandering of the districts which has concentrated the Tea Partiers into their district which has made them beholden only to the Tea Party's radical views. Short of a legal challenge, I don't know a bette way to influence these elections. Still it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
May I suggest you do the same?
Not just the delegation to Australia by Shag · 2013-10-20 03:39 · Score: 1

During the shutdown, a hundred-some countries sent delegations to Kumamoto and Minamata, Japan, for the signing of the new global Minamata Convention on Mercury, in which everybody agrees to reduce or eliminate production and use of mercury since it's toxic. US delegates were sent, but on a day-by-day basis. The wording of the Convention had been agreed, but some accompanying resolutions were hashed out on October 7 and 8. The Convention opened for signature on October 10 - but the US delegates had been told on the morning of October 9 to change their tickets and fly home. Presumably the US will sign sometime soon - we already have the world's strictest regulations on mercury, and getting lots of other countries to play by our rules is probably a good thing - but it never looks good to pull your delegation back in mid-week - and probably spend more doing so.

--
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Fix it! by Fuzzums · 2013-10-20 03:41 · Score: 0

I don't get it.
There 's a lot of talk about how much this shut down has cost.
Shouldn't the discussion be about getting rid of that USD 17.000.000.000.000 debt??
That is only about USD 55.000 per inhabitant.
Do something about it. Seriously.

--
Privacy is terrorism.
1. Re:Fix it! by smaddox · 2013-10-20 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  Austerity will not have the effect you think it will.
2. Re:Fix it! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 21:26 · Score: 0
  
  Might be so, but totally ignoring the fact that the debt is ever increasing. How is that going to help?
  #Argentina
Typical Obamabot revisionist history by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:47 · Score: -1, Flamebait

All of these bills were sent to the Senate just before and during the shutdown. 57 House Democrats voted for these bills. One to provide pay to furloughed federal employees passed 407-0.
Harry Reid said our way or no way. They wanted a blank check. So who really shutdown the government?
H.J.Res 70 â" National Parks, Monuments and Museums
H.J.Res 71 â" District of Columbia
H.J.Res 72 â" Veterans Benefits
H.J.Res 73 â" National Institutes of Health
H.J.Res 75 â" WIC
H.J.Res 77 â" FDA
H.J.Res 84 â" Head Start
H.J.Res 85 â" FEMA
H.J.Res 89 â" Federal Worker Pay
H.J.Res 90 â" FAA
H.R. 3223 â" Pay furloughed workers once the shutdown ends
H.R. 3230 â" Pay the Guard and Reserve Act
1. Re:Typical Obamabot revisionist history by amginenigma · 2013-10-20 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Careful there they live in their own world, don't upset that too much with logic and facts. What I don't get (being a State Govt employee myself) is why they are getting the 'furlough' pay back? I've been Furloughed one day a month (Up to recently here where we've gone to 1/2 a day a month) essentially since Obama took office. I won't be getting that pay back, ever, that's why it's called a 'furlough'... What the Fed govt employees got essentially was a PAID VACATION at OUR EXPENSE! Think about it, they got X number of days off, and they are getting that pay back... how in the Hell is that a 'furlough'??? What I really don't get is why it seems NO ONE ELSE HAS FIGURED THIS OUT YET...
2. Re:Typical Obamabot revisionist history by calidoscope · 2013-10-20 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  It will be interesting to see if the above post gets modded up or down, Reid is at least as much of the problem as the "Tea Party".
  
  --
  A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
3. Re:Typical Obamabot revisionist history by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  All of these bills were sent to the Senate just before and during the shutdown. 57 House Democrats voted for these bills. One to provide pay to furloughed federal employees passed 407-0.
  Harry Reid said our way or no way. They wanted a blank check. So who really shutdown the government?
  H.J.Res 70 â" National Parks, Monuments and Museums
  H.J.Res 71 â" District of Columbia
  H.J.Res 72 â" Veterans Benefits
  H.J.Res 73 â" National Institutes of Health
  H.J.Res 75 â" WIC
  H.J.Res 77 â" FDA
  H.J.Res 84 â" Head Start
  H.J.Res 85 â" FEMA
  H.J.Res 89 â" Federal Worker Pay
  H.J.Res 90 â" FAA
  H.R. 3223 â" Pay furloughed workers once the shutdown ends
  H.R. 3230 â" Pay the Guard and Reserve Act
  This coming from the same people that are complaining that there is no budget, yet instead of coming up with an actual budget that would pass the house *and* senate, *and* get signed by the president, they continued to try to pass little bits of funding instead of a passable budget - and in the long run wound up agreeing to a 'continuing resolution' to pay for a few more weeks so we can have this same argument and risk of defaulting on the debt *again* in January.
Call bullshite on 20 days lost since Archimedes by noshellswill · 2013-10-20 03:48 · Score: -1

Twenty (20) days lost since 250-BC (Archimedes = 1st prof. scientist ?). Oh boo-hoo we gonna die of ignorance not a Roman sword-point! Cancer patients die? Sure ... every day shoulda doubled the Bromptions! Pathetic cracked-eggism. Shiffman can take his kommi thumb outa his *zzwhole (how did he get this slobbering crap published?) and watch over-entitled metro-lining science-laxrs krank up their iPods while lassoing escaped galooping Lagrangians boo-hooo-hooo.
More Government ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 03:52 · Score: 1

We need more government !
We need more government !
OMG where did the government go ?
Who shutdown the government we needed ?
Where did our government checks go ?
We need more government !
The cries of the hollow men.
The answer is obvious.
Stop creating government dependents.
Stop creating hollow men.
Who runs their own life this way? by RogueWarrior65 · 2013-10-20 03:54 · Score: 1

So here's a question. Let's say you happen to have a full time job that pays you $50k a year. On January 1, do you look at all the bills you know you're going to have for the entire year and all the things you want to buy and spend all of that money on January 1? Or do you take all the money you have to spend on bills and put it aside somewhere so you don't inadvertently spend it on something else like a Ferrari? Or do you deal with things one month at a time?
1. Re:Who runs their own life this way? by stenvar · 2013-10-20 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  I have enough savings to last me a couple of years; you should to. I go through my expenses every month, cancel things I don't need, and make a note of where I can save. I pay off all my credit cards every month. If I can't afford paying cash for it, I don't buy it. The only thing I ever have taken out a loan for was my condo. And, most importantly, I have a budget surplus every month.
  The government could easily operate the same way. Instead, it reflects and imposes a culture of financial irresponsibility among my fellow citizens on me, and I object to that.
2. Re:Who runs their own life this way? by RogueWarrior65 · 2013-10-20 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm the same way. My beef with this recent foolishness is the same one that I've had for years. Why does there have to be this massive omnibus spending bill that covers pretty much everything and basically gets an all-or-nothing vote? I supported line item veto even though the SCOTUS has said it's unconstitutional. Okay, fine, you can't do it in the executive branch but why couldn't you do the same thing in the House? If people really want transparency in government then being able to see exactly what the money is being spent on and who is voting for it is the way to do it.
3. Re:Who runs their own life this way? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  So here's a question. Let's say you happen to have a full time job that pays you $50k a year. On January 1, do you look at all the bills you know you're going to have for the entire year and all the things you want to buy and spend all of that money on January 1? Or do you take all the money you have to spend on bills and put it aside somewhere so you don't inadvertently spend it on something else like a Ferrari? Or do you deal with things one month at a time?
  In America, for half the country, they just pay the one's marked "Turn Off Notice" or "Final Notice". More than half the population is less than two paychecks from being unable to afford their rent.
Does it occur to anyone by John+Jorsett · 2013-10-20 03:57 · Score: 2

.... that this kind of dependence on government funding means that government will increasingly assert control over where and how research will be conducted in the future, and how (or whether) results will be reported? If your project's existence depends on a particular paymaster, are you really going to jeopardize it by angering him? Maybe you're okay with the present party in power, but if you give government this kind of control over your funding, sooner or later people with opposing ideas are going to be in charge and will use those same levers in ways you won't be happy with.
1. Re:Does it occur to anyone by Beorytis · 2013-10-20 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  Who else has the money?
  Giant corporations?
  A few foreign governments?
2. Re:Does it occur to anyone by interkin3tic · 2013-10-20 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Good question. Yes, the government does assert control over what is funded, and yes, it is a problem. Fortunately, their meddling doesn't usually run that deep, and usually reflects public thinking. For instance, federal funding for embryonic stem cells was limited, but it wasn't like a president opposed specific labs or favored specific hypotheses about which transcription factors are important for pluripotency. There's more funding for applied weapons research than I think a lot of scientists would like, and less funding for, say, astrophysics than they would like, but that in most cases comes from society. And that's important, becuase it wouldn't be solved by having independent funding. Were all science funded by donation rather than taxes, I think most people would donate to weapons research and faster cell phones, and few people would donate to basic research with no immediate products being produced. Another example: the public donates far less to lung cancer research than they do for most other cancers and MUCH less than they do to breast cancer research. Because there is an attitude of "If you got lung cancer, you must have smoked and that was a decision you made." Which of course is callous and not even true, but it would be real work to convince the public otherwise. Government funding means that work doesn't need to be done.
  
  The government tends to hand the lump sum to actual scientists to hand out as they see fit. Money is given to the national institute of health, for example, not specifically earmarked to this hypothesis or that. Government puts in influence by how much each agency is given mostly, giving more money to, say, the national institute of health and less to NASA because they don't want to look like they're stopping the cure to cancer, but don't particularly think the public cares about astrophysics. So in -general- a lot of discretion is left up to real scientists.
  
  There are some real instances of abuse though. Coburn recently eliminated all funding for political science research. But no system is going to be perfect. And government controlling the purse strings does mean science will get funded without resorting to running commercials during sitcoms.
3. Re:Does it occur to anyone by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  i miss those that used to say the government shouldn't get between you and your doctor
Mismanaged Money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:08 · Score: 0

Let's start by taking all the funding for that botched Obamacare web site and donating it to science. Then maybe these articles will matter to me in the slightest.
Republicans don't care about science by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:25 · Score: 0

I think the impact on science is the last thing they were worried about.
They are ready to let the entire country fall into ruin if they can make Obama look bad. If that means all our ongoing science research is set back or stopped, they'll do it.
What are you talking about ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:31 · Score: 1

The GDP of the USA is $16 trillion, the Net government debt as % of GDP $17 trillion. That's above 100% GDP. Compared France has a 85% soemthign percent of the GDP as net government debt. And france is said to be "bankrupt" by US news paper. By the way the trick is that most folk in the USA only cite public debt, rather than net government debt (IMF criteria). By IMF criteria USA is far deeper in the debt than most of europe's countries, maybe excepted the PIGS. Go look up the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dept.svg
1. Re:What are you talking about ? by smaddox · 2013-10-20 08:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Very true. However, it's nowhere near as bad as the private debt to GDP ratio, and that's bad in all countries (except maybe Japan, which has be deleveraging for 20 years). It also isn't necessarily a Bad Thing, since one of the most important roles of government is to spend in a recession and tax in a boom economy. The problem is the fools who were running a deficit in a boom economy.
  Most importantly, austerity has the opposite of the desired effect on the debt-to-GDP ratio, because it reduces the GDP faster than the debt. It's counter intuitive, but it's an empirical fact.
2. Re:What are you talking about ? by cold+fjord · 2013-10-20 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with unmoderated "tax and spend" is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Then the problems get really bad. Much of the Western world is heading in that direction. Things that can't continue, won't.
  
  --
  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
3. Re:What are you talking about ? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2013-10-20 18:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The problem with unmoderated "tax and spend" is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Then the problems get really bad. Much of the Western world is heading in that direction. Things that can't continue, won't.
  Could we please consign this piece of trite Thatcherism to that rubbish pile of history where it belongs? Even the UKians don't believe it any longer and where ever it's been tried, it's lead to the same problems we are facing in the west at the moment. I.e. that the "landed gentry" has amassed more and more and more of the total wealth, and even in capitalist terms, this wealth doesn't do much productive (or at least not as much as it would do in the hands of others).
  And that's just for starters.
  
  --
  Stefan Axelsson
4. Re:What are you talking about ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Really? Tell us then: how much of the "landed gentry's" income will we have to confiscate to balance the US budget. I'll give you a hint: it's way more than 100%.
5. Re:What are you talking about ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Another wad of pap from the propoganda mill. We won't be confiscating wealth. We'll be taxing income, which over time amounts to far more than their wealth. This "It can't be the rich's fault, if you took all their money it wouldn't be enough to pay the debt!" talking point is moronic. It completely ignores (intentionally) the fact that the economy relies on monetary velocity rather than quantity, in the long run.
6. Re:What are you talking about ? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2013-10-22 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Non sequitur, we weren't talking about that. We were talking about how pooling the wealth among an evermore decreasing part of the population isn't good even from an economic standpoint. (It was one of the reasons for the great depression, for example). This money needs to be put back into circulation and the best way to do that is to spread it more evenly.
  There's also the question of fairness. Why should they pay less when your country is at (a very expensive) war, than when they did after WWII, when you were at peace. Substantially less, I might add.
  Also, when it comes to the 1%-ers, their income as such isn't the problem. It's their wealth. If you have to work you're not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.
  
  --
  Stefan Axelsson
this government just wastes and they don't care by Vince6791 · 2013-10-20 04:48 · Score: 2

from 1990 to 2012 u.s government revenue a year was about 2 trillion(1990) to 3+ trillion 2012, about 40+ trillion in taxes for the past 23 years collected. And yet, we still can't have a universal healthcare system like Canada. Where did all the fucking money go to??? SS full of IOU's since government put their grabby hands in it to pay for other things. We don't need any more new fucking taxes on the books since money just disappears from the government so easily. I guess government does not care about pissing our hard earned money since it's not theirs to begin with. All the perks these government employees get especially the $400k a year pensions in California.
Oh please: complete horseshit and you know it. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 04:53 · Score: 0

Wow, the article actually correctly used the technique of "begging the question" by starting with the assumption that everything is the Republicans fault, even though neither side could reach an agreement. And of course, Slashdot, is more than happy to take the bait and run, of course.
It was ALL their fault! And those morons will do it again in January.
The Republicans wanted the impossible and then when they couldn't have everything they wanted their way - and ONLY their way, they blamed the Democrats for not negotiating. And of course, not wanting to set a precedent of bowing to economic blackmail, they held their ground - for once.
Unbelievable.
Stop watching Fox News. They tell nothing but half truths and lies and as a result, completing misinforms you and their other listeners. And then you and the rest of their audience have the smugness that they are the only ones who know the truth.
More like propaganda.
The real problem...and solution? by cbarcus · 2013-10-20 05:16 · Score: 1

Our failure to address this issue stems from a general lack of appreciation for the role of energy within the economy. Energy production underlies all economic activity, and the quality of this production comes down to the ratio of energy return over energy invested, which is largely a factor of material and land use. More energy dense sources should facilitate a higher return, and this is why nuclear energy is of such great importance in this matter. While conventional nuclear technology remains expensive and unpopular, this does not in any way detract from the incredible potential bound up within an atomic nucleus or what might be achieved with the right technological approach.
Currently, there is quite a bit of interest (in the nuclear community) in pursuing a nuclear liquid fuel system (see MSR); one which was pioneered with a very successful prototype back in the 60s. Unfortunately, the lack of general interest in a nuclear energy solution has hampered innovation, and we sit pretty much in the same position we were in decades ago, accept that now things are worse, we have less time to respond to problems arising from increasing carbon within the atmosphere/ocean, and we have fewer resources with which to save ourselves.
Current global energy-per-capita is around 2 kW, while in the United States energy-per-capita is closer to 10 kW. Merely doubling the global metric will require a radical new approach to energy production, and it is not at all clear whether we are capable of generating the Will to do so. It should be abundantly clear that not supplying ample resources as our population peaks during the onset of all of these environmental problems is a recipe for global disaster.
This issue of consciousness is really the most important matter we face today.
The TeaParty is probably happy about this outcome. by runeghost · 2013-10-20 06:26 · Score: 1

As far at the Tea Party is concerned, this is doubtless a feature of their political tantrum, not a bug.
I understand how you feel. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 06:52 · Score: 0

I see. You feel the same way about Obamacare as I do about farm welf....subsidies.
Biased-much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 07:00 · Score: 0, Interesting

"Republican-led shutdown of the U.S. government"
Whoa, hold the phone. You do realize that the last budget proposal to be rejected by the Democrat-led Senateprior to the shutdown was only rejected because it stipulated that the president and congress members had to participate in Obamacare just like everyone else, right? No defunding Obamacare. No delaying Obamacare.
The Democrats in the Senate and the White House had a choice: Abide by their own law and be bound by it just like their constituents, or shut the government down until the other side gives in and lets them get away with being above "the law of the land". We all saw which path the Democrats took.
1. Re:Biased-much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Except that there's already a law that says you can't condition a budget's acceptance on a change to the benefits accorded to the very congress making the vote. They (for good or ill) were legally barred from passing that budget. It was a political ploy to give republicans exactly the ammo that you're firing right now. Looks like it worked on some people.
I call "BS" by clay_shooter · 2013-10-20 08:00 · Score: 1

I don't believe it given the speed at which science advances and the amount of time it takes between experimental steps, publication or analysis. Have you ever worked with the US Government? A two week delay has the same impact as one of us taking a lunch break at work. We can only blame that for the delay when we're behind or are trying to make a point.
New to this shutdown by gd2shoe · 2013-10-20 10:19 · Score: 1, Flamebait

AC troll.
For those not paying attention, This is the first shutdown that spent unknown amounts of money to close down things that should have simply sat there. As mentioned above, the shoulders of the road outside Rushmore were coned off; national parks, even ones that aren't normally closed or patrolled... closed and patrolled heavily; closing down open air national monuments (normally open 24/7); shutting down non-essential, but revenue positive programs; forcing private businesses to close on the thinnest excuses. The list goes on.
These are all new. These weren't the result of a government shutdown, these were the result of this government shutdown.
Someone in the executive branch decided that if Republicans were going to shut down the government, then they were going to take it upon themselves to make the shutdown as painful as possible. The shutdown should have been about saving money until a budget came about. Instead, it became about spending money to ensure pain. This is a new policy, and one worth noting.

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
1. Re:New to this shutdown by WindBourne · 2013-10-20 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  In the past, we did not worry about our memorials being attacked by terrorists such as AQ or republicans like Nichols/McVeigh. As such, they had to stop the total police and clean-up funding that was not there before.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Skewed poll is Skewed by rsilvergun · 2013-10-20 14:24 · Score: 1

There is a sizable portion of population that thinks Obamacare was a bad idea because it doesn't go far enough, e.g. Socialists in favor of single payer. Also, and this is not a joke, several polls show that the Affordable Care Act is much more popular that Obamacare.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No Sympathy for False Science - DSM, Carbon Tax by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 21:37 · Score: 0

I don't have any fucking sympathy for these scientists.
After all they brought us GMO's, the DSM, Carbon Tax, Fluoride (chemical warfare same ingredients as Obummer's red line in Syria) in the Water.
How about sympathy for economists.
After all they brought us Fiat, Foreign Bankster owned Monetary system
They break their oath day after day when they have the power to regulate the monetary system right there in the mother fucking Constitution already -- yet choose to create debt via interest instead, now the numbers are exponential and it can't roll over. It's that fucking game they taught ya in school (back when a school was a school) where one guy get's $1000 a day for 30 days vs someone who get's one Penny on day one two pennies day two--by day 31 it's 10 Million dollars. But where you forget this story (as you drink your fluoridated water for the soft kill) is that this story doesn't only go on for 30 days.
You hear about 17 Trillion, you don't hear about the Derivatives 200 Trillion --- this thing is so far beyond your comprehension in a BAD WAY.
So knowing this,
the spying, the DHS, the bullets, the MRAPS, the manpods, the gunrunning/gunbanning, the corruption, the mosad in our vaults, the obamacare, the gmo's, the borders and immigration/vs dhs nazi police state targeting the people, the spies wanting your banking and communications, the obamacare (minus tooth care, eyecare, nutrition, clean food, not radioactive food, not monsanto food, clean water, not Nestle water, National Parks (And all the bills to make this a new national park--SO WE CAN Agenda 21 the people out of the geographic location--no go zones) all starts to makes sense. The No Constitution Zone 100 miles around the border. The outsourcing of spying to corporations to avoid being hung for treason.
Yeah that obamacare website went out deliberately and maliciously as a PROBLEM --- in the PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION! TO steer the fucking debate forever forward. Now you'll flap your lips about code, costs, skils, how to "FIX" it, instead of asking WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT NOT PRINT IT'S OWN MONEY, WHY ISN'T HEADS ROLLING OVER BENGAZI, WHY arent' IRS fuckers in Ft Leavenworth/Trial, why arent' Clapper and Alexander in Ft Leavenworth/Trial, why aren't the oath breakers in Ft Leavenworth/Trial why aren't the banksters in Ft Leavenworth/Trial
They were GUN RUNNING in Bengazi, the IRS is exploiting private data and attacking targets, the same with psychiatrists using the DSM-5, the same with, the same with the same with -- full scale full spectrum exploitation.
A generation of European Socialist Fluoridated children from common core to join forces with illegal immigration comes next.
This potus don't need to be IMPEACHED, this fuck wad needs to be ARRESTED.
Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 23:04 · Score: 0

The Cost of the US Government Science.
Vacation Time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 05:17 · Score: 0

The government was shutdown for an extremely short time, and no one noticed, except for the few people that keep claiming the same nonsense.
We lost one of our key scientists to S Korea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:24 · Score: 0

All I know is we lost one of our key scientists to South Korea.
He's at Samsung now.
Way to go, Terrorists!
Typical Biased Report by Flashman · 2013-10-21 12:18 · Score: 1

As a child I was taught that it takes two to tango, or in this case to disagree. Why is this a Republican-led shutdown? The liberal opinion seems to be if you don't agree with my opinion your being unreasonable. I'm growing so sick and tired of this attitude. It's beginning to show that we're a nation of idiots who don't seem to understand the impact on our nation's future. Does no one seem to understand that we can't afford the promises we're making are not affordable except to those who don't have to pay for them? I too can live off welfare, but somebody has to pay the piper eventually.

--
A computer may beat me at Chess, but I always win at Kickboxing.
We call them the "Harper Years" by DarthVain · 2013-10-22 07:41 · Score: 1

Some student doing their university work asks a prof why there is a bunch of data missing for a bunch of consecutive years...
We have 100 years worth of data, but for much of a decade a political leader of little importance tried to suppress much of the scientific research of the day as it did not support his political ideology.
which isn't much better than:
It was caused by a political party who refused to fund government by throwing a hissy fit over a political issue of the day. "What was the issue?" Affordable Healthcare. "Oh they wanted it?" No, no they did not.
The Government Shutdown Act by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 19:07 · Score: 0

Read the details of my proposed law at http://puremalarkey.com