Slashdot Mirror
The Cost of the US Government Shutdown To Science
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 $1M a day, but, given NASA's tight schedule, some tests may never get done now.' It doesn't stop there: 'This is only one of untold thousands of projects that were mothballed when Congress's failure to approve a budget defunded the US government at the start of the month. Federal websites were taken offline, scientists couldn't receive emails, attend meetings, or interact with their colleagues. Crucial environmental, food safety and climate monitoring programs were either suspended, or substantially scaled back.' Schiffman provides a few more examples, including one project that's losing a year's worth of work and equipment that will end up buried under snow in Antarctica. But it goes beyond even the basic funding issues; in many cases, scientific work is simply too intertwined with the government to continue without it. Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' center for science and democracy, said, 'It is all so interconnected now. Federal researchers collect data that is utilized by researchers in academia, by people working in industry, at state and local levels, so when you ask how dependent are we on the federal government in terms of science, it's a bit like asking: do you need your left leg?'"
Science is too important to be dependent on a funding source that is 17 trillion dollars in debt. It's *all* going to dry up at some point, and probably rather suddenly when it does. Talk to the history department if this is unclear.
With all the great thinkers in science, perhaps research into better funding models would be worth the effort.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Thank you G.O.P. and the Tea Party
You and third world dictators love their slushfunds. Government auditors don't though.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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"
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?
Mr. Spigot?
I've nothing against your right leg... unfortunately, neither have you.
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.
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.
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!
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 (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
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
In their defense, the towel service at the gym was unavailable during the shutdown.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's likely.
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?
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?
And who prints the money?
Damn, coffee all over my keyborad, damn.
.... 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
And make no mistake: that reflects the administration's preferences, not any kind of legal necessity.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Tell me a little bit about your background if you don't mind. I'm curious as to what type of person thinks this.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Grow up.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
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
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.
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
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=-
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.
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.
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.
As far at the Tea Party is concerned, this is doubtless a feature of their political tantrum, not a bug.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
It's not always one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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.
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,
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?
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.
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
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.
Congressmen work pretty long hours. What's the upside of having congressmen traveling more?
laden*
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
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."
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."
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.
Congress is on track to work 119 days this year. Long hours? Hah!
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.
Austerity will not have the effect you think it will.
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
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.
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.
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.
-
My "that's likely" was meant to be sarcastic. I agree it was just a mistake.
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.
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.
People like you are why this site is circling the drain.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Not the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve is a private entity.
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.
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."
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.