You can play the victim card here as if the Soviets were oh so oppressed by the meanie Americans. But the Russians dominated a series of countries that remember Soviet rule.
Why don't you play the victim card to the Polish? Try it.
Whining that the countries that escaped soviet enslavement want to secure themselves against Russian aggression is the opposite of being self aware. The Japanese have expressed regret for their fascistic behavior. The Germans have expressed contrition for their misdeeds. Consider Stalin for a moment.
The Russians are complaining about former conquests they brutalized taking steps to not be brutalized again. That's morally monstrous and logically idiotic.
Trying to associate my position with racism when we're talking about foreign policy is just sad.
For the record, I don't hate the Russians and would be very happy to accept them as equals amongst nations.
But they have to come to grips that the price of their lost empire was the suffering of millions. No one is crying for the fall of the soviet union.
Their society is dying. TODAY. Russia has no future unless it changes. That isn't hate from me, that is a prophesy. The country has a crashing birth rate, net emigration, flat lined investment... The whole society is in deep crisis. They have a huge land mass they can't hold on to if this keeps up.
They don't need to worry about the Evil Americans... Our work is done. Russia is snake bit. If they don't shape up they'll suffer the death of a million cuts by their neighbors nibbling at the borders while the center collapses.
Putin is talking tough... but he's already an old man... he will die of natural causes... and what then? They've made no plans for the future.
This isn't racism. I'm just pointing out a society that is dying and won't change to save itself.
Again, they could be one of the richest and most powerful countries in the history of the world. All they have to do is have a little vision and a little integrity. If they can't find either of those, then you're done.
No, its an invention of the Russians to justify shitty behavior.
Russia could be one of the richest countries in the history of the world. Dramatically more powerful than they are now. Happier... more secure... the milk and honey of the Earth could be theirs. And the price was so very cheap.
All the Russians had to do was have integrity.
Russia sits between Europe, the middle east, and East Asia... and all that trade bypasses them. Everyone goes around them. No one trusts them.
If they were worthy of trust, freight rail could run through Russia from every major economy in Eurasia. And the US could connect the American rail network through the Bearing strait. It has been proposed and rejected not because it is too expensive but because the Russians are not reliable partners.
Russia would profit in trillions from the traffic through their territory alone. And on top of that, it would justify vast investments in Russian industry as Russia became the place between where goods from around the world were recombined to produce whatever others desired.
Russia pisses this away every day. They're a foolish country with no integrity and no vision. They are destined for the ash heap of history unless they wake up.
Whining about nations they formally enslaved fortifying themselves to prevent being enslaved again? The complaint is beneath contempt.
It is taken as seriously as the Nazis complaining about nations they ravaged in the past taking steps to prevent it from happening again.
Not only does it not pass the laugh test, the very fact that the Russians would think it was a valid complaint in the first place demonstrates a lack of moral growth, a lack of empathy for the people they have victimized, and a comically selfish attitude that justifies the nearly inevitable fate of their entire culture.
Russia has had their chances. They've demonstrated themselves to be unworthy.
You didn't read your own citation: ""However, these statements were made in the context of the negotiations on German reunification, and the Soviet interlocutors never specified their concerns. In the crucial âoe2+4â negotiations, which finally led Gorbachev to accept a unified Germany in NATO in July 1990, the issue was never raised. As former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze later put it, the idea of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolving and NATO taking in former Warsaw Pact members was beyond the imagination of the protagonists at the time.""
As to a NATO expansion, you're talking about former soviet conquests that begged the western powers for security after a generation and in Soviet bondage?
Cry me a river.
Furthermore, there was no agreement that we wouldn't do that. The Russians sometimes claim there was an agreement... but when citations are asked for... they don't exist.
Tell you what, I'll honor agreements I didn't make if they honor agreements they didn't make... I'll offer that NATO thing... and then I'm going to ask for something they never agreed to... and just expect that gets honored.
Deal?
As to Ringing Russia... only an issue if they persist in being hostile. If they are being hostile then we have counter that and that causes the ringing. It is the responsibility of our military to counter threats. It is hilarious that powers think they can eat their cake and have it too. Be threatening and be treated like you're threatening. Poor babies
As to Yeltsin, you're talking about this: ""And while some Muscovites are debating whether the Americans saved Yeltsin's job or merely provided one voice among many working to revive the Russian president's political chances, the consultants have now emerged to give interviews about how they quietly peddled advice to Yeltsin's 36-year-old daughter and key advisor, Tatyana Dyachenko.
"I don't have candidates generally who are as responsive as Boris Yeltsin," said George Gorton, who worked for Wilson in 1994 and later ran Wilson's abortive bid for the GOP nomination. "Certainly not Pete Wilson."
Hired in February through a San Francisco firm with connections in Moscow, Gorton said that the team members never met Yeltsin. Instead, they sent their detailed, unsigned memos to his daughter. "We were told that we were formally retained as advisors to the Yeltsin family."""
His DAUGHTER HIRED HIRED HIRED an American political adviser team which passed on memos through her to Yeltsin... whom they never met.
And for this you say "DAMN YOU AMERICANS!!!!"... You're a idiot.:D
You're telling me it is bad faith on the part of the American government if the DAUGHTER of a Russian presidential candidate HIRES an American political team to pass advice to her father?
Fucking amazing.
You're all memes, kid. You know nothing. Sit at my feet and learn.
... the "international" space station was mostly a political project and it is hard to cite any real success it had along those lines. It was about mending fences with the Russians after the Cold War by participating in a shared project that both nations could excel at... the Russians got funding to keep their space program alive without which it probably would have died entirely... and the US HOPED that the Russians would see the US as a potential friend in the world. Whatever our past... the future opens ever wider.
Sadly, it doesn't seem like any of that happened. The Russians seem immune to olive branch gestures.
That being the case... what is the scientific point of it? Nearly everything it does can be done more cheaply and creatively in other ways. We don't need to share funding or technology with what are still stubbornly rival powers. We are not chained to whatever is relevant to the ISS if we don't fund it at all.
The whole thing is likely to be abandoned and de-orbited.
I want humanity to venture into space... to claim the stars and all that stuff. But the ISS doesn't seem to have any role in that ambition. Its not even a good science platform. It isn't even good propaganda. It isn't even good diplomatic fodder to make the Russians happy. What does it do? Really?
I am very happy to fund NASA heavily. But clarify the mission statement and fund according to that clear mission.
Your criticism displays a lack of integrity as regards interpreting pretty clear analogies.
Starvation is a product of scarcity in most cases. The only known reliable solution is an abundance of food. This requires efficient and economical over production of food.
If you want to analogize that to the internet with some integrity, then you'd be advocating for over supply which I also support because it would give everyone higher quality service and competition.
But to do that you'd have to open up the market and allow more companies to run cable. Much of the cable would be redundant which also supports the notion of how you avoid starvation. In a food market any given supplier of food or even food product can go completely to zero and people that buy food from that store will not lose the ability to get enough food to survive. That is because there are other food products from other companies in the store to replace whatever is not there. Likewise, the store itself can cease to exist and people will generally not find themselves unable to find food at another store in the same area selling basically the same things at very similar prices.
If you make any effort what so ever to understand even your own analogy's context, then you'd see that you can only agree with me.
As to running cable over your property, just as you don't own the streets and your property contains legal stipulations of where the easements begin and end... running cable poses no relevant legal challenge regarding private property. The poles are generally already publicly owned just as the water pipes etc are already publicly owned in nearly all cases. Where they are not, they tend to be owned by a quasi governmental organization that is private purely for administrative reasons. De facto ownership and control even in these cases is always public.
Having the path of the cable grant Right of Way on reasonable terms solves the problem. Any area where a market exists for additional cable runs from additional ISPs could have them immediately.
Why roads are publicly operated instead of privately operated is well understood and contrary systems have not shown themselves to be effective at actually maintaining and operating robust transport infrastructure as regards roads.
As to the existing system being the same as my proposition, nope. If you want to run last mile cable you generally cannot unless you sign a franchise license agreement which amoungst other things tends to obligate you to provide internet access to a set area and tends to require that free ISP service be provided to certain parties etc. There are a whole series of agreements that actually are not reasonable and are clearly not reasonable.
This is not comprehensive but two very common conditions for franchise license are that you provide access to the full scope of the territory that the regulating authority oversees. So for example, if you have a city or a county that is under regulation, to gain a franchise license, you often have to provide access to everyone in that territory if you want to provide service to anyone at all. This is a little like saying you have to build 1000 sandwich shops in a city if you want to build 1. It is not reasonable and is one of the many reasons why only very large companies ever get franchise license agreements.
A more reasonable position would be that service must be provided along the route that wires are run by that a service provider can decide which poles or conduits to run service through and is not obligated to run them otherwise than their desires.
This would allow given service providers to pick and choose which areas they wanted to serve. Smaller companies could compete by taking on smaller service areas and incur less capital expense. What is more, new service could be concentrated where it is needed rather than being required everywhere at once at roughly the same level. This would allow very high quality service in areas that demanded and could pay for it whilst more modest investment in areas that have more modest abilities to pay.
The second condition that franchise agreements tend to have to satisfy is free service... typically to government buildings. Just as it is unreasonable for the government to get free food from local businesses, free power from local power utilities, it is unreasonable for them to get free internet access. This is however typical of franchise agreements. Generally it means free internet to schools, the police, city hall, etc. Demanding free service in exchange for a license to obtain the right to run and operate cable is obviously extortion.
The policy I'm proposing here is not a failure. It has not been attempted. I also don't think you appreciate what actual franchise agreements look like.
If you want to learn more about them, ask me and I'll provide some links for you.
Worst case you're going to get a bunch of overtime when it starts back up again which will level your pay back up.
I almost felt bad for a minute... I looked into it... maybe there is something going on with "you" but from what I can tell... the vast majority of workers that stay home during a shut down get paid back one way or another.
That you're telling me not to talk when you're wrong and I'm apparently right. Maybe you shouldn't talk if all you're going to do with the privilege is lie?
""But just because workers are furloughed doesn't mean they'll go without pay. Once the government starts up again, most furloughed works will receive back pay for their time off. Bloomberg crunched the numbers and came up with a specific tab: $174 million per day the government is shut down. And this really is a cost, not just a reimbursement. Work that needs to get done (processing tax returns, issuing passports) piles up while employees are furloughed, creating a need for massive overtime once the government starts back up.""
So... is this wrong? This lines up rather cleanly with what everything costs after a shutdown. There are no savings. There are if anything costs. You say "we lose a week of pay"... tragic... so where is the savings off the federal balance sheet? It doesn't exist. So...
And yet somehow your department spends the same amount.
Look at the funding. The money flowing into these departments is the same whether they have a shut down or not on a year over year basis.
As to you losing a week of pay, I'll accept your anger at me, if you accept my anger at you for a long long list of things that can easily be thrown at over paid lazy as shit federal employees.
Want to play that game? Shall I list the median federal salary and compare that to the average US worker?
Should we list your benefits package which dramatically exceeds what most people in the private sector get?
Should I point out that the 5 most prosperous neighborhoods in the US are all suburbs of Washington DC...
Cry more.
Everyone not working for the government suffers through a lot worse all the time. Get on the media and cry about it. See how many of your fellow Americans will listen to you.
We won't because you've got it better than most people already. And now you want to piss and moan when despite all your blessings you have to deal with some hiccup here or there?
And again, the departments have the same footprint on the federal budget regardless of the shutdown. So if you're not getting the money where is it going? Its going somewhere.
when the US government shuts down, it doesn't shut down our military or our state department or any of the things your country likely interacts with... all of that remains active shut down or not.
As to you hating my government, compared to which government? Who is less hated than the Americans that actually matters? You'll cite what... Switzerland or some other irrelevant power that isn't liked or hated as much as ignored.
Name a relevant world power that is liked more than the US... when you fail... I'll will laugh at you... I've already started in anticipation.
No, its like saying "let people grow/sell food and we won't have a food shortage"...
What we currently have is a heavily controlled market where it is almost impossible but a few multi billion dollar corporations to run any cable.
Lots of people are able and willing to run cable and operate ISPs. Only a handful of big companies are actually permitted to lay cable and operate ISPs.
Then people wonder why we have these same companies misbehaving.
You restrict it so that only a few corporations are allowed to run cable and then say you need the government to regulate the consequences of your bad regulations.
How about you back off and let people run cable?
Right of Way to conduits and poles or this is all bullshit. Nothing else will make any difference.
Poles and conduits should be like roads... with any company able to gain access to it by following some reasonable regulations and paying a reasonable and equally applied access fee.
NN would not give us more ISPs. It would not have a diversity of companies laying cable.
And absent more choices in who are our ISPs are from the wire up level... it is pointless.
To solve the problem we need Right of Way for poles and conduits. Absent that, this is just monopolists arguing for their monopoly.
The corporate monopolists want to be the only people that are allowed to run cable in the last mile and the socialist monopolists merely want the government to monopolize it.
The only non-monopolist option is Right of Way to poles and conduits.
That you're attacking a guy that is advocating filtering pollution at the source rather than building comical and largely symbolic air filters after it is too late... well...
I'd ask if you were brain damaged but as its pretty clear there's no reason to ask that question.
The comment section on this website needs child safety locks.
Slashdot Mirror
You can play the victim card here as if the Soviets were oh so oppressed by the meanie Americans. But the Russians dominated a series of countries that remember Soviet rule.
Why don't you play the victim card to the Polish? Try it.
Whining that the countries that escaped soviet enslavement want to secure themselves against Russian aggression is the opposite of being self aware. The Japanese have expressed regret for their fascistic behavior. The Germans have expressed contrition for their misdeeds. Consider Stalin for a moment.
The Russians are complaining about former conquests they brutalized taking steps to not be brutalized again. That's morally monstrous and logically idiotic.
Trying to associate my position with racism when we're talking about foreign policy is just sad.
For the record, I don't hate the Russians and would be very happy to accept them as equals amongst nations.
But they have to come to grips that the price of their lost empire was the suffering of millions. No one is crying for the fall of the soviet union.
Their society is dying. TODAY. Russia has no future unless it changes. That isn't hate from me, that is a prophesy. The country has a crashing birth rate, net emigration, flat lined investment... The whole society is in deep crisis. They have a huge land mass they can't hold on to if this keeps up.
They don't need to worry about the Evil Americans... Our work is done. Russia is snake bit. If they don't shape up they'll suffer the death of a million cuts by their neighbors nibbling at the borders while the center collapses.
Putin is talking tough... but he's already an old man... he will die of natural causes... and what then? They've made no plans for the future.
This isn't racism. I'm just pointing out a society that is dying and won't change to save itself.
Again, they could be one of the richest and most powerful countries in the history of the world. All they have to do is have a little vision and a little integrity. If they can't find either of those, then you're done.
I didn't dehumanize them. I judged their foreign policy.
If you can't tell the difference then your ability to judge such things is void.
No, its an invention of the Russians to justify shitty behavior.
Russia could be one of the richest countries in the history of the world. Dramatically more powerful than they are now. Happier... more secure... the milk and honey of the Earth could be theirs. And the price was so very cheap.
All the Russians had to do was have integrity.
Russia sits between Europe, the middle east, and East Asia... and all that trade bypasses them. Everyone goes around them. No one trusts them.
If they were worthy of trust, freight rail could run through Russia from every major economy in Eurasia. And the US could connect the American rail network through the Bearing strait. It has been proposed and rejected not because it is too expensive but because the Russians are not reliable partners.
Russia would profit in trillions from the traffic through their territory alone. And on top of that, it would justify vast investments in Russian industry as Russia became the place between where goods from around the world were recombined to produce whatever others desired.
Russia pisses this away every day. They're a foolish country with no integrity and no vision. They are destined for the ash heap of history unless they wake up.
Whining about nations they formally enslaved fortifying themselves to prevent being enslaved again? The complaint is beneath contempt.
It is taken as seriously as the Nazis complaining about nations they ravaged in the past taking steps to prevent it from happening again.
Not only does it not pass the laugh test, the very fact that the Russians would think it was a valid complaint in the first place demonstrates a lack of moral growth, a lack of empathy for the people they have victimized, and a comically selfish attitude that justifies the nearly inevitable fate of their entire culture.
Russia has had their chances. They've demonstrated themselves to be unworthy.
You didn't read your own citation:
""However, these statements were made in the context of the negotiations on German reunification, and the Soviet interlocutors never specified their concerns. In the crucial âoe2+4â negotiations, which finally led Gorbachev to accept a unified Germany in NATO in July 1990, the issue was never raised. As former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze later put it, the idea of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolving and NATO taking in former Warsaw Pact members was beyond the imagination of the protagonists at the time.""
Its nonsense.
Silly bunny, Chinese don't use Zodiac Astrology... ;)
SpaceX depends heavily on government contracts. Those government contracts require an agency... What would you call it?
The Department of Giving Musk Money?
As to a NATO expansion, you're talking about former soviet conquests that begged the western powers for security after a generation and in Soviet bondage?
Cry me a river.
Furthermore, there was no agreement that we wouldn't do that. The Russians sometimes claim there was an agreement... but when citations are asked for... they don't exist.
Tell you what, I'll honor agreements I didn't make if they honor agreements they didn't make... I'll offer that NATO thing... and then I'm going to ask for something they never agreed to... and just expect that gets honored.
Deal?
As to Ringing Russia... only an issue if they persist in being hostile. If they are being hostile then we have counter that and that causes the ringing. It is the responsibility of our military to counter threats. It is hilarious that powers think they can eat their cake and have it too. Be threatening and be treated like you're threatening. Poor babies
As to Yeltsin, you're talking about this:
""And while some Muscovites are debating whether the Americans saved Yeltsin's job or merely provided one voice among many working to revive the Russian president's political chances, the consultants have now emerged to give interviews about how they quietly peddled advice to Yeltsin's 36-year-old daughter and key advisor, Tatyana Dyachenko.
"I don't have candidates generally who are as responsive as Boris Yeltsin," said George Gorton, who worked for Wilson in 1994 and later ran Wilson's abortive bid for the GOP nomination. "Certainly not Pete Wilson."
Hired in February through a San Francisco firm with connections in Moscow, Gorton said that the team members never met Yeltsin. Instead, they sent their detailed, unsigned memos to his daughter. "We were told that we were formally retained as advisors to the Yeltsin family."""
His DAUGHTER HIRED HIRED HIRED an American political adviser team which passed on memos through her to Yeltsin... whom they never met.
And for this you say "DAMN YOU AMERICANS!!!!"... You're a idiot. :D
You're telling me it is bad faith on the part of the American government if the DAUGHTER of a Russian presidential candidate HIRES an American political team to pass advice to her father?
Fucking amazing.
You're all memes, kid. You know nothing. Sit at my feet and learn.
France can afford to go to Mars... Its not that expensive. We fight wars all the time that cost less than going to mars.
As to X taking over for the US... but will they?
First, there is the money... and second is anyone willing to share like the US is willing to share?
Have fun dealing with the generosity of the Chinese.
I'm not talking about the pathetic attempt by the Clinton sycophants to blame their election loss on a foreign power.
Why is it that Russia struggles to attract foreign investment?
Russia has a slightly larger GDP than Australia... and yet has like 6 times the population.
Russia could be one of the richest countries in the world. But they're ruled by retards and the price of that is your country isn't successful.
People question this... and then consequences happen. I'm not going to argue the point with you. I'm going to let idiots earn their poverty.
Russia's loss of power is self evident and engaging in a detailed discussion about how obvious that is... is beneath me.
What was hoped was a mending of fences where Russia could obtain wealth, stability, security, and ultimately happiness in the world going forward.
As to the project keeping the Russians away from weapons proliferation... The French have been a bigger problem with that then the Russians.
Regardless, the ISS serves no future purpose. De-Orbit and move on.
... the "international" space station was mostly a political project and it is hard to cite any real success it had along those lines. It was about mending fences with the Russians after the Cold War by participating in a shared project that both nations could excel at... the Russians got funding to keep their space program alive without which it probably would have died entirely... and the US HOPED that the Russians would see the US as a potential friend in the world. Whatever our past... the future opens ever wider.
Sadly, it doesn't seem like any of that happened. The Russians seem immune to olive branch gestures.
That being the case... what is the scientific point of it? Nearly everything it does can be done more cheaply and creatively in other ways. We don't need to share funding or technology with what are still stubbornly rival powers. We are not chained to whatever is relevant to the ISS if we don't fund it at all.
The whole thing is likely to be abandoned and de-orbited.
I want humanity to venture into space... to claim the stars and all that stuff. But the ISS doesn't seem to have any role in that ambition. Its not even a good science platform. It isn't even good propaganda. It isn't even good diplomatic fodder to make the Russians happy. What does it do? Really?
I am very happy to fund NASA heavily. But clarify the mission statement and fund according to that clear mission.
Your criticism displays a lack of integrity as regards interpreting pretty clear analogies.
Starvation is a product of scarcity in most cases. The only known reliable solution is an abundance of food. This requires efficient and economical over production of food.
If you want to analogize that to the internet with some integrity, then you'd be advocating for over supply which I also support because it would give everyone higher quality service and competition.
But to do that you'd have to open up the market and allow more companies to run cable. Much of the cable would be redundant which also supports the notion of how you avoid starvation. In a food market any given supplier of food or even food product can go completely to zero and people that buy food from that store will not lose the ability to get enough food to survive. That is because there are other food products from other companies in the store to replace whatever is not there. Likewise, the store itself can cease to exist and people will generally not find themselves unable to find food at another store in the same area selling basically the same things at very similar prices.
If you make any effort what so ever to understand even your own analogy's context, then you'd see that you can only agree with me.
As to running cable over your property, just as you don't own the streets and your property contains legal stipulations of where the easements begin and end... running cable poses no relevant legal challenge regarding private property. The poles are generally already publicly owned just as the water pipes etc are already publicly owned in nearly all cases. Where they are not, they tend to be owned by a quasi governmental organization that is private purely for administrative reasons. De facto ownership and control even in these cases is always public.
Having the path of the cable grant Right of Way on reasonable terms solves the problem. Any area where a market exists for additional cable runs from additional ISPs could have them immediately.
Why roads are publicly operated instead of privately operated is well understood and contrary systems have not shown themselves to be effective at actually maintaining and operating robust transport infrastructure as regards roads.
As to the existing system being the same as my proposition, nope. If you want to run last mile cable you generally cannot unless you sign a franchise license agreement which amoungst other things tends to obligate you to provide internet access to a set area and tends to require that free ISP service be provided to certain parties etc. There are a whole series of agreements that actually are not reasonable and are clearly not reasonable.
This is not comprehensive but two very common conditions for franchise license are that you provide access to the full scope of the territory that the regulating authority oversees. So for example, if you have a city or a county that is under regulation, to gain a franchise license, you often have to provide access to everyone in that territory if you want to provide service to anyone at all. This is a little like saying you have to build 1000 sandwich shops in a city if you want to build 1. It is not reasonable and is one of the many reasons why only very large companies ever get franchise license agreements.
A more reasonable position would be that service must be provided along the route that wires are run by that a service provider can decide which poles or conduits to run service through and is not obligated to run them otherwise than their desires.
This would allow given service providers to pick and choose which areas they wanted to serve. Smaller companies could compete by taking on smaller service areas and incur less capital expense. What is more, new service could be concentrated where it is needed rather than being required everywhere at once at roughly the same level. This would allow very high quality service in areas that demanded and could pay for it whilst more modest investment in areas that have more modest abilities to pay.
The second condition that franchise agreements tend to have to satisfy is free service... typically to government buildings. Just as it is unreasonable for the government to get free food from local businesses, free power from local power utilities, it is unreasonable for them to get free internet access. This is however typical of franchise agreements. Generally it means free internet to schools, the police, city hall, etc. Demanding free service in exchange for a license to obtain the right to run and operate cable is obviously extortion.
The policy I'm proposing here is not a failure. It has not been attempted. I also don't think you appreciate what actual franchise agreements look like.
If you want to learn more about them, ask me and I'll provide some links for you.
There's no conspiracy... Bush passed it... Obama renewed it throughout his administration and now Trump is doing the same thing.
Its the status quo now.
https://www.fool.com/investing...
Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
Worst case you're going to get a bunch of overtime when it starts back up again which will level your pay back up.
I almost felt bad for a minute... I looked into it... maybe there is something going on with "you" but from what I can tell... the vast majority of workers that stay home during a shut down get paid back one way or another.
That you're telling me not to talk when you're wrong and I'm apparently right. Maybe you shouldn't talk if all you're going to do with the privilege is lie?
Just an idea.
Also, according to this and a few other sources... you do seem to get paid back:
https://www.fool.com/investing...
""But just because workers are furloughed doesn't mean they'll go without pay. Once the government starts up again, most furloughed works will receive back pay for their time off. Bloomberg crunched the numbers and came up with a specific tab: $174 million per day the government is shut down. And this really is a cost, not just a reimbursement. Work that needs to get done (processing tax returns, issuing passports) piles up while employees are furloughed, creating a need for massive overtime once the government starts back up.""
So... is this wrong? This lines up rather cleanly with what everything costs after a shutdown. There are no savings. There are if anything costs. You say "we lose a week of pay"... tragic... so where is the savings off the federal balance sheet? It doesn't exist. So...
So... Sir, bullshit on YOU.
And yet somehow your department spends the same amount.
Look at the funding. The money flowing into these departments is the same whether they have a shut down or not on a year over year basis.
As to you losing a week of pay, I'll accept your anger at me, if you accept my anger at you for a long long list of things that can easily be thrown at over paid lazy as shit federal employees.
Want to play that game? Shall I list the median federal salary and compare that to the average US worker?
Should we list your benefits package which dramatically exceeds what most people in the private sector get?
Should I point out that the 5 most prosperous neighborhoods in the US are all suburbs of Washington DC...
Cry more.
Everyone not working for the government suffers through a lot worse all the time. Get on the media and cry about it. See how many of your fellow Americans will listen to you.
We won't because you've got it better than most people already. And now you want to piss and moan when despite all your blessings you have to deal with some hiccup here or there?
And again, the departments have the same footprint on the federal budget regardless of the shutdown. So if you're not getting the money where is it going? Its going somewhere.
when the US government shuts down, it doesn't shut down our military or our state department or any of the things your country likely interacts with... all of that remains active shut down or not.
As to you hating my government, compared to which government? Who is less hated than the Americans that actually matters? You'll cite what... Switzerland or some other irrelevant power that isn't liked or hated as much as ignored.
Name a relevant world power that is liked more than the US... when you fail... I'll will laugh at you... I've already started in anticipation.
No, its like saying "let people grow/sell food and we won't have a food shortage"...
What we currently have is a heavily controlled market where it is almost impossible but a few multi billion dollar corporations to run any cable.
Lots of people are able and willing to run cable and operate ISPs. Only a handful of big companies are actually permitted to lay cable and operate ISPs.
Then people wonder why we have these same companies misbehaving.
You restrict it so that only a few corporations are allowed to run cable and then say you need the government to regulate the consequences of your bad regulations.
How about you back off and let people run cable?
Right of Way to conduits and poles or this is all bullshit. Nothing else will make any difference.
... this isn't about Trump... this is now the status quo.
All that happens is that give everyone a week off then give everyone a bonus later.
If you look at the amount of money that given departments got over a year with or without a shutdown... and it works out to about the same.
Its all political bullshit.
Poles and conduits should be like roads... with any company able to gain access to it by following some reasonable regulations and paying a reasonable and equally applied access fee.
Fix the right of way to conduits and poles and the problem goes away.
Everything else is a sad argument for one monopoly over another. They're both toxic.
NN would not give us more ISPs. It would not have a diversity of companies laying cable.
And absent more choices in who are our ISPs are from the wire up level... it is pointless.
To solve the problem we need Right of Way for poles and conduits. Absent that, this is just monopolists arguing for their monopoly.
The corporate monopolists want to be the only people that are allowed to run cable in the last mile and the socialist monopolists merely want the government to monopolize it.
The only non-monopolist option is Right of Way to poles and conduits.
That you're attacking a guy that is advocating filtering pollution at the source rather than building comical and largely symbolic air filters after it is too late... well...
I'd ask if you were brain damaged but as its pretty clear there's no reason to ask that question.
The comment section on this website needs child safety locks.