Except of course, when traffic lights stop working, people still navigate intersections just fine without them. They don't degenerate into car chaos...
What you're missing is that order is a prerequisite for law and government. You can't form a government unless people have already created social order. It's not the other way around.
People create order in society. Society doesn't create order among people. "Society" isn't a thing with an existence and will outside of the individuals within it.
"Every single"..."pretty much incapable of doing simple math when they get to talking about budgets"
So Paul Ryan, the quintessential Tea Party Republican, Chairman of the House Budget committee and member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission can't do math when talking about budgets?
Your comment seems to say much more about your personal political bias then they do about the math and science knowledge of Tea Party members of Congress...
Next you'll be claiming Ron Paul has less medical knowledge than your average liberal....
Revenue has gone up over the last 30 years in constant dollars. So why is revenue an issue in deficits?
Spending, having gone up much faster, is the obvious issue when you are comparing the two numbers. Revenue is the number that has gone in the desired direction to reduce the deficits. Spending has gone in the wrong direction to reduce the deficits.
The issue of nominal reductions in tax rates (what you're calling tax cuts) and how that affects revenue (not as much as people think) isn't a big part of the impact.
Empirically, revenue still went up in the years after most of the major tax cuts. It's hard to distinguish that from the effects of an improved economy, so you can can certainly argue about causation, but they clearly didn't cause any sort of major drop in revenue. Forget what you've heard in the media. Look at the numbers and read some economists.
Revenue historically tracks how the economy is doing. As a result of how people adjust to changes in tax rates, while the actual nominal tax rates have a marginal impact and a distortionary affect on economic efficiency, they aren't a big driver of how much total revenue is received by the government.
What he means is that they've tried to change the law (The ACA) through legislative means 41 times and failed each time. So they attached their failed legislation to a budget bill hoping to force it down. They failed.
That's factually inaccurate, since that "41" count includes many bills that actually succeeded in repealing parts of the law , like the 1099 regulations and the unworkable CLASS program. So "failed each time" doesn't exactly match reality does it? Of course, if you counted only the times they tried to repeal the entire law, then you'd have to cite a much tinier number that wouldn't be as useful for propaganda purposes.
"From 1980 to 2012, Revenue is $892 Billion higher. Does that sound like taxes have just gotten too low? In the same 32 years, spending is $1,844 Billion higher. Hmm... I think we see why our deficit is so high now...."
Let's talk about some of the drivers of health care costs in the United States: We have a limited supply of "Health Care Workers" as a result of government regulations. That causes an increase in costs. We primarily get "insurance" through your employer because of government regulations. That third party purchaser and lack of competition causes an increase in costs. We have an extremely limited choice of "insurance" plans overall because of government regulation. That lack of choice causes an increase in costs. Health care is provided on-demand in ERs because of government regulation. That unfunded care causes an increase in costs. People who don't pay their medical bills can't be dinged on their credit because of government regulation. That unpaid for care causes an increase in costs. Insurance companies can't compete across State lines and can't compete on coverage because of government regulation. That lack of competition causes an increase in costs. We have bureaucratically funded health care for many people (medicare/medicaid). That drives up costs as it distorts the market for health care. The United States is much wealthier than other large countries around the world. So there is more demand for more expensive procedures and practices. That higher demand causes and increase in costs.
Those are the primary drivers of health care costs in the U.S. Only one of those is attributable to the "market". The others are directly a result of government regulations. Now, you can take the position that you like some of those regulations anyway and that's understandable, but you can't factually deny in an economics sense that the primary cause of high insurance and health care costs in the U.S. isn't government regulations of one sort or another.
Until this coming year, the States were differentiated enough in their State level insurance regulations that you could see very obvious correlations with health insurance costs and levels of regulation between states. The same basic insurance for the same people could be twice as much or more in NJ than UT, for example, even after adjusting for inflation.
Now the Feds have managed to make it all worse for everyone by making national regulations adopting all the worst state practices for inflating costs and making them mandatory in "insurance". Joy....
So, something similar to what I've implemented twice in the past at different companies for $10 million in software development and $10 million in hardware? (monthly operational costs for bandwidth can get expensive, but that's not included here).
So what does the other $600 million+ goes towards? Bribes and other assorted waste?
Most people don't realize how bad news stories are until they see one they have personal knowledge of. Guess, what, the others are generally just as bad.
Most people don't realize of wasteful and inefficient the government is until they see it try to do something they know something about. Guess what, the other things government does are generally just as bad.
fiat: a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.
Since the delay of the employer mandate was literally done via a formal decree from President Obama, I'm not sure why you're objecting to the OP's language choice...
The GOP tried to delay this fiasco a year as part of funding the 18% or whatever of the government that is "discretionary". The Senate and President shot that attempt down.
BTW, none of the funding for this website implementation was part of that discretionary funding. So no effect there, either.
Except, typically in situations like this, if you hire an armed security guard, you will usually get an off-duty police officer with many of the same powers and duties you cited.
Even an unarmed security guard can arrest anyone for any misdemeanor they personally witness, and that arrest includes detaining that someone. Of course, in CA anyone else has that same "power", but likely doesn't realize exactly how it works if they haven't done the security guard licensing.
Security guards can also ask people to leave (and stay off) property owned by whomever they are working for and if they don't, they are subject to trespassing laws. That helps for keeping specific locations clear of criminals.
In the end, most security guards (especially if they are unarmed) are only there to deter, observe and report. If you have a group of people and a security guard, criminals are more likely to go pick on a group of people without the visible deterrence of a security guard. Otherwise, they'll have someone who knows their job is to take pictures, write down license plates, observe and report, thus increasing the criminals chance of actually getting arrested.
So yeah, under current CA law, a security guard isn't as good as a full blown police presence, but they're obviously useful enough that banks, malls, HOAs, stadiums and other places that need to provide additional security are willing to pay for them.
Sure, I'd prefer an absolute reduction in spending, because we're funding lots of things I'd personally prefer to do away with at the federal level (Large portions of the NSA, the drug war and associated prison federal costs, big chunks of the military's overseas bases, corporate welfare, including the ACA, I can think of plenty...), but too many people don't realize how much we've increased spending in constant dollars at the federal level over the years.
But at least slowing down that spending increase would be a start...
Revenue generally tracks the economy, while spending just goes up and up. That's the problem causing huge deficits. The government will have to get spending under control (which flattened a little in the last "shutdown"s in 94-95) in order to stop adding to the debt constantly. It won't even take much, just a reduction in the increase in spending would balance the budget over the long run.
Now that you've changed your tune, it's obvious you realize you were wrong all along. Of course, with your posting history on other things, that's not much of a shocker, is it? You have a lot of these "misunderstandings".
The botnet doesn't need a privileged user. It can generally use the machine's resources for whatever it desires, including making outgoing connections to compromise more hosts, with just a non-privileged user.
You're totally off topic. If anyone is a troll, it's you. Sadly, it appears you're just an idiot who spouts off without even knowing the basics of what is being discussed.
The botnet being discussed tries to login with a series of usernames over time with each member of the botnet attempting to guess a different password for each username in the series.
So PermitRootLogin is irrelevant to defending against it, other than presumably it might eventually try root among all the other usernames it's attempting.
Having PasswordAuthentication set to no instead of yes so that it can't guess the password of a user it manages to guess the username for would be the only viable defense to the specific botnet that is under discussion.
If you have any honor at all, you'll now go read the article and then come back and admit your mistakes. I'm not holding my breath. Even an AC knows more about what we're talking about here.
That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something. Posting the final disposition of charges, or something along those lines would be sufficient to defend against that.
This is really one of those literal RTFM situations...
Notice I was talking about password authentication?
As noted above, PasswordAuthentication defaults to no on FreeBSD.
How about some popular Linux flavors? Ubuntu? Debian? Fedora? Those are the top 3 in usage, right? So I checked those and guess what? PasswordAuthentication defaults to yes.
So yeah, could that be why he didn't mention the botnet logging into to lots of BSD boxes with password authentication?
Correct me if I'm wrong..
Perhaps you could bother to read the whole comment you are replying to and reply in context of what is being discussed? Consider yourself corrected.
Yeah, but don't worry, we'll get the guys responsible for Benghazi in another 13-14 years or so at this rate... they have to pick them up in order of their terrorist acts, of course...
The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.
These are facts. Please cite your fact where the GOP has not tried to repeal this from the very beginning.
Since that doesn't contradict anything I've said, what's the point of this? I've never said the ACA wasn't passed and I've never said the GOP hasn't tried to repeal it. The original post I was responding to stated that they'd tried to repeal it unsuccessfully 42 times and it was insane to keep trying to repeal it in whole or in parts. I just pointed out that counted in that 42 number were successful attempts to repeal parts that were signed into law, negating the point I was actually responding to. Having a hard time following the thread?
Please read this before commenting any further as you don't seem to have any grasp of the Constitution.
I've read it. It would be more enlightening if you actually claimed that something I said contradicted it.
Harry Reid cannot defund the troops as he is a Senator. He can counter-propose any funding bill by the House but he does not generate funding. Did Harry Reid ever shutdown the government until his gets want he wanted (like a child throws a tantrum). No it doesn't and you know it.
Yes, Harry Reid tried to "shutdown" the government in the exact same way over trying to defund the already passed law authorizing the use of deadly force in Iraq. He attached it to an emergency supplemental spending bill. The only difference with Reid is that he ultimately didn't have the votes to succeed in his attempt.
You don't get to change laws because you want.
You're apparently still completely missing my original point that current law doesn't authorize discretionary spending after Sept. 30th. To change that law is what you and the Democrats want. They need a majority of the House to go along with any new law like that. It's the new law to change that which the Senate and the House haven't agreed on the contents. The House gets to be a big part of deciding what will go in that law. Sadly, the Dems refuse to negotiate, demanding that they will only consider passing a new appropriations law if its worded exactly how they want it to be.
But you never answered my question: If the GOP said that they would keep the military shutdown until DOMA is reinstated, your response is what? See you don't want to admit that if the GOP is being discriminatory then it's not OK is it?
I have answered your question, but I'll patiently summarize my answer again for you. Harry Reid himself has tried to do similar things with past appropriations bills. It's part of the process of passing a new law authorizing spending that they have to pass Congress just like any other new law. If as part of that process, the elected representatives want to make the law read whatever they want (subject to the USSC deciding to throw part out), they can. It's the way the process is designed. What's the big deal about the process proceeding like it has before? This discretionary spending "shutdown" scenario has played out 17 times since 1977 when they politicians couldn't agree on the wording of the new appropriations law. It happens. It's not the end of the world. Most people barely notice, other than in the news.
You seem misinformed. That 42 number of repeal attempts included bills that passed the House and the Senate and were signed into law. That's why you don't have to file a 1099 for every business transaction over $600. It was part of the law that was repealed. That's why the CLASS program went away. It was part of the law that was repealed, etc...
The GOP is the one that wants to change a law without going through the proper procedure
I'll try and keep this simple for you, since you obviously didn't understand the point the first time. The current law of the land is that certain non-essential agencies and programs don't receive funding after September 30th, 2013. That law was passed by Congress and signed by the President. In order to change that law, a new law would have to be passed. In a long standing tradition in the Congress, plus a grant of power from the Constitution, the elected Representatives get to decide what will go into new laws.
In order to spend money that hasn't already been appropriated by a law, there must be a new law passed. The "discretionary" parts of the government's spending (that's the part that isn't getting funded right now) is up to the discretion of Congress every year, because that's how they wrote the laws authorizing it that made it legal to spend any money on it in the first place.
Thus, for example, Harry Reid tried to defund the troops in the field in Iraq as part of a previous discretionary spending authorization. He lost his attempt because a majority of Congress didn't agree with him, but he tried. Notice that fits exactly with your example about defunding the military over a partisan point?
Maybe you should go back and actually understand how this government funding stuff works and how its worked in the past before just regurgitating the latest left-wing media talking points? Ignoring the actual history and the legal process just makes you seem ignorant to those who can follow what's been going on.
Your comment's moderation illustrates either the bias of the people moderating, or their ignorance, as the comment itself is clueless. Feel free to mod me down for pointing that out, but metamods should take note.
The Hastert Rule is enforced by the majority in Congress. If a majority of Representatives wanted to get rid of Boehner, or change the rule, or even leave him alone and bring anything they wanted to the floor of the House to vote on it, they could. The Speaker can be fired anytime you can get a majority of Congress to go along. The Caucus rules can be changed any time a majority wants to.
While some Representatives have publicly said they'd support this bill or that one, that's not the same as actually signing a discharge petition, or wanting to vote on a particular bill so much they are willing to go against the other members of their Party. It's like when asked if they want ice cream, they say "Sure, I want some ice cream, but not so much that I'm willing to pay for some in order to eat it."
Yep, the House, as the Representatives closest to the people, having the power over taxes and appropriations is completely by design. If the people want to vote in folks who run on a platform of defunding the CIA or whatever, that's the way the system was designed!
That's why if the People want them to do something else, they're the ones that have to run for re-election every 2 years.
If the Senate or the President didn't want these government programs/agencies to lose funding without any new appropriations bills, then they shouldn't have passed the currently applicable laws causing that to happen. Some things are considered essential, but these things (about 20%) are not.
If you want to appropriate money for them, then negotiate with the other people who are part of that process and work something out, rather then loudly proclaiming that you won't approve the bills passed by the House to fund things unless they still include your pet project.
If one trillion dollars to help take care of the citizens of the country is "too much", then Republicans should reexamine their priorities.
How about instead, "If one trillion dollars to further fuck over the citizens of the country in an even bigger bureaucratic health care mess than the government has already caused is "too much", then Republicans are right to refuse to fund it."
"Trying to repeal 42 times when it is clear it won't happen politically is the definition of insanity."
Except of course, you're counting in that the times they voted to repeal part of the Act and the repeal passed Congress and was signed by President Obama.
You know, things like the 1099 mandate? The CLASS program? And about a half dozen others? I suppose those were just insane to pass, right?
Current law is that discretionary appropriations of money have run out. If the Senate wants to change that law which they and the President previously agreed to, they have bills from the House they can take a vote on right now to end it. So what if they don't fund Obamacare 100%. Well guess what, why don't you try negotiating instead of announcing you're taking your ball and going home if everyone else won't do exactly what you want?
Slashdot Mirror
Except of course, when traffic lights stop working, people still navigate intersections just fine without them. They don't degenerate into car chaos...
What you're missing is that order is a prerequisite for law and government. You can't form a government unless people have already created social order. It's not the other way around.
People create order in society. Society doesn't create order among people. "Society" isn't a thing with an existence and will outside of the individuals within it.
So Paul Ryan, the quintessential Tea Party Republican, Chairman of the House Budget committee and member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission can't do math when talking about budgets?
Your comment seems to say much more about your personal political bias then they do about the math and science knowledge of Tea Party members of Congress...
Next you'll be claiming Ron Paul has less medical knowledge than your average liberal....
Revenue has gone up over the last 30 years in constant dollars. So why is revenue an issue in deficits?
Spending, having gone up much faster, is the obvious issue when you are comparing the two numbers. Revenue is the number that has gone in the desired direction to reduce the deficits. Spending has gone in the wrong direction to reduce the deficits.
The issue of nominal reductions in tax rates (what you're calling tax cuts) and how that affects revenue (not as much as people think) isn't a big part of the impact.
Empirically, revenue still went up in the years after most of the major tax cuts. It's hard to distinguish that from the effects of an improved economy, so you can can certainly argue about causation, but they clearly didn't cause any sort of major drop in revenue. Forget what you've heard in the media. Look at the numbers and read some economists.
Revenue historically tracks how the economy is doing. As a result of how people adjust to changes in tax rates, while the actual nominal tax rates have a marginal impact and a distortionary affect on economic efficiency, they aren't a big driver of how much total revenue is received by the government.
What he means is that they've tried to change the law (The ACA) through legislative means 41 times and failed each time. So they attached their failed legislation to a budget bill hoping to force it down. They failed.
That's factually inaccurate, since that "41" count includes many bills that actually succeeded in repealing parts of the law , like the 1099 regulations and the unworkable CLASS program. So "failed each time" doesn't exactly match reality does it? Of course, if you counted only the times they tried to repeal the entire law, then you'd have to cite a much tinier number that wouldn't be as useful for propaganda purposes.
Spending has gone up twice as much (in constant dollars) over the last 30 years as revenue has. Based on that, it's pretty difficult to make a good case that the issue is revenue and not out of control spending. You can blame military spending or Wall Street rescue spending. But it's pretty obviously a spending problem.
The modern model of health insurance provided as a work benefit happened in the '50s as a way to attract talent when it was in short supply.
What you're leaving out is that employer provided health insurance was a direct result of government wage controls.
Let's talk about some of the drivers of health care costs in the United States:
We have a limited supply of "Health Care Workers" as a result of government regulations. That causes an increase in costs.
We primarily get "insurance" through your employer because of government regulations. That third party purchaser and lack of competition causes an increase in costs.
We have an extremely limited choice of "insurance" plans overall because of government regulation. That lack of choice causes an increase in costs.
Health care is provided on-demand in ERs because of government regulation. That unfunded care causes an increase in costs.
People who don't pay their medical bills can't be dinged on their credit because of government regulation. That unpaid for care causes an increase in costs.
Insurance companies can't compete across State lines and can't compete on coverage because of government regulation. That lack of competition causes an increase in costs.
We have bureaucratically funded health care for many people (medicare/medicaid). That drives up costs as it distorts the market for health care.
The United States is much wealthier than other large countries around the world. So there is more demand for more expensive procedures and practices. That higher demand causes and increase in costs.
Those are the primary drivers of health care costs in the U.S. Only one of those is attributable to the "market". The others are directly a result of government regulations. Now, you can take the position that you like some of those regulations anyway and that's understandable, but you can't factually deny in an economics sense that the primary cause of high insurance and health care costs in the U.S. isn't government regulations of one sort or another.
Until this coming year, the States were differentiated enough in their State level insurance regulations that you could see very obvious correlations with health insurance costs and levels of regulation between states. The same basic insurance for the same people could be twice as much or more in NJ than UT, for example, even after adjusting for inflation.
Now the Feds have managed to make it all worse for everyone by making national regulations adopting all the worst state practices for inflating costs and making them mandatory in "insurance". Joy....
So, something similar to what I've implemented twice in the past at different companies for $10 million in software development and $10 million in hardware? (monthly operational costs for bandwidth can get expensive, but that's not included here).
So what does the other $600 million+ goes towards? Bribes and other assorted waste?
Most people don't realize how bad news stories are until they see one they have personal knowledge of. Guess, what, the others are generally just as bad.
Most people don't realize of wasteful and inefficient the government is until they see it try to do something they know something about. Guess what, the other things government does are generally just as bad.
fiat: a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.
Since the delay of the employer mandate was literally done via a formal decree from President Obama, I'm not sure why you're objecting to the OP's language choice...
No, it was the reverse.
The GOP tried to delay this fiasco a year as part of funding the 18% or whatever of the government that is "discretionary". The Senate and President shot that attempt down.
BTW, none of the funding for this website implementation was part of that discretionary funding. So no effect there, either.
Except, typically in situations like this, if you hire an armed security guard, you will usually get an off-duty police officer with many of the same powers and duties you cited.
Even an unarmed security guard can arrest anyone for any misdemeanor they personally witness, and that arrest includes detaining that someone. Of course, in CA anyone else has that same "power", but likely doesn't realize exactly how it works if they haven't done the security guard licensing.
Security guards can also ask people to leave (and stay off) property owned by whomever they are working for and if they don't, they are subject to trespassing laws. That helps for keeping specific locations clear of criminals.
In the end, most security guards (especially if they are unarmed) are only there to deter, observe and report. If you have a group of people and a security guard, criminals are more likely to go pick on a group of people without the visible deterrence of a security guard. Otherwise, they'll have someone who knows their job is to take pictures, write down license plates, observe and report, thus increasing the criminals chance of actually getting arrested.
So yeah, under current CA law, a security guard isn't as good as a full blown police presence, but they're obviously useful enough that banks, malls, HOAs, stadiums and other places that need to provide additional security are willing to pay for them.
Sure, I'd prefer an absolute reduction in spending, because we're funding lots of things I'd personally prefer to do away with at the federal level (Large portions of the NSA, the drug war and associated prison federal costs, big chunks of the military's overseas bases, corporate welfare, including the ACA, I can think of plenty...), but too many people don't realize how much we've increased spending in constant dollars at the federal level over the years.
But at least slowing down that spending increase would be a start...
Sorry, but if you look at the differences in inflation adjusted spending and tax revenues for the last 30 years or so it's pretty obvious that while federal revenue has grown over time, federal spending has just grown much faster. It's pretty hard to make an argument that any sort of tax cut is the reason for spending having gone up so much.
Revenue generally tracks the economy, while spending just goes up and up. That's the problem causing huge deficits. The government will have to get spending under control (which flattened a little in the last "shutdown"s in 94-95) in order to stop adding to the debt constantly. It won't even take much, just a reduction in the increase in spending would balance the budget over the long run.
Now that you've changed your tune, it's obvious you realize you were wrong all along. Of course, with your posting history on other things, that's not much of a shocker, is it? You have a lot of these "misunderstandings".
The botnet doesn't need a privileged user. It can generally use the machine's resources for whatever it desires, including making outgoing connections to compromise more hosts, with just a non-privileged user.
You're totally off topic. If anyone is a troll, it's you. Sadly, it appears you're just an idiot who spouts off without even knowing the basics of what is being discussed.
The botnet being discussed tries to login with a series of usernames over time with each member of the botnet attempting to guess a different password for each username in the series.
So PermitRootLogin is irrelevant to defending against it, other than presumably it might eventually try root among all the other usernames it's attempting.
Having PasswordAuthentication set to no instead of yes so that it can't guess the password of a user it manages to guess the username for would be the only viable defense to the specific botnet that is under discussion.
If you have any honor at all, you'll now go read the article and then come back and admit your mistakes. I'm not holding my breath. Even an AC knows more about what we're talking about here.
Public records are publicly available and government photos are "not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work."..
That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something. Posting the final disposition of charges, or something along those lines would be sufficient to defend against that.
This is really one of those literal RTFM situations...
Notice I was talking about password authentication?
As noted above, PasswordAuthentication defaults to no on FreeBSD.
How about some popular Linux flavors?
Ubuntu? Debian? Fedora?
Those are the top 3 in usage, right? So I checked those and guess what?
PasswordAuthentication defaults to yes.
So yeah, could that be why he didn't mention the botnet logging into to lots of BSD boxes with password authentication?
Correct me if I'm wrong..
Perhaps you could bother to read the whole comment you are replying to and reply in context of what is being discussed? Consider yourself corrected.
Yeah, but don't worry, we'll get the guys responsible for Benghazi in another 13-14 years or so at this rate... they have to pick them up in order of their terrorist acts, of course...
Brilliant!
The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.
These are facts. Please cite your fact where the GOP has not tried to repeal this from the very beginning.
Since that doesn't contradict anything I've said, what's the point of this? I've never said the ACA wasn't passed and I've never said the GOP hasn't tried to repeal it. The original post I was responding to stated that they'd tried to repeal it unsuccessfully 42 times and it was insane to keep trying to repeal it in whole or in parts. I just pointed out that counted in that 42 number were successful attempts to repeal parts that were signed into law, negating the point I was actually responding to. Having a hard time following the thread?
Please read this before commenting any further as you don't seem to have any grasp of the Constitution.
I've read it. It would be more enlightening if you actually claimed that something I said contradicted it.
Harry Reid cannot defund the troops as he is a Senator. He can counter-propose any funding bill by the House but he does not generate funding. Did Harry Reid ever shutdown the government until his gets want he wanted (like a child throws a tantrum). No it doesn't and you know it.
Yes, Harry Reid tried to "shutdown" the government in the exact same way over trying to defund the already passed law authorizing the use of deadly force in Iraq. He attached it to an emergency supplemental spending bill. The only difference with Reid is that he ultimately didn't have the votes to succeed in his attempt.
You don't get to change laws because you want.
You're apparently still completely missing my original point that current law doesn't authorize discretionary spending after Sept. 30th. To change that law is what you and the Democrats want. They need a majority of the House to go along with any new law like that. It's the new law to change that which the Senate and the House haven't agreed on the contents. The House gets to be a big part of deciding what will go in that law. Sadly, the Dems refuse to negotiate, demanding that they will only consider passing a new appropriations law if its worded exactly how they want it to be.
But you never answered my question: If the GOP said that they would keep the military shutdown until DOMA is reinstated, your response is what? See you don't want to admit that if the GOP is being discriminatory then it's not OK is it?
I have answered your question, but I'll patiently summarize my answer again for you. Harry Reid himself has tried to do similar things with past appropriations bills. It's part of the process of passing a new law authorizing spending that they have to pass Congress just like any other new law. If as part of that process, the elected representatives want to make the law read whatever they want (subject to the USSC deciding to throw part out), they can. It's the way the process is designed. What's the big deal about the process proceeding like it has before? This discretionary spending "shutdown" scenario has played out 17 times since 1977 when they politicians couldn't agree on the wording of the new appropriations law. It happens. It's not the end of the world. Most people barely notice, other than in the news.
why did he not say "Linux, BSD, and Other OSes
Maybe because the default setting in BSD is
PasswordAuthentication = no
and
PermitRootLogin = no
Could that be why he didn't mention the botnet logging into to lots of BSD boxes with password authentication?
You seem misinformed. That 42 number of repeal attempts included bills that passed the House and the Senate and were signed into law. That's why you don't have to file a 1099 for every business transaction over $600. It was part of the law that was repealed. That's why the CLASS program went away. It was part of the law that was repealed, etc...
The GOP is the one that wants to change a law without going through the proper procedure
I'll try and keep this simple for you, since you obviously didn't understand the point the first time.
The current law of the land is that certain non-essential agencies and programs don't receive funding after September 30th, 2013. That law was passed by Congress and signed by the President. In order to change that law, a new law would have to be passed. In a long standing tradition in the Congress, plus a grant of power from the Constitution, the elected Representatives get to decide what will go into new laws.
In order to spend money that hasn't already been appropriated by a law, there must be a new law passed. The "discretionary" parts of the government's spending (that's the part that isn't getting funded right now) is up to the discretion of Congress every year, because that's how they wrote the laws authorizing it that made it legal to spend any money on it in the first place.
Thus, for example, Harry Reid tried to defund the troops in the field in Iraq as part of a previous discretionary spending authorization. He lost his attempt because a majority of Congress didn't agree with him, but he tried. Notice that fits exactly with your example about defunding the military over a partisan point?
Maybe you should go back and actually understand how this government funding stuff works and how its worked in the past before just regurgitating the latest left-wing media talking points? Ignoring the actual history and the legal process just makes you seem ignorant to those who can follow what's been going on.
Your comment's moderation illustrates either the bias of the people moderating, or their ignorance, as the comment itself is clueless. Feel free to mod me down for pointing that out, but metamods should take note.
The Hastert Rule is enforced by the majority in Congress. If a majority of Representatives wanted to get rid of Boehner, or change the rule, or even leave him alone and bring anything they wanted to the floor of the House to vote on it, they could. The Speaker can be fired anytime you can get a majority of Congress to go along. The Caucus rules can be changed any time a majority wants to.
While some Representatives have publicly said they'd support this bill or that one, that's not the same as actually signing a discharge petition, or wanting to vote on a particular bill so much they are willing to go against the other members of their Party. It's like when asked if they want ice cream, they say "Sure, I want some ice cream, but not so much that I'm willing to pay for some in order to eat it."
Yep, the House, as the Representatives closest to the people, having the power over taxes and appropriations is completely by design. If the people want to vote in folks who run on a platform of defunding the CIA or whatever, that's the way the system was designed!
That's why if the People want them to do something else, they're the ones that have to run for re-election every 2 years.
If the Senate or the President didn't want these government programs/agencies to lose funding without any new appropriations bills, then they shouldn't have passed the currently applicable laws causing that to happen. Some things are considered essential, but these things (about 20%) are not.
If you want to appropriate money for them, then negotiate with the other people who are part of that process and work something out, rather then loudly proclaiming that you won't approve the bills passed by the House to fund things unless they still include your pet project.
If one trillion dollars to help take care of the citizens of the country is "too much", then Republicans should reexamine their priorities.
How about instead, "If one trillion dollars to further fuck over the citizens of the country in an even bigger bureaucratic health care mess than the government has already caused is "too much", then Republicans are right to refuse to fund it."
"Trying to repeal 42 times when it is clear it won't happen politically is the definition of insanity."
Except of course, you're counting in that the times they voted to repeal part of the Act and the repeal passed Congress and was signed by President Obama.
You know, things like the 1099 mandate? The CLASS program? And about a half dozen others? I suppose those were just insane to pass, right?
Current law is that discretionary appropriations of money have run out. If the Senate wants to change that law which they and the President previously agreed to, they have bills from the House they can take a vote on right now to end it. So what if they don't fund Obamacare 100%. Well guess what, why don't you try negotiating instead of announcing you're taking your ball and going home if everyone else won't do exactly what you want?