Government Shutdown

[sturmhauke]

Originally Posted by mswas

It may be possible that we'll actually see Obama with a Democrat majority in the House. That would be very interesting.

It might be. But then again, the Dems had close to a supermajority in both houses with the 111th Congress right after Obama first took office, and they still managed to fuck things up.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by sturmhauke

It might be. But then again, the Dems had close to a supermajority in both houses with the 111th Congress right after Obama first took office, and they still managed to fuck things up.

Not really. 60 Democrats, counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat = 59 Democrats.

[ryevermouthbitters]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

SCOTUS: It's a tax.

[BJMoose]

Sounds more like a difference of opinion than a lie.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Except that the Supreme Court could not have reached that conclusion, legally, if no one had argued it before them. Guess who argued it? President Obama's Soliciter General, Donald Verrilli.

...not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

It gets better. At the bottom of that last link is one of the President's campaign people still saying it's not a tax, immediately after SCOTUS called it a tax on the specific application of the Obama administration!

President Obama learned from President Clinton's mistake. It's OK to lie to the American people; you can't lie to a judge.

[Jaglavak]

The individual mandate is flat fucking wrong and I normally would vote against anyone communist enough to supported it. Tragically, the clowns who are against it are so astoundingly awful on every other front that I can't make myself vote for them. And so the current pulls me down the drain along with all the idiots. Brace yourselves, this is going to sting a bit.

[Erving#6]

How is Breibart doing?

How about this deal.

The GOP gives Obama gun control laws that the country wants and Obama agrees to postpone ACA for a year.

Would that be good enough?

Originally Posted by Brian

Turns out that more than 93% of the EPA employees are non-essential.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Non-Essential

Likewise, I heard on C-SPAN today that 84% of the Interior Department employees are non-essential.

That is bloated government bureaucracy. If those departments aren't eliminated entirely, they should at least be cut back drastically.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Erving#6

How is Breibart doing?

Stay classy.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Erving#6

The GOP gives Obama gun control laws that the country wants...

Interesting proposal... but I'm not sure that machine guns and grenade launchers are really a good idea for the general public.

[Erving#6]

Originally Posted by Brian

Stay classy.

As about as classy as using anything on Briebart's website as a source.

You generalize everything about what the federal gov't does or doesn't do, knowing that you will probably be wrong about 80% of the time.

What does these jobs have to do with what is actually happening right now?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Erving#6

As about as classy as using anything on Briebart's website as a source.

What does these jobs have to do with what is actually happening right now?

How about C-SPAN as a source? Is that OK with you?

Anyway, those jobs are obviously completely unnecessary, and should be eliminated.

Let's say you have a successful hot dog/Italian beef stand in Chicago. You employ a cashier, two cooks, a drive-thru operator, a cleaning person, a supervisor, and yourself as manager. That's seven jobs, which are essential to run the business.

Do you hire 93 additional employees? To do what, exactly? No. No, you don't. Neither should EPA, Interior, nor any other governmental agency.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Erving#6

As about as classy as using anything on Briebart's website as a source.

The Breitbart website linked to Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...98T12E20130930

[Erving#6]

The gov't has been losing jobs on a regular basis, not adding and running a gov't agency is as simple as a hot dog stand.

What do these jobs have to do with what is going on with the gov't shut down right now? Nothing. The Tea Party hates the ACA and knows because of the gerrymandering of the voting districts they will not be touched, even though the country and the rest of gov't disagrees with them.

This is about an existing law and they are trying to circumvent the Constitution, you know what the TEA PARTY screams about on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by Brian

How about C-SPAN as a source? Is that OK with you?

Anyway, those jobs are obviously completely unnecessary, and should be eliminated.

Let's say you have a successful hot dog/Italian beef stand in Chicago. You employ a cashier, two cooks, a drive-thru operator, a cleaning person, a supervisor, and yourself as manager. That's seven jobs, which are essential to run the business.

Do you hire 93 additional employees? To do what, exactly? No. No, you don't. Neither should EPA, Interior, nor any other governmental agency.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by Brian

Anyway, those jobs are obviously completely unnecessary, and should be eliminated.

Do you understand the difference between "essential" and "essential right now?" Like, you understand that in your example that the cleaning guy can get furloughed for a few days if cash flow is tight but that in the long run he's still "essential." But on the other hand, if you furlough the cashier you can't take in revenues so he's "essential right now." Right? You do understand that?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Do you understand the difference between "essential" and "essential right now?" Like, you understand that in your example that the cleaning guy can get furloughed for a few days if cash flow is tight but that in the long run he's still "essential." But on the other hand, if you furlough the cashier you can't take in revenues so he's "essential right now." Right? You do understand that?

Yes, I understand that. It's the scale that's obviously out of whack. If you have 10 employees, and you operate well between 8-12, furloughing one employee is reasonable. 100 down to 7 is not rational. If you can operate essential operations at 7 or 14 or even 21 employees, you still don't need 100.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Brian

You are the reason why your country is in decline. Simple minded facile nonsense as a position re government is not conservatism, it's mouth-breathing populist drivel (as anything published the poorly named IBD, which may be properly named 'incontinent bowel disaster')

For a proper analysis, and a conservative one, one would read Martin Wolf, of Financial Times for actual thinking:

That is what a proper bit of thinking looks like, not empty idiocy of "we don't need a national zoo..."

One does not shut down (at great eventual added expense) a national government (in serious, non 3rd world countries) as a means of dealing with such issues. One wins elections and passes actual proper budgets with proper budgetary and other reform laws.

Writing like IBD reflects the Bolshevik degeneracy of American 'conservative' thinking. It, and the Republican party (and you), are an embarrassment to proper free market political and economic liberalism, in your country and global. The Know Nothing cretinous shenanigans that has become American right politics is a disgrace and does active harm to the status of free market liberalism, which is an enormous pity as you make the idiots on the Left look sane, sage and competent.

<applauds>

My take-away from this debacle (the shutdown, not the thread) is that Republicans--yes, the GOP, not just the Tea Partiers (because the GOP cannot reign in their own party) do NOT honor the rule of law. One Tea Party Moron in Congress was heard to say (sorry, I've forgotten his name) that HE didn't have a chance to vote on this "bill". Yes, that's right: he hadn't been elected into office when the bill PASSED into law.

This is the level of thinking we are dealing with. It's an embarrassment. They are NOT interested in GOVERNING. They (like toddlers) want what they want and will stamp their feet and create drama when it doesn't go their way. How is this shutdown not extortion? It's us they're holding hostage--and yet they're still getting paid(!)



Note to Brian et al: "balancing" the Federal budget is NOT analogous to balancing your family budget 'round the kitchen table after supper of an evening (or even a hot dog stand). Countries don't work that way. The Federal Budget is huge, complex and both vulnerable to forces beyond its borders as well as large enough to have a massive impact on the health of the global economy. The Department of the Interior and the EPA are not "non-essential". Nor is the research done by the NIH into pediatric cancer (one example)--but those clinical trials are closed down now due to these shenanigans.
I don't pretend to understand it all--Louns and Wolf and a few others are much better versed and articulate about it--but "the solution" is NOT to simply eliminate programs and "waste" (define waste, please: every other Congressional districts' "boon" is a "doggle" to my own) or cut out entire departments. Is there room for improvement? Probably, but the Fed Gment doesn't exist in a vacuum: it has to liaise with state and local Gments as well--and the parts don't always mesh nicely.

[Chacoguy]

We should permanently get rid of all the firemen that aren't doing anything right now, and the military.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Brian

Do you hire 93 additional employees? To do what, exactly? No. No, you don't. Neither should EPA, Interior, nor any other governmental agency.

Hey dipshit, have fun taking drugs from factories that are no longer inspected.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

The Department of the Interior and the EPA are not "non-essential".

Without relying on others, please name three "essential" functions of the Department of the Interior.

[eleanorigby]

Relying on others? Other whats? (what others?)

How about Ocean Energy? or the Geological Survey? Or surface mining? Indian Affairs, anyone? National Park Service?


Your question is so incredibly naive (or ignorant), Brian, I have to wonder about your understanding of the Federal Gment and how it works.

Here's a link to the DOI, for your elucidation. It's not a hot dog stand...

DOI

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

My take-away from this debacle (the shutdown, not the thread) is that Republicans--yes, the GOP, not just the Tea Partiers (because the GOP cannot reign in their own party) do NOT honor the rule of law.

This is also just incorrect. The debt ceiling is a law, just as much as ACA. It might be (IMO is) stupid to link the two, but it' is not a dishonor to the rule of law. The same was true when Senator Ted Kennedy tried to tie a bunch of odious anti-free speech legislation to this very same debt-ceiling legislation. The legislation itself was a huge guffaw in the face of the constitution but the tying of one to the other was not.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

.."the solution" is NOT to simply eliminate programs and "waste" (define waste, please: every other Congressional districts' "boon" is a "doggle" to my own) or cut out entire departments. Is there room for improvement? Probably, but the Fed Gment doesn't exist in a vacuum: it has to liaise with state and local Gments as well--and the parts don't always mesh nicely.

They are all dancing around one painful fact. Almost 2/3 of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national debt, and other mandatory spending. That only leaves 1/3 to take care of all the rest including the Dept of Defense. No amount if cost cutting can fix that.

The reality is that nobody wants to grab the third rail and take a chainsaw to SS and Medicare. There will be no viable solution until that happens. Therefore we can be sure things will have to get a lot worse until it does happen. I would say this is only Act II of the clown festival.

[eleanorigby]

I disagree, RyeMouth. I don't claim shenanigans are the sole practice of the GOP, but the ACA is LAW--it is not a bill, no matter how many times Mitch McConnell wants to call it that; the Tea Partiers cannot suddenly decide to not allow its enactment. Ted Kennedy is dead, and I am not defending him here, nor do I want to enter into a distraction about him now. The GOP LOST on this one, plain and simple. The correct course of action would be to allow the LAW to be enacted w/o attempting to attach it to a separate issue, and then work to adapt or change the law as time passes. That sounds like the work of governing--NOT something the Tea Party is interested in, and not something the GOP has been interested in for oh, the past 12 years or so. Political temper tantrums are all good theater, until they interfere with real consequences.

The absolutely hilarious aspect to this whole thing is that all the DRAMA and nonsense has not stopped the ACA from going into effect, and people are signing up just fine (for those states who got their shit together; I don't know about those states who shoved their fingers into their ears, squeezed their eyes shut and shouted nananbooboo to the whole thing). I heard on the radio (from someone's twitter feed mentioned in a news story) that this shutdown means no new gun permits--which makes me LOL in a deliciously evil way to myself. I do so hope that is true...

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

I heard on the radio (from someone's twitter feed mentioned in a news story) that this shutdown means no new gun permits--which makes me LOL in a deliciously evil way to myself. I do so hope that is true...

From what I can see from a google news search, NICS is up and running, despite reporting to the contrary.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Brian

Without relying on others, please name three "essential" functions of the Department of the Interior.

Well, not even being in USA land, one can do that, you drooling idiot. Land Management, Surveys and Native Affaires. Insofar as they were among the founding services when you split off, at your Independence, in the revered and hallowed form of government established by the revered "founding fathers" as the tedious phrase on your side of the pond goes, created...

It does highlight the sheer ignorant Know Nothing nihilism of your demarche, it is amusing to see an assertion of inutility of a government function that as a Department in your government goes back to before your civil war, 1849 so the web indicates, and among whose core functions such as land survey and registry date to your hallowed and revered post-Independence period.

But such is the sheer ignorant reactionarism you have imbibed....

Dangerous to proper right-thinking market liberalism, or true conservative - rather than radical nihilistic reaction.

[ulfhjorr]

Come now, Lounsy, this is Brian we're talking about here. He probably thinks that the Department of the Interior is tasked with Feng Shui, window treatments, and wall hangings.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Hey dipshit, have fun taking drugs from factories that are no longer inspected.

And yet, you have no problem taking drugs from people that aren't inspected at all.

[Jaglavak]

I do my own inspecting on that, thanks for your concern.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Well, not even being in USA land, one can do that, you drooling idiot. Land Management, Surveys and Native Affaires.

There is no such thing as "Native Affaires." Assuming there is, though, what would it consist of? Transfer payments, and casino licenses? How are those essential?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

I do my own inspecting on that, thanks for your concern.

Then why your fake concern about FDA regulated drugs?

[Jaglavak]

And thanks for confirming that I'm still not bored enough to play your pointless always right game.

[Lounsbury]

Native Affaires, Indian Affaires, whatever.

How are those essential? You signed bloody fucking sovereign treaties binding your government to them you drooling cretin.

There is this conservative principal that such things are binding. Even in the depths of 19th century racism that was considered so.

But thank you for again demonstrating your utter nihilistic Know Nothingism.

Your lot has nothing to do with proper free market and liberal government, or proper political conservatism. It's brain dead populist reaction, not truly different than then idiotarianism of the hard Left in the end.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Brian

There is no such thing as "Native Affaires." Assuming there is, though, what would it consist of? Transfer payments, and casino licenses? How are those essential?

WHY should Louns know the precise name of the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Hell, it's a non-PC name these days. Psst, Louns--turns out the Feds broke most, if not all, of those there Indian treaties. 'Cause we're such wonderful peeps with a manifest destiny calling and all.*


*irrelevant to your point (well made, btw), but I thought I'd share.

[Brian]

"Affairs" are the matters at hand. "Affaires" are romantic relationships of a dubious nature.

Also, transfer payments and casinos are not a conservative position, treaties not withstanding.

[Atalanta]

Originally Posted by Brian

Turns out that more than 93% of the EPA employees are non-essential.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Non-Essential

Likewise, I heard on C-SPAN today that 84% of the Interior Department employees are non-essential.

That is bloated government bureaucracy. If those departments aren't eliminated entirely, they should at least be cut back drastically.

I don't disagree with you. There's waste everywhere. I've never worked in the private or public sector and not thought that a good portion of my coworkers and staff are useless.

Can you think of any position, on any level, at the VHA that is "nonessential"? What about the VBA?

[Pere]

I happen to know that Interior's assessment of "essential," in particular, is very tight. They're keeping skeleton staffs on just to forestall the loss of public assets already invested, and only for a short duration--not to actually operate those posts. If they were somehow forced to adopt the current "essential" staffing as a permanent condition, that would be pretty much the same as folding the department entirely.

For example, a friend of a friend is presently the only guy not furloughed from his post at Fish & Wildlife. His job is now to try to keep alive all the eggs and fry (whatever stage they're in now) in a huge network of fish hatcheries. He may be able to do that, all by himself, for a matter of days, a couple weeks, but only because the system built and typically staffed by many more people can coast a while. They left him with everything set up. But he's not going to be able to actually do the stocking operations, and start the next year's brood, if those people don't come back to work.

Now, that's about fish in America's inland waters. Maybe you don't think fish, or wildlife, are so great to begin with. How about grazing on public lands? Timber? Minerals? Major sectors of our economy depend on using public lands in various ways. Should these be actively managed or not? It's not going to happen with ~16% staffing.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Atalanta

Can you think of any position, on any level, at the VHA that is "nonessential"? What about the VBA?

Non-essential=The VA personnel that made this decision, and the spokeswoman who tried to defend it.

And I quote:

"On Monday, VA paid $27,000 for an order of photographs showing sunsets, mountain peaks and country roads. They would go into a new center serving homeless veterans in Los Angeles; a spokeswoman described the art as “motivational and calming, professionally designed to enhance clinical operations.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...6_story_2.html

[hatesfreedom]

That article is on the 'use it or lose it' part of budgets which has pretty much been around since the first budget was invented. You might as well just start blabbering about the flaws in the human condition.

You're not a very good poster. You just shotgun idiocy around and then feverishly google articles in attempts to support your cowboy redneck theories.

[Atalanta]

How can a cowboy have a redneck if he's always wearing a hat?

Also, Brian is just jealous of the TSP.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

That article is on the 'use it or lose it' part of budgets which has pretty much been around since the first budget was invented. You might as well just start blabbering about the flaws in the human condition.

Did you read the article?

“We cannot expect our employees to believe that cost reduction efforts are serious if they see evidence of opportunistic spending in the last days of the Fiscal Year,” President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote to underlings in May 1965. Even then, Johnson said an end-of-year binge was “an ancient practice — but that does not justify it or excuse it.”

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Atalanta

How can a cowboy have a redneck if he's always wearing a hat?

Also, Brian is just jealous of the TSP.

What the hell is the TSP?

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

That article is on the 'use it or lose it' part of budgets which has pretty much been around since the first budget was invented.

The private sector is no different. If you don't use all of your department's budget, you don't get as much the next year. Most corporations don't care about their budgets growing, until they start losing money, and by then, it's potentially too late to do much about it for that fiscal year.

[hatesfreedom]

Originally Posted by Brian

Did you read the article?

“We cannot expect our employees to believe that cost reduction efforts are serious if they see evidence of opportunistic spending in the last days of the Fiscal Year,” President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote to underlings in May 1965. Even then, Johnson said an end-of-year binge was “an ancient practice — but that does not justify it or excuse it.”

Did you read the article?

I'll be sure to tell them they've been very naughty and that next year they should ignore the incentive system built into their budgets to spend any remaining money before fiscal year end.

[Atalanta]

Originally Posted by Brian

What the hell is the TSP?

The big fat government pension you'll never get.

You certainly are a sour little lemon.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Atalanta

The big fat government pension you'll never get.

Because the whole point of government "service" is to get as much $$$ as you can, right?

[hatesfreedom]

I guess if you really wanted to cut government bloat you'd just decrease budgets. It wouldn't really matter how you did it because everybody and their mother is going to be furious with you either way.

You could try bringing the military back to peace time levels, but nobody in living memory even remembers what that means so there's going to be people losing their goddamn minds over it. (think almost no Navy left, and the Army/Marines just moth balled. Air Force strangely would probably just lose future equipment orders.)

Yah I don't know. Anyway back on subject. They shut down the National Zoo and the Smithsonians in DC. This government shut down shit has gone too far!

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by Brian

Because the whole point of government "service" is to get as much $$$ as you can, right?

How is that different from just about any other job?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Glazer

How is that different from just about any other job?

Congressmen regularly claim that they are "serving" the people, and that's just not true.

[Erving#6]

Originally Posted by Brian

Congressmen regularly claim that they are "serving" the people, and that's just not true.

They do it for the power. The majority of them are already rich. Blind trusts for everyone!

[Chocodile]

I'm not a Tea Partier or even a registered Republican, but why do we need a national zoo? It was a great thing in 1889 when few regions had their own zoo, but we've moved past that.

And why does any business public or private continue with that stupid "use it or lose it" policy? That can only lead to inflated budgets and it's always harder to cut back than to do without. It also puts departments on an eternal cycle of understaffed or overstaffed. A manager never gets a feel for how many people he actually needs to run things efficiently and the company is always teetering because the payroll is too high or there isn't enough staff to meet demand and bring in more cash.