Slashdot Asks: How Does the US Gov't Budget Crunch Affect You? 1144
The partial government shut-down that the U.S. is experiencing right now is about to enter its second week. Various government functions and services have been disrupted (including some web sites, whether it's a good idea or not), and lots of workers on the Federal payroll have been furloughed. But since the U.S. government is involved in so many aspects of modern American life, you don't have to work for the government to be affected by the budget politics at play. So, whether or not you work for the government in any capacity, the question we'd like to hear your answer to is this: What does the shutdown mean to you, in practical terms, whether the effects are good, bad, or indifferent?
How I see it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I work at McChord AFB (Joint Base Lewis McChord). The last âoefurloughâ, I did not work and so was not paid. They spread the days out such that you could not get unemployment. As well, we could not use earned leave (even though that's my leave which they must pay me for anyway).
This time around, I was classified as a âoemission essentialâ employee, so I have to work or lose my job. But I will be paid retroactively, and not until the budget is passed. So again, no pay and because I am working, no unemployment or other low income services.
The thing is, for some reason a lot of people think that Federal employees all make six figures. It isn't so. The vast majority make $50,000 or less. I'm not complaining about my pay scale. But having lost around $2500 in savings with the last âoefurloughâ, my accounts are a bit thin.
I wonder if my landlord and the electric company will take âoeretroactiveâ payments? I suspect not. As my wife has MS, we are a single income family. And again, I'm not complaining about my pay rate, I took this job, no one twisted my arm. Fortunatly for me, I have a large family that will pitch in and help me out. Others are not so fortunate, this will hurt a lot of worker bees.
The only good thing out of this is that the Republicans â" most of whom would vote to end this if Boehner would allow a vote â" are slitting their own throats because they are scared of a minority of Tea Baggers. Next election, the House will belong to the Democrats, and the Tea Baggers will return home frothing at the mouth. Good for them.
The republicans have *always* relied on the votes of the stupid, by telling them that they (the Republicans - the greedy business elite) are just like them and are on their side. Now their dupes are the govt-haters who don't want to pay their taxes. Not long ago it was the bible thumpers and Jesus lovers, who hoped the "moral" Republicans would put down those pinko atheist Democrats. Before that, before they changed their name, the Republicans were âoeSouthern Democratsâ who yelled "The niggers are taking over and want to marry your lily-white daughter." The Republican politicians are just careerists who take money from the elite in order to remain in office. *Their* goal is power and the perks.
Re:What exactly is the point of the furlough anymo (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, paid-vacation with the chance of not being able to pay your bills and maybe losing your apartment or home or car or other things which will seriously mess with their lives and well-being, if their full paychecks are delayed long enough. Just because they'll eventually get paid doesn't mean that they wouldn't be negatively impacted in the meantime, if they are in a position that forces them to live paycheck to paycheck.
Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency.
Speaking as a non-American... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I've been affected by the way that the "leader of the free world" has once again demonstrated its disdain for democracy: if the right wing don't like something passed by representatives of the people, it seems they can just deny everything else. If I can't keep a few million of you in desperation, FUCK YOU I'M TAKING MY BALL HOME, &c.
I look forward to my country following this awful example.
Liberal strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power. Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them or they will threaten to take away the government teat like what is happening right now. Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care. Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care.
Re:Aspirational terms. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or we could just shut down government entirely, looters will take ALL the money out of your "tax-payer pocket", long-term (i.e. high risk) research will come to a stand-still, and America will reach the Somalian dream.
Re:What It Means To Me? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole problem?
I'd love to send some of these small government fetishists back to the start of the 19th century to see what it really felt like for the average man (or, worse, woman).
Random homicidal moments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:5, Insightful)
In US terminology, it's the "left wing" that's voting down the proposed budgets to continue funding the Federal government. But even then, that's really a misnomer.
The Constitution only allows the House to originate bills for spending and taxing - and under the control of the Republican party, they're only originating bills that don't fund Obamacare. The Democrat-controlled Senate and White House are voting down and threatening to veto these budgets, and thus the partial government "shutdown".
I don't like the omnibus budgets, just 30 years ago Congress used to fund the government by "legislation by appropriation", many individual bills voted on individually, instead of all or nothing. But besides this, I rather enjoy the fact that all the arms of government must agree, before money can be taxed and spent, or before someone can be thrown in prison, etc.
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please note that the "right-wingers" got into congress by BEING ELECTED
Yeah. And I've never seen a functional representative democracy in which a majority vote can be overridden by simply putting the whole government on hold until the minority gets its way. It's a childish, undemocratic waste of resources.
And even the left-wingers who are trying to bankrupt the country
Yes yes selling off government to the military-industrial complex and short-term profiteering form the long-term solution to medium-term budget problems. The problem is quite simply that the government currently belongs to the private sector, rather than working on behalf of the people. This should be a problem whether you're on the left or the right.
I realize that SlashDot is predominantly peopled by lefties who believe that the Federal Government SHOULD exercise the sorts of imperial power by decree
You misspelled "democratic" as "imperial".
Obama is trying mightily to make everybody feel the pain of his displeasure
Yeah, this one guy hates you alllll and wants to make you feel bad because.. because... oh he's just PURE EVIL :'(.
Christ, I couldn't stand GWB (and don't like Obama that much more), but I didn't invent sadistic fantasies that he just wanted to "make everybody feel the pain of his displeasure". And I can even grin and bear admitting that GWB was almost democratically elected.
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:to be clear, Obama "I will not negotiate", then (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, 'we had a year to come up with a budget and you decided to wait until the last minute and blackmail the rest of the government to get your way. If I give in to that, this crap will never end...guess I can't negotiate." Your POV is a little skewed.
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. And I've never seen a functional representative democracy in which a majority vote can be overridden by simply putting the whole government on hold until the minority gets its way. It's a childish, undemocratic waste of resources.
Have you already forgotten how the "affordable" healthcare act got voted into law? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a shining example of democracy in action. There was blatant bribery where one state was gifted special benefits to purchase a yea vote on the bill. Others were pushed out of congress through scandals which may or may not have been fabricated. The legislation itself was never fully available so that we could even know what was up for vote. The vote itself was pushed time and time again until the outcome was assured. Heck, they even kept the legislature in DC during the winter break so that legislators wouldn't go home and hear directly from the people. A major bill like this, getting voted through with not one vote from the opposite party all but ensured something like this would happen. What the GOP is doing is no worse than what the dems had to do to pass it in the first place.
Yeah, this one guy hates you alllll and wants to make you feel bad because.. because... oh he's just PURE EVIL :'(.
Worse, I think he truly believes he's doing the best thing for us.
Re:How I see it... (Score:2, Insightful)
One turd, four turds, what's the difference?
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:4, Insightful)
There was blatant bribery where one state was gifted special benefits to purchase a yea vote on the bill.
Evidence beyond reasonable doubt - e.g. conviction in court of law, please. Evidence that your allegations, if true, would have made a difference.
Others were pushed out of congress through scandals which may or may not have been fabricated.
"Something bad may have happened but I have no evidence for it."
The legislation itself was never fully available so that we could even know what was up for vote.
Sorry, what? Are you claiming that your representatives didn't have the full text of primary legislation available, or that secondary legislation is left to the executive (which is standard for all lawmaking)?
The vote itself was pushed time and time again until the outcome was assured.
What do you mean by this? That the legislation was modified until enough people were happy with it? IOW standard legislative process?
Heck, they even kept the legislature in DC during the winter break so that legislators wouldn't go home and hear directly from the people.
What do you actually mean by this? Define "kept".
A major bill like this, getting voted through with not one vote from the opposite party all but ensured something like this would happen.
"The opposite party". Way to declare your enjoyment for two-party politics. It was passed. Nobody forced people to vote Democrat, and nobody forced the elected Congresscritters to vote in favour of the bill.
What the GOP is doing is no worse than what the dems had to do to pass it in the first place.
"HE STARTED IT!" Grow the fuck up.
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why golly gee they sure did didn't they - they passed those bills all big and purty! They just forgot to fund a particular LAW, you know that affordable health care thingy. I'm sure it's not important to you but the majority of the elected reps, they like it and so do their constituents. In fact they like it so much that the 30+ times your buds tried to remove it they failed! Why they even tried taking it to the Supreme Court and failed to overturn it!
So while that was all well and good that you guys passed that steaming turd no one wants it because it puts a noose around a piece of legislation that was very hard fought for and that a majority want. We'll be happy to pat you on the head for it though okay cuz I know feeling good about yourself is important to you. Now if you would be so kind as to put up for a VOTE a piece of legislation that actually fully funds the ENTIRE Govt. and not the pretty little piece parts you think look sweetest then we could see what the MAJORITY of the people's representatives think about it. Pretty please?
P.S. Also, next time you asshats decide to try and hold someone hostage could you just maybe do it to your own family or something and not the entire country? We'd really appreciate it if you could follow the rules on these here bill thingy's - if you haven't seen the video for how this is done it can be found here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag [youtube.com]
More mods as censors (Score:2, Insightful)
I completely disagree w/ the PP, but it's not a troll or flamebait. It's an opinion. Don't mod it down just because you disagree w/ it.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
He is not "spot on accurate". Maintaining corporate welfare and propping up the military-industrial complex are Republican policies.
To be fair, there's more quid pro quo on the right-wing side. Promoting the suckling of the government teat is presumably only a bad thing if there isn't a cushy private sector job waiting for you when you quit the public sector.
Re: How I see it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, you must be one of those Low Information Voters, or whatever the politically correct term for "idiots" is these days. Funny thing about those polls you're talking about. Turns out, the majority does approve of the provisions of the ACA, just not when you call it "Obamacare."
People are sure funny, huh.
Re:What exactly is the point of the furlough anymo (Score:2, Insightful)
"Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency." ROFL. You seem to be seriously out of touch with "average". The AVERAGE person lives paycheck to paycheck and can't pay every bill every month, the AVERAGE person knows how far behind you have to be with company x before they shut off service.
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:3, Insightful)
ACA was passed in the house, passed in the senate, signed by the president, and upheld by the supreme court. it is law. don't like it? make a new law. otherwise stfu and grow a pair.
Re:What exactly is the point of the furlough anymo (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then the AVERAGE person should cut back so they can live within their means, or get a better job.
Of course. If anyone, ever, has problems making ends meet it is solely due to moral failings. Let us all judge them now and condemn them.
Re: How I see it... (Score:0, Insightful)
tax is theft and the more government leeches... I mean "employees" out of work the better.
Re: How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? No Congress is required to fund any law or agency created by a previous one. They can just ignore them and not provide any funds. That's what the phrase "power of the purse" means.
Re:Political timeline (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing the game and what quarter we currenty in will provide insight on the future required moves.
We are currently in the game of choosing sides. The deadline is the 18th or 17th. We have until then to divide the public into credit is income, and we spent too much already and we can't afford another entitlement. Because the public knows so little about the borrowing of money by the government (payments need to be made.. no problem just borrow more to make the payments until our entire income goes to makeing payments with no other payments being made. Someday that train will wreck. Oh, back on topic.. The game plan,
The other side's plan is shutting down the government. You public need to get educated and join our side or the conquences will be dire. This posturing will run until default at the earliest, maybe later. This is a race to place more canidates of party X or Y in the house and senate at the next election. Nobody can agree on anything until then.
I'll check for updates on the 19th. Wake me up then.
In the meantime, the play by play is a news reporters dream. 2 solid weeks of political drama.
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two items:
First, the main impact on me and many of my friends is the close of federal lands and parks. The gates are closed and if they find a vehicle outside them or people within, you will be fined. Impact pretty minimal, so far.
Second, to address the "stupid" people republicans are catering to ... Not all. There are good, decent conservatives who care about their country and work diligently to keep it on track. But there are also some, and we see this particularly during tense times, such as elections or battles on Capitol Hill, where there is pandering to emotional, hot-button issues. The party has mostly gone from a platform on conservative government, to Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay Rights, Anti-Gun control, no healthcare contraceptives for women, cut taxes on the top 1% to create jobs (where there has been no evidence of a connection between the two), anti-big-government (the federal government has grown very large under Reagan and G. W. Bush, Clinton actually reduced federal payrolls and headcount by terminating offices which were running beyond their mandate), anti-fuel economy, anti-environment, dismissing Global Warming, and so on. But they abandoned any claim to a fiscally conservative party with the bulk of the national debt accumulated under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. It is far from what old-school republicans call the GOP. One old timer told me they were all democrats, in the way they carry on. I don't know, I think my brother and a few other people have hit the nail on the head with this assessment: They are a party of people to whom winning is the only thing that matters, if they lose it was because the Democrats somehow cheated them and they will redouble their efforts to win next time (often using some underhanded tactics). I don't think people are stupid, voting for anyone, but I do think a great many are poorly informed or make poor decisions, particularly when they let other people, such as Limbaugh do their thinking (and brainwashing) for them. Critical Thinking isn't taught in schools and it shows. To many people think Sara Palin is brilliant, while she's just a wind up artist who couldn't even run Alaska right.
what the fox are you talking about?
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi. I don't usually reply to posts, but I read yours and felt compelled.
While I'm aware that Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. [1]
yet I'm unaware that the House has the prerogative to decide spending levels: The budget and debt aren't bills for raising revenue. Please explain your source?
I'm not interested in which party to blame, I've simply never heard this assertion before.
Thanks!
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_7
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google "Cornhusker kickback". There would never be a conviction, the DOJ is bound to ideology, not law.
Yeah, that's not actually what a bribe is, son. But it's sweet that you think the DoJ would not convict because CONSPIRACY AGAINST YOUR PoV rather than because there's nothing illegal about pushing for the best possible outcome for your electorate. (Repealed anyway, IIRC.)
A law of such impact should have been dealt with more openly.
Remaining vague.
This wasn't a typical piece of legislation. Can you think of an act passed by the feds in recent times that has caused as much confusion and chaos as this one?
Not sure what's so been confusing or chaotic, except the panic felt that tens of millions of people will no longer be kept in desperate poverty or ill health, making it harder for the usual Republican sponsors to exploit more vulnerable members of society. But e.g. PATRIOT has been a far bigger deal as far as (overtly) changing the balance of power between government and people.
It wasn't about compromise. If that were true, there would have been bipartisan approval.
Erm, no. Unless you really simplify politics along Rep vs Dem lines. And Republicans received lots of concessions.
It's tyranny of the majority.
My father grew up under a dictatorship. That was tyranny. It's embarrassing when Americans use that word to describe democracy.
Legal or not, it led to the situation we're in now.
Nah, that's all about fear of the right re empowerment of poorer Americans.
Judging from the administration's inability to work on both sides of the aisle, I don't see the impasse ending anytime soon.
OK. I look forward to a Democrat-controlled House in the future simply refusing to create a workable budget until every single Republican-led law is repealed. It's a fault in the system and it's being abused, as happens from time to time.
Seriously? Keeping the debate going during what's normally a recess for the holidays kept them from hearing from their constituents. You can argue if it was intentional or not, but it happened.
They had no way at all to receive constituent feedback, you say? And were forced to vote Yes anyway? Did they use Faraday cages, blindfolds, gun held to the head... what, exactly?
No one forced folks to vote for the GOP either, and here we are. No one is forcing them to not vote on a budget that includes the "affordable" healthcare act.
Indeed. They're abusing a fault in the system which could be used to repeal any number of laws every year. Fortunately, the House doesn't behave like this most of the time.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
> Both, equally.
Exactly ... well, perhaps not exactly equally, but that's part of the problem. People think that because their particular politicritters are fractionally better on some things, that makes the other party a true Crowd of Hoodlums.
Both parties may have different policies and beliefs and different strategies for firing up their base(s) and winning elections, but anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.
The attempt by both parties to blame this current shutdown on the other would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:3, Insightful)
dude, politics is messy and there are always games to get laws passed. but regardless, this one passed and is law of the land. so, you can file a suit and get it to the supreme court so they nullify it, or you can vote for legislative representatives who will promulgate a law repealing it, or you can vote for a president that will support the repeal process and make use of executive orders for additional effect. now stfu, seriously.
Perhaps you should consider that (Score:1, Insightful)
Those of us taxpayers who run businesses have been HAMMERED by the Obama administration with THOUSANDS of new rules and regulations while also having our taxes increased, and being continually insulted by the jackass-in-chief; we've had our energy prices driven up and the economy has been essentially flat-lined for his entire time in office (Yeah, the mega-corporations who are in bed with him are making huge profits, in-part by a lot of overseas activity and by out-sourcing production, but smaller firms are having a hard time). Now we are told to pay hugely inflated health insurance rates (about 300% in some cases) for our employees (with no booming economy to soften that blow) or else upset them by dumping them into the public exchanges (like kicking them in the teeth and shoving them into medicaid with the bums)
If you guys in academia who live off our backs were punished HALF as severely as those of us pulling the wagons you are riding in, you'd have turned on Obama (and dumb Republicans like McCain) years ago... instead you go-on using OUR tax dollars to propagandize OUR kids to worship your messiah, oppose everything we believe, and support all the foul political and economic theories Americans used to oppose. I'd happily support the permanent de-funding of all of modern Academia... you guys are turning out "graduates" now who are dumber than the average 1960's high school dropout, but you have raised all the tuitions to keep up with (and absorb) all the increases in student loans so that these youngsters with fresh new (and nearly useless) diplomas will be in debt for much of their work lives. I need REAL engineers who can DO things, not social engineers who can properly deploy condoms, say all the right things about {insert favored minority of the month}, detest all the evils of American history while making every imaginable excuse for the bad behaviors of our nation's enemies and then frosting this cake of insanity by trying to figure out how to make all our products free... (all stuff people have always been free to believe on their own time, but that now seems to have displaced serious knowledge and rational thought)
Re:Political timeline (Score:5, Insightful)
We have until then to divide the public into credit is income, and we spent too much already and we can't afford another entitlement. Because the public knows so little about the borrowing of money by the government (payments need to be made.. no problem just borrow more to make the payments until our entire income goes to makeing payments with no other payments being made. Someday that train will wreck
And when Clinton left office, the government had a surplus. Rather than use that surplus to pay down the debt, which would have created more surplus, and a positive feedback cycle (up until the point when 9/11 slammed the brakes on the economy). But, rather than do the fiscally-responsible thing, Bush decided he wanted a tax cut to bump his approval rating, so that when the economy hit the wall, the lower tax rate compounded the problem... and rather than let those tax cuts expire, the Republicans would rather continue to kick the problem down the road a little further so that they don't face the political backlash of having *gasp* raised taxes.
Re:How I see it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The four spending bills had a poison pill attached. If the Dems had done the same to the Republicans with, say a rider to close the gun show background check loophole, which the majority of Americans support, the Republicans would be standing firm and not budging. So why do they expect the Dems to buckle?
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the House is passing smaller, targeted spending bills that make the things this guy s talking about unnecessary.
Oh, yes; the Democrats should agree to doing it this way so that they can lose the fight over the Affordable Care Act without a chance to preserve it. If they let the House pass bills that fund the government on a program-by-program basis, then the House Republicans will slowly work their way through bills that fund every government program except the Affordable Care Act. And by the time this happens, the Democrats will have already conceded on every other funding issue, so they'll have nothing to use to bargain with the Republicans to preserve the President's signature program, and the Democrats will have allowed the Republicans to kill the Affordable Care Act by inches. And the last few funding bills will be over clearly niggling-cost but high-visibility programs, so that if the Democrats try to get up on their high horse and demand funding for the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans can point at them and laugh at how they're willing to hold up these minor programs in order to get this much bigger program funded, making them look ridiculous. The Democrats can't concede on an a la carte funding process.
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats in the Senate amended those bills to fund Obamacare, and sent them back to the House for approval.
The Tea Party should not hold the economy hostage to force people to accept their legislative agenda. Are you really too dense to see what sort of precedent that would set? If you care about democracy at all, you should be opposed to what they're doing. It is economic terrorism, plain and simple.
How would you feel if the Democrats declared that the 2nd amendment is repealed, all workers must be unionized, and income in excess of $250k will be taxed at 95%, or else they'll force the country to default and plunge the world into a depression? Would you think the Republicans should agree to that deal? Would you say "the ball's in their court"?
Re:How I see it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I support this plan. We need to educate both the Republicans and Democrats on Suicide and how their sacrifice will make the nation a more prosperous place.
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:4, Insightful)
Way I read it is this: Congress passed a budget, president then says "I don't like this budget. Give me what I want or government shuts down." So, government shuts down.
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
That Forbes piece that you got your "facts" from (which you cited in another post) is diving the increase in total health care spending by the number of people in America. But it conveniently overlooks the fact that many of those people didn't have healthcare before.
To make this simple for you, if 70 people are paying $1000 a year for a service and the other 30 aren't getting it at all, and then a law makes it so that all 100 people are paying $900 a year, the total spending has increased by about 30% (from $70k to $90k).
So yeah, in that case the "average" spending has increased. But every single person is better off than they were before.
So which is it? Are you too stupid to figure this out for yourself? Or are you a liar, intending to deceive the people reading this site?
Re:What exactly is the point of the furlough anymo (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can afford to cut back, then their employer can afford to pay them less.
Welcome to capitalism, slave. Now get back to work!
What happens in the real world (Score:5, Insightful)
I have before worked for an employer who said he could not pay me for a while, but I should keep working.
That happened a few times over a few years. Eventually I got my money back but it took a long time and there was a significant back pay that floated for a year.
So knowing that was a pattern, what did I do? I left to find other work.
Government is NO DIFFERENT. If you are going to obviously be screwed over every time the Government needs to figure out a yearly budget (hint: they can't) or bump against the debt ceiling (hint: very often), then you need to LEAVE.
You didn't say if you were enlisted or not but it seems like not. Most people take government jobs because they are easier but if you are not liking this new tradeoff you need to leave, which is what every worker in the private sector would generally do... the mistake is thinking that delayed pay and worse is something that only happens to government workers during a furlough, because in real life it happens to people quite often.
I hope more government workers figure this out, and fast - and that it takes the shine of government work for others also.
Re:More mods as censors (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what moderation is for. We get enough false equivalency from mainstream news sources. Some statements are just plain wrong, and should be modded down. Or do you mod up creationists?
Re:How I see it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 passed, and it's water under the bridge. Get over it.
The Alien Enemies Act passed, and it's water under the bridge. Get over it.
No. Bad laws, are bad laws.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basically the same story in Canada (and, I suspect, many commonwealth nations) - if the government tables a budget and it's defeated, the country has an immediate election. And since random elections are generally not appreciated by the public, any party seen as "responsible" for the election basically lives or dies on their reason for bringing down the government. Was the ruling party off their rocker? They're probably going to get turfed. Was a minor party just jerking the entire country around for political points? They can expect a massacre at the ballot box. Thus, we too rarely get into situations where the government is in such a tizzy that they can't even pay the bills. So watching the US government throw a hissy-fit that puts the entire country (and much of the global economy) at risk is something very, very strange to watch. I hope they resolve it soon, because playing chicken with a US default isn't something that anyone wants to see.
PS: We're really super jealous of your elected senate up here. Ours is basically a big pit that we throw money into, and all of the PM's buddies get to dive into it like Scrooge McDuck.
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a fair point, except it exposes that BOTH parties are willing to shut the government down over their own ideals.
Re:How I see it... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Tea Party should not hold the economy hostage to force people to accept their legislative agenda.
The Tea Party is a small portion of the Republican party. But a clear majority of the house of Congress made up of proportional representation has approved this budget; it's certainly not the Tea Party doing it, it's the representatives of the people. (How well they represent you, I don't know... but if you don't like it, let them know on your next ballot.)
How would you feel if the Democrats declared that the 2nd amendment is repealed, all workers must be unionized, and income in excess of $250k will be taxed at 95%, or else they'll force the country to default and plunge the world into a depression? Would you think the Republicans should agree to that deal? Would you say "the ball's in their court"?
I would say, if they had a majority in one of the houses of Congress, and they felt those issues to be this important, then there would clearly be a need to negotiate.
Anyway, where was the negotiation when the ACA was shoved through to begin with? Maybe if the Democrats had been willing to negotiate at that time, the (sane) Republicans would be more willing to tolerate it now. Of course, the Democrats didn't think about what might happen if the Republicans actually gained enough power to push back.
(FWIW, I don't care for either party, especially right now. I voted against both Romney and Obama in the election. We need independents, and we need to change our election system to allow independents to get real power.)
There are too many uninformed US citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruse is only working because people aren't aware of the subtleties of how governments are financed; particularly OURS. We're a country where just calling Obamacare the ACA increases favorability by 10% or more. And, pointing out what it actually does increases it by more than that.
Look at some of the uninformed, superficial arguments being regurgitated here "but Republicans presented 4 proposals and Obama refuses to negotiate!"
Canada, UK Similar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst part is that the Hastert rule isn't even a procedural trick; the Speaker for the House (currently, Boehner) has sole authority over what comes out on the floor. That's the procedural trick: Boehner doesn't want it to happen.
The Hastert rule itself is literally just something Hastert came up with in order to provide a vaguely plausible reason for fucking up other people's legislation when he felt like it. It's got almost no precedent, and there's literally zero reason to follow it; Hastert himself didn't.
Re:Political timeline (Score:3, Insightful)
That surplus had nothing to do with either Clinton or Gingrich (even though both like to take credit for it.) That surplus was entirely the result of excess tax revenue resulting from a bubbled economy. There never was a true surplus that could have lasted, as soon as the bubble popped it was going to become a deficit no matter what. The stupid thing is that both of them added more entitlements while we had that surplus under the foolish assumption that it would last forever. Well guess what, now we have an even bigger deficit than we had before. That deficit that we have today can be partially attributed to both Clinton and Gingrich.
Re:Welcome to Real Life (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what happens to people in real life when they are laid off, even if temporarily? They find another job. Being a mechanic you'd think he could find some work pretty rapidly if he needed income badly.
How easy is it to find work when - as I understand it - you can be called back to work on a day's notice? Not many employers need an employee that could disappear in a puff of smoke at any time. Of course you could be clearing out a work backlog or something like that, but yeah...
Re:More mods as censors (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything you said from start to finish is 100% factually incorrect, and easily provable. It's a paranoid rant that is directly contrary to reality.
"The Obamacare bill as passed was not what the Democrats wanted"
The bill was passed ENTIRELY by Democrats, with zero Republican support. How can it *possibly* be something they didnt want?
"Once implemented, government programs only get bigger, never smaller. The Democrats know this."
I find it funny that morons blame Democrats for all the big government spending, when it's REPUBLICAN presidents and congresses that have had the largest deficits in all of modern history.
And it's completely untrue that government programs always grow and are never elminated... MANY programs under FDR didnt work out as planned, and were eliminated. Programs that had run their course were dropped. Under Regan, all the state mental health institutions were shuttered, which is a major cause of the mass shootings we've seen lately. NASA has been very aggressively pared back, year after year, for decades now. There are innumerable other examples. The programs that stay with us are the ones everyone sees to be working, and doing a useful public service.
I hope you get help for your mental disabilities as well. Start off by taking Fox News off your TV, and Rush Limbaugh stations off your radio.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not both.
It's a law. Like any other law, if a group doesn't like it, they should try to get it hanged or repealed. In this case, the Republicans, after having passed the law, tried to get it repealed 42 times, including a jaunt into the Supreme Court.
Since they failed in every conceivable fashion to get the law repealed through the normal channels, they decided to take the budget hostage. While procedurally they aren't breaking any rules, this is an incredibly dickish move.
At least the public seems to be aware of why this is happening. And the republicans have now granted the democrats use of this new tool. Hoisted by their own petard.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:4, Insightful)