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:How I see it... (Score:5, Interesting)
This time around, I was classified as a "mission essential" 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.
My sister works at Madigan Hospital (which is part of JBLM), and is in the same situation - working with the promise of retroactive pay. If the shutdown is short, it's not a huge deal... but if it drags on, I wonder if her bank will defer her mortgage payments? Likely not...
The son of a friend is a civilian helicopter mechanic attached to the base. He isn't "essential", so he's currently not working and not bringing in income.
Long story short - it doesn't affect me directly, but it is having significant negative impact on people I care about.
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: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:3)
I wonder if my landlord and the electric company will take Ãoeretroactiveà payments? I suspect not.
Two words: credit.
Actually, three more: fix your keyboard.
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:How I see it... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, the Republicans in the house passed FOUR funding bills before the shutdown, which allocated more money than was spent last year. The ball's in the democrat's court.
The Republicans rejected 18 requests to discuss the budget. The Democrats compromised to fund the govt. at sequester levels. Shutting down the government or making it default is not the way to fight a constitutional law. Back to you Republicans.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Dems rejected out of hand 4 budget bills since Obama took over and the last one they gutted and sent back knowing it didn't stand a chance. The Dems wanted a continuing resolution that keeps spending levels where they are. Now, the House is passing smaller, targeted spending bills that make the things this guy s talking about unnecessary. Dem don't care about them, they care about their spending priorities, which are enshrined in the continuing resolutions.
Back to you Democrats. Whay are your spending p
Re: How I see it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I get it! You seriously believe that a major world power can be run on an a-la-carte basis, in little dribs and drabs, each selected by a minority of one party in one chamber of one branch of the government. Nope. Won't work. Sorry you slept through civics class. Too bad you have such a naive, Saturday-morning-cartoon view of the way things work. I know of several banana republics that are run on that scheme -- you are, of course, free to move to one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How I see it... (Score:4, Interesting)
As opposed to giant omnibus bills that include everything but the kitchen sink?
You are probably way too young to remember but it used to be the case that spending bills were limited to specific areas. In fact, if you look on You Tube, you can probably find Ronald Reagan displaying a giant stack of paper in the State of Union Address that was the omnibus bill for that year and proclaiming it ridiculous, which many people agreed with.
So fuck you and your stupid teenage ignorance.
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:How I see it... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because it's not in the Constitution, much like the Hastert rule [wikipedia.org] which Boehner claims is causing the impasse. The difference is, the House holding the power of the purse [wikipedia.org] is an old and established tradition, whereas the Hastert rule is just some crap that's been disowned by its namer.
Like a lot of government-in-practice, the House holding the purse strings is just something that's accrued over time. Budgets originate in the House. That's what they do, one of their major functions in modern American politics. It grants them a lever against the Senate and the Executive branch, either of which would otherwise outclass them.
The Senate could come up with their own budget and try to pass it, but that would simply never happen - no one in the House would ever vote for a budget that originated in the Senate, because it would be basically agreeing to let the Senate steal some power from them.
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)
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:5, Informative)
Remember the Ryan budget plan that was dismissed because it was so extreme? Due to sequestration, we're actually cutting discretionary spending now at a FASTER rate than the Ryan plan proposed. So we've got more budget discipline than the Republicans initially proposed (without raising taxes).
But after failing 41 times to repeal a law that has already passed and been reviewed by the Supreme Court, they are now holding the entire budget hostage. Oh, they're willing to pass a few things that their constitutents like the most, but they're goal is to basically burn everything else until Obama caves.
And don't forget, the majority of the House would very likely vote to pass a CR if it were put to a vote. However, the House is operating under the Hastert Rule. That means it's just a majority of Replubicans blocking this vote. It's a procedural trick that has allowed an extremist faction of one party to hold the entire House hostage.
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: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]
Re: (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: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)
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:5, Informative)
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.
Do you really not see what's going on? There is no negotiation. Negotiation means I give up something, you give up something, and we meet somewhere in the middle. The Republicans are saying "Do what we want, or else." They aren't giving up anything. They just have a list of demands, and they'll hurt the entire country until they get their way.
You've heard the poem about why would should never pay the Danegeld, right?
And by the way, the Democrats TRIED to negotiate on healthcare. They spent months negotiating. The entire plan is modeled on a Republican idea. But the Republicans declared that they would "make it Obama's Waterloo". That they would not give an inch, no matter what, as a political strategy.
It's fascinating that people can forget such recent history. I suspect it's why things have gotten so bad.
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: (Score:3)
Whatever you do, don't blame the politicos for cutting off his salary. I'm sure they're not suffering.
Re: How I see it... (Score:5, Funny)
That is the stupidest thing I've read today. It was so dumb I had to double check I wasn't on reddit.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry for this hardship - I hope you come out on the other side O.K.
Normally (and probably) you would get a lot of flames for a post like this. What I take away from it is you are a working person like the rest of us - you aren't a big wig bitching because you don't get to have your caviar and luxury car service to take you to the golf course. It's a shame that the people that get affected by this are ordinary folks [like you]. I doubt very much that the people who made this decision will feel any impac
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:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, it doesn't work that way here. There is no mechanism to force a non-scheduled election of Senators and Representatives. Right now there is no authority for certain departments that run off of a budget (we have plenty that don't -- Medicare and Social Security, for instance) to spend any money. This can theoretically continue indefinitely. Also in our system, the lower house must originate spending bills, but the upper house has equal rights to amend those bills.
The more interesting crisis is the debt ceiling vote coming up. It used to be that every time Congress would need to issue debt, they'd do it "manually" by voting to do so. When that became too cumbersome, they put in place a limit to how much debt the Treasury could issue. From time to time when tax revenue is less than spending, they have to vote to raise that limit or else we are in default.
It's an odd situation. Congress says $X must be spent on Y, but less than $X comes in via revenue, but they also say that no debt can be issued to make up the shortfall. It's contradictory instructions, and I believe we're alone in the civilized world in this regard.
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.
Canada, UK Similar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It's a lot more likely that you will get fired and lose your Medicare coverage, than it is for the government to turn tyrannical and stop providing health care funding. I'm Canadian. Our public health care provides me with peace of mind. It's like employment insurance - you never know when you're going to need it. I'm 31 and probably won't need it for another 40 years, and yes, it's a waste of money until I do. But I wouldn't give it up for anything. There are a few advantages: first, there is no upper limit on how much treatment you get - whereas with insurance-based systems often you are only insured up to a certain amount. Second, there are no co-payments; getting sick won't bankrupt me. Third, I don't have to worry about paying for sick relatives - I know people in the USA who have lost everything paying for treatment for sick family members and friends. Our health care system has some problems (e.g. long wait times in some areas, high cost), but I would take it over a private system any day.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Every point in your post is the complete opposite of the truth. It's the Republicans who repeatedly threaten to take away the Government when they don't get concession on top of concession. And most of the safety net programs are designed to keep you from becoming destitute and therefore remain employable instead of becoming a social burden. And the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is not Government health care; It's the opposite of that. You are required to take responsibility for yourself and get yourself insured so we don't have to pay for you when things go wrong, but beyond that it's up to you to make a deal with your own private insurer. They even provide an online free market system in which to do it. It's a Conservative wet dream, but they can't let Obama get credit for it. That's why they have no plan themselves, just repeal and go back to the old system.
So now they're demanding we bring back pre-existing conditions, re-enstate lifetime insurance caps, make it harder for low-income and working class women to control their fertility, make us pay for some uninsured YOLO's emergency room visit, keep graduate students or people starting their career from staying on previous insurance while they're getting on their feet, eliminate preventive care for diabetics and other high-risk individuals forcing them to go to the emergency room when things get bad, eliminate vaccination programs, allow insurers to raise rates to increase their profits arbitrarily, prevent individuals starting businesses to self-insure in an open competitive marketplaces or else they'll shut down the Government, refuse to negotiate a budget, and default on the debt. Yeah. That makes sense.
Re:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Informative)
Tea Party: I want to shoot you in the head, OK?
You:No.
Tea Party: OK, let's compromise. How about if I just shoot you in the stomach?
You:No.
Tea Party:Be reasonable! Then just let me shoot you in the hand. This is my final offer.
You:No.
Tea Party: So you won't negotiate. So, I'll just put up roadblocks everywhere so nothing can get though. And it's all your fault!
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: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:Political timeline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Political timeline (Score:4, Informative)
It kind of depends on who you mean by "poor." Young, middle-class low-net-worth folks would actually benefit from inflation (assuming their salary keeps up) because it would deflate their fixed-interest-rate debt (e.g. mortgages and student loans).
Genuinely poor folks get screwed of course, because their debt is variable-interest-rate revolving and their housing costs increase with inflation.
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:Liberal strategy (Score:5, Informative)
anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.
No, of course, they are both "owned" by their corporate masters (including unions, PACs, et.al.) and differ only in the flavor and consistency of their BS. It's been building a long time, but the 2010 Citizens United SCOTUS decision was a major tipping point -- over the proverbial cliff.
Since this results from a Supreme Court decision, the only way to fix is with a constitutional amendment. If you would like to change it, check out MoveToAmend.org [movetoamend.org] and Wolf-PAC.com. [wolf-pac.com] Sign and propagate the petitions. Get active. Contact your representatives at all levels.
The 26th Amendment was proposed and ratified in just over 100 days, back in 1971. This can be done.
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, Informative)
That's a good summary, but you forgot to mention about how there probably actually are enough reasonable critters in the House to pass a budget acceptable to the Senate and President, but Boehner won't let it come up for a vote due to the "Hastert Rule."
Re: (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:More mods as censors (Score:5, Informative)
Well:
"Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care."
Since the vast majority of people will continue to pay unsubsidized price of their health insurance to private companies, there is no possible way this statement, which is the crux of his entire statement, can possibly be true.
"Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them"
The federal programs instituted by FDR have been around for about 70 years now, and Democrats have most definitely NOT stayed in power that whole time. Even if there was the slightest bit of truth to this claim, all the Republicans have to do is promise not to take away Obamacare, and they're right back on-par with Democrats, aren't they? Besides, Republicans are facing a demographic shift that is promising to make them non-viable in national politics in just a decade or so, meaning Democrats don't have to do ANYTHING to undermine them. The Republicans have done a superb job undermining themselves.
"What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power."
In fact Obamacare was terribly unpopular, and numerous Democratic senators lost their seats specifically because they voted for it. They must have voted for it for other reasons than political expediency.
"Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care."
Except it's always Republicans threatening to shut down the government, and taking away or "privatizing" government services.
Every single sentence in his post is quite easily provably factually incorrect. And the implication of some vast, sinister conspiracy makes it troll/flamebait.
Re:More mods as censors (Score:5, Informative)
Once most people are buying insurance through Obamacare
... You do realize there is no insurance plan that is "Obamacare". The public option was nixed in the Senate before the ACA was voted on. What we have now is are minimum standards which any health insurance provided can provide.
This is as idiotic as saying that the safety regulations imposed by the NHTA on automakers will lead to a "takeover of the auto industry. Just give it time and the NHTA will be the only game in town!"
Seriously, read up on the law.
I wish our energy was really spent figuring out why healthcare costs so much
If only our energy was spent on that and not wasted on putting the brakes on unsubstantiated rumors and right out fabrications.
Funny you mention medicare considering they run a 1% (6% if you include the privatized portion) overhead compared to the ~15-20% private insurers are bitching about having to adhere to [pnhp.org].
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:How I see it... (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Well, there's three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can quote yours, he can quote his, and nobody will be any better informed when you two are done pissing in the wind while yelling at each other.
On a very basic level, Obamacare supporters have the position that poor people, who don't have enough money to afford health care, should be forced into buying health care plus the costs of program administration overhead from the government. On it's face, it seems pretty obvious this will mean that people will be worse off; If they couldn't afford it before, how are they going to afford it now?
The flip of this is though that health care costs aren't a simple x + y = z equation. The reason a lot of health care is so high is because people are uninsured or underinsured and so they only go to the hospital when the symptoms become severe enough to qualify as an emergency. Emergency room visits aren't just expensive because of labor and resource costs... they're expensive because you have to have enough spare capacity to handle the very worst case scenario -- in other words, you're paying for excess capacity to have a safety margin. And many of those visits wouldn't be necessary if people were having proper, planned, preventative care instead.
If people could go to the doctor whenever they needed to, on a flat rate system (not per visit, not with deductibles, not with all this complicated bullshit), you'd probably see costs drop off by a significant portion. Obamacare may accomplish this change in patient behavior. If it does... the aggregate healthcare costs will drop.
The second part of the equation, and the part Obamacare doesn't address, is that the current system we have with health insurance, auditing, billing records -- an absolutely massive and complex system that covers up a lot of flaws and makes investigation incredibly time consuming and difficult to the point you need a forensic accountant to break down the average person's bill, means that the administrative costs make up a huge portion of health care. Do you really think it costs $250 to run a urinalysis? Or to do bloodwork? No, it doesn't. The supplies and labor is much less than that. But because of a massive billing system, combined with over a dozen layers of auditing and reporting, means that administrative costs take a big bite out.
It is this second problem that will get worse under Obamacare. How much worse, we won't know until the system is deployed, and the initial kinks worked out so we have a stable baseline to draw comparisons from (You never judge a system based on it's initial performance -- there will be lots of bugs and training costs up front that simply can't be anticipated. You have to look at it once it enters the maintenance phase to evaluate the true cost of it correctly).
As you can see, the problem is much more complex than just pulling some numbers out your ass (You, and Forbes magazine, both guilty as charged). We don't have the numbers yet to know whether this is going to save money, or cost money.
All we can really debate at this moment in time is the ethics of having a national healthcare system. For my part; I think it's long overdue. We need it. I'm not sure this is the best implimentation, but... whether it succeeds or fails, it will tell us a lot about what we need to know to make better decisions about health care as a country down the line. It is a good experiment. It should be carried out without delay, and the results published.
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.
Forbes Article is lies (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and the PDF you're linking to says nothing about the cost for a family of 4. It's just talking about lower overall health spending. Are you an Astro turfer or do you just not research your sources?
Telemarketers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Obamacare was already voted by the representatives of the people. Refusing to fund it is ignoring the will of the people.
The monopoly on origination of spending&taxing bills has also been recently abused in the UK by the Commons to stop measures which the one house doesn't like. It's a corruption which could ultimately be used to override nearly any law, because 1) Nearly every measure costs money; 2) the House could just refuse to budget for *anything* in particular until *any* law it doesn't like is r
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: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: (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 unti
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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
ACA was passed in the house, passed in the senate
Different versions were passed in each branch. The House one was modified under rules that only applied for modifying budget numbers to agree with the senate. They needed to do this because they were about to lose their filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.
Then the president signed it.
Then two different provisions were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. One was upheld and the other not. And the court, despite a lack of authority to drop pieces of law from a bill without a severabilit
Re: (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.
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:Here's your problem: (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you Americans treat the words of your Founding Fathers like religious edict?
Dude, your security agencies' behaviour has a lot less support than the PPACA, and a lot less democratic oversight, but that's allowed to continue. Ditto for your endless wars, and ANY given opinion about abortion, marriage, taxation, private ownership (consider e.g. gun ownership and property taxes)...
If you really were a country which only did things when supported by an overwhelming majority, you'd do pretty much fuck all except have the police stop people murdering and attacking each other, and stopping people from actually coming to your country and attacking it. Slavery would also have carried on nicely. The whole "only if the overwhelming majority of people" thing is quaint fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that the House could stop ANY law it doesn't like in this way, right? By simply refusing to pass ANY budgeting bills unless ANY other law is repealed.
The norm is that the House exercise its responsibility to budget in order to implement the law. "I allocate zero to this, because I dun like it," isn't doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, a big problem is using the term "minority" to mean Republicans, when they are the majority party in the House. Comparing them to the Democrats, who hold fewer elected seats in Washington, "minority" is not correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score:5, Informative)
In most states you only get to redraw the district boundaries if your party is in the majority at the state level. So you care in effect complaining that Republicans are winning at the national level because Republicans are winning at the state level.
Besides that, there is no "popular vote" for House elections. Each vote is district by district. Excess votes in one district have no meaning in another. Excess votes in one state have no meaning in another. The Republicans have a majority in the House, period. They haven't lost any non-existent "popular vote."
As to shutdowns, the Republicans are still playing catch up.
When Tip Did It - Tip O’Neill presided over two-thirds of the government shutdowns since 1976 [nationalreview.com]
Most shutdowns have resulted in budget concessions.
Random homicidal moments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is that the USA is if not outright run then strongly manipulated by those with the money to buy power.
Re:Random homicidal moments (Score:4, Interesting)
NSF not writing checks (Score:5, Informative)
Those of us who are funded at least partly by NSF grants are potentially in trouble. For people who have money in their account from an active grant that will last a few months - all the better. For those whose paycheck depends on the next installment from a grant, tough luck. The worst affected will be folks who had payments and grant reviews in progress.
More info @ http://www.nsf.gov./ [www.nsf.gov] The most relevant portions:
Payments: No payments will be made during the shutdown.
Issuance of New Grants and Cooperative Agreements: No new grants or cooperative agreements will be awarded.
Re:NSF not writing checks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NSF not writing checks (Score:4, Informative)
I'm in that category. Even though the existing grants are paid out and I will (for now) get my salary, I can't spend certain funds even though I "have" them, new research is going to be seriously hampered and this month may push back important research as much as a year (as well as continuing costs for repairs and data storage etc) if the new funding models they agree upon won't cut anything (usually in these crises the science gets defunded while the defense gets funded). Future data storage costs are going to be covered by emergency funding but if I didn't have it, there would be serious risk of significant data loss.
Huge impact on my life (Score:5, Funny)
It makes me drink more and play more GTA V.
My wife wants to go all Ted Cruz on me and filibuster about how "grown men" shouldn't be playing "video games", but I just whipped out my gavel and told her that all I need for cloture is 50 plus 1 and I got the tie-breaker hanging right here.
I think I might be in trouble now. I heard my car alarm going off a few minutes ago, and I'm afraid to go look.
Time for an Election in the USA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Federally Sponsored Research clobbered (Score:5, Informative)
Fiscal conservatives cannot do math (Score:3)
Fiscal conservtives are trying to save money supposedly ...close the guvmint damn it because the deficit is too large...and yet they voted yesterday .. ...the centrist to the righties...(there are no elected lefties in the US except for may be the Vermont Senator) ...its like trying to drown a carp !
all of them
to pay and make us stay home...
Yup great fiscal conservatism.
The problem is not government it is idiots running the government.
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!"
National Science Foundation disruption (Score:4, Informative)
As a researcher in mathematics, I am fortunate to have a great position and supportive research environment. I still get a paycheck and my day-to-day life continues more-or-less the same, but there are a number of thoughtless consequences indirectly for me, mainly due to the National Science Foundation being currently unfunded. My NSF grant money was delivered some time ago to my grants office and I can spend money as usual for my postdocs and students, so it isn't affecting me there directly. Instead, we have the following consequences:
To my mind, these are a big disruption. For people in the lab sciences whose funding is disrupted, projects that have been ongoing or building up can be seriously affected. For people whose funding record will have a big role in their hiring, tenure, and promotion situation, this is a huge stress-inducing situation.
Blegh. This is a completely unnecessary disruption to thousands of scientists and researchers. Science research funding in the US has always been a pain, even when things go smoothly. Excellent researchers have left for Europe over the years due to frustrations with the NSF system, and things like this will exacerbate that problem.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grant system is even larger scale and is also totally on hold, with consequent disruptions. And with the life sciences, uncertainty in projects can be more problematic as it is often harder to put things on hold. I feel sorry for people whose funding needs to be renewed, is under consideration, or needs adjustment now as this is a huge hassle.
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.
Re:What exactly is the point of the furlough anymo (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
First, don't pay your phone bill, that way creditors can't call. That's why it's best to have a land line and cell phone. Then, to get you back on feet, skip your car/insurance bills
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: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!
Re:What exactly is the point of the furlough anymo (Score:5, Informative)
Since congress already voted to pay all furloughed workers for the days they missed, what is exactly the point of not having them come into work anymore?
Er... have you been reading the news haven't you? OK, I'll explain.
It's never been about saving money. The GOP wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but doesn't have the votes in the Senate to do it, much less override the veto that would inevitably provoke.
So plan B was to take funding for implementing ACA out of the budget. But they don't have the votes to do that either.
Now when you are arguing over the budget, you still have to keep things running; soldiers and air traffic controllers have to be paid. But the president doesn't have the constitutional power to spend money; he has to spend what Congress tells him to spend, neither more nor less (a lot of Americans don't seem to understand this). He has a lot of influence over the budget, but ultimately Congress has the power of the purse.
So what Congress does when it can't resolve its budget differences on time is pass something called a "continuing resolution". It pretty much says "continue on as you were under the last budget for so many days or until we hash this out." Congress is behind on its budget work so, it's time for a continuing resolution.
What the House Republicans tried to do was slip the budget stuff they didn't have the votes to pass into the continuing resolution. When the Senate stripped that stuff out and sent the CR back to the House, the Republican leadership refused to bring the CR to a vote until their demands were met. Those demands have been a moving target, running from a long laundry list of priorities (including stuff like the Keystone pipeline), to anything that will allow them to claim victory. Boehner has also floated a cut of a certain size to yet-to-be-named budget items as a condition, but this was precisely the gambit that was tried in 2011. Those cuts never materialized, triggering the sequestration cuts across the board this year, including defense. That's not very credible. So the only way the House Republicans come out of this with something that looks like a victory would be to get ACA de-funded, which is not going to happen.
The House Republicans are technically within their rights not to bring an continuing resolution to the floor, but they're using it to undermine the Constitution. They don't have the votes to get what they want, nor have they anything offer in exchange that will persuade anyone else to vote with them, so they're trying to *compel* the Senate to vote the way they want by shutting down the government.
Honestly, it feels like final years of the Roman Republic, when wealthy, ambitious men competed to carve power bases for themselves out of what had been offices of service to the Republic. Crassus Boehner, anyone?
Now they basically get a free paid vacation. If the taxpayer is on the hook for their salaries, they should be doing their jobs.
I agree with you. They should be back at their jobs, and being paid on payday as usual (you do know that essential employees aren't getting paid). But that's not going to happen until one side or another cracks under the political pressure. Already the US Chamber of Commerce is wading in with promises of primary support to Republicans who vote for a clean CR.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes it does feel like the final days of the Roman Republic. Of cou
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.
Rs passed it March 21st. 0 Dems voted for Obam (Score:3, Informative)
Someone "decided to wait until the last minute".
The Republicans passed theirs March 21st 2013, seven months ago. That's before Obama submitted his proposal.
Obama keeps submitting proposals so bad that not a single DEMOCRAT will vote for them. Think about that. Not one member of his own party will put their name on the crap Obama has been submitting since he took office. I dont recall if any of his five annual budget proposals got even one vote of support - I do recall that at least two or three years h
Re:to be clear, Obama "I will not negotiate", then (Score:5, Interesting)
No no no no! They had 7 months to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget that BOTH groups passed. 18 times the Senate tried to get a committee together to work on those differences. 18 times the HOUSE refused to appoint anyone to do so. Now that the shit has hit the fan the HOSUE says sure we'll talk so long as the health care plan is axed, the president said "eat shit".
Lets be VERY clear here - the HOUSE has a bill that would fund the entire Govt sitting on their desk. All that has to be done, because the majority over there has agreed to pass it, is put it up for a VOTE. Boner the Repub leader REFUSES to do so.
Lay the blame where it belongs - on a MINORITY of Republican asshats in the House being led by Bahner aka Boner. Yes, I WILL remember this come election time - no doubt!
here's a refresher on the process for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag [youtube.com]
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).
Re: (Score:3)
It's down because demand is down. As in, a large group of people stopped buying fuel.
Re: (Score:3)
... it only affects me by having too many stories about it on /.
Speak for yourself. I'm enjoying the entertainment immensely. I'm thinking of selling popcorn.
When you live in the rest of the world, the US government is the bogeyman that your politicians try to scare you with. The surest way to cast doubt on a proposal to reform health care is to say "it would put us on the road to a US-style health care system". The surest way to cast doubt on a proposal to change election procedures is to say "we don't want US-style elections". I'm sure I don't even need to mention gu
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Are you a military contractor or employed directly or indirectly by the DOD?
Otherwise, you don't need the military at the size that it is. Do you really think that the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq actually benefitted US citizens?
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck do you need a military for? Canada isn't going to invade, and neither is anyone south of Texas or from the Caribbean. 2000 miles of ocean separates us from our closest "enemies" - and they're totally fucking dependent on our dollars to keep their economies running.
If you and your friends have guns you don't need a military.
Of course, if you do decide to shut down the government there do happen to owe each other about $8 Trillion (bonds and ss debt), and there are a few other debtors for about
Re:Are the senators being paid ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Aspirational terms. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's effected me about as much as the sequester (Score:4, Informative)
This is all for show. The government quite literally prints money. They don't need a budget, they don't need dept. All of the money they bailed out the banks with was quite literally created out of thin air.
Gotta love getting modded up for repeating complete nonsense. In theory, yes, the government can just "print more money," but they still couldn't legally spend any of it without a budget in place. And of course in reality they can't actually do that because it would completely destroy the value of the dollar...and as a consequence our economy as well. The government introduces more currency to keep the pool of available currency more or less consistent with the amount of goods and services available in the economy (which you may be surprised to know increases every year) and give people some incentive to keep money moving around instead of just hoarding it all to profit from deflation, rendering our currency useless as a medium of exchange. Believe it or not, there's a lot more to fiscal policy than just "lol why don't they just print more money amirite?"