Goverrnment Shutdown 2013: The Obamapocalypse is here! :(

Blaster man said:
A well balanced budget isn't what the tea party stands for. It stands for virtually no government, no taxes, and a well balanced budget (easy to do with no government services). The majority of the country likes the national weather center and it's predictions of hurricane's. The country likes the national parks. There are actually a lot of government services that are valuable and the tea party wants to eliminate all of these because they aren't "essential". Essential just means that the federal agents, military, etc are still operating (but won't be paid until the budget is passed). Of course once some FBI agents or some other federal law enforcement officer/agent retires they can't be replaced because the HR department is non-essential.

The tea party is an extreme minority even within the republican party.
Click to expand...
Extremists.. LoL

 
The House GOP's Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown?c=upworthy

"Under normal House rules, according to House Democrats, once that bill had been rejected again by the Senate, then any member of the House could have made a motion to vote on the Senate's bill. Such a motion would have been what is called "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full House. At that point, Democrats say, they could have joined with moderate Republicans in approving the motion and then in passing the clean Senate bill, averting a shutdown."

Holy shit what is wrong with the Republican's.  "Democracy has been suspended."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A#t=49

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Ego, this is weaker than you ragging on the websites crashing. Hang it up or get better ammo.
Click to expand...
What are you babbling about? Define the "this" in your statement, please. And I have yet to begin ragging on the piss poor implementation, over spending, and inefficiency of their half baked website. I'm waiting to see the numbers first.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man said:
The House GOP's Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown?c=upworthy

"Under normal House rules, according to House Democrats, once that bill had been rejected again by the Senate, then any member of the House could have made a motion to vote on the Senate's bill. Such a motion would have been what is called "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full House. At that point, Democrats say, they could have joined with moderate Republicans in approving the motion and then in passing the clean Senate bill, averting a shutdown."

Holy shit what is wrong with the Republican's. "Democracy has been suspended."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A#t=49
Click to expand...
Or the Democrats could have passed all of the efforts to fund everything BUT Obamacare like the Republicans put forth. No shutdown and then negotiations could take place without a phony crisis. A lot of these guys ran on repealing or defunding Obamacare, if they did not do everything in their power to do so, then wouldn't they be hypocrites?

 
egofed said:
What are you babbling about? Define the "this" in your statement, please. And I have yet to begin ragging on the piss poor implementation, over spending, and inefficiency of their half baked website. I'm waiting to see the numbers first.
Click to expand...
You mean waiting for some one to spoon feed you a talking point. You have an aversion to numbers and evidence as seen in our "welfare" back and forth.

Now you are defending the hostage taking, where do you draw line for "everything in their power" the opposing sides pets? Their kids?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Now you are defending the hostage taking, where do you draw line for "everything in their power" the opposing sides pets? Their kids?
Click to expand...
Whew, I love to watch you butcher the English language. And please don't speak of being spoon fed talking points while using drama queen words like "hostage taking". Which liberal blowhard did you ape that gem from?

 
egofed said:
Or the Democrats could have passed all of the efforts to fund everything BUT Obamacare like the Republicans put forth. No shutdown and then negotiations could take place without a phony crisis. A lot of these guys ran on repealing or defunding Obamacare, if they did not do everything in their power to do so, then wouldn't they be hypocrites?
Click to expand...
Wait a second, you quoted me where I showed that the normal rules were suspended. How would it have been hypocritical for a Democrat to request the vote under the normal rules and for the Republican's to vote against it? That makes absolutely no sense. I guess the normal rules of the House of Reps aren't good enough for these guys. I'm sure the Democrats will remember that in a few years. It's foolhardy to believe that they'll control it forever.

edit:

Wait a second, who the hell elected the Heritage Foundation? Even Fox News can't spin this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/15/house-gop-floats-plan-to-address-debt-ceiling-government-funding-in-response-to/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlyingAce39 said:
Yes, they were. The Civil War was fought not over slavery, despite what YOU may think. It was a war because the South seceded from the Union. The Union didn't like it, so they waged war against the South. Ever wonder why there's 13 white stars on the confederate flag? Probably not. Too much thinking for you, more than likely. You just do whatever everyone tells you, right?

There are 13 Confederate states; Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Missouri. One star for each flag. These were the states of the C.S.A. and their flag was, as you idiots call it, "the racist flag". Southerners fly this flag because it's a symbol of rebellion and independence.

Oh, and as for the "enslavement of the colored ones", not every Confederate citizen/soldier had slaves. For example, Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston owned not a single slave nor did they believe in slavery. Also, there was slavery in the North, too. Maryland, for example, had slaves.

Now go get an education before you hurt yourself.
Click to expand...
Kentucky and Missouri weren't in the CSA. Funny how you tell other people to go get an education.

 
obama_oh-snap.jpg


 
Just read a quick blurb that the Senate is about done with their deal.  It looks like the Republican's are getting rolled.  They aren't even getting their repeal of the medical devices tax that they had been talking about as a possible compromise.

 
Yup. I have the news in the background and they're saying that it's just about a done deal. Republicans got jacked...or that's the impression they're giving.

edit: I wonder if Cruz is going to filibuster. :D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there's one thing I've learned from the GOP over the last few years is that they love being on the wrong side of history and will actively kick and scream to stay there.

 
^Pretty much. It ended up just being a big "fuck YOU" to over a million people because teabaggers couldn't help themselves and establishment Republicans are scared shitless over being primaried. One big clusterfuck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In 2011 we would have had the "grand bargain" with cuts and taxes to reduce the deficits if not for the tea baggers in the House of Reps that wouldn't allow it because of the tax increases.  Maybe after this whole debacle enough of them will be removed from office in 2014 that we can have a government that can actually govern.

 
The military complex and current police state USA spying cost more money then all the current benefit programs combined....

No one seem to care about that budget.

Oh and the CIA, NSA all have their funding classified, so we basically don't know how much money they are actually using

 
So, conservatives, any time you're ready to get rid of these idiots and send adults, we're still waiting and ready to talk. Until then, we're going to stand here with our white wine at our dinner parties and try to figure out how you got the last nail in when you crucified yourselves. It's quite a feat. 

Love,

Liberalism

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did anyone see that insane woman get dragged off the House floor just now? Here's the audio:

https://soundcloud.com/toddzwillich-1/floor1-101612-wav

 
hahaha.

Remember when the 'pubs would get so much crap because they'd "refuse to compromise"?

Now, the same clowns who would give them so much crap are cheering on their team for the same thing. :D

But don't say both sides do it.
 
UncleBob said:
hahaha.

Remember when the 'pubs would get so much crap because they'd "refuse to compromise"?

Now, the same clowns who would give them so much crap are cheering on their team for the same thing. :D

But don't say both sides do it.
Click to expand...
I think you and I have a different understanding of the word "compromise".

 
FlyingAce39 said:
LOL!!!!

... oh, wait. You're serious.

Well, here. This oughta make you seem less stupid.

http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/civilwar/south.htm
Click to expand...
That's a really cute website. Did your mommy help you with it or were you able to put it together like a big boy?

Saying that there was only one cause for the civil war being state's rights to secede is like saying all of WWII, Pacific theater included, was because they were Nazis and they wanted to kill Jews. You're conveniently ignoring all the underlying issues involved.

As for that piece of shit confederate flag, I don't doubt that there are a small percentage of people who view it as nothing more than civil war remembrance, the vast majority that fly it though do it because its their way of publicly saying "yeah, southern pride" while (not quite) secretly winking and nudging their fellow racists. I'm not arguing the flag should be erased from the history books but if I see anyone flying it, I already know everything I need to about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
I think you and I have a different understanding of the word "compromise".
Click to expand...
Well I, for one, always thought compromise meant that you can make a deal and then a couple years later act like that deal never existed, was something you didn't agree to, and do everything possible to undermine that deal including nearly burning your country to the ground...
 
Anybody think furloughed workers should get back pay? I'm curious. To me, the message was we don't have the money to run the government (due to political posturing or in reality) so let's make sure nobody is working for 16 days. OK, thanks for not working for 2.5 weeks, so here's a bunch of money for your troubles.

Regardless of the cause of government employee furlough, is it logical or rational to pay people not to work for 2.5 weeks? To me they could use accrued vacation/PTO for that period, or elect not to get paid, but I don't understand why they should be getting paychecks because their bosses told them to go home.

US of A.

By the way, why don't our news networks call the crazy stenographer who was removed from the House floor a "radical, religious extremist"? I guess that title is only reserved for Muslims.

 
berzirk said:
Anybody think furloughed workers should get back pay? I'm curious. To me, the message was we don't have the money to run the government (due to political posturing or in reality) so let's make sure nobody is working for 16 days. OK, thanks for not working for 2.5 weeks, so here's a bunch of money for your troubles.

Regardless of the cause of government employee furlough, is it logical or rational to pay people not to work for 2.5 weeks? To me they could use accrued vacation/PTO for that period, or elect not to get paid, but I don't understand why they should be getting paychecks because their bosses told them to go home.

US of A.

By the way, why don't our news networks call the crazy stenographer who was removed from the House floor a "radical, religious extremist"? I guess that title is only reserved for Muslims.
Click to expand...
I'll stick my neck out on this one.

Personally, I think of the shutdown in the same way as a snow emergency and a good employer will pay you for it. This goes beyond private vs public employers because every fulltime job I've had has done this and I've only worked in the private sector even when I was an hourly wage slave.

Pragmatically speaking, it's not only easier to pay them the back pay, but probably cheaper than processing over 800,000 applications for unemployment benefits, paying out those benefits, and then closing out those cases all at once especially when there's already reduced staffing levels to process those applications to begin with. Even from another angle, that's an over 800,000 person-sized economic black hole that was dropped in the midst of a slow recovery. How is that better than paying them beyond "it's the principle!"

edit: Not every government employee is highly paid with awesome benefits. I think a good compromise would be to make back pay tiered according to income with anyone making below $100k to get 100% and roll it back for some arbitrary amount above that.

In regards to the stenographer, didn't she have a mental health issues? I haven't really paid any attention to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
Personally, I think of the shutdown in the same way as a snow emergency and a good employer will pay you for it. This goes beyond private vs public employers because every fulltime job I've had has done this and I've only worked in the private sector even when I was an hourly wage slave.

Pragmatically speaking, it's not only easier to pay them the back pay, but probably cheaper than processing over 800,000 applications for unemployment benefits, paying out those benefits, and then closing out those cases all at once especially when there's already reduced staffing levels to process those applications to begin with. Even from another angle, that's an over 800,000 person-sized economic black hole that was dropped in the midst of a slow recovery. How is that better than paying them beyond "it's the principle!"
Click to expand...
I think in a private sector situation (and I'm in the Pacific NW, so weather related no-work days are few and far between), but both in California and Oregon, through a variety of professional and menial jobs, I've never worked somewhere where an "act of God" or similar prevented a person from going to work, but entitled them to pay.

Nothing prevented all those federal employees from filing for unemployment, and at least according to TV interviews with folks affected, many did, so they were already in the system. It would make sense that one part of the government saving money by shutting down a bunch of departments, wouldn't really save money, since another department would now start paying them (although you get that unemployment benefits would only pay a fraction of their standard salary, right?). But that's not how the government does budgeting. It's department-specific. DHS has this budget. EPA has this budget. It's not like if one goes over budget, another department gets their budget slashed to balance (like any intelligent company would do)

The benefits of federal employment have historically been job security, retirement/pension, and health benefits. Their salaries are lower than private, but that's the sales pitch for government jobs. I don't see ethically or logically, why it wouldn't be just to tell them to use PTO for the time away from the office, or don't get paid. What's far more likely, is that nobody in Congress wants to bring wrath to their entire party (well aware of the irony in this) by saying "we caused you guys to be out of work AND we're not paying you".

Here's a question. If a furloughed employee was receiving unemployment benefits (likely the most they would've received is about one check, assuming it's paid out every two weeks), then they also get backpay, shouldn't they have to pay back the unemployment?

 
Gov't employees are all UNIONIZED, so yes they are getting back pay for a 2.5 week vacy.....

Apparently in 4 months we get to play this little game all over again

Why bother even debating about raising the debt limit,  why not just make it infinity :)

Its not like we will ever manage our debt, we might as party till we crash... HA HA HA

The only one who wasn't crazy on that room was the stenographer....  I really wish I was my own personal gov't or can declare myself as a soverign gov't, I can party like there is no tomorrow and raise my debt limit everytime I run outa money...

 
berzirk said:
I think in a private sector situation (and I'm in the Pacific NW, so weather related no-work days are few and far between), but both in California and Oregon, through a variety of professional and menial jobs, I've never worked somewhere where an "act of God" or similar prevented a person from going to work, but entitled them to pay.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about being "entitled." That's a bit of a loaded term, which is exactly why I said a "good" employer. What you're saying implies that the employee somehow has some control over whether or not they get paid.

Nothing prevented all those federal employees from filing for unemployment, and at least according to TV interviews with folks affected, many did, so they were already in the system. It would make sense that one part of the government saving money by shutting down a bunch of departments, wouldn't really save money, since another department would now start paying them (although you get that unemployment benefits would only pay a fraction of their standard salary, right?). But that's not how the government does budgeting. It's department-specific. DHS has this budget. EPA has this budget. It's not like if one goes over budget, another department gets their budget slashed to balance (like any intelligent company would do)
Click to expand...
The government isn't a for-profit company and it shouldn't be run like one. Ether way, we're still operating under the sequester and the one budget that should absolutely get cut, never will be. I'm sure we agree on which one.

The benefits of federal employment have historically been job security, retirement/pension, and health benefits. Their salaries are lower than private, but that's the sales pitch for government jobs. I don't see ethically or logically, why it wouldn't be just to tell them to use PTO for the time away from the office, or don't get paid. What's far more likely, is that nobody in Congress wants to bring wrath to their entire party (well aware of the irony in this) by saying "we caused you guys to be out of work AND we're not paying you".
Click to expand...
Why not just eliminate unemployment insurance at that rate?

Here's a question. If a furloughed employee was receiving unemployment benefits (likely the most they would've received is about one check, assuming it's paid out every two weeks), then they also get backpay, shouldn't they have to pay back the unemployment?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it takes more than a week to start collecting once you submit a claim. The unemployment office also verifies employment status and checks the earnings with the former employer to calculate the benefit. Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be approved to collect benefits even for that one week. If someone slips through the cracks and actually collected something, I highly doubt that it would be worth it to even pursue it. It'd end up like the drug testing for benefits in Florida: it costs more money to find the fraud than the money saved from finding it. Spending $10 to fix something that will only cost me $5 in less than half the time is a fool's errand. Me? I'm a pragmatist. No system is perfect and there will always be a loophole or someone slipping through.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^And there we have it.

If it saves more money to go after them, then I'm all for it because they shouldn't be double-dipping, just not when it costs more money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaster man said:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/news/economy/shutdown-federal-unemployment-benefits/

"If you receive back pay from your agency to cover the furlough period, you must repay any unemployment benefits you received for that time," the Virginia Employment Commission said in a Q&A on its site.
Click to expand...
dohdough said:
I never said anything about being "entitled." That's a bit of a loaded term, which is exactly why I said a "good" employer. What you're saying implies that the employee somehow has some control over whether or not they get paid.

The government isn't a for-profit company and it shouldn't be run like one. Ether way, we're still operating under the sequester and the one budget that should absolutely get cut, never will be. I'm sure we agree on which one.

Why not just eliminate unemployment insurance at that rate?

I'm pretty sure it takes more than a week to start collecting once you submit a claim. The unemployment office also verifies employment status and checks the earnings with the former employer to calculate the benefit. Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be approved to collect benefits even for that one week. If someone slips through the cracks and actually collected something, I highly doubt that it would be worth it to even pursue it. It'd end up like the drug testing for benefits in Florida: it costs more money to find the fraud than the money saved from finding it. Spending $10 to fix something that will only cost me $5 in less than half the time is a fool's errand. Me? I'm a pragmatist. No system is perfect and there will always be a loophole or someone slipping through.
Click to expand...
Bleh...I should multi-quote properly, but it's the end of my day and want to fire off a quickie.

Entitled has become a loaded political term admittedly, but I mean it more in the sense of, "it's not something inherently deserved". Not the "entitlement program" kind of nonsense that always gets thrown around. Bad choice of words considering the modern political landscape.

The Govt isn't for-profit, and shouldn't be run as such, agreed. But there are some common organizational principles that should apply. If you can't afford it, or have a good way to pay for it...don't buy it. Unless the government drastically raises taxes (which I personally oppose) or radically reduce spending (which I'm more in favor of) they will continue to run at an operational deficit. To shrug it off cause they're the government, doesn't put the responsibility of getting their shit in order, on the govt. Everyone needs to pander to their support base though, so neither of those things will ever happen, so we'll keep spending, and we'll keep taxes where they are, and we'll have these political showdowns for decades to come.

I don't understand the leap from "getting paid UI when you're technically employed" to "why don't we just eliminate it". UI is for people who are actively searching for work, and can't find it. I've been on it. I know the rules, the forms (although they have made it easier. I used to have to call in every two weeks and go to the employment office and meet with folks. Those restrictions are gone, it all gets done online now).

Blaster man said:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/news/economy/shutdown-federal-unemployment-benefits/

"If you receive back pay from your agency to cover the furlough period, you must repay any unemployment benefits you received for that time," the Virginia Employment Commission said in a Q&A on its site.
Click to expand...
Sweet. The way it should be. I think we all agree on that, so it's nice to see that someone was forward thinking enough to consider the possibility of someone receiving unemployment and backpay at the same time.

 
New employees didn't have access to unemployment so it would be unfair to make them go without pay. Especially while congress was getting paid to prevent them from working.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven said:
New employees didn't have access to unemployment so it would be unfair to make them go without pay. Especially while congress was getting paid to prevent them from working.
Click to expand...
Unfair? I would think paying someone for work they didn't do with other people's money would be considered "unfair".

 
Msut77 said:
You get paid even if there isn't a fire that day?
Click to expand...
This guy and his logic as always make no sense. Should we then restrict everyone? So should we then not pay bank tellers or policeman unless they help a customer or bust a drug dealer? Its like Msut just babbles w/e comes to his mind. Does he not realize that everyone has several duties instead of just one? He is either a complete idiot or trying to troll everyone who he thinks leans right.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
This guy and his logic as always make no sense. Should we then restrict everyone? So should we then not pay bank tellers or policeman unless they help a customer or bust a drug dealer? Its like Msut just babbles w/e comes to his mind. Does he not realize that everyone has several duties instead of just one? He is either a complete idiot or trying to troll everyone who he thinks leans right.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic and you in fact made the same point he was getting at.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Indulge me.

Why should you steal from the taxpayer if there happens to be no work that day?

A day laborer would be turned away.
Click to expand...
Wow. You just totally convinced me. How could I have been sooo wrong for sooo long? Not actually having to show up to work is EXACTLY the same as having to be at a fire station for 24 hours straight while training, cleaning, cooking, repairing and maintaining the apparatus and tools, conducting ship tours, designing and reviewing fire/hazardous material pre-plans, oh, and having to be in a constant state of readiness to respond to any emergency in 5 minutes or less. You are being totally reasonable and logical with your comparison. Please enlighten me with more of your intelligent and well thought out opinions. I'm currently arranging a cashier's check to return 90% of my salary for the past ten years to the city, gotta keep that last 10% to at least give the federal gov't something so they can pay people to stay home.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top