US Government Shut Down - new elections for senate and house of rep.?

[tar]

And still I agree that what the tea party republicans in the house are doing is akin to extortion and is near criminal in nature.

 

SEND A CLEAN CR TO THE SENATE NOW! And then work out a sustainable comprimise budget that will work for the good of the country. Refine the ACA to be more sensible and work better, and not cause any of the problems it might cause if its cobbled together and fractured by partisan goofiness. Provide the country with some responsible, thoughtful, adult leadership. That is what you were sent to Washington to do. Not burn down the store because the keeper won't pay the protection money you demand.

Edited October 4, 2013 by tar

[overtone]

 

 

It is someone elses responsibility to be responsible for their own life, and the lives of the children they bring into the world. I am not their child's daddy and a girl should not get pregnant KNOWING that society will take care of both her and the baby if she does.

Why not?

 

Seriously. Why should a girl not be able to rely - absolutely - on her society's willingness to take care of her and her baby.?

 

See, all the rest of that is one thing - guys who get girls pregnant should be held accountable, and their paychecks belong to their kids; government bureaucracies should not be bloated and inefficient; mayors should not micromanage soft drink volumes; Protestant work ethic for the win. Arbeit mach frei.

 

But I'm looking at a Congress and supportive media of pudgy, gross, amoral, privileged, oblivious assholes who have made very comfortable lives for themselves in the lucrative fields of connections and wealth accumulation (the only thing in the world they're any good at),

 

the lot of them born on third base and think they hit a triple, blowing smoke and runniing the casual racism and so forth,

 

meanwhile the number of children living significantly below the poverty line in the US has recently doubled, while the amount of Federal money being given to them or their parents has dropped by like 40% even before this shutdown - a circumstance which will do essentially permanent damage to the place, this last couple of decades's developments in welfare and the like - and the first response to the mention of the effects of this political shutdown that will result in so much additional hardship on these kids is to object to anything that fosters their mother's sense of entitlement, if any.

[EdEarl]

Social problems, such as drug abuse cannot be solved by throwing money at them. Otherwise, the war on drugs during the past 40 years and $1 Trillion spent would have succeeded. On the other hand, denying children basic necessities makes desperate youths who are often see gangs and crime as their only alternative to abject poverty. This option creates social problems. On the other hand, children need good adult role models to teach them how to live a good life, and there are many one parent families with a drug addicted parent. This scenario also tends to lead children astray.

 

In other words, it is possible to a great deal of money with no effect, it is possible to spend too little money with poor effect, and there are problems which cannot be solved with money. The scenarios presented above are only a few among many. Some government programs can help, but they can never be the entire solution. I personally don't know of anything that can solve these problems. In fact, I doubt they can be solved, and the best we can do is minimize their cost and effects on society. In short, we must live with social problems. Unfortunately, we often do not learn from history, and repeat our mistakes.

[swansont]

 

I do not blame the children for these irresponsible actions. I blame the fathers and the mothers who bring children into this world, without the wherewithall and intent and desire to take full responsibility for their own child's health and welfare, education and the preparation of that child for a life of security, value, and happiness.

 

 

One of he provisions of the ACA is availability of contraception, and aspects of that are specifically called out to be eliminated by the GOP in its demands.

And still I agree that what the tea party republicans in the house are doing is akin to extortion and is near criminal in nature.

 

SEND A CLEAN CR TO THE SENATE NOW! And then work out a sustainable comprimise budget that will work for the good of the country. Refine the ACA to be more sensible and work better, and not cause any of the problems it might cause if its cobbled together and fractured by partisan goofiness. Provide the country with some responsible, thoughtful, adult leadership. That is what you were sent to Washington to do. Not burn down the store because the keeper won't pay the protection money you demand.

 

I don't understand how you can say "Refine the ACA to be more sensible and work better" when the bulk of it hasn't even been implemented yet. What about it isn't working? The patients' bill of rights? The cost-free preventative care? A later cutoff for when kids are allowed to be insured on parents' insurance?

[imatfaal]

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

 

I think it is clear where the blame lies and who should be held accountable. If any other public servant (or private company providing a public service) behaved like this they would be fired and compensation for wilful dereliction of duty sought.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[Tridimity]

Overtone,

 

No I don't object to providing aid to people in need. I find it hard to take that we spend money to fly 1500 or whatever, WIC directors to a conference in Washington, to do it. Its the building of a seperate power structure to fill every need we have, and the associated millions that are spent on things other than formula and applesauce and antibiotics that would actually impove the situation. Its stuff like the Mayor of NY limiting the size of sugary drinks, because he is concerned with our obesity problem.

 

I saw a product at the store today. It was a hangover prevention subtance, filled with vitamins and a list of healthy stuff...I thought it rather odd, since the most effective prevention I can think of, is to not drink so darn much that you would get a hangover in the first place.

 

I have a thing, about human judgement being crucial. I have a theory that everybody has it and excercises it. We automatically help out our neighbors and even strangers, when they are in trouble. Its a kind of natural state of affairs. Its what good people do. Along with that, goes the responsibility to choose your own way in life. Take on the risks and responsibilities that will cause your life to be the way you want it to be. Pay the dues, do the work, excercise a little delayed gratification, get the schooling and training and knowledge you need to add value to society. Perhaps its the protestan work ethic. I don't know where I got it, but I have it. It is someone elses responsibility to be responsible for their own life, and the lives of the children they bring into the world. I am not their child's daddy and a girl should not get pregnant KNOWING that society will take care of both her and the baby if she does.

 

Perhaps I have come to this apparently heartless and cruel assessment of the affect that government programs have on the way of life of people I have talked to and witnessed in Newark NJ, and Kettle WV. A black man who had 4 children with three different women, interested mostly in "speading his seed", without worry of actually having to provide for the mothers or the children. And a quite widespread Meth epidemic in the West Virgina hills, where the government programs take care of lives of the children whose parents destroy their own.

 

I do not blame the children for these irresponsible actions. I blame the fathers and the mothers who bring children into this world, without the wherewithall and intent and desire to take full responsibility for their own child's health and welfare, education and the preparation of that child for a life of security, value, and happiness.

 

I am full willing to give up a few of my rights and a few of my dollars for the benefit of everyone else, because I know that 200,000,000 people are giving up a few of their rights and a few of their dollars, for my benefit.

 

But I would rather not see a whole segment of the population living in a dream world, where security, value and happiness are thought of as birthright that requires no personal effort and sacrifice to obtain.

 

I have no problem helping out my fellow citizen. It just is not something I need a law hanging over my head, inorder to do. And I would like to retain a general "feel" in the country, that when a problem arises we take care of it, and not wait for Uncle Sam to put together a powerstucture, with the whieght and authority of the Federal Government, to address local, personal issues, that are much better addressed, on a local, personal level.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I agree that government inefficiencies and futile attempts at micromanagement are frustrating - however, they have nothing to do with the desirability of making modest financial welfare provisions for those members of society most in need, and everything to do with misplaced good intentions and a lack of forethought. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that a combination of personal responsibility and community support networks should suffice in preventing the realisation of dire financial/social situations. The plight of well-intentioned homeless people, without social connections, is evidence enough that these two factors cannot be relied on as a failsafe mechanism. The safety nets provided by state welfare are not a luxury for these individuals - they are a necessity - they mean the difference between life or death. I know you might not appreciate the reality of this at an emotional level, even if you acknowledge it at an intellectual level, because your relatively comfortable Western lifestyle with all the privileges that you take for granted form a buffer to keep you out of touch with these realities. Try walking a mile in the shoes of people who have and want to work hard and who have pursued education to the tertiary level in an attempt to develop themselves personally and professionally so as to be able to contribute in a wholsesome way to society - and yet who find themselves unemployed as a result of factors beyond their own control. Some people experience difficulties in maintaining robust social and community support networks - would you condemn these people to go without help when they fall on hard times? If not - state help is essentially nothing more than the mutual financial aid shared between neighbours (citizens all over the US) - the only downside is the associated cost of administration. I think most people would agree that paying that administration cost is worth the result, which is a civilised and caring society. Without that mutual support between citizens, you don't have a society - what you have is merely individuals sharing the same geographical dimensions. I darn well would hope that a single mother and her child would be protected by the state - I would expect no less for a family member, why would I expect less for a fellow citizen? I guess it depends what you want: do you want a society, or do you want a group of people sharing a piece of land and scratching out their own individual existences alone? I fully agree that people ought not to abuse the welfare system - it should be used only as a temporary solution - but actually, living on welfare is not enjoyable, the majority of people do not choose it as a lifestyle as I think you consider they do.

[john5746]

 

Michael Grimm (R-NY) told the Examiner, “This isn’t just about Obamacare anymore.”

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) - “We’re not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

 

Yep, they run shutdowns like they run wars. "OK, we kicked ass....why are we here? Where are we? Ah well, we can't leave, that would be embaressing"

 

 

Renee Ellmers (R-NC) “I understand that there may be some other members who are deferring their paychecks, and I think that’s admirable. I’m not in that position.”

Talking Points Memo reports, “According to Ellmers’s official website, she was a registered nurse for 21 years before being elected to Congress. Her husband Brent, the website says, is a general surgeon.

 

Yep, going without pay for a few weeks would be really hard on a surgeon's pay, but not a big deal for clerks. Must have been a great nurse.

[Phi for All]

One of he provisions of the ACA is availability of contraception, and aspects of that are specifically called out to be eliminated by the GOP in its demands.

Didn't you love that? "People should have responsible sex and not go around making babies they can't take care of. Oh, and they should do that WITHOUT the best methods the modern world can offer!"

 

I don't understand how you can say "Refine the ACA to be more sensible and work better" when the bulk of it hasn't even been implemented yet. What about it isn't working? The patients' bill of rights? The cost-free preventative care? A later cutoff for when kids are allowed to be insured on parents' insurance?

 

Apply that argument to business and they'd be fired in a heartbeat.

 

"Well, boss, we've spent a lot to get to this point in the project and we've been implementing the preliminary goals pretty well, but Cruz over in QC wants to revamp most of it, based on fears that it isn't perfect right out of the gate. Shall we revamp without knowing what might be wrong? Or we could continue implementing and refining based on actual data. Or we could just scrap the whole thing and eat the losses. Or we could scrap Cruz."

[swansont]

 

Apply that argument to business and they'd be fired in a heartbeat.

 

"Well, boss, we've spent a lot to get to this point in the project and we've been implementing the preliminary goals pretty well, but Cruz over in QC wants to revamp most of it, based on fears that it isn't perfect right out of the gate. Shall we revamp without knowing what might be wrong? Or we could continue implementing and refining based on actual data. Or we could just scrap the whole thing and eat the losses. Or we could scrap Cruz."

 

Also, Cruz won't tell me specifically what he thinks is problematic, and when he does mention details of the project, they're just wrong. Why was he hired, anyway? Oh, right. He's Phil's nephew.

[iNow]

I know you were referencing Phi's business analogy, but in reality Cruz was elected during a runoff election last year in Texas against David Dewhurst.

 

Dewhusrt had been TX Senator since 1999 and had a commanding lead over his 8 opponents in the race during 2012, but (while close) he fell short of the 50% threshold needed to win the TX primary. That triggered a runoff election where he and Cruz were the two fighting against each other for office.

 

Cruz received endorsements from Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Jim DeMint and Rick Santorum, as well as $5.5 Million from the anti-tax Club For Growth. All of this put him over the top in an election that most believe should have gone to Dewhurst... were it not for that 50% threshold vote requirement.

[waitforufo]

 

I agree that government inefficiencies and futile attempts at micromanagement are frustrating - however, they have nothing to do with the desirability of making modest financial welfare provisions for those members of society most in need, and everything to do with misplaced good intentions and a lack of forethought. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that a combination of personal responsibility and community support networks should suffice in preventing the realisation of dire financial/social situations. The plight of well-intentioned homeless people, without social connections, is evidence enough that these two factors cannot be relied on as a failsafe mechanism. The safety nets provided by state welfare are not a luxury for these individuals - they are a necessity - they mean the difference between life or death. I know you might not appreciate the reality of this at an emotional level, even if you acknowledge it at an intellectual level, because your relatively comfortable Western lifestyle with all the privileges that you take for granted form a buffer to keep you out of touch with these realities. Try walking a mile in the shoes of people who have and want to work hard and who have pursued education to the tertiary level in an attempt to develop themselves personally and professionally so as to be able to contribute in a wholsesome way to society - and yet who find themselves unemployed as a result of factors beyond their own control. Some people experience difficulties in maintaining robust social and community support networks - would you condemn these people to go without help when they fall on hard times? If not - state help is essentially nothing more than the mutual financial aid shared between neighbours (citizens all over the US) - the only downside is the associated cost of administration. I think most people would agree that paying that administration cost is worth the result, which is a civilised and caring society. Without that mutual support between citizens, you don't have a society - what you have is merely individuals sharing the same geographical dimensions. I darn well would hope that a single mother and her child would be protected by the state - I would expect no less for a family member, why would I expect less for a fellow citizen? I guess it depends what you want: do you want a society, or do you want a group of people sharing a piece of land and scratching out their own individual existences alone? I fully agree that people ought not to abuse the welfare system - it should be used only as a temporary solution - but actually, living on welfare is not enjoyable, the majority of people do not choose it as a lifestyle as I think you consider they do.

Wow. The above just bleeds.

 

Liberals just can't buy the idea that government promotes dependency. It's simple too. The government gives you a form. If you check all the right boxes you get money. They even tell you what the right boxes are. Given that goal by the government one can then work at making sure they can check all the right boxes. It's that simple. It's no different than tax incentives. The government creates tax incentives to encourage people to do the things that are incentivized.

 

Back to the government shut down.

 

Still not feeling the effects. Still don't know anyone who is feeling the effects. I'll keep you posted.

[swansont]

Wow. The above just bleeds.

 

Liberals just can't buy the idea that government promotes dependency. It's simple too. The government gives you a form. If you check all the right boxes you get money. They even tell you what the right boxes are. Given that goal by the government one can then work at making sure they can check all the right boxes. It's that simple. It's no different than tax incentives. The government creates tax incentives to encourage people to do the things that are incentivized.

And that's simply conservative ideology. Don't bother checking to see if it's really true. That would be inconvenient.

 

Last I checked, plenty of wealthy people (and corporations) got tax incentives.

 

Back to the government shut down.

 

Still not feeling the effects. Still don't know anyone who is feeling the effects. I'll keep you posted.

If it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be important. What a wonderful attitude.

[Ringer]

For those thinking it doesn't affect anything important, here is a small sample of affected areas:

 

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/science-is-a-non-essential-government-function-apparently

[waitforufo]

And that's simply conservative ideology. Don't bother checking to see if it's really true. That would be inconvenient.

 

Last I checked, plenty of wealthy people (and corporations) got tax incentives.

The difference between dependency incentives and tax incentives is that dependency incentives gives people money they didn't make and tax incentives let you keep the money you did make. Liberals seem to have a week understanding of personal properly. They see no difference between money made and money given. It's all part of "the money" that in their eyes needs to be distributed by the government.

 

If it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be important. What a wonderful attitude.

Perhaps not a wonderful attitude, but I bring it up to make a point. Unlike those on this forum, very few people pay attention to politics or if they do it’s just the circus part of bread and circuses. So for that vast majority the government shutdown is just a meaningless distraction from things that actually interest them. When it does impact them then they will care. The government is desperate to make it impact them. That is why they shut down the WWII memorial. An open air structure in a park. They could have just put up signs that said, "The government is shut down so please pick up your trash." Instead they spend money putting up barry-cades. And that is supposed to make me care about the shutdown?

 

I know it has only been a few hours, but still no impact on me.

[swansont]

The difference between dependency incentives and tax incentives is that dependency incentives gives people money they didn't make and tax incentives let you keep the money you did make. Liberals seem to have a week understanding of personal properly. They see no difference between money made and money given. It's all part of "the money" that in their eyes needs to be distributed by the government.

Yet many of these programs the GOP objects to affect people who have put money into the system. They hit a rough patch and want some of that money back in the form of help. That's how taxes work. Also, it's unreasonable to ask a child to go out and earn money and pay taxes before the government will consider helping them. But the GOP narrative is all about takers, and conveniently ignore everyone else.

 

I think you have no idea what liberals understand. But in this vein, conservatives seem to be clueless about what government actually does and how they benefit. (Refer back to the "you didn't build that" response of the GOP, and tell me how many bridges and highways are actually built by private citizens)

 

Perhaps not a wonderful attitude, but I bring it up to make a point. Unlike those on this forum, very few people pay attention to politics or if they do it’s just the circus part of bread and circuses. So for that vast majority the government shutdown is just a meaningless distraction from things that actually interest them. When it does impact them then they will care. The government is desperate to make it impact them. That is why they shut down the WWII memorial. An open air structure in a park. They could have just put up signs that said, "The government is shut down so please pick up your trash." Instead they spend money putting up barry-cades. And that is supposed to make me care about the shutdown?

 

I know it has only been a few hours, but still no impact on me.

When you say "they shut down the WWII memorial" of course you mean the republicans. The democrats can't do anything until the house calls a vote, and it was this inaction that caused the shutdown. And as they have been publicly plotting this for months, any effort to try and pawn this off on the democrats is grasping at straws.

 

The democrats have asked for nothing aside from a CR *at GOP levels*. There was no tax hike, or return to pre-sequester spending levels attached. If you view this as a negotiation and a situation requiring compromise, then you have to accept that what the republicans would be "giving" the dems is a functioning government and no default on our debt, meaning this is not what the republicans want. IOW, this is a republican shutdown of the government.

[Phi for All]

Wow. The above just bleeds.

 

Liberals just can't buy the idea that government promotes dependency. It's simple too. The government gives you a form. If you check all the right boxes you get money. They even tell you what the right boxes are. Given that goal by the government one can then work at making sure they can check all the right boxes. It's that simple. It's no different than tax incentives. The government creates tax incentives to encourage people to do the things that are incentivized.

 

The conservative part of me knows you're just projecting worst case scenarios on the whole process. It's simple too. You take what you fear most and pretend that's the way it is in every case. The hardest part is ignoring the fact that most people don't become dependent.

 

The liberal part of me knows it's all perspective. Everybody wants to help the widow with five kids, nobody wants to pay for freeloaders, and we all want the Constitution to be upheld.

 

But the progressive part of me really just wants all this tax money spent more wisely, and that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a very long time. We know changing things takes time but we also know you have to start somewhere. Realizing that we all deserve a shot at good health JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CIVILIZED is a very good start.

[EdEarl]

It is not fact or Truth that conservatism is ethically just nor that corporations have the right to work children 16 hours a day, pay wages that deny their employees the necessities of life, make substandard products to cheat their customers, or pay their executives more than 100,000 times the salary of their least paid employee. Laws in the US and much of the world favor the rich because they can corrupt politicians. At one time governments were mostly monarchies, which favored a few at the expense of the many. Many of them were overthrown violently, and the ruling class killed because they were too greedy. It can happen again if the powerful take too much and deny the weak too much.

 

The world is an interconnected system, that is controlled by power; isms are irrelevant. Powerful people can stay in power as long as they do not abuse their position too much. Otherwise, history records that power centers change. In other words, powerful people need to treat the powerless classes pragmatically, and let them live with dignity.

[Tridimity]

Wow. The above just bleeds.

 

Liberals just can't buy the idea that government promotes dependency. It's simple too. The government gives you a form. If you check all the right boxes you get money. They even tell you what the right boxes are. Given that goal by the government one can then work at making sure they can check all the right boxes. It's that simple. It's no different than tax incentives. The government creates tax incentives to encourage people to do the things that are incentivized.

 

Back to the government shut down.

 

Still not feeling the effects. Still don't know anyone who is feeling the effects. I'll keep you posted.

 

I'm guessing you have not spent any period of time living on welfare. It's not fun. It just about suffices to cover shelter and food costs, as it is designed to do. This is no luxury option: I doubt that many people, if anyone at all, makes the conscious decision to choose to rely on state welfare payments. Humans usually crave and seek out opportunities to work, when that work is pitched at the right level - just challenging enough to sustain interest but not so challenging that it is beyond their abilities. In this context, individuals become temporarily dependent on welfare payments when they are experiencing a period of unemployment. If there are people who actually believe that they are better off relying on state welfare than on their own merits and industriousness, then I feel sorry for them because they have been cheated out of their own true worth and their own opportunities for growth. I do not think it helps the situation any to demonise these people - much better to reach out to them and to provide them with work opportunities. The vast majority of people who come to need to use welfare at one point or other will have paid taxes into the welfare system also. There is no real dichotomy here, it's just a simple safety-net mechanism. The only people who fail to see its benefits are those who will never need to make use of it: conservatives.

 

Proposal for an interesting social experiment: give citizens two options at election time - to be wholly in or out of the welfare system. Being committed to the welfare system means continuing to contribute tax payments and, in turn, grants eligibility to welfare payments in times of personal financial hardship; these people are not permitted to work for those who opt out of the welfare system. Those whom opt out are allowed to keep all of their personal fortune and are not permitted to pay taxes! However, they are no longer allowed to seek financial aid from the state should they so require; they are also not allowed to employ anyone who has opted into the welfare system. Liberals can get on with being liberal, conservatives can get on with being conservative - everyone's happy, right? So, what do you think would happen? I reckon everyone would soon realise that it is the 99%, the ordinary workers, who are generating profit - not the 1% of CEOs and super-rich, who are expendable.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Tridimity

[iNow]

The democrats have asked for nothing aside from a CR *at GOP levels*. There was no tax hike, or return to pre-sequester spending levels attached. If you view this as a negotiation and a situation requiring compromise, then you have to accept that what the republicans would be "giving" the dems is a functioning government and no default on our debt...

This part bears reinforcement:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/you-probably-think-the-shutdowns-about-spending-it-isnt/

 

It's true that House Republicans are holding up a spending bill, but they're not holding it up over demands for spending cuts or tax increases or some other package of deficit reduction. In fact, they're happy with the level of spending in the bill. It's a number they proposed, after all.

[CharonY]

 

 

So for that vast majority the government shutdown is just a meaningless distraction from things that actually interest them. When it does impact them then they will care.

 

Just a random selection of effects:

 

Programs such as nutrition programs for women, infants and children will be affected http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/10/02/government-shutdown-9-million-moms-and-babies-at-risk-as-wic-program-halts/

 

Veteran's programs that arguably are already have massive backlogs will set back even further http://www.npr.org/2013/10/03/228733842/government-shutdown-will-add-to-vas-backlog

 

A number of invisible effects are there, as having less safety inspections for airlines

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2013/10/02/government-shutdown-means-airplane-safety-checks-are-suspended/

 

If the shutdown goes on for too long funds for student aids will run out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/29/how-government-shutdown-would-affect-public-schools/

 

But to the most important point is that it does not even matter. Due to the high incumbency rate with rates above 90% plus gerrymandering of districts, the representatives have have virtually nothing to fear. There is simply no accountability.

[jduff]

While I read this debate I get saddened. I watch political agenda in full display(almost disgusting). While I watch families around me suffer. I live near a military base. Of the 10,000 or so civilian workers, 7,000 were furloughed. Of the 18,000 or so troops that call this home. About 10,000 of them have families. The PX is closed due to this shutdown. Many military families are having to leave base just for necessities. Even now some are running out of money. As the lower enlisted ranks do not make much money. But still have families to take care of.

 

My wife who works in the town next to this base hears much. One of the things that she hears is the complaints from army dependents. They neither blame republicans nor democrats. But the stories they tell all have one thing in common. They blame president Obama and his administration. He is the commander and chief.

 

 

Things we see in the media, news channels, are the extension of the DC beltway politics. This includes ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. The reality of those outside that beltway are different. Each day this goes on people are getting angry. No superficial debate, argument, or words will settle this. The reality for most are a family, bills, food. The people outside the beltway are not blaming republicans or democrats, but government as a whole. This includes all three branches.

 

We in the U.S have about two weeks. If it is not settled by then, we will be in trouble! It is bad enough that low information struggling single mothers cannot get milk or cheese for children. Since WIC is closed and are not providing anymore vouchers. But, as of Oct 15th the foodstamp program goes on hold. By Nov it will be completely closed. Ever see crime shoot up or riots in the street. Considering 46 million Americans receive foodstamps! That will be D-Day for us in the U.S, Nothing worse than a drug user who uses foodstamps to support his/her habit. What do you think a addict will do if his or her source of income goes away? Worse, a low income family with multiple children.

 

This time around, the government shutdown is different. We have never had so many dependent on some form of government assistance. We have also not had so many government workers. Here, we can blame whoever we want. But in two weeks it wont matter. And this debate will be useless. Our government needs to settle this quickly!

Edited October 4, 2013 by jduff

[CharonY]

They blame president Obama and his administration. He is the commander and chief.

 

OK, this is something that I do not understand. The system is set up with check and balances and one of these is that congress has to authorize government funds. And they didn't. Over a law that itself has already passed. So, short of rewriting the constitution what could a president do in this regard?

Edited October 4, 2013 by CharonY

[jduff]

 

OK, this is something that I do not understand. The system is set up with check and balances and one of these is that congress has to authorize government funds. And they didn't. Over a law that itself has already passed. So, short of rewriting the constitution what could a president do in this regard?

Consider congress has sent four bills that have been rejected once they get to the senate. A partial bill short term to fund necessary government operations? I do not see your point. Both sides the left and right are fully ignoring each other.

 

As to the president. He is the leader of the U.S, If he wants both sides to get together he can make it happen. Regardless if both sides oppose each other,. HE is the chief. Just as Bush was before him. The issue currently is our president chose one side and not the other. He doesnt want to compromise. No bi-partisanship! This is by far the most divisive government I have seen in my lifetime. The government is non functional from my view. So when its all said and done. The man at the top gets the blame! So I agree with those complaining. For more than just one reason!

 

Good leadership means the government can function. Bad leadership it does not. Both Reagan and Clinton were able to overcome adversity in our government. Lets hope this president can too!

Edited October 5, 2013 by jduff

[Phi for All]

They neither blame republicans nor democrats. But the stories they tell all have one thing in common. They blame president Obama and his administration. He is the commander and chief.

Where else in reality would you seriously hold this stance? Do you fire the CEO because some of his mid-level directors completely violated procedure and caused a costly delay in the project? The problem area is clear and it needs to be surgically removed so sanity and profitability can return.

[jduff]

 

Where else in reality would you seriously hold this stance? Do you fire the CEO because some of his mid-level directors completely violated procedure and caused a costly delay in the project? The problem area is clear and it needs to be surgically removed so sanity and profitability can return.

 

Its not me holding the stance Phi. Bad comparison by the way. Comparing a government which has no profitability to a corporation that is profitable. You are correct sanity is definitely needed. Almost as bad as Obama comparing (Obama Care)AHCA to Apple. Apple is profitable, Apple does not force its product on you. Apple will cut a program that is not working.

 

Need to quit with the non-partisan view. I can do the same just as shown above. Neither will accomplish anything. To prove that point, just look at our government NOW!

To accentuate the governments debt and ability to not gain a profit. Here is the daily treasury statement of the U.S gov. https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=13100200.pdf

 

When reading the pdf remember its in millions. As the Treasury Dept shows in its header!

 

63 billion dollars spent

26 Billion dollars taxed

1.6 Billion dollars borrowed

1 Billion dollars paid in salaries!

 

That is just the first two days of Oct!

 

Not much anyone can argue on that!

Edited October 5, 2013 by jduff