US Federal Government Shutdown

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who knows. I know that I'm not represented in government and have no idea what "representation" is good for. I'm thinking about starting a kick starter campaign in my area against Pete King. Maybe putting up signs that say America Rejects Kings - republicans against Pete King, you know, just because I want to help stress the guy out if I can.

My one belief is in undermining authority. Years ago I railed against the church because I thought they had power. As I got older, I realized that the church held very little temporal authority and was in fact the underdog in modern society, so I joined it. Then I realized that the GOP was the ideological underdog against a populist tide. I joined it to fight. Now, I see the big prize in taking a piece out of the Federal gov. Beyond that, the power is held by established business interests. Life is about searching for goliaths, belittling them and then putting that stone right between their eyes until the day you die.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The issue is that we want much less government and they won't give up an inch. I'm enjoying gov shutdown, but my ideal situation is effective, minimal government. I am very much in favor of anti-trust laws because I agree with you that official government is not the only beast to fear.

One of my major fears is that the powers that be are creating even more entrenched and centralized cronie trusts.

[Montmorency]

My one belief is in undermining authority.

Find me out the front, shootin' all my guns
Man, these Fed c ay!
I'm thinkin' of gettin' bugged
Talkin' shit, getting bashed cause I'm tipsy
Gotta call me savior Big J to come get me
You can find me out the front, fighting every c
Off my head and half drunk

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ICantSpellDawg]

The problem is that what the Tea Party has done is hurting your cause. And my cause, by extension, because we both seek government reform and I'm sure there is lots we would agree on. Regardless, what the Tea Party has done is hijack the whole plane against everyone else's wishes. By the time the shut-down drama is over the Tea Party will be angrier than ever, and the establishment will look like the victim in the eyes of the sane and rational majority.

None of this is good for actual progress, and the price for all this posturing is actual hardship for the needy.

I love to make deals that work, but intransigence with me is a recipe for disaster. I can out-intransigence most. Sure, I'm easy to agree with, but if people want to play games I will just set the whole damn thing on fire because we were cavemen once, if you want to be assholes about it (not you, others). The effects of this shutdown really remain to be seen. Has anything changed for you day 3, BTW? In a material way. Have any payments not gone through or has anything been taken away from you yet? Just curious.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I got an email from the VA explaining that things will get bad if the shutdown runs into November, but no. Not yet. Thankfully veterans programs had a month of grace saved up.

OK. It is the second of Oct. Let's just let the thing go for a few more weeks as a compromise. Let's go for longest shutdown in US history. What is the record?

Edit: it is 21. Let's go for an even 30

[Papewaio]

CDC is closed? So this is how the zombies take power.

[Xiahou]

Who cares. To hell with the GOP.

I think the shutdown is a win/win. If they can use to to generate some real talk about the size and scope of government- great. If it instead backfires and cripples the GOP... who cares? If they can't be a political and ideological foil to the Democrats, then to hell with them anyway. They're too often little more than scapegoats for Obama's failed policies as is. Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate and still made a hash of things... because of the Republicans, obviously.

Everything the Teabaggers say and do is loud, overly aggressive, often bigoted, patronizing, and blatantly anti intellectual.

The same applies to the other side as well. If you can't see that, you need to take the blinders off.

[Xiahou]

Oh the dems say dumb stuff, but the Tea Party acts like they'd shank you for disagreeing if they could. I'm a disgruntled independent, I don't have blinders.

"Loud" should require no evidence. Democrats never let science get in the way of their agendas and only champion it when it supports them. Tea party violence is pretty much non-existent, despite the media desperately searching for examples of it. You can find plenty of "violent" talk from Democratic politicians and actual acts of violence from their union thugs. Remember when libs were calling for Scott Walker's murder? Bigotted? Yeah, they got that covered too.

There are more examples, just look for them.

[Montmorency]

To claim that both sides are equally reprehensible and equally culpable is what takes some blinders to say, or at least serious disingenuity.

Compared to the Repubs, the Democrats have been Mother Teresa the past few political cycles - and that's saying something.

[Xiahou]

Fringe Democrats? Like the entire Democratic party of California?? I feel sorry for you.

Where would I find more violence? At a Tea Party rally or an OWS rally? Where is there more thugishness? At a Tea Party protest or a union protest?

To claim that both sides are equally reprehensible and equally culpable is what takes some blinders to say, or at least serious disingenuity.

Compared to the Repubs, the Democrats have been Mother Teresa the past few political cycles - and that's saying something.

[Lemur]

Has anything changed for you day 3, BTW?

Yup, longtime friend of one of my friends and workmates is now unable to get the cancer treatment she needs. Not sure on the details, but the upshot is that no fed funds = no medicine, and she may die. (In fairness, she might die with the drugs, cancer's a rotten bastard and there are no guarantees. But lack of medicine appears to make termination a more likely bit of business.)

We're looking into some crowdfunding options for her. My friend was talking Ebay or Kickstarter, but I think those a fairly obviously bad vehicles for charity.

Looking into Crowdrise. Open to suggestions. Obviously, emotions are running high.

-edit-

Dang it, need to call my accountant and get the lowdown on tax implications as well. Maybe do an automatic set-aside if this gets classified as a "gift."

[Xiahou]

Lol ya real dangerous stuff. Pelosi is irritating and corrupt, but she hasn't shut down the government over sour grapes either. What the Republicans are doing is insane.

Right, and it's only anti-intellectual when you disagree with it.

Both sides are shrill, (how shrill is subjective, but I'm willing to call a draw), both parties sides are anti-intellectual- Democrats regularly throw science overboard in favor of populism. Both sides have politicians that say gobsmackingly stupid things... a fringe politician named Joe Biden comes to mind. It's easier to find violence and threats from the left than from the Tea Party.

But it's the Tea Party that's the problem. Enjoy your kool-aid, I'm out.

[Papewaio]

Yup, longtime friend of one of my friends and workmates is now unable to get the cancer treatment she needs. Not sure on the details, but the upshot is that no fed funds = no medicine, and she may die. (In fairness, she might die with the drugs, cancer's a rotten bastard and there are no guarantees. But lack of medicine appears to make termination a more likely bit of business.)

We're looking into some crowdfunding options for her. My friend was talking Ebay or Kickstarter, but I think those a fairly obviously bad vehicles for charity.

Looking into Crowdrise. Open to suggestions. Obviously, emotions are running high.

-edit-

Dang it, need to call my accountant and get the lowdown on tax implications as well. Maybe do an automatic set-aside if this gets classified as a "gift."

Do you have a trusted pastor who you could make a donation to a church and they could donate quid pro qo to your friends treatment

Throw in whatever positive media attention you can to the deal without upsetting the charity vehicle... Knowing the Feds it might get treated as drug money laundering

[CountArach]

It's easier to find violence and threats from the left than from the Tea Party.

Remind me... which is the side with all the guns?

[Montmorency]

Xiahou's perspective is not surprising. The closer to your positions a group is, the more venial their flaws seem to you.

The smaller your eyes, however, the worse any opposition seems. Of course the donkey's turds look enormous when your entire field-of-vision is by default obscured by the turd of an elephant.

[Papewaio]

It's easier to see the splinter of the opposition then ones own plank.

[Montmorency]

It's a cave, or whatever.

[Xiahou]

Remind me... which is the side with all the guns?

Pretty sure neither side has all the guns.

Xiahou's perspective is not surprising. The closer to your positions a group is, the more venial their flaws seem to you.

Montmorency's perspective is not surprising. The closer to your positions a group is, the more venial their flaws seem to you....
I'd continue on with your turd allusion, but I think you're already flinging enough feces for the both of us.

I'm just saying the proof is in the pudding. Are you defending the Tea Party tactic of holding the budget hostage to the ACA debate?

No, that is most certainly not what you said. You said they would shank you for disagreeing with you. Ironically, if a tea partier ever said in public what you said, it'd be trumpeted as proof positive of how violently disposed they are.

On to your question- I think there's a lack of understanding about our legislative processes here. The ACA was rammed thru Congress while the Democrats had control- as was their right to do. The GOP now controls the House- they initiate the spending bills. They created one without funding for the ACA- as is their right. The Senate and the President made it clear they would pass no such thing- again, that's their right.

This is where I see the disconnect. Many seem to be arguing that the only thing the GOP-run House is entitled to do is completely cave in to the Senate/President- why? This could be a great opportunity for some inter-party quid-pro-quo. Obama could kick the mandate down the road a year and extract some new taxes from the GOP in return. Or he could finally promise to approve the Keystone Pipeline in return for passing the budget he wants. The House might bite on these offers.... they might not. We're not likely to find out, because the Democratic negotiating tactic from the outset has been to tell the GOP to go screw themselves.

They're supremely confident that this shutdown will reflect badly for the GOP while leaving themselves blameless. Therefore, they feel safe in digging in their heels. Maybe they're right. But if whenever the White House trots out their latest showpiece in the Shutdown Theater and the GOP offers to fund whatever it is in a piecemeal fashion, it leaves the Democrats to actually vote against funding what they're trying to lay blame on the GOP for.

I can't help but wonder if they're being a tad over-confident here. This is a different shutdown than the Clinton-era one. That was over Medicare funding vs tax cuts- a hard PR sell for the GOP. Obamacare, on the other hand is quite unpopular. Also, Clinton was in constant negotiation with Gingrich last time- he wasn't obstinately telling the opposition that it was his way or the highway.

Like I said, the Democrats are very confident that they're on the right side of the PR war here. Maybe they are. But they're deliberately not trying to find any kind of resolution to the shutdown- because they think they don't need to. We'll see.

[Montmorency]

Many seem to be arguing that the only thing the GOP-run House is entitled to do is completely cave in to the Senate/President- why?

More extremism. 'If we don't get our way - all of it - then that must mean we're caving in.'

The House Republicans are entitled to use their position to moderate the activities of the rest of the Federal govt - not to suicidally body-slam themselves in pursuit of mutual destruction.

because the Democratic negotiating tactic from the outset has been to tell the GOP to go screw themselves.

Other way around. Maybe try sitting a few meters away from the manure heap?

If the Republicans favor the piecemeal approach so much, let them present a coherent case opposing each category of federal activity besides those they've so graciously offered to fund, and put out an orderly list of suggested improvements empathetic to the range of movement the Democrats might actually tolerate. This shouldn't be up to Obama. He's not the one looking for huge concessions. If the Republicans are willing to cause a huge ruckus with no goal in mind other than pure snarling rage, then it should not surprise them to be dealt with as savage wildlife. You can't negotiate with a grizzly bear - all it wants is to kill you and/or drive you out of its territory. If the Republicans want to return to the human side of things, they can of course propose a number of alternatives and workable scenarios (as opposed to 'JOIN US OR DIE'), or even a comprehensive plan for reform of the entire federal government.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The berserk chimpanzee gets put in the cage.

[Idaho]

To an outsider the whole thing seems a bit mental. Although I suppose in the UK system, a parliamentary majority by the opposition would vote for a dissolution of parliament and a general election, rather than just shutting down the country. In some respects an election now in the US might well solve the issue. The electorate can give their opinion and the elected officials would be oblidged to go along with it.

Are there any opinion polls on what's going on? What's the general opinion? Does it just fracure on usual party lines, or are people annoyed with one side or the other more?

[Andres]

Congress gets paid during a shutdown, while staffers don't.

It's one of the cruel paradoxes of the government shutdown: The politicians who are most responsible for the chaos will still get paid. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of federal workers either get sent home or see their paychecks delayed.

It's probably no news to anybody here, but it's still worth mentioning imo.

Politicians aren't just detached from reality, their detachment is institutionalised:

Blame the law. And the Constitution. And Congress for not changing the law.
(...)
The current Congress can't actually stop itself from getting paid. That's because the 27th Amendment specifically says that the salaries of the House and Senate can't be altered until the start of a new term. The idea was to prevent members of Congress from handing themselves a raise before an election took place.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are not really nonpartisan on this. As i've stated before - if you rely on the government for services you are a Democrat. Old Republican Americans don't know it yet, but they are hypocritical, social security /medicare junkie democrats. Everyone is a lotus eater and that is destroying the country.

You can have all of the policy positions in the world. If you love a government that coddles people and pulls your purse strings, you are a slave - even the best of us - and your position on government spending is written in stone. I want to get back to someplace sustainable, where people can have substantive federal spending negotiations without everyones livelihoods being affected. This can't seem healthy that the Federal government (a giant doomed behemoth)is all that lies between you and financial ruin.

I consider Obamacare to be a compromise (even though it was passed by Democrats) and my issues with it are now academic. As I have stated, this is merely an opportunity to shut the government down over an out of control and all-corrupting budget which seems to only be getting worse.

[Ironside]

You are not really nonpartisan on this. As i've stated before - if you rely on the government for services you are a Democrat. Old Republican Americans don't know it yet, but they are hypocritical, social security /medicare junkie democrats. Everyone is a lotus eater and that is destroying the country.

You can have all of the policy positions in the world. If you love a government that coddles people and pulls your purse strings, you are a slave - even the best of us - and your position on government spending is written in stone.

Up for supporting your parents and/or grandparents?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I plan on them living with me. They have made wise financial decisions and worked overly hard (I don't work that hard). Too many families destroy themselves with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling - and completely destroy their family connection, believing that they can just rely on government for all of their needs. People are no longer self-sufficient. I don't want to rely on a system that I despise for all of my livelihood, and I don't want to be beholden to that system when I vote.

I just want the government out of as much as possible. They aren't giving us any space anymore. Does no one else see this?

[Ironside]

I plan on them living with me. They have made wise financial decisions and worked overly hard (I don't work that hard). Too many families destroy themselves with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling - and completely destroy their family connection, believing that they can just rely on government for all of their needs. People are no longer self-sufficient. I don't want to rely on a system that I despise for all of my livelihood, and I don't want to be beholden to that system when I vote.

I just want the government out of as much as possible. They aren't giving us any space anymore. Does no one else see this?

Hint. If you're growing up in that family with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling you might not want to be financially responsible for your parents as well, they'll trap you, while the state liberates you. People ruined themselves that way loong before there were any state safety nets.

One of the most vital drivers for divorce is female economical independence. What does that tell you?

If you got a good family, good for you. A lot of people haven't got one. What should they do? Run away? Spend their lifetime to pay and repair something that was never really working?

As an induvidual, does the state paying for your education make your more or less free than your parents paying for it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hint. If you're growing up in that family with divorce, infidelity, drugs, gambling you might not want to be financially responsible for your parents as well, they'll trap you, while the state liberates you. People ruined themselves that way loong before there were any state safety nets.

One of the most vital drivers for divorce is female economical independence. What does that tell you?

If you got a good family, good for you. A lot of people haven't got one. What should they do? Run away? Spend their lifetime to pay and repair something that was never really working?

As an induvidual, does the state paying for your education make your more or less free than your parents paying for it?

Less free. You stay and work on your family. It doesn't have to be a prison if you love one another. Life without a strong family is a miserable thing. The good news is that every person can build strong family. You don't have to be related by blood. Find a spouse after years of getting to know them. Make good people aunts and uncles to your children. Be good to them. Adopt children who need support. Support those that you love.

Reliance on the State is an empty road to nowhere. Start building at home. Too many people have written off real support systems as a result to the State. While the State is a good crutch when you need one, I see people walking around every day with 10 to 20 crutches.

The only degrees that the state pays for should be online degrees. They cost a fraction of what university does and people can work while they are in school. I worked full time during school and commuted.

[HopAlongBunny]

From the outside looking in:
This whole schmozzle strikes me as an ideological confrontation.
Dangerous, because where faith rules everything is permitted.
Good luck avoiding the crunch

[ICantSpellDawg]

From the outside looking in:
This whole schmozzle strikes me as an ideological confrontation.
Dangerous, because where faith rules everything is permitted.
Good luck avoiding the crunch

Oh, it is. I do appreciate how how the old adage is "we don't negotiate with terrorists". The new adage is "we don't negotiate". Some people are trying to suggest that people who have policy differences are simply terrorists, failing to appreciate the difference between the violent application of terror with an interest in snipping the budget. What reasonable people we have.

[HopAlongBunny]

Oh but there is violence.
The policy has purposely disrupted peoples livelihood and well-being; the economic violence is directed toward bending others to a particular policy outcome; the fear created is being used coerce other parties to accede to the will of the actor (IE: they might just be crazy enough to blow us all up=>we better give in)
Violence to create fear in the pursuit of goal; what is missing from the def'n of "terrorism" ?

[Lemur]

if you rely on the government for services you are a Democrat.

Not sure how to unpack that dense brick of wrongness.

First of all, if you think Americans vote in their economic self-interest, then you haven't done any reading on the subject. I mean, you haven't even glanced at Wikipedia. You haven't bothered to learn anything on the topic.

The "base" of the Republican party is old and white, and takes more Federal dollars than any other group of non-veterans. And more importantly, they don't see it as a handout. I tried to explain to a hardcore Republican friend that his mortgage deduction and EIT credits were both middle-class payoffs. His head nearly exploded. The notion that the forgiveness of a tax debt was a payment, while obvious to anyone who has ever worked with an accountant, was utterly foreign to him. He refused the notion point-blank.

(This is pretty typical. If I'm receiving a payment or benefit, it's my hard-earned right and it's fair and it's just and equitable. If you are receiving a payment or benefit, you are a parasite and a leech and I'm not gonna pay for your damn lifestyle.)

And then there's this:



So, yeah. And then there's the fact that you consider me, a moderately successful dude who has actually started businesses and done okay in the private sector—what was your word?—an "outlier," or an "anomaly," or whatever the word you used.

Gah. Slowly, so the whole room can follow the idea: Americans. Do not. Vote. In their economic self-interest. (Or, to be more precise, the link between economic self-interest and voting patterns is "extremely weak," as the researchers say.)

Other point: You do not get to define who is in what party. People self-identify, and if they say they are Republicans, they are. If they say they are Democrats, they are. The moment you position yourself as superior to other people, judging who deserves to really be in one party or another ("Oh not him! He's a RINO!"), you self-identify as an arrogant ass.

-edit-

You treat the government like a protector rather than a parasite.

Another dense package of wrongness.

I view governments, corporations, cooperatives, LLCs, partnerships, unions, armies, and navies as ways to organize human beings and resources. None is inherently superior to another; all have their appropriate application. All can be parasitic, all can be beneficial. Depends on the cirumstances, context, and (most importantly) the truth revealed by real-world application. This is called empiricism. It also used to be a core element of conservatism, before that word got corrupted beyond all meaning.