Feds Prep For E-Gov Shutdown 290
dcblogs writes "If the federal government is shutdown midnight Friday, the feds plan to stop updating government Web sites that aren't delivering essential services. 'Most Web sites will not continue, only those Web sites that are part of these accepted activities would continue to operate,' the senior White House official said Tuesday. 'Accepted activities,' refers to essential, life and safety-related government services. The IRS, however, will continue to accept tax returns filed electronically and to process payments. 'We need to be able to collect the money that is owed to the U.S. government,' the official said. Paper-based returns won't be processed."
So ... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Most returns will expecting refunds. The government already has their money. Those that owe money should withhold payment until the store reopens. Heh..I wish...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd expect that, but a human being is generally not what economists would call a "rational actor". Even people expecting a refund often put off filing until the last few days, because doing your taxes is a huge pain in the ass and "expecting a refund" usually means "makes very little money and therefore can't afford to hire a tax preparer".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
I'm serious, I have never administrated a large site like that, but I could technically walk away from the sites I do administrate for several months on end and not have to worry about much of anything outside of security vulnerabilities discovered in the mean time.
Am I just not building enough job security into my jobs or is there something seriously different about these sites that require IT staff to constantly be present?
What about FY2012? (Score:3, Interesting)
If lawmakers can't agree to a budget for the time period starting 7 MONTHS AGO, how are they going to get a FY2012 budget done?
Federal managers aren't spending more than the Continuing Resolution levels, and should be saving some money in case of cuts. Funding them over the CR level would just lead to waste spending in the 'use it or lose it' model (They have until September to spend it all).
They need to pass a status quo budget for FY2011, and get started on FY2012. That is where the problem lies, and where a solution can take place.
Welcome to the real truth (Score:3, Informative)
The real truth of the matter is, the Democrats while in power refused to pass a budget for this fiscal year. Worse they refused to even submit one to the floor all because they were afraid of the ramifications of doing so before the election. In other words, if they had submitted their budget they would have had to campaign with that large deficit number hanging over their heads.
I am all for a government shut down, the problem I have is the press is still giving Obama a free pass. When the press decides to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real truth of the matter is, the Democrats while in power refused to pass a budget for this fiscal year. Worse they refused to even submit one to the floor all because they were afraid of the ramifications of doing so before the election. In other words, if they had submitted their budget they would have had to campaign with that large deficit number hanging over their heads.
I note the new Congress has yet to pass a budget either. What's their excuse?
Re: (Score:3)
Congress won't bother sending a bill to the president's desk unless he indicates he will sign it. So far, he has indicated he won't due to several programs being defunded. Myself, I think all these programs are merely an exercise in sunk cost fallacy, but I'm not in Congress, so...
Re:Welcome to the real truth (Score:4, Interesting)
You conveniently left out that Obama tried to negotiate a budget and the Republicans decided to change their goal from $33 billion in cuts to $40 billion, just a few days ago. Note, I'm an independent, I hate both parties, but really the Tea Party Republicans are being idiots here...and at least some of the non-Tea Party Republicans seem to agree with that sentiment. It's called negotiating; what we instead have is "I'm taking my ball and going home!!"
Furthermore, it's all really idiotic, because that $40 billion or whatever in cuts doesn't apply to this year's budget only. It applies to this year and the next several years! The actual cuts in any given year are relatively small, but they multiply them out over several years to make the numbers look bigger so we're all impressed by how Congress is cracking the whip. And it's moot, since Congress passes a new budget every year (roughly), because next year they could change what's funded/cut anyway; there's nothing forcing them to uphold the cuts/spending made in a previous year.
In short, as usual, the politicians are lying. They could cut $1 out of this year's budget, the remainder out of the next 9 years, and all we'd hear is how they saved $40 billion.
Re:Welcome to the real truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya if deficits were the real issue then it would take some real work to deal with it. That would involve two things:
1) Some cuts to big spending programs. I'm not saying that smaller programs can't share in cuts as well, I mean some rather significant cuts need to be made, however before bothering with that you have to agree to include big ones. Arguing over a couple billion in small programs while refusing to talk about the DoD's $700ish billion is useless and irresponsible. If you really care, you've got to make cuts in multiple places, and the DoD has to be one just because of the size of the budget. That doesn't mean slash and burn, get rid of everything, but it does mean trim off things. Like maybe we could get along with only 8 aircraft carriers instead of 12, as an example.
2) Increase taxes. There is no reasonable way to cut spending enough to close the deficit down without gutting the government to a problematic level. For better or worse, there are plenty of things the government does that people rely on. That means income must increase and that means higher taxes. May not need to be that drastic, if coupled with cuts, perhaps just a restoration to levels around a decade ago but an increase will be needed.
If you are serious about deficit reduction, you'd be talking those things. That they aren't means they aren't.
Now I should note, I'm completely ok with the view that we shouldn't be doing that right now. The economy is still weak, those things could cause it to tank, and economic growth creates solutions of its own to the deficit as revenues increase. It is valid to say "The government can borrow extremely cheaply right now and now isn't the time for cuts or more taxes. Leave it as is for another year, we look at it again when things are better off."
However it really is one or the other. You either are ok with it for now, and need to not whine, or you are willing to make more broad cuts and increase taxes.
This bullshit that is being pulled of "We want to get tough on it, but only tiny programs and NO TAX INCREASES EVAR!" is stupid and shows pretty clearly that deficit reduction is not what they are after.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. While there are no simple solutions for complex problems, the only way that we will get out of this is a combination of cuts and taxes. Get serious and roll back the tax cuts to pre-Bush levels as well as an across the board 10% reduction on ALL programs from the smallest to the largest (SS, Military, etc) and I might have some respect for the "TEA Partiers".
Common sense. I wish it were more common.
Re:Welcome to the real truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Since WWII, Federal revenue has been 18-19% of GDP, no matter what the tax rates were. This suggests that increasing taxes will not significantly increase the amount of money that the federal government collects. If increasing taxes will not increase the percentage of GDP that the federal government collects in revenue (which historical figures suggest is indeed the case), I do not see how increasing taxes will help reduce the deficit.
You are not being factual here. This shows federal revenue varying [taxpolicycenter.org] from 14.4% to 20.4% over that period. That's quite a bit different than 18-19%, which sounds flat. It was not flat.
The highest personal marginal tax rates did vary significantly, from 94% in 1945 to 35% today, but this does not shed light on the subject as it's only one of a large number of contributing variables.
Of particular note, the revenue as a % of gdp dropped from 20.6 in 2000 to 14.9 in 2009. That's quite a significant drop. Combine that with increased apparent spending, which went from 18% of gdp in 2000 to 24% of gdp in 2010 (primarily because of large drop in gdp in 2008-9 due to the recession), and you have a problem.
Back to your point. You were implying that there is a causal relationship between federal receipts and GDP, but your data was faulty. If no such link exists, then increasing taxes will indeed reduce the deficit. In fact, this is strongly suggested by the opposite case in the last decade: we have been cutting taxes, and federal revenue has fallen. Therefore, increasing taxes (within reason) will increase federal revenues, and won't affect GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the partisan politics is really playing a number on things.
Why not just pull up the budget for last year, cut everything by 10%, and call it a day? Everyone gets screwed equally and no one side can complain about their special interest getting screwed more than the other guys'.
Just keep cutting everything by 10% every year until income matches expenditures. At that point, enact a law that says the Federal Government isn't allowed to spend any more money than it makes.
Once we get to that point
Incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
To say it screws everyone equally is wrong.
Most higher income citizens couldn't care less, personally, about nearly all government programs. They still may support their funding and existance, but they wouldn't personally be hurt much if programs went away entirely.
So no, it is not 'equal screwing' in reality, only politically - and in the end who's politics wins or loses is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe neither side (house GOP vs WH) is interested in balancing the budget or reducing our debt. The tea party has no influence whatsoever over this process, as they're clamoring for $1.6 trillion in cuts, including the military, SS, and medicaid. Obviously that is not happening. Therefore, the current posturing by both sides is moot. "Arguing over the bar tab on the Titanic" is the best metaphor I've heard for it.
Re:Welcome to the real truth (Score:5, Insightful)
So, even if they zeroed all discretionary budgets -- kind of like a total shutdown of all the things you're hearing demagogued at the moment -- they still would be running a deficit.
America is broke, and it's getting worse. Bernanke is printing money like a crack addict with a credit card. Inflation is on pace to top 20% by next year. If you're not scared to death by the economics of the situation, then you're not paying attention. Go read what happened to the Wiemar Republic.
$40 Billion, $70 Billion, none of it will make a difference. Call me when they're cutting Trillions from the budget.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're not scared to death by the economics of the situation, then you're not paying attention.
I'm a native-born American (not Native American). So many generations back that I've never met a relative that wasn't born in the US. I have no known relatives outside the US. And three years ago I applied for permanent residency for another country, moving to a location where I know no one there - friends or relatives. Why? Because sitting in the US whining about its imminent demise seemed a little futile.
I could fix the problem. It's easy.
Step 1: Abolish the standing army.
Step 2: default on all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of off topic but I couldn't believe the Republican proposed budget, let's shift profits to private insurance company, shift cost to the poor and retired, and reduce the marginal tax rate on the top 1% to 25%, the lowest level sinc
Re: (Score:3)
So the current best plan on the table is to cut $60B from a budget with an annual deficit of $1400B? They've cut about 0.45% of the deficit.
Good job boys. If we just give up our morning coffee, we'll get that credit card paid off in no time!
Neither party has proposed anything meaningful (Score:3)
But from what I understand, the Democrats aren't offering up anything for cuts, and are just trying to continue overspending at their current levels. If the media's wrong,
$40 billion in cuts spread over several years when the single year deficit is close to $1 TRILLION doesn't qualify as offering anything either. That is a rounding error in a 3 Trillion dollar budget. Let's be frank, NEITHER party has offered a proposal that is meaningful in any way. The cuts being proposed by the Republican party members are insubstantial amounts designed to score political points, not to actually correct our fiscal situation. Any proposal which doesn't have some combination of tax incr
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, the age of News by Sound-bite (and reporters who do zero fact checking.) Gotta love it.
Re: (Score:2)
When you say it like that, it almost sounds as if they've formed a public labor union.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has been in several public labor unions meeting(both sides), there is always compromise. I've never seen on side Say we want to cut X, then the other side say will meet you at the 95% mark, and then the original party say well now we want to cut X+N.
Sometime there will be an issue a Public Union want budge on, but that budge in other areas to make up for it.
For years public unions have been taking reduct after reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
It is well past October 2010. It is way overdue.
They haven't done any real work on the budget that is due October 2011.
Re: (Score:3)
By Law, the president must prepare and submit his proposed budget by integrating and prioritizing inputs from all the cabinet agencies. He starts this in Sept-Dec of 2009, and sends it to Congress in Jan 2010.
Congress receives the President's budget proposal, then holds lots of hearin
Re: (Score:2)
What is the meaning of 'shut-down?' (Score:2)
The IRS, however, will continue to accept tax returns filed electronically and to process payments. 'We need to be able to collect the money that is owed to the U.S. government,' the official said.
So will the government shut-down or not? From some online dictionary, shut-down refers to: "ceasing operations or cause to cease operating."
Now if the IRS will still be working in some capacity, the government will not be shut-down. It's that simple.
Heck, this whole thing reminds me of our ISPs' 'unlimited' data plans which turn out to be capped to a ceiling. It's the same thing with our neighbours to the north...Canada.
My advice: get a better word, for example, 'slow-down.'
Re:What is the meaning of 'shut-down?' (Score:4, Funny)
What is the meaning of 'shut-down?'
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Useless pedantics (Score:2)
So will the government shut-down or not? From some online dictionary, shut-down refers to: "ceasing operations or cause to cease operating."
Sigh... Love to hear people being uselessly pedantic regarding the definition of "shutdown" which is well understood in this context by all parties involved. This has happened before and it will happen again and the word isn't going to change. Get over it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This, out of the 30 something federal workers I work with 1 will be furloughed. I guess you could call us mission critical, we work on an airfield that supports 0 aircraft.
I would lowball half of federal workers could be eliminated with 0 consequences to the government (probably more like 80%).
So, you willing accept a federal subsidy for doing no work? At least poor people admit they are on government welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
This stems from the mentality that the military is our #1 priority and we can't let any of them go.
I work at a federal agency with about 500 employees, and there are only 6 classified as "essential" with another 5 listed as "intermittent/as needed" meaning about 1 hour of work a day.
Break out your number to federal-military and federal-non-military. Civilian employees and contractors to the DoD being classified as federal-military, whether or not they wear a uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally a good idea, in any form of government, to not have large standing army.
Fixed that for you.
Re:The threat is way overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
Essential reading:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm [constitution.org]
Re:The threat is way overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They're on unpaid leave, likely for a few weeks. I know this may come as a shock to a lot of slashdotters, but federal employees and contractors are substantially better paid than the national average. If they can't survive for a few weeks while Congress sorts this mess out, then they deserve it.
Also, your little statistic about "substantially better paid than the national average": stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It's only true if you ignore degrees and experience. I could earn more outside the government in my field; I choose not to because I love what I do and I enjoy knowing my work has a direct impact on the entire country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The threat is way overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually? No, it is not a serious issue. 800,000 GOVT employees *not working* is status quo, is it not?
You know, I get really fucking sick of this attitude. I can't tell if you're joking or not, but [rant mode on].
I used to be a Fed working for an Inspector's General office (as an IT guy), which recovered funds to the tune of FOUR TIMES our operating expenses/budget by performing financial criminal fraud/audit investigations. Yes, we paid for ourselves 3 times over. I went to the office every day and WORKED like any other private worker. So did my auditor and investigator co-workers.
Hell, I do LESS work/have more downtime now as a programmer at a small, privately-held IT company than I did as a Fed.
I still have friends at that office (6 years later) and they'll pretty much ALL be furloughed due to a shutdown. So yeah, this does affect real, normal people with families and bills to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
I know plenty of federal workers, and believe me, most of them are not like your local DMV stereotype.
Do people say stuff like the GP to federal workers?
I work for the British government, and we don't have anything like the "DMV stereotype" here. It would be quite dispiriting if there was a general assumption that I was lazy, incompetent and a leech on the rest of society.
Re: (Score:3)
I know plenty of federal workers, and believe me, most of them are not like your local DMV stereotype.
Do people say stuff like the GP to federal workers?
I work for the British government, and we don't have anything like the "DMV stereotype" here. It would be quite dispiriting if there was a general assumption that I was lazy, incompetent and a leech on the rest of society.
No, they don't. In fact, people talk about the laziness of government employees like they talk about the weather. Makes for an awkward conversation when you point out you're a government employee. As a fed, I've noticed most of my fellow feds are quite competent. We tend to be paid a lot less than in the private sector (at least for developers), but we don't have to work the insane 60-hour weeks that you do in private sector right now. If working only 40-45 hours per week (yes, I work overtime sometime
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The threat is way overblown... (Score:5, Insightful)
The federal shutdown is only affecting 800,000 employees out of a few million uniformed servicemen, civilian employees and contractors. I would be surprised if it's even 25% of the federal workforce.
What this shutdown means is that until the budget goes through, the feds aren't buying any new toys and those considered "non-essential" to the mission of their agency (or department, in some cases) will be treated like dead weight.
Ironically, this would be an excellent time for an audit of the federal labor force and contracts to see who should be permanently let go and/or have their contract torn up.
Of course such an audit would be performed by the same "non-essential" employees that just got furloughed. Also a shutdown has nothing to do with the fed buying new toys. The military and homeland security are the ones that gets all of those new toys and their budgets are still in place. No, what it means is that the government lays off a bunch of employees, quits paying contractors, quits making transfers to state budgets for federal grants, quits accepting new people into social security, quits processing passport requests and stuff like that. All of those things combined are just a fraction of the budget, but impact real people's lives.. The forced shutdown is a symbolic gesture, made by those who won't be impacted by it.
Congress has one main job right now -- to come up with a budget for a fiscal year that are half way through. If they can't do it, then maybe they should look towards themself with regards to non-essential personnel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what you mean by "affecting". Every one of those "few million uniformed servicemen" will be getting half pay for the duration. The civilian employees and contrators will be getting no pay for their work.
All of them can hope to get back pay when the shutdowns ends (if the teabaggers don't block it), but I doubt their mortgage and utility companies shut down their billing during the interim.
Anyone who thinks this is no big deal wasn't paying attention the last time the Republicans pulled t
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks this is no big deal wasn't paying attention the last time the Republicans pulled this stunt.
This is for FY 2011, and should have been passed by October of 2010. Astute calendar watchers will notice that this is more than a month before Republican won in the 2010 elections, and three months before the new winners took office.
Sorry, bro, but the Democrats should have passed this budget almost a year ago.
What is the news here again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we start with the 112th Congress?
Can i get an explanation...? (Score:2)
I want to know, did something happen that the government wants to shut down all internet website.....is this like a getting ready for something type move....like some reason why they do not want to be stuck with websites all together....???
If anyone has links or info on why this would be their move...please share.
Ok, stop paying taxes... (Score:2)
Re:I only wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
it was permanent. This shutdown only brings a temporary respite to the oppression the American people suffer at the hands of it's own government.
Yes, my work on automation software flight plan management for the FAA is very oppressive to you. Douchebag.
Re:I only wish... (Score:4, Interesting)
If the FAA is shut down then twitter could be used to transmit ICAO messages (FPL, CHG, APR, etc) and mobile pbone use on aircraft could be made compulsory.
Re:I only wish... (Score:5, Funny)
BigWingzDaddy: I'm in ur airspace, landing on ur runways (JFK #7) #jfk
TehFlyinator: Hai guise you know what my altitude is in feet? IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAND! #lolz
CommercialCeilingCat: Now taking off my zig (JFK #2) #jfk
LearJetGangsta: Sorry I nearly hit u CCC, was holding the damn iPhone wrong #nearcollision #holdingitwrong
CommercialCeilingCat: np
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't most software for the government written by contractors? As such, isn't that money already allocated? I would expect you would continue to get paid. Now, the air traffic controllers, on the other hand...
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't most software for the government written by contractors? As such, isn't that money already allocated? I would expect you would continue to get paid. Now, the air traffic controllers, on the other hand...
It depends on the project. The particular project I work on is a mixed team of contractors and feds, and I happen to be a fed. Regardless, the contractors are being furloughed along with the feds, since the contracting companies won't be able to bill the government during the shutdown. And no, I will not be getting paid unless Congress decides to back-pay. And with the Republicans in power, I doubt that's going to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, my work on automation software flight plan management for the FAA is very oppressive to you. Douchebag.
This function could just as well be performed by the private sector, more efficiently, and by people who do not regard their paymasters as douchebags. Welcome to the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my work on automation software flight plan management for the FAA is very oppressive to you. Douchebag.
This function could just as well be performed by the private sector, more efficiently, and by people who do not regard their paymasters as douchebags. Welcome to the real world.
No, not really. Basically there are two ways this goes down in government:
1.) Pay Oracle, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. to build it for millions and millions of dollars, then millions more to maintain the godawful piece of VB garbage, or
2.) Retain control of the project with competent leaders, do it right, and save money both on the initial product, as well as on the support that's likely to last decades
Believe it or not, feds are generally the people who used to work in the private sector on the contract sid
Re: (Score:2)
You think your DMV of the sky is so great only because you are not capable of imagining an alternative.
As a taxpayer, I am paying you. I am your boss. Call me a douchebag if you wish.
Imagining a thing does not make it so
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I only wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it was permanent. This shutdown only brings a temporary respite to the oppression the American people suffer at the hands of it's own government.
Oh, yes, the American people are so oppressed. Maybe you should go live in the Middle East, or China, or Nigeria or any other place that the people really are oppressed. The sad thing is that the American people are so narcissistic that they think they are oppressed when they have more freedom and autonomy than most anywhere else on the planet.
Either way.... (Score:2)
Whether or not it shuts down I'm sure the Active Duty military and civilian employees will be paid. As I recall that's the way it worked the last time.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not it shuts down I'm sure the Active Duty military and civilian employees will be paid. As I recall that's the way it worked the last time.
A lot of the articles I've read have said that even military personnel may have a problem getting their paychecks. I think that pretty much every federal employee is at risk of not getting paid if the government shuts down. Oh, except for the politicians of course. They're making sure they still get paid, while the people who actually try to make this country better might not.
Re:Either way.... (Score:5, Informative)
Officially, civilians don't get paid. Not sure about the military. Last time, when they finally passed the resolution they opted to retroactively restore pay for those days (even though no work got done) as a good faith measure. they also realize what a paltry sum federal employee wages are when compared to the actual debt total, so it was a relatively cheap form of goodwill from the guys that just finished pissing off most of the country.
Re:Either way.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Either way.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The more heavily active-duty a soldier is, the greater the degree, and likelihood, that some or all of his basic logistical necessities(food, housing, some degree of medical care) will be being taken care of by Uncle Sam. They might not like not being paid; but they won't be starving in the street(and, because it's the military, just leaving qualifies as desertion...)
Civilian employees, by contrast, with a few possible exceptions in isolated bases or research facilities or the like, are generally only seeing wages+benefits, and are responsible for turning those into food, housing, etc. on the local market. You won't have to go too far down the pay grade before you start running into civilian employees who are not too many weeks away from being unable to make minor little payments like 'rent' and 'groceries'. Quitting wouldn't necessarily be a good career move; but it isn't something their employer can do anything about, and they won't have much of a choice about at least moonlighting elsewhere, if not quitting entirely and job-hunting, if they can't keep food on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
just leaving qualifies as desertion
I wonder how that would get ruled if the person wasn't getting paid.
What happens when the non military people stop getting paid for logistics and food supply?
This underscores the problem with using civilian contractor for front line supplies and services.
Re:Either way.... (Score:4, Interesting)
just leaving qualifies as desertion
Slavery is illegal. There have been a number of lawsuits where people have tried to enter voluntary slavery schemes, and every one was found illegal. Them not paying you but requiring you to be there is slavery (well, actually indentured servitude, which is legally identical at this point). Additionally, you sign a contract to enlist. That contract indicates that you'll get paid for your service. Once they don't pay you, they have breached the contract. The contract may require grievances within the contract be handled by the UCMJ, but legal precedent has indicated that a contract requiring one type of remedy only for violating the contract is effectively invalid if one side determines that the remedy is unfair.
This underscores the problem with using civilian contractor for front line supplies and services.
What, that when you violate your contract with active duty personnel, they will still work for free under penalty of firing squad (or whatever the penalty is for desertion in a time of war), but the civilians won't work for free because you can't shoot them? How is that a problem? If you can't afford to pay for them, perhaps you should evaluate policy of making war while bankrupt. There's nothing wrong with paying civilians for critical services. They are no less reliable than military (and in many cases are ex-military). There's a problem with slavery, whether you are civilian or military.
Re:Either way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Active Duty military people will be forced to remain, even those that fulfill office type jobs, and will be unpaid until a resolution comes.
This is worse than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. This is arguing deck chair arrangement theory.
Re: (Score:3)
Just be careful when you're returning copper for cash that you don't accidentally cut Armenia's fiber internet line.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the budget being argued over IS the FY2011 budget. Of course one might question the wisdom of arguing the budget of the current year when we're already 4 months in but eh.
Blame exists on both sides, not just the Democrats or Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
We're more than 4 months in; from what I saw on the news yesterday, the budget runs from October to October....
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm, wow.
Blame exists on both sides, but right now the shutdown is being caused by a lack of willingness to compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
We're beyond broke. We're 14 trillion in debt. There is no room for compromise on a budget that is only the beginning of a fix. Saying the Republicans are wrong for not compromising makes no sense.
Say you make $100k a year.
Your wife starts spending $500k a year.
You give her a budget that says she can only spend $300k a year and it's just the beginning, more will be cut later.
She says no way, I want $400k a year.
Are you really going to compromise? Seriously? I hope to God you don't run the finances in your h
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Repulicans?? Umm.. No. (Score:4, Informative)
wow, you need to find different pendants to listen too from time to time.
You might want to fact check a little.
the 2010 budget passed. I"m not sure why you think otherwise.
There was some discussion with Blue dogs.
The republican stalled the government through many tactics that where, quite frankly, abusive.
To answer your question:
The republican created an unrealistic and harmful budget. The current Republicans idea of compromise is 'Do it our way or you not compromising.'
So yes, the blame rest solely on the Republican/Tea Party.
Oh, I just read your sig. I should have done that first and not bothered. Clearly you can't think beyond whatever you neo-con masters claim. Her is an interesting fact: That 'whistle blower' situation was manufactured by the media. Specifically: Fox News.
Re: (Score:3)
wow, you need to find different pendants to listen too from time to time.
You might want to fact check a little.
the 2010 budget passed. I"m not sure why you think otherwise.
Because it hasn't been passed......we haven't had a budget since the September 2010. Starting September of 2010, congress has just been passing continuing resolutions agreeing to operate the government at current levels + new legislation. If a budget had already passed we wouldn't have the "Impending Shutdown because of the evil XXX" problem. We'd be fighting over the next budget.
Generally I shy away from Wikipedia, but the information and sources here are mostly accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When were there sixty members of the Democratic Party seated in the Senate all at the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: It's not. This shutdown (if it happens) is OWNED by the Democrat party
Actually I think the current dysfunction at all levels of government in the United States is "owned" by partisan assholes who put the interests of the private organization they belong to before everything else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly this whole issue rests on the shoulders of House Democrats who under Pelosi should have drafted and FY2011 budget passed it and sent it to the Senate. This was all political calculation on their part. They already had lots of heat on them from Obama Care's disgraceful arm twisting method of passing and did not want to have to go into elections with a budget to answer for as well. The Republicans really need to do better at pointing this out.
Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency has Hous
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
remember the size of the group referred to as 'defense jobs'. lots of civilians in the 'defense jobs' category aren't necessarily going to find themselves considered essential this time around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
actually no..and yes.
Active duty will not be paid. If ti's a week, they will get half a paycheck, if the shut down is longer, then no pay. When it restarts, they will get back pay.
Re: (Score:2)
When government shuts down, Congress and the President should have to work sans pay until a budget is hammered out. (Not their aides, mind you, but the actual Senators/Representatives/President.) After the budget is passed, they can resume collecting pay but lose out on any back pay. This would ensure that any shut downs are as shortlived as possible.
Not that it'll ever happen though, apart from one or two Congressfolk publicly rejecting their salary as a "show of support"/upcoming election ploy.
Re: (Score:2)
Over a period of about 2 months, Obama draws a salary of something like $66,000. He has millions of dollars of personal wealth. Not paying him isn't much of a threat.
It would likely have more impact on Representatives and Senators, but even there, there are hundreds of them with large personal fortunes.
Re: (Score:2)
See above, the congress cannot by law change their own salaries for the current session.
Also, their staffs, if they want them to keep working, have to be declared "essential personnel" which they have some sort of special prerogative to do.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a bill proposed to not pay congress for as long as there was a shutdown. It was just posturing of course, because Congress cannot change their own wages for the current session, by law. Also it was ridiculous to think it would pass because it was proposed by a D when the R controls the house.
So basically, yes, congress will get payed, but there's no legal way for congress to change that, even if they really wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice website, bro.
Do your Government masters pay you to make snide comments? Or are you the one who is really employed by them, trying out a bit of reverse psychology? I await your insightful response.