What a Government Shutdown Will Mean For NASA and SpaceX (theverge.com) 198
Ars Technica reports of how the government shutdown affects federal agencies like NASA, as well as commercial companies like SpaceX: So far, NASA has been keeping quiet about this particular shutdown and has been directing all questions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. But NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, told employees in an email obtained by The Verge to be on alert for directions over the next couple of days. "If there is a lapse in funding for the federal government Friday night, report to work the same way you normally would until further notice, and you will receive guidance on how best to closeout your activities on Monday," he wrote in the email. The most recent guidance from NASA, released in 2017, indicates that all nonessential employees should stay home during a shutdown, while a small contingent of staff continue to work on "excepted" projects. The heads of each NASA center decide which employees need to stay, but they're typically the people who operate important or hazardous programs, including employees working on upcoming launches or those who operate satellites and the International Space Station.
NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.
NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.
More important than ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Space exploration could move on without D.C.
Because we know the rest of the world sure isn't going to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
And all programs that are already funded as part of the federal government are also not being suspended. This is allocating more money. But, e.g. the Smithsonian is staying open through the weekend because it had two more days of funding allocated a while ago.
Nothing (Score:2)
All that happens is that give everyone a week off then give everyone a bonus later.
If you look at the amount of money that given departments got over a year with or without a shutdown... and it works out to about the same.
Its all political bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
when the US government shuts down, it doesn't shut down our military or our state department or any of the things your country likely interacts with... all of that remains active shut down or not.
As to you hating my government, compared to which government? Who is less hated than the Americans that actually matters? You'll cite what... Switzerland or some other irrelevant power that isn't liked or hated as much as ignored.
Name a relevant world power that is liked more than the US... when you fail... I'll wi
Re:Nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Also, according to this and a few other sources... you do seem to get paid back:
https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]
""But just because workers are furloughed doesn't mean they'll go without pay. Once the government starts up again, most furloughed works will receive back pay for their time off. Bloomberg crunched the numbers and came up with a specific tab: $174 million per day the government is shut down. And this really is a cost, not just a reimbursement. Work that needs to get done (processing tax returns, issuing passports) piles up while employees are furloughed, creating a need for massive overtime once the government starts back up.""
So... is this wrong? This lines up rather cleanly with what everything costs after a shutdown. There are no savings. There are if anything costs. You say "we lose a week of pay"... tragic... so where is the savings off the federal balance sheet? It doesn't exist. So...
So... Sir, bullshit on YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet somehow your department spends the same amount.
Look at the funding. The money flowing into these departments is the same whether they have a shut down or not on a year over year basis.
As to you losing a week of pay, I'll accept your anger at me, if you accept my anger at you for a long long list of things that can easily be thrown at over paid lazy as shit federal employees.
Want to play that game? Shall I list the median federal salary and compare that to the average US worker?
Should we list your be
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]
Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
Worst case you're going to get a bunch of overtime when it starts back up again which will level your pay back up.
I almost felt bad for a minute... I looked into it... maybe there is something going on with "you" but from what I can tell... the vast majority of workers that stay home during a shut down get paid back one way or another.
That you're telling me not to talk when you're wrong and I'm apparently right. Maybe you shouldn't talk if all you're going to do with the privilege is lie?
Just an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
All that happens is that give everyone a week off then give everyone a bonus later.
Complete bullshit.
As a GS9, I will simply lose a week of pay. I can't even use my leave to fill in the gap. Like the rest of the GS folks and most of the WG folks i - * WE * will lose a week of pay.
The exception are "mission essential" personnel - and that's not a whole lot of folks.
Kindly don't talk about things you know nothing about.
Yes, as a former state worker, I had to suffer through furloughs, there wasn't any free personal leave, you simply went home for a few days, i.e. LWOP (leave without pay).
Learn from Australia (Score:5, Interesting)
The Australian government can't shut down in practice, because in a "loss of supply" situation, the Prime Minister must resign or Parliament is dismissed and a fresh election is called for everyone, half term or not. (Or, if the PM chooses to do neither, be sacked as happened in 1975.)
Learn, guys. Politicians aren't so quick to block supply if they are the ones who are going to be stood down.
Re: (Score:2)
But, perhaps I am taking a parochial view the UK and Australia are unusual in this respect. Can anyone come up with some examples of other nations that enjoy similar "budget confusion" based holidays?
Re: (Score:2)
Ireland triggered its safety valve in the early 80s IIRC. I think it's a feature of the Westminster system.
Re: (Score:1)
If a bill introducing a budget is defeated in Westminster, it is considered a vote of no confidence and a general election follows. There can be a budgetary hiatus until the election happens.
Re:Learn from Australia (Score:5, Informative)
The Australian government can't shut down in practice
Well no, it's unlikely to shutdown, as you said it has already happened in the past. Also it's quite interesting holding Australia up as an example of politicians working in their own interest. We have had an incredible number of double-dissolutions (parliament dissolved and politicians lose their jobs due to deadlock) to say nothing of the stubbornness that ultimately leads to an endless string of early elections, changing ministers, etc.
The actual reason Australia doesn't have shutdowns like the USA is because bills of supply and appropriation shall not contain matters not related to supply or appropriation. I.e. It's not possible to discuss a budget while tacking on some stupid rider like DACA protections or CHIP. The only thing you can discuss is the budget and they are segregated into multiple documents that it is very unlikely for a single supply bill to shutdown the government. The only reason this happened in 1975 is because the fundamental fight was on the funding of the government and the loans the government was making.
Whereas the USA sees the funding bills as opportunities to wave cocks around and force the other party to pass something unrelated.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. It's more fair to say the system means we shouldn't have a shutdown, and there is punishment for not following the system.
And yeah, Australian politicians are not paragons of selflessness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, and the solution to this problem is available, it's just not as widely known as it should be. Tell everyone you know about One Subject At A Time Act [downsizedc.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
Learn, guys. Politicians aren't so quick to block supply if they are the ones who are going to be stood down.
It's too late now. We can't fix that without amending the constitution, or having a revolution, because congress sure ain't going to pass an amendment making them responsible for anything.
Big Deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US had a month-long "shutdown", I believe, in the late 90's. Most of the federal government stopped working, except the military, FBI and federal hospitals. The vast majority of US citizens didn't notice a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Parliamentary system, so things are a little different. The government goes into what is known as caretaker mode [wikipedia.org].
A new meme (Score:2)
Houston, we're shutting down; will get back to you in a few
So inquiring minds want to know (Score:2)
Does this mean the James Webb Space Telescope is going back into the freezer?
Simple- spend what you make (Score:3)
There is a better way to prevent shutdowns:
A) Fed no longer allowed to borrow any money
B) Fed adjusts taxes to match spending
Yep, it is just that simple. Spend only what you make. Chose your poison- either raise taxes or cut spending or both. And when they find that is really, really hard, then they should re-read the Constitution about what the Fed is supposed to doing (hint: probably 90% of the spending isn't really Constitutional).
Re: (Score:3)
B) Fed adjusts taxes to match spending
Yep, it is just that simple. Spend only what you make.
This is America. As a citizen, I'm pretty sure the right to spend money on stuff you don't have is covered by the 28th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I would imagine that would cause more shutdowns (that might last a shorter duration) as they spend money up to/over the limit until there is a new influx of money from taxes. "
There is a word for that- "savings." Make savings part of the budget and then we have a buffer until we can, again, lower spending or raise taxes.
The problem is the mentality that we can just borrow our way out of problems. It doesn't work. "In 2015, the United States government spent $223 billion in tax dollars just to servic
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
First shutdown of the United States government for the sake of Mexicans, Hondurans, and El Salvadorans! Glad to know we can count on the Democrats to put their needs first before those of American citizens! I'll be sure to remember at the polls and vote accordingly! Good job, Schumer!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That whooshing sound is the point passing way over your head. Let me explain the post you're replying to: The Republican Party controls both houses and the executive branch. How in the name of holy fuck is this the fault of Democrats?
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side controls everything.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side barely controls everything.
FTFY. The republicans hold 52 seats, and the democrats hold 46. The fact that this measure failed to pass is, I think, a good sign. It shows that both parties are willing to cross ranks when they feel that a given measure violates their personal convictions. That's far better than political flunkies just blindly following whatever their party decides.
For the record, the measure failed 50-49, with 5 republicans opposing it, and 5 democrats supporting it.
This outcome has done more to restore my faith in US politics than anything else has in a long time.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administra (Score:4, Insightful)
We may disagree on whether or not he's a loser, but I'm glad that we can agree that him fixing America - intentionally or otherwise - would be a good thing. Far too many democrats seem like they would much prefer to have him destroy America so that their own biases can be shown to be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing what's wrong with the US would be nice, but Trump's not going to do it.
You do realize that Congressional Republicans talked about making sure Obama lost, without regard as to whether the US would win.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administra (Score:2)
I was going to refrain from relying just so I didn't ruin your response, but I decided to comment just to let you to know I agree 100%. Cheers.
Re: Trump doesn't have majority *Republican* suppo (Score:1)
I could go on
I'm sure you could, but your entire response thusfar has been weird democrat talking points with no sources or nuance, so why bother? If you "going on" means more of the same, then please, don't bother.
It's called a filibuster (Score:5, Informative)
In the Senate, it takes 60% (60 votes) to pass a bill, if any "one* Senator decides to stop the bill by filibuster.
The Democrats chose to filibuster and shut down the government unless DACA (immigration amnesty) was attached to the funding resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
The voting failed 50-49, with 5 Republicans voting no and 5 Democrats voting yes. Trying to pin this down on Democrats alone is, at best, naive.
Re: (Score:2)
even if those 5 Republicans had voted for the bill, it would not have passed (hint 50+5 60)
And yet, they didn't.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't take 60 votes to pass every bill, just most of them.
The Republicans could have passed a budget with a bare majority in both houses, and zero input at all from Democrats. Instead they used that process to pass tax cuts. That process is reconciliation. Budget reconciliation.
They Republicans don't have a functional enough majority to pass a budget, so they rely on stopgap measures like continuing resolutions to keep the lights on, which requires the support from some Democrats and opens up the filib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First shutdown ever for a majority administrati (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.
They want to be able to pass the budget without a deal, just have the Dems roll over (which frankly they are pretty good at). Now that they're taking a page from the Rep's playbook, suddenly it's unfair.
Cry me a river, and then dump pollution in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.
Because then he'd be seen as backing down on the border wall. That's the real sticking point. DACA isn't really politically controversial -- the overwhelming majority of Americans want a deal for the Dreamers, including a majority of Republican voters. But the Freedom Caucus wants to couple that with funding Trump's border wall [thehill.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that bills in Congress were to address a single item only.
Lol, let me know the last time that happened.
Re: (Score:2)
If bills in congress had to address a single item only then so much bad crap wouldn't get passed because someone managed to get it into a bill that no-one can say no to.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, but it would be nice. I'd support a Constitutional amendment that limited the House and Senate to passing bills without irrelevant riders.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:3)
I don't think that's correct. There were 5 partial shutdowns (where employees weren't furloughed) between 1977 and 1979 where the democrats had full control under Carter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GOP House approved continuing resolution: 230–197 In the Senate, the GOP had 51, needed 60. Got 52. Almost all 49 Democrats voted against CR. Go on how this is a GOP shutdown.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time in 2017 the GOP wanted to pack the Supreme Court with their extremist anti-abortion candidate, and made it happen by cancelling the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. If the GOP really wanted to avoid a shutdown they had the votes to cancel the filibuster and pass whatever spending bill they wanted and there would be nothing the Democrats could do about it.
Besides, the GOP wanted this shutdown as much as the Democrats did. Each party believes beyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Posting AC.
A: The economy was just as good under Obama, when he left. In fact, Obama presided over the worst economic time since the Great Depression and left with the Dow setting record highs.
B: The jobs are few and far between. For example, Apple's data center is run by a skeleton crew of maybe 15-20 people at most. Lets be real here. These jobs may benefit a few in California, but for 95% of the nation, it does not help them in the slightest. In fact, revenue just gets sucked off and stashed overseas, ne
Re: (Score:1)
Animal dung has been a source of fuel in wood-scarce regions for the whole history of human civilization.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:3, Informative)
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
It's not great, but it's definitely an improvement.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:5, Informative)
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administra (Score:2)
Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
I was responding to the original comment which claimed the debt world grow by 1.5 trillion. If, as you say, that's on top of the projected growth, it changes things but not that much. The "projected growth" is an accumulation of programs built by every president before Trump. So how close did Obama come?
Well, depending on how you measure it, he added anywhere between 0.983 trillion and 9 trillion [thebalance.com]. Let's go with the smallest number. 0.983 in 8 years is 1.22 in 10 years.
In other words, under the best pos
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administr (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah - it tells me you are an idiot. He did that during one of the worst economic downturns in history - as a result - the US largely weathered the storm.
Trump did it while removing regulations that ensure you, and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the biggest economic crashes in a century. Right now you are in an âoeeverythingâ bubble - and Trump is doing his best to make sure wallstreet can maximize the damage inflicted should a crash occur.
And to the original point - most of
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administ (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump did it while removing regulations that ensure you, and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the biggest economic crashes in a century.
Well that's awesome; I don't want to suffer the consequences of the biggest crash in centuries, so I'm glad to hear that Trump removed the regulations which guarantee I will. Nice to meet another Trump fan on here!
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:4, Informative)
In 2001, the projected 10 year surplus was ~5.6 trillion, with the national debt standing at ~5.7 trillion. That means, if the projection held true, we stood within 11 years of eliminating the national debt. And, of course, we remember what republicans did: a tax cut, a give away to big pharm, and two wars put straight onto the debt. Given the choice, republicans exploded the debt instead of paying it off. They actively chose to fuck over everyone except the 1%. And lets put this in perspective... that tax cut was supposed to cost 1.6 trillion over 10 years, but over just 8 years our debt exploded to 10.6 trillion... a 5 trillion dollar increase... BECAUSE republicans chose to say "the debt doesn't matter," right Dick.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/... [cbpp.org]
The Bush tax cuts are responsible for a full 1/3rd of our current national debt. You know, those tax cuts that republicans swore wer going to pay for themselves, increase growth, and increase revenue. And just as they did when Reagan passed his tax cut.... they didn't do anything the republicans swore they'd do. revenue fell (duh), growth was anemic at best (much slower job growth and slightly slower GDP growth than when Clinton was in office), and the national debt exploded.
And lets face it, this tax cut bullshit is ll based on Dick "the dick" Cheney's Laffer Curve which was never anything more than a line on a napkin...with no numbers attached. It was the basis for the supply-side economics bullshit that has driven this country into massive debt. Even the guy who developed it for Reagan says it doesn't work. But, true believes always have brown eyes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Quite simply put... there are no fiscally conservative republicans. All there is is a bunch of anti-federal government, anti-American politicians that are leeching everything they can out of this countries coffers for themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
Because, of course, while you have have republicans screaming about spending less, they're pushing through tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy: https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
Reagan enacted two tax cuts, one in 1981, one in 1983. 11 tax increases later Bush Sr. was elected and he... raised taxes more.... then Clinton raised taxes a record with a record breaking increase. Net results after all those tax INCREASES.... longest period of growth in US history, and a budget surplus for 4 years. Took republicans less than 2 years to fuck it all up.
I've got a great idea... if this tax cut doesn't do what republicans say it is going to (which it wont, because they NEVER have), then every single congress person that voted for it, and every single citizen who voted in those congress people... every one of them should forfeit every single penny they have to pay for their fuckup. Reagan cut taxes, the debt exploded; Bush Jr cut taxes, the debt exploded; Who wants to bet on a 30 trillion national debt in 5 years?
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administra (Score:2)
You seem inanely focused on cutting taxes, without bothering to look at expenditures. Why is that?
It's pretty obvious that, if you cut taxes and keep expenditures the same, then the dwpt is going to go up for a number of years. Eventually, of the tax cuts stimulate the economy, they might pay for themselves or even turn a profit. But you're not leaving any room for that effect, and you're not considering expenditures which have been mandated by past governments. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, of the tax cuts stimulate the economy, they might pay for themselves or even turn a profit.
No, they don't. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] and while each big tax cut has made those rosy predictions/promises, they've NEVER happened.
https://www.gq.com/story/repub... [gq.com]
The University of Chicago polled 38 economists, and 37 said it would blow up the country's debt. The one guy who responded that it wouldn't later said he misread the question, and, yeah, those other 37 are right.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administ (Score:1)
Most of Obama's debt tally is putting Bush's wars on the actual budge and towing the economy out of the ditch Repubs crashed it into.
Actually most of Bush's debt tally was putting Clinton's social spending on the actual budget and towing the economy out of the ditch Democrats crashed it into.
See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated allegations?
Re: (Score:2)
If i knew you were simply a lying little shill, i wouldn't even try to educate you. Pull your head out of your ass.... even wikipeadia knows you're just being a lying bitch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration.
Bush's tax cuts:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts
In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018.[8] This means that the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for roughly one-third of the federal debt owed by 2018
Bush's wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.
Is it too much to ask for you to have just a hint of honesty or integrity?
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:4, Interesting)
There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.
False. Please see the facts at the Federal Government itself [treasurydirect.gov]. The national debt increased every single year since 1957. How does a debt increase if you have a surplus? Answer: it doesn't. The "surplus" was for a subsection of the entire national budget only. When you look at the entire, actual budget, we spent more than we brought in every single year since 1957. Proof? The national debt has increased every single year since then.
What Clinton did, was essentially ignore some of the spending. It would be like a person spending $7,000 per month, making $6,000 per month, and claiming they are actually cash-flow positive because they ignore the $2,000 per month in rent they pay. Hey, they only spent $5,000 per month on $6,000 revenue - if you ignore that $2,000 per month payment over there...
Smoke and mirrors. Completely false.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the national debt kept increasing because there are several things that don't go through the budget. THAT has happened since the country has had a budget, but Clinton didn't add things to that off-budget group just to hide spending... Bush Jr. actually did inten
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how you can have debt increase without borrowing more money. And please explain how having a surplus of funds means you have to borrow money to pay off expenses.
Your point is that if you ignore some mandatory spending (off budget expenditures), you can claim you actually have less spending! So, if you have $10,000 monthly income, and $12,000 of monthly expenses, by moving your $1500 rental payment and $1000 credit card debt payment to "off budget" expenditures, you now have a surplus of $50
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton had 4 years of budget surpluses. Those surpluses did not cover the off-budget expenditures. That means WE HAD A BUDGET SURPLUS, BUT THE NATIONAL DEBT WENT UP.
Clinton didn't invent off-budget expenditures, they've been happening since 1937. The year with the most off-budget spending while Clinton was president is
Re: (Score:2)
So - a SINO? Surplus In Name Only? We ended up spending more than we took in, but because we didn't count ALL our spending in the official total, we had a surplus?
And you call me stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The budget is a yearly thing; the national debt is an aggregate total of ALL budget surpluses/deficits since the beginning of the country. Spending in a given year is mostly covered by the budget , however, there has always (at least, since 1937) been c
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so basically because the budget doesn't cover all spending, we can have a budget surplus whilst increasing out national debt. Exactly as I stated. And showing it to be a true "smoke and mirrors" thing. Sure - you had a surplus on SOME of your spending, but all your spending? No surplus at all, you still added to your debt. Is that really a surplus, or just a political game you can play to claim a fake victory?
I'll tell you what - you give away ALL your money save $10, but since none of your expens
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it, dipshit.... say we're in the middle of a budget year, and some country attacks us. You're way we'd have to wait till the next budget is passed to do anything because there's no money to do anything. Reality says you pass an emergency spending bill and attack back. Are you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the budget surpluses were the only years I can remember when the budget was able to be balanced with smoke and mirrors. In no other years were intake vs. outflow of money that close.
Check out deficits under Republican and Democratic Presidents. You have to go back a long way to find a Republican that reduced the deficit, or a Democrat who increased it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.factcheck.org/2008... [factcheck.org]
https://www.t [thebalance.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Now, go and look at the record of annual debt [treasurydirect.gov] and tell me when it went down. Oops! You can't - at least after 1957. Even FactCheck fell for the lie, as you did. They define a deficit correctly - it causes the debt to go up. But then they hand-wave and say "well it still went down because we shifted some debt from one account to another". Doesn't work.
Face it - you're wrong. You are trying to find sources to support you - and they even contradict you (and themselves, interesting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administra (Score:3)
lol. Whatever universe you are living in, I want to be there.
Re: First shutdown ever for a majority administrat (Score:5, Informative)
Federal Government says you are wrong [treasurydirect.gov].
Total debt on Jan 21, 2009 (first day of the Obama presidency): $10,625,053,544,309.79.
Total debt on Jan 20, 2017 (last day of the Obama presidency):$19,947,304,555,212.49.
Total increase in debt during the Obama presidency: $9,322,251,010,902.70.
That's a pretty stiff increase, just about doubling the debt. Quite a bit different than a reduction, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
I love the smell of compounding interest in the morning.
Smells like .... Victory!
Re: (Score:1)
I think he does. So here's a question for you... a nice pointy one. If he reduced the deficit then how come the debt rose so much? Funneling it into his bank account someplace? Maybe he was funding terrorists abroad? Oh, I know he was using the money to build a moon base, right? Whole lot of money and I really don't see where it all went to. I mean a FUCKING BOATLOAD lot of money. I mean like you could fill a container ship with $100 bills lot of money.
Money went someplace. Nobody seems to want to say wher
Re: (Score:2)
"The only thing keeping the US afloat apart from Chinese loans ..."
And the stable genius is just now picking a fight with them.
Genius move.
Re: (Score:3)
"He's going to die in prison."
Hardly. His LDL is 140 _with_ statin drugs, a few more months of 'winning' and 'fake news' and his heart will explode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're baselessly assuming that supporting this particular bill was the right thing to do. If Democrats don't want it, they don't have to vote for it. The Republicans can pass a budget all by themselves, with no Democratic help. They didn't. They couldn't agree on a budget.
However, I also would like the filibuster to be restored to require actual action. I thought that made sense: if a sizable minority really really wanted to block legislation, they could.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind posting the name of your dealer, because they have some fiiiiiiiiiiine shit by the sounds of it...
Re: (Score:1)
This truly is a FUD piece against Donald Trump. Tired of it. Who really owns Bizx, LLC.? Is it a PAC? Hey Beau, you missed the piece about RUSSIANS being behind the government shutdown.
Imbecile.
Re: (Score:1)
The Russians? Looks to me like Mexicans caused it not Russians.
Re: (Score:1)
Other than it takes 60 votes for cloture in the Senate and so the Dems just vote against it like they just did tonight? What kind of math are you using?
Re: (Score:1)
And yet, Schumer found a way, by refusing to negotiate and using parliamentary shenanigans to prevent a vote from passing, despite it breezing through the House and having a clear majority of the Senate. Which means we're now entering the Schumer Shutdown.
Democrats own this shutdown. Republicans did absolutely everything they could to prevent it, but Democrats insisted on allowing criminals to illegally remain in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Entitlement payments aren't part of this "shutdown", which is basically they close the officially non-essential parts of the government and everyone else keeps on working and they pay some of them later once funding is authorized to make it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly you haven't been following this in detail.
The reason the Republicans need a supermajority is that they have not been able to keep enough of their own party together to get a regular appropriations bill passed. So they turned to a stop-gap parliamentary procedure called a "continuing resolution" in which both sides (a supermajority) agree to allow spending to continue while they work out their differences.
So this is all about making a deal with Democrats because they can't keep their own party togeth
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say you're mostly right, except there are three factional poles: establishment conservatives, tea party conservatives, and libertarians. While they freely borrow from each others rhetoric they have substantive policy differences, and with the slim advantage Republicans have in the Senate they need all hands on deck.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it was covered in UK news, but the House has a Republican majority, the Senate has a Republican majority, and the President is a Republican. Budget bills can't be filibustered, although continuing resolutions can be. If the Republicans running the US got off their asses, they could pass a budget that would pay for everything, and the Democrats could do nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
None of that matters. The President has an (R) after his name - a situation that they cannot allow to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
The Rs have everything they need to pass an actual budget. They can't agree on one. They can't come up with a compromise that will get nine Democratic Senators to go along for a continuing resolution, even when the compromise is to allow something most of the country wants.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the Schumer shutdown. The Republicans had every opportunity to pass a budget all by themselves. They could have compromised and allowed Schumer to include one rider that most of the US is in favor of. Basically, the Republicans put Schumer in the position of actually having some power, and then refused to negotiate with him.
The people that DACA applies to did not come to the US of their own volition. They have been raised in the US. They're law-abiding residents (if they aren't they're depo
Re: (Score:2)
You should pay attention to the facts. The Democrats went along with the CR as long as they got something they wanted (CHIPS funding). They'll be back looking for DACA for the next CR.
What Schuler wasn't doing was being a doormat, which you seem to think he should have been.
And, to repeat, the Republicans have a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the White House. Budget bills can't be filibustered, which means Republicans can pass budgets all on their lonesome, removing the need fo
Re: (Score:2)
I may have read something that wasn't so, but it was from sources I generally trust. Your cite is from December, and isn't relevant to the present situation.
I am aware of filibusters.