Government shutdown

[Jaydublin]

The poor have insurance. There is another program for that. College kids and people like me were the ones without insurance. Its because we were too cheap or just were not concerned but we wont get into that again. We can agree to disagree there.

If the poor have insurance, what is the expected 30 million expansion? Is that all healthy people being forced into it? Maybe NOT all the poor had insurance? I thought that there were problems with the uninsured using emergency rooms, and ACA was supposed to help to get coverage to a large number of those people.

I explained it already in the very sentence you quoted. And actually your right, not all the poor had it. There were a lot of poor who qualified for other programs but never took advantage because they did not give a shit. Between young healthy adults who choose to save, poor college kids(I agree some poor college kids probably want it but cant afford it), people living on the damn streets/drug addicts, and people who qualify for other programs but just dont care.... there is probably the majority of your 30 million people. You may disagree with the number, there is nothing to back it up either way.

TBH I think me and you live in 2 different worlds. I cant tell you how many slutty,multi child by multi dad, single mothers I've banged who give 2 shits about insurance, they go sign up for medicaid when they become pregnant. Go to a redneck bar in Appalachia and you will find lots of people aged 20-30 who make more than enough to support themselves but to not give the slightest shit about medical care.

So if the government forces high prices on a business they should absorb it? Cmon man, do you really believe that? If it worked that way they would absorb it until they went bust because the government would take advantage. The majority of the price increase will ALWAYS be put on consumers.

Probably large business should absorb more of the overall burden. Smaller businesses, maybe less than 50 employees or so, should benefit if there is an overall system in place - I would NOT expect smaller businesses to have to absorb more costs. It seems that ACA is too new, so I do NOT know how these dynamics play out with ACA - accordingly, i am NOT rushing to a judgement about what aspects need to be tweaked - and repeal does NOT seem like a plausible option at this point b/c it is too early for that.

Consumers will take the hit... always have, always will. Your thinking about what would be fair... I'm thinking about reality.

 

[JayJuanGee]

TBH I think me and you live in 2 different worlds. I cant tell you how many slutty,multi child by multi dad, single mothers I've banged who give 2 shits about insurance, they go sign up for medicaid when they become pregnant. Go to a redneck bar in Appalachia and you will find lots of people aged 20-30 who make more than enough to support themselves but to not give the slightest shit about medical care.

Our worlds are probably NOT that far apart.

THIS is NOT the JayDub vs JayGee battle b/c I am of the sense that we need NOT battle.

I have NO problem with the creation of a societal structures that create incentives for people to work, but I do NOT see a bunch of freeloading lazy poor people as the source of America's troubles.

Our troubles stem from redistribution of the wealth from the poor to the rich that has been going on since about the 1980s - and the divide between the rich and the poor has become astronomical since then. It used to be the case that executives made 20x the regular people, and NOW, it is closer to 300x. Those kinds of disparities are NOT sustainable. Accordingly, some of those assets that are going to the very wealthy need to be distributed throughout society and through infrastructure. And, i have NO problem with distribution that creates incentives for people to work... but it is hard to blame the poor and/or unemployed for their plight, when there is are major infrastructure problems concerning the number of jobs available and the kinds of jobs available.

I'm NO expert, and I do NOT have any insight about how to solve problems in America; however, my sense is that first we have to discontinue the bleeding of America's resources that are going towards wealthy people who neither deserve such resources and do NOT even need that much wealth and/or resources. The very wealthy sit on resources, NOT because they need those resources, but instead b/c they are striving to prevent those resources from being distributed and/or available to the other 90% or so of the American people... accordingly, they cause people in the lower 90% to be fighting amongst each other for crumbs.. while they are fat and happy with more pie than they can eat.... actually, they end up storing their extra pie and even throwing some of it out b/c they cannot even eat it all. Ridiculous!!

America is wealthy if we could take some of the money out of politics and have regular people making decisions rather than having politicians from both sides bought and sold.

 

[Peregrine]

TBH I think me and you live in 2 different worlds. I cant tell you how many slutty,multi child by multi dad, single mothers I've banged who give 2 shits about insurance, they go sign up for medicaid when they become pregnant. Go to a redneck bar in Appalachia and you will find lots of people aged 20-30 who make more than enough to support themselves but to not give the slightest shit about medical care.

Our worlds are probably NOT that far apart.

THIS is NOT the JayDub vs JayGee battle b/c I am of the sense that we need NOT battle.

I have NO problem with the creation of a societal structures that create incentives for people to work, but I do NOT see a bunch of freeloading lazy poor people as the source of America's troubles.

Our troubles stem from redistribution of the wealth from the poor to the rich that has been going on since about the 1980s - and the divide between the rich and the poor has become astronomical since then. It used to be the case that executives made 20x the regular people, and NOW, it is closer to 300x. Those kinds of disparities are NOT sustainable. Accordingly, some of those assets that are going to the very wealthy need to be distributed throughout society and through infrastructure. And, i have NO problem with distribution that creates incentives for people to work... but it is hard to blame the poor and/or unemployed for their plight, when there is are major infrastructure problems concerning the number of jobs available and the kinds of jobs available.

I'm NO expert, and I do NOT have any insight about how to solve problems in America; however, my sense is that first we have to discontinue the bleeding of America's resources that are going towards wealthy people who neither deserve such resources and do NOT even need that much wealth and/or resources. The very wealthy sit on resources, NOT because they need those resources, but instead b/c they are striving to prevent those resources from being distributed and/or available to the other 90% or so of the American people... accordingly, they cause people in the lower 90% to be fighting amongst each other for crumbs.. while they are fat and happy with more pie than they can eat.... actually, they end up storing their extra pie and even throwing some of it out b/c they cannot even eat it all. Ridiculous!!

America is wealthy if we could take some of the money out of politics and have regular people making decisions rather than having politicians from both sides bought and sold.

I agree with that statement (minus the parts about the motives of the super wealthy).

However, the only way that is changing is through violent revolution and a complete upheaval of American society. Since that would be detrimental to my (and likely your) interests, I'd rather we continue with our current state of affairs.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Our troubles stem from redistribution of the wealth from the poor to the rich that has been going on since about the 1980s

Do you actually read this stuff before you post it? I don't see guys in suits shaking down bums for bottles of Ripple and cans of sterno. Where do you get this stuff? Seriously.

The redistribution of the wealth has always been from the wealthy to the poor, since the creation of the income tax system. The top one percent of taxpayers pays about forty percent of the total income tax. The top one percent of taxpayers could donate all their income to the government and still not come close to paying off the debt that President Obama has accrued. The top twenty percent pay nearly 93 percent of all income tax.

On the other hand, the bottom 40 percent pay negative nine percent. They pay no taxes -- and they take from society.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757

 

[JayJuanGee]

Our troubles stem from redistribution of the wealth from the poor to the rich that has been going on since about the 1980s

Do you actually read this stuff before you post it? I don't see guys in suits shaking down bums for bottles of Ripple and cans of sterno. Where do you get this stuff? Seriously.

I write from my state of my current thinking regarding the various topics that have been coming up in this thread. Certainly, from time to time, I may make typos and/or misstatements because I do NOT claim to be any kind of expert on these various topics. Nonetheless, I stand by the above statement that you quoted from me regarding the rich disproportionately paying less and less taxes, and they have been instead lending money to the govt and receiving interest on that money rather than paying taxes and they have also been receiving free money from the govt rather than paying taxes. Surely they pay more taxes than the poor (b/c the poor do NOT have much if anything to pay), but they pay far less than their fair share… and the poor need most of their income to survive... the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, b/c their income and their wealth already allow for them to live cushy lives. Also, many times they have the ability to pay high falutent accountants and attorneys to figure out ways to minimize their tax burden.

In essence, they are leeches that are taking disproportionately than they should.

Some of my thoughts regarding distribution of wealth and the perils of America has developed through the years by extensive reading, and also some application of ideas as well through my work.

However, Richard Wolff is a fairly decent source that seems to resemble well my kind of thinking about economics and history.

http://rdwolff.com/content/welcome-econa-qa-richard-wolff

I do NOT have any one book, article or speech by Richard Wolff; however, he has a podcast called Economic Update, that is very powerful regarding wealth distribution questions and he goes through history and economics and also talks about the application of his theories to contemporary news.



Certainly, Wolff is NOT my only source for inspiration and like thinking, and i find guys like Robert Reich, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (recently died) to be very insightful on these kinds of social wealth distribution issues.

The redistribution of the wealth has always been from the wealthy to the poor, since the creation of the income tax system.

You are living in a fantasy world, if you think that above statement is true. There are a large variety of taxes that are levied on people, and frequently taxes are regressive. However, throughout history, there have been different kinds of taxes, some taxes have been more regressive and other taxes are more progressive. There is NO one way street when it comes to redistribution of wealth.... and your view that wealth only goes from the rich to the poor is likely a product of incomplete information (or possibly brainwashing - No Negging on you, personally).

The top one percent of taxpayers pays about forty percent of the total income tax. The top one percent of taxpayers could donate all their income to the government and still not come close to paying off the debt that President Obama has accrued. The top twenty percent pay nearly 93 percent of all income tax.

Setting aside your accusation that Obama accrued the recent debt (as if he were the start of the problem), even if the remainder of the statement is true, that does NOT mean that the rich are contributing to society sufficiently.

Generally, taxes for the wealthy are at historical low points. In the 1950s, there was close to a 90% tax rate, and fairly high tax rates existed until about the 1980s, and in the 80s, the redistribution of wealth began to increase to a very large degree in favor of the rich.

Continued to get more and more lopsided in favor of the rich in spite of some democratic administrations during that time period (Clinton and Obama).

Your statement still may be true that the wealthy pay most of the taxes that make up the National Govt revenue, but that does NOT mean that the wealthy are NOT leeches. Actually, there were studies on large wealthy corporations paying negative taxes.. and in essence receiving govt subsidies, rather than paying taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0#co-generalmotors

From my understanding, after subsidies, these companies were NOT paying taxes. There is race to the bottom dynamics that relate with this subsidization of large companies, too.

On the other hand, the bottom 40 percent pay negative nine percent. They pay no taxes -- and they take from society.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757

I do NOT agree with your premise that the bottom 40% do NOT pay taxes. Many taxes are regressive, so the poor are paying one way or another. Yet, even if hypothetically, the bottom 40% were NOT making an income and were NOT paying income taxes, so what?, there is more than enough wealth at the top that is generated to make up for the 40% NOT paying various kinds of income taxes.

 

[Tail Gunner]

The redistribution of the wealth has always been from the wealthy to the poor, since the creation of the income tax system.

You are living in a fantasy world, if you think that above statement is true. There are a large variety of taxes that are levied on people, and frequently taxes are regressive.

Pay attention: "income tax system."

Be alert. Don't divert.

What I said was 100% correct.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Surely they pay more taxes than the poor (b/c the poor do NOT have much if anything to pay), but they pay far less than their fair share… and the poor need most of their income to survive... the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, b/c their income and their wealth already allow for them to live cushy lives. Also, many times they have the ability to pay high falutent accountants and attorneys to figure out ways to minimize their tax burden.

In essence, they are leeches that are taking disproportionately than they should.

The rich are leeches, even though that one percent of the population contributes forty percent of all tax revenues?

Are you an avowed socialist? I ask, because only a socialist could think that way. What do you consider your political affiliation?

 

[bacon]

America had such potential... it had such promise ... but close to 100 years of the federal reserve (aka banking cartel) and corporate interests pulling the strings of government have killed our currency and our free market capitalism(i.e. countless companies exempt from obamacare).

The political landscape and future or the US is dire.

If being politcally active comes down to voting republican or democrat and that is the extent the average american can do to solve the countries problems then things will continue as they have been. Expect things to get even worse in all areas for America since both parties represent the same "interests" so get ready for more financial "crises" and from these crises americans will be worn down enough to accept totalitarian rule to prevent anarchy in the streets since that would inconvience their facebook, instagram, dvr lifestyle perogatives.

In the same way Americans willingly gave up their rights to be searched for drugs in cars in the 90s to prevent the crack epidemic and in the 00s to allow TSA agents to "pat down" their kids to prevent terrorism get ready for even more Americans to hand even more of their rights, taxes, freedom etc over to government in the coming years. Obamacare is just another case in point of americans giving up more of their freedom/control of their life to the govt without a fight. America with its instrusive laws and banking system is already unreconizebale to the founders of the US my question is how long it takes most americans to wake up to the fact that it is not remotely the same country they were born into.

 

[JayJuanGee]

Surely they pay more taxes than the poor (b/c the poor do NOT have much if anything to pay), but they pay far less than their fair share… and the poor need most of their income to survive... the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, b/c their income and their wealth already allow for them to live cushy lives. Also, many times they have the ability to pay high falutent accountants and attorneys to figure out ways to minimize their tax burden.

In essence, they are leeches that are taking disproportionately than they should.

The rich are leeches, even though that one percent of the population contributes forty percent of all tax revenues?

Even though I may sound a little accusatory, I provided various sources for my thoughts, and various explanations of these points through out this thread.

Are you an avowed socialist? I ask, because only a socialist could think that way. What do you consider your political affiliation?

These various topics have NOTHING to do with me, so I am NOT sure what it matters about any political affiliation that I may have.

Anyhow, I will entertain your question a little bit:

Throughout this thread, I have provided extensive rationale for my thinking on various scattered topics regarding the role of govt..

I am a regular person who has thoughts and critical thinking about the information that I read and write. I am also fairly well concerned about the role of money in politics and politician and mainstream media being overly influenced by money. In my thinking money does NOT equal speech, as was espoused in the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling.

I agree with a lot of the ideas that are espoused in Coffee Party USA .. The group is NOT a political party b/c they are meant to be trans-partisan. The group has various resources on their webpage and various podcasts. I am NOT a member of the group, even though I agree with a lot of their core principles, to the extent they have core principles. Some individuals in their group espouse ideas that I do NOT agree with.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

You may get some ideas about my thinking if you were to refer to some of the sources that I cited in various earlier postings in this thread or even to read some of my postings in this thread...

Nothing special about any of it.... I am NOT wedded to any party philosophy or any particular outcome. I do NOT even really like Obamacare that much, even though it seems to be a step in the right direction towards providing a basic social safety net.

 

[Peregrine]

my question is how long it takes most americans to wake up to the fact that it is not remotely the same country they were born into.

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” — Adolf Hitler

 

[Tail Gunner]

my question is how long it takes most americans to wake up to the fact that it is not remotely the same country they were born into.

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” — Adolf Hitler

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Adolph Hitler's, "The Big Lie," put into practice by Barrack Obama: "If you like your health insurance, then you can keep it."



PolitiFact Lie of the Year:

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

It seems President Obama is going for a sweep of the liar awards this year. Washington Post just announced their Pinocchio Award for 2013 and to nobody’s surprise, President Obama tops the list with “If you like your plan you can keep it.”

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/70305631892/pinocchio-obama-tops-washington-posts-list-as-biggest

 

[The Beast1]

Bump.

Government shutdown has begun again. The last time this happened it only lasted 12 days I believe.

The democrats have decided to take a stand on the immigration issue and I don't expect Trump to back down.

I expect this to go on for a lot longer.

opcorn:

 

[porscheguy]

These shutdowns only affect 20-30% of the government. One of my friends works for one agency I was certain would get shut down, so I asked him. Nope. His agency is entirely self funded. The government shuts down, and they don’t skip a beat.

 

[Bluto]

The longer that they are closed, the better. As we have secretaries who actually are looking at cutting head count, here is where you start with the non-essential staff of the Federal Government. From what I have been reading the various departments are trying to minimize the shutdown, unlike all of the other times where they would close things like the VA or the National Mall, thus maximizing the services on a smaller head count. If you are not going into work on Monday morning for the Federal Government, than do us a favor and look for a new job.

 

[JayJuanGee]

Bump.

Government shutdown has begun again. The last time this happened it only lasted 12 days I believe.

The democrats have decided to take a stand on the immigration issue and I don't expect Trump to back down.

I expect this to go on for a lot longer.

opcorn:

Thanks for bumping this thread, Beast.

Surely, guys can get quite passionate and worked up about these kinds of political issues, and we had a few discussion battles last time around.

Your overall implied question whether this time is different seems to be a decent one, and perhaps some of the difference this time has to do with seemingly even greater inabilities to compromise, and seems to me that republicans find even greater side-benefit to shutting down the government and attempting to disable various aspects of it.

Also, seems that ideologically, lots of guys in this forum believe that it is to their benefit to have less government, and it seems that even I am becoming more sympathetic to some of those views in my getting older - but I am not quite to the level of considering that we should blow it all up, except the military and policing aspects.

I might agree with you that, perhaps, chicken will be played longer this time.

 

[JayJuanGee]

These shutdowns only affect 20-30% of the government. One of my friends works for one agency I was certain would get shut down, so I asked him. Nope. His agency is entirely self funded. The government shuts down, and they don’t skip a beat.

I would need to see a bit better backing for this kind of assertion that only 20-30% of the government is in fact shut down. You are both seeming to assert that not too much of the government is shut down, and you are also seeming to imply that the impact of such shut down is not going to be very great.

I think that you are correct in one implication, and that is so far in all past government shut downs, few actual furloughs actually occurred, and nearly all government employees received back pay, whether they worked or not during the shut down. This time might be different, but I do think that the longer that the shut down is in place, the bigger and bigger negative impact is likely on the overall economy. Seems like we will see more and more data on this batted around in the coming days (weeks), especially if this shut down approaches anything near the nearly two week period of the last one.

 

[Ski pro]

They had a similar thing in the U.K. a few years ago, a general strike of government workers or something like that.

No one noticed so they went back to work.

 

[IvanDrago]

Someone says the federal govt. is shutting down and I'm all like...

 

[The Beast1]

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-2018-what-stays-open-close-2018-1

With the Senate at a standstill on the passage of a continuing resolution to keep the federal government open, the federal government entered into a partial shutdown at midnight Saturday.

As a result, various government services are set to come to a halt, including national parks, museums, and zoos, along with government bureaus like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the US Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

With all due respect to the parks service, i'd like to see their staff thinned. The ATF and DEA shouldn't even exist. Why do we need extra policing powers when the FBI is more than capable of taking on drugs, guns, and explosives. There's no need to duplicate enforcement efforts.

The Census Bureau doesn't even need to be funded until census time. The Bureau of Labor Statistic, aka the Ministry of Truth, has no reason to exist especially since so many of their stats are fudged.

But despite dramatic pronouncements from President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and others about the military being compromised and people dying as a result of the impasse, not all government agencies and departments will shut down — services that are deemed "essential" will continue to operate.

This includes any federal government work related to national security, law and order, and emergency life-and-death services. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for instance, will continue to operate. And although military personnel might have their paychecks delayed, they will still be required to show up for duty as usual.

Police officers should be forced to work without pay. Our soldiers should be the last ones to have their pay cut.

"Essential" services also include Social Security and the Transportation Security Administration.

There are also employees or agencies whose work is not funded through Congress that will be largely unaffected by the shutdown.

Postal services are one example of this. Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference will also continue to operate under the shutdown for this very reason, despite Trump's personal concerns about its growing costs.

A matter of judgment
But aside from these cut-and-dry cases, there is no hard-and-fast rule as to which services are considered "essential." Even within agencies that will continue to operate, there may be employees who are put on leave, and the determination about which parts of the government to keep open is, at least in part, a subjective one.

FILE PHOTO - Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), speaks to employees of the agency in Washington, U.S., February 21, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), speaks to employees of the agency in Washington Thomson Reuters

The Environmental Protection Agency is one agency that will likely see most of its employees furloughed — placed on temporary unpaid leave — judging by the Trump administration's dismissive approach toward the body during his first year in office, according to Vox.

:dancingman::roosh::fattitude:

In addition, while the State Department will continue to operate its "essential" and "non-excepted" divisions that are necessary to maintain national security, it too will have to furlough sizeable segments of its employees, according to the department's contingency plan.

:badger::boogiepika:

I read elsewhere that this will include"visa processing" if this shutdown continues for a long time.

No H1Bs, no rapefugees, especially if the Democrats think Trump will back down. He won't and this will force the Democrats, who feed at the trough of government expenditure, to back down and agree with all of his demands.

This is the best outcome possible.

In its own updated contingency plan, the Department of Housing and Urban Development stated that only 289 out of 7,797 employees would be considered "excepted" and would have to show up for work during the shutdown. The Federal Aviation Administration, while providing the "essential" duty of air traffic control, is going to furlough just 17,859 of its 45,668 employees, allowing the majority of the agency to function as normal.

While the number of government employees who are placed on furlough is not set in stone, in 2013 a peak of 850,000 people per day were on leave, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Looking at combined paydays, a total of 6.6 million days were lost during 2013's government shutdown due to employee furloughs.

These numbers are likely to be higher if the shutdown exceeds the 16 days during which the federal government was closed in 2013.

Good! I just found 850,000 people who can be trimmed from the government's payrolls.

 

[Repo]

]

Police officers should be forced to work without pay. Our soldiers should be the last ones to have their pay cut.

I can't think of anyway better to ensure the police attracts power tripping wannabes instead of grounded family men than this.

Yeah let's just ruin credit ratings, potentially get people kicked out of their house, and make it harder to feed their kids because a bunch of politicians can't get their act together.