View Full Version : Looming Government Shutdown (again)
Do you really think any of the clowns in Congress or the Senate have a clue about what a BUDGET even is?
The only thing they are concerned with is keeping their jobs, with all the perks and privileges most of us can only dream of. I don't care which party it is, they both suck. We have been here before and we will be here again. The greatest nation on earth being run by a bunch of conceited buffoons.
Stupidity right out in the open for the world to see, we need to bring back tar and feathers.
------------ RANT OVER --------------
On the upshot, won't have to deal with .civs until they print more digital funny money.
StagLefty
01-19-2018, 11:52
But But But Oh never mind [ROFL2]
BushMasterBoy
01-19-2018, 12:01
They just don't want to get in a big room and give each other the flu. Hence the impasse. C-SPAN flu!
clodhopper
01-19-2018, 12:03
.gov shutdown is the only shutdown that costs more than continuing to operate normally. As always, they will retro back everyone's missing pay, plus pay additional contractors to close down/reopen facilities and pay contractors any delay costs/fees due to delays in direction or payment. Even at full shutdown, something like 80% of the government is deemed essential and still show up for work.
This whole thing is just a bunch of little babies who pout and throw a tantrum when they don't get their way. The fvcking democrats are holding the whole thing hostage because they want their precious DACA. If I were in charge I would say "Don't want to come to a CR on this without some DACA agreement? Okay, well good luck, we're just going to start deporting them, since you wanna play games."
I just hope the voters are smart enough to figure out that the Democrats are to blame for this.
It's the new way of getting what you want in Congress. They play these brinkmanship games and then stuff in whatever they want tacked onto the excuse they must keep the govt. running, 'cuz they have to or else the world will end.
Both parties are to blame.
beast556
01-19-2018, 12:41
Bunch of babies, it is sickening these people are in charge.
clodhopper
01-19-2018, 15:16
On the other hand, if you have savings (like you should) then furloughs are paid vacations for gov't workers... since that all gets paid when a budget is approved. Really silly political exercise, tbh.
As much as I hate penalizing those who are not responsible for it, I am very much in favor of NOT paying the furloughed hours. Yep, you heard me, leave the workers out in the cold. Sounds jerky? Yeah, a little. But because there is virtually no repercussions to shutting down the govt, the stupid politicians have no compunction with playing brinksmanship games. If all the .gov employees stand to lose out on pay, the pressure to avoid a shutdown would be massive.
Although, those same .gov employees did in fact, elect all those bozos, so maybe they should be responsible for a pay loss.....
Schumer's bullchit sound bites are over the top, since his side didn't get the same issue done the entire Obama presidency.
.gov shutdown is the only shutdown that costs more than continuing to operate normally. As always, they will retro back everyone's missing pay, plus pay additional contractors to close down/reopen facilities and pay contractors any delay costs/fees due to delays in direction or payment. Even at full shutdown, something like 80% of the government is deemed essential and still show up for work.
Yup
.gov TDYs being cancelled and, where possible, covered by contractors. Will push-back at least four huge projects in my office alone - all scheduled deployment plans to be scrapped and re-coordinated. $Millions across the military
As much as I hate penalizing those who are not responsible for it, I am very much in favor of NOT paying the furloughed hours. Yep, you heard me, leave the workers out in the cold. Sounds jerky? Yeah, a little. But because there is virtually no repercussions to shutting down the govt, the stupid politicians have no compunction with playing brinksmanship games. If all the .gov employees stand to lose out on pay, the pressure to avoid a shutdown would be massive.
Although, those same .gov employees did in fact, elect all those bozos, so maybe they should be responsible for a pay loss.....
Schumer's bullchit sound bites are over the top, since his side didn't get the same issue done the entire Obama presidency.
I say go one step further- No government funding, no pay for anyone in Congress. Wanna fly home for the weekend? Sorry, YOU shut down the government, therefore, you cannot use .gov funding to travel.
Aloha_Shooter
01-19-2018, 17:18
.gov shutdown is the only shutdown that costs more than continuing to operate normally. As always, they will retro back everyone's missing pay, plus pay additional contractors to close down/reopen facilities and pay contractors any delay costs/fees due to delays in direction or payment. Even at full shutdown, something like 80% of the government is deemed essential and still show up for work.
That was true when Clinton and Obama were president but they intentionally made the shutdowns as harmful and chaotic to the public as possible in order to win political points. I suspect Trump and Congress will provide back pay for the furloughed workers but that Trump's OPM will declare dramatically fewer "essential" workers and that the shutdown will be done in a way to minimize rather than maximize impact on the general citizenry.
OtterbatHellcat
01-19-2018, 17:37
Since none of these idiot senators or representatives are qualified to be in the positions they hold (like any of them really ever were...) how bout funding the mystery percentage that really do get work done with any amount of proficiency......and send these A holes out of their cozy offices for one full year. Your office, your house, your car...everything considered an asset to you is off limits, and you have to truly get employed at whatever you really are capable of doing...without any up scale assistance.
Yes, you retarded fat cat not getting it done, you have to get a real effing job all on your own. Flip burgers, wash cars, what the hell ever it is you can actually manage to successfully perform to the standard where you don't get fired for incompetency. Yes, you must live in a shithole and ride a bus perhaps, work really hard and you might be able to move into a better shithole for the latter part of your year long REALITY check. Fukkers. Lose your upscale healthcare with zero waiting time, pension and retirement for eternity..... earn your dollar menu meal tonight.....and STFU.
One Year.
I'd love to greet them every morning with a solid elbow check across the cheek when they walk out of their motel 6 kitchenette and say, "You've got some work to do today, better get back up before you miss that bus".
:)
My job doesn't get furloughed unless the gov't reaaaaaally runs out of money.
On the other hand, if you have savings (like you should) then furloughs are paid vacations for gov't workers... since that all gets paid when a budget is approved. Really silly political exercise, tbh.
Not necessarily. We have savings, yes. Our savings now must be used because these scrofulous sons-of-bitches in Congress deem illegals more important than the government workers that have been doing their jobs quietly and efficiently, and are now sacrificed as examples for some gigantic tantrum. I find it outrageous that the cavalier attitude of "you have savings, enjoy your vacation," is rampant, yet the attitude of "you have money, so you can afford it," ruffles feathers. Our hard-earned money and savings have been earmarked for other things, and yet now we have to use it for living expenses. There is no guarantee that back pay will be paid. Try living with that.
It is a stupid act that has very real repercussions to people.
And no, "80%'" of government workers are not deemed necessary/mission-essential. It depends on who's in charge at the time of the tantrum.
hurley842002
01-19-2018, 17:42
Since none of these idiot senators or representatives are qualified to be in the positions they hold (like any of them really ever were...) how bout funding the mystery percentage that really do get work done with any amount of proficiency......and send these A holes out of their cozy offices for one full year. Your office, your house, your car...everything considered an asset to you is off limits, and you have to truly get employed at whatever you really are capable of doing...without any up scale assistance.
Yes, you retarded fat cat not getting it done, you have to get a real effing job all on your own. Flip burgers, wash cars, what the hell ever it is you can actually manage to successfully perform to the standard where you don't get fired for incompetency. Yes, you must live in a shithole and ride a bus perhaps, work really hard and you might be able to move into a better shithole for the latter part of your year long REALITY check. Fukkers. Lose your upscale healthcare with zero waiting time, pension and retirement for eternity..... earn your dollar menu meal tonight.....and STFU.
One Year.
I'd love to greet them every morning with a solid elbow check across the cheek when they walk out of their motel 6 kitchenette and say, "You've got some work to do today, better get back up before you miss that bus".
:)AAAAAMEN BROTHER! Now I'll go back to wondering if I'm going to receive a paycheck next pay period, Lord knows I'll be working, probably pulling overtime for those who will be "sick", knowing they will get their sick leave returned to them.
As much as I hate penalizing those who are not responsible for it, I am very much in favor of NOT paying the furloughed hours. Yep, you heard me, leave the workers out in the cold. Sounds jerky? Yeah, a little. But because there is virtually no repercussions to shutting down the govt, the stupid politicians have no compunction with playing brinksmanship games. If all the .gov employees stand to lose out on pay, the pressure to avoid a shutdown would be massive.
Although, those same .gov employees did in fact, elect all those bozos, so maybe they should be responsible for a pay loss.....
Schumer's bullchit sound bites are over the top, since his side didn't get the same issue done the entire Obama presidency.
Really? Thank god YOU'RE not in charge.
I am married to one of the government employees, and NO, we did NOT "elect those bozos." Thanks fr that cavalier attitude of "you could stand to lose a little pay." Nice understaning of how the furlough actually works. Because, you know, all government workers are both heard and listened to by the asshats at the capital, when they disagree with policy. Yeah.
hollohas
01-19-2018, 17:53
I don't get it.
2013: Dem Senate and Dem President = Republican's fault the gov shutdown.
2018: R Congress and R President = Republican's fault the gov shutdown.
What am I missing? How is it the R's fault no matter what?
Oh yeah, the media is corrupt.
hurley842002
01-19-2018, 18:02
Really? Thank god YOU'RE not in charge.
I am married to one of the government employees, and NO, we did NOT "elect those bozos." Thanks fr that cavalier attitude of "you could stand to lose a little pay." Nice understaning of how the furlough actually works. Because, you know, all government workers are both heard and listened to by the asshats at the capital, when they disagree with policy. Yeah.Yup!
Some of us will still be working with no pay check, not that many will care, because .gov workers and all that.
hurley842002
01-19-2018, 18:19
I've been talking to a few people on this. Furloughed people pay attention.
It is my understanding that you can collect unemployment, especially if this carries on awhile. Do that on first opportunity. Obviously, you will have to pay it back when the salary gets backpaid, but it will ease your reliance on savings. To satisfy any work requirements, feel free to apply at NASA and for various engineering positions across the country. Or any fun high paying job you always wanted. Who knows, you might get it. [Coffee]
Some gov't agencies are wholly unaffected by this having budgets that reach back 2 years, five years, or in our case... forever (although OBM wouldn't let you reach back too far).Yeah I was reading the "Government shutdown guidance" at work today, and depending on what state your duty station is, you would need to refer to their rules on unemployment.
HBARleatherneck
01-19-2018, 18:22
Active-duty troops, as well as Guard and Reserve members, would not get paid during a shutdown unless Congress passes a separate piece of legislation to do so.
That means if a shutdown starts Jan. 19 and stretches into the next several weeks, troops' Feb. 1 pay will be delayed.
Retiree Pay and SBP Payments
Military retirees would still receive their regular pension checks in the event of a shutdown, as would those receiving a Survivor's Benefit Plan (SBP) payment.
That's because those funds are paid from a different account that is not impacted by the annual funding bill Congress has yet to pass.
Troops Killed in Action
Newly bereaved family members would not receive the Pentagon's $100,000 death gratuity during a shutdown or military-funded travel to Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, or elsewhere for the dignified transfer or military funeral or memorial.
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) payments, however, would not be affected.
va disability pay & gi bill benefits
Like retiree pay, VA disability pay and GI Bill payments are both funded through different legislation than is at risk on the Hill. For that reason, those checks are unlikely to be affected by a brief shutdown.
However, during the last shutdown in 2013, VA officials warned that if the closure extended beyond several weeks, disability checks were unlikely to go out to more than 5.1 million veterans.
Take the money and special bennies out of government. You want to "serve your country" in DC, you get an Army Sgt's pay and housing. You get your health benefits at the VA. It's already your Constitutional duty to have a budget every year, yet you don't obey. If the government isn't funded, neither are you.
hollohas
01-19-2018, 20:54
It's all BS grandstanding. The feds are only "funding" 10 out of every 12 months each year anyway. Yet some how they still pay everyone.
That said, the single largest employer in American could stand to reduce it's staff by a few.
PS - what do you want to bet that we don't see the NPS fence off un-staffed parks this time? Or shutdown roads? Or any of the other "make it hurt" bullshit we saw the Dems do in 2013?
How about probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in emergency printing fees for the signs...
Let all non-essential Personnel have some time off[emoji16] government is too bloated anyway.. government shutdown scare just another way of them raising the credit limit.. just my two cents
Isn't this part of the deal we made when we let the government get so big. I'm sorta surprised we have so many people directly impacted by this. I'll rub my lucky rabbit foot and hope the best for you all.
Yup!
Some of us will still be working with no pay check, not that many will care, because .gov workers and all that.
Right there with you, got to love being an excepted employe...
Those of you that will be working without a paycheck during this time, I hope the furlough doesn't last long. The freaking politicians may not apprecate what you do, but there are many of us that do.
And...we are in shutdown.
Speak for yourself. My life hasn't changed at all... YET.
OtterbatHellcat
01-19-2018, 23:49
lol
BushMasterBoy
01-19-2018, 23:51
So basically it is prostitution of the constitution and they can't agree on a price! It is good to be king!
Ripley has gas and no federal aid. Nothing new.
If the Dems want to hold everything hostage 'cuz DACA, maybe the Senate should change their rules back to a simple majority (sometimes referred to as the 'nuclear option'). Just ram it through and tell the Dems "elections have consequences and you lost".
JohnnyDrama
01-20-2018, 12:05
I was just contemplating the irony....
Numerous private sector wage increases (Walmart and others) and the Federal gov't is shut down.
Zundfolge
01-20-2018, 13:53
So how do we get this shutdown thing to become permanent? :)
If the Dems want to hold everything hostage 'cuz DACA, maybe the Senate should change their rules back to a simple majority (sometimes referred to as the 'nuclear option'). Just ram it through and tell the Dems "elections have consequences and you lost".
And let the public know that they heard the outcry's over the government shutdown and did what it took to fix the problem.
The really shitty part is these asshole politicians directly responsible for this still get paid during a shutdown.
F* that. Cut their pay off. In fact, there should be a penalty assessed against their pay for not having a working budget passed on time.
The really shitty part is these asshole politicians directly responsible for this still get paid during a shutdown.
F* that. Cut their pay off. In fact, there should be a penalty assessed against their pay for not having a working budget passed on time.[emoji115]+1 [emoji106]
hurley842002
01-20-2018, 17:49
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/20/government-shutdown-nj-rep-tom-macarthur-asks-salary-pay-withheld-until-military-paid
Needs to be mandatory that NOBODY including Congress gets paid, during a government shutdown. I wonder how often we would shut down then?
hollohas
01-21-2018, 09:02
.
PS - what do you want to bet that we don't see the NPS fence off un-staffed parks this time? Or shutdown roads? Or any of the other "make it hurt" bullshit we saw the Dems do in 2013?
Looks like a bunch of the national parks remain open but un-staffed. As they should.
www.washingtonpost.com/national/at-the-nations-parks-the-confusing-reality-of-the-government-shutdowns-first-day/2018/01/20/5d5927d2-fe08-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_shutdownparks-915pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.01976b2b4ee9
GilpinGuy
01-21-2018, 09:44
If the Dems want to hold everything hostage 'cuz DACA, maybe the Senate should change their rules back to a simple majority (sometimes referred to as the 'nuclear option'). Just ram it through and tell the Dems "elections have consequences and you lost".
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-21/key-day-could-yield-fast-deal-or-long-impasse-shutdown-update
clodhopper
01-21-2018, 09:57
Really? Thank god YOU'RE not in charge.
I am married to one of the government employees, and NO, we did NOT "elect those bozos." Thanks fr that cavalier attitude of "you could stand to lose a little pay." Nice understaning of how the furlough actually works. Because, you know, all government workers are both heard and listened to by the asshats at the capital, when they disagree with policy. Yeah.
OK. so as long as it doesn't disrupt your life, keep that money mill spending and spending..... Seriously, do you think the people outside of government are insulated from financial downturns like in 2008? You know, when I and my co-workers spent a year and a half working on 60% pay because the company was struggling to survive? I don't remember the .gov workers having to do that. In fact, I remember .gov workers throwin a fricken fit because they didn't get a sizeable enough raise.
AND. The fact is the bulk of federal workers are Dems. You specifically may not be, but most of your co-workers are. No one is required to work there, it was your choice. Every choice has impacts.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/20/government-shutdown-nj-rep-tom-macarthur-asks-salary-pay-withheld-until-military-paid
Needs to be mandatory that NOBODY including Congress gets paid, during a government shutdown. I wonder how often we would shut down then?
Careful. DeGray will accuse you of being heartless.
hurley842002
01-21-2018, 10:48
Careful. DeGray will accuse you of being heartless.
I don't think she will, as I'm one of the Federal workers still working, and not getting paid. My comment was directed as a blow towards the congress critters still getting paid, while everybody else is working for free. I realize there are many like yourself, who more than likely loathe us government employees, and that's fine, I don't need you to care for me, or the work I do (even tho you should, as it's your tax dollars paying me, for a service that I'm certain most everybody wants to continue, and there isn't a good private sector equivalent available).
hollohas
01-21-2018, 10:59
Honest question. When's payday for .gov workers? If they reach a deal before next Friday or the end of the month is anyone actually going to miss a paycheck?
Because, as it stands, the shutdown happened Friday night. I'm pretty sure no one has missed a check yet. No one has been affected by this until they miss a paycheck.
USAA is going to pay any .mil folks who miss getting paid. That's pretty cool.
clodhopper
01-21-2018, 11:12
I realize there are many like yourself, who more than likely loathe us government employees, and that's fine, I don't need you to care for me, or the work I do (even tho you should, as it's your tax dollars paying me, for a service that I'm certain most everybody wants to continue, and there isn't a good private sector equivalent available).
You are wrong. I don't have a any issues with govt workers. Govt has several necessary activities and it takes people to do those duties. You can come down from your cross now. You get paid for the work you do just like I do, it isn't volunteer service.
My point in all this is... why all the fricken DRAMA about govt workers on a PAY DELAY? Yep, pay delay, you know you will get back pay, the tradition was set and is probably already being drafted now to grant you the missing back pay. Sure it sucks to have to rely on savings for a bit, it sucks for everyone to have to do that. But for chrissakes, this isn't the end of the world folks. You didn't lose your job, your company didn't go out of business, you didn't lose your retirement, ...... your paycheck is being held up for awhile. Having to work without pay?!?! wholly effin end of the world, right? There are private industry guys that do that shyte all the time as a function of keeping their jobs.
How about less "poor me" crap and more focus on the self important politicians who have found a way to dance in the forefront of us all, creating shutdown silliness, with virtually no repercussions because we (the stupid voters) granted them the ability to do it. I am sorry the .gov shutdown is having an impact on your life, but it is a minimal impact, stop making it more than it is.
If the Dems want to hold everything hostage 'cuz DACA, maybe the Senate should change their rules back to a simple majority (sometimes referred to as the 'nuclear option'). Just ram it through and tell the Dems "elections have consequences and you lost".
It's a silly rule. By law only a simple majority is required for passing a bill.
The party in charge needs to grow a pair and push their agenda.
You are wrong. I don't have a any issues with govt workers. Govt has several necessary activities and it takes people to do those duties. You can come down from your cross now. You get paid for the work you do just like I do, it isn't volunteer service.
My point in all this is... why all the fricken DRAMA about govt workers on a PAY DELAY? Yep, pay delay, you know you will get back pay, the tradition was set and is probably already being drafted now to grant you the missing back pay. Sure it sucks to have to rely on savings for a bit, it sucks for everyone to have to do that. But for chrissakes, this isn't the end of the world folks. You didn't lose your job, your company didn't go out of business, you didn't lose your retirement, ...... your paycheck is being held up for awhile. Having to work without pay?!?! wholly effin end of the world, right? There are private industry guys that do that shyte all the time as a function of keeping their jobs.
How about less "poor me" crap and more focus on the self important politicians who have found a way to dance in the forefront of us all, creating shutdown silliness, with virtually no repercussions because we (the stupid voters) granted them the ability to do it. I am sorry the .gov shutdown is having an impact on your life, but it is a minimal impact, stop making it more than it is.
Back pay is not guaranteed.
I don't know how to use smaller words to make that understood.
Nobody's suggesting that you show concern on government worker's behalf- God forbid, as you obviously know everything that's going on with every government worker everywhere. Shit, why should we be worried about working or not working and not getting paid? Yeah, we should just nut up and deal with it.
If our opinions or our "poor me" crap bothers you, here's a novel idea- maybe stop a moment and think why. Maybe there are those of us that are supporting extended family. Maybe there are government workers that have had fininacial setbacks and aren't out of the hole yet. Maybe, just maybe...government workers are people that don't drive expensive cars and have no worries. Maybe, just maybe, you might humanize them, instead of writing them off by labelling them as "democrats" by and large, and therefore not really worth any thought. Oh, wait. You decreed that it is a "minimal impact." Whew. For a minute there, I was worried.
And yeah, believe me, government workers are well aware of the dancing monkeys and their double standards. It doesn't help the here and the now- but then again, I doubt you see that from the lofty heights of your high horse.
Your opinion has been heard, believe me. Let's hope when the chips are down that you find the same compassionate response.
hurley842002
01-21-2018, 12:08
Back pay is not guaranteed.
I don't know how to use smaller words to make that understood.
Nobody's suggesting that you show concern on government worker's behalf- God forbid, as you obviously know everything that's going on with every government worker everywhere. Shit, why should we be worried about working or not working and not getting paid? Yeah, we should just nut up and deal with it.
If our opinions or our "poor me" crap bothers you, here's a novel idea- maybe stop a moment and think why. Maybe there are those of us that are supporting extended family. Maybe there are government workers that have had fininacial setbacks and aren't out of the hole yet. Maybe, just maybe...government workers are people that don't drive expensive cars and have no worries. Maybe, just maybe, you might humanize them, instead of writing them off by labelling them as "democrats" by and large, and therefore not really worth any thought. Oh, wait. You decreed that it is a "minimal impact." Whew. For a minute there, I was worried.
And yeah, believe me, government workers are well aware of the dancing monkeys and their double standards. It doesn't help the here and the now- but then again, I doubt you see that from the lofty heights of your high horse.
Your opinion has been heard, believe me. Let's hope when the chips are down that you find the same compassionate response.
I can't draft a response to clod that won't get me a time out, so I will just +1 the above post that Grey so eloquently put together, and leave it at that, but add:
I realize many folks see "Federal employee's" and think $$ or overpaid, they think everybody working for the .gov is 100% squared away financially, and just living the high life, that just isn't the case. Government employees face the same financial struggles that private sector employee's face, that is, not everybody has a plump savings account (even tho many on here and elsewhere think folks without a contingency plan are just terribly irresponsible people). Shit happens, medical emergencies happen, car problems happen, you may not always have that financial buffer you always had, and having a delayed pay check is not an option for some.
If the Dems want to hold everything hostage 'cuz DACA, maybe the Senate should change their rules back to a simple majority (sometimes referred to as the 'nuclear option'). Just ram it through and tell the Dems "elections have consequences and you lost".
There ya go, use the nuclear option. There will be another vote at 1am Monday, we'll see what they do.
So Democrats think illegals are more important than the military or civil servants. I wonder how well this will play come November mid-terms.
hollohas
01-21-2018, 12:23
So, have any of the .gov employees here actually missed a paycheck yet?
I'm self employed. Who's wrung their hands for any of us ever. We take all the risk and pay your wages.
C-SPAN is live now, Schmuckie Schumer is flapping his gums right now.
My point in all this is... why all the fricken DRAMA about govt workers on a PAY DELAY?
Thats a mighty broad brush you are playing with.
The last shutdown in 2013 that led to sequestration I received no back pay from the Military. Different parts of the military/govt work under different rules.
We didn't fly airplanes. People lost valuable training to sharpen their skills right before our 2013 Deployment.
Just like then, we have yet another deployment coming up. Hopefully this mess will end soon and everyone walking out the door will be 200% ready for anything the bad guys can throw at us.
So, have any of the .gov employees here actually missed a paycheck yet?
Not for us. I'm not sure about the military folks and their pay schedule, but for us, the shutdown happened mid-pay cycle. I'm actually worried about some young Army friends of ours- the wife just had a baby and he had to get a replacement car because his daily driver gave up the ghost. I'm pretty sure their savngs are close to the bone.
The worrisome thing is that the Dems actually drew the lie in the sand in choosing DACA over citizens, making the sweeping statements that both said, "You citizens don't count and are the easiest to steal from at the moment to make our point," and rendered the agreement a working society enters into (I rent you my time and expertise, you pay me for that,) null and void in an instant. When this happens outside of the government, employers are sued. For some reason, it's looked at as permissable here.
C-SPAN is live now, Schmuckie Schumer is flapping his gums right now.
UGH. That guy.
I realize there are many like yourself, who more than likely loathe us government employees, and that's fine, I don't need you to care for me, or the work I do (even tho you should, as it's your tax dollars paying me, for a service that I'm certain most everybody wants to continue, and there isn't a good private sector equivalent available).
I don't have any ill will toward the employees, but they are 'overhead' in a bloated Federal bureaucracy. I would prefer the Fed. Govt. be much smaller where there were fewer opportunities for employment/recipients of tax dollars. Less govt. is better for business which would result in more opportunities in the private sector.
I don't have any ill will toward the employees, but they are 'overhead' in a bloated Federal bureaucracy. I would prefer the Fed. Govt. be much smaller where there were fewer opportunities for employment/recipients of tax dollars. Less govt. is better for business which would result in more opportunities in the private sector.
There's a great deal that could be done to make it better, I agree. But actions like this are akin to throwng the baby out with the bathwater.
hollohas
01-21-2018, 12:52
Not for us. I'm not sure about the military folks and their pay schedule, but for us, the shutdown happened mid-pay cycle. I'm actually worried about some young Army friends of ours- the wife just had a baby and he had to get a replacement car because his daily driver gave up the ghost. I'm pretty sure their savngs are close to the bone.
USAA is giving interest free payroll advances to military.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/20/news/usaa-shutdown/index.html
Sorry for all of you guys dealing with the situation on a personal level. I certainly have been accused of not being compassionate, but usually by liberals. The government is fubar right or left. 2+2=4
I'm self employed. Who's wrung their hands for any of us ever. We take all the risk and pay your wages.You didn't get a bailout?
USAA is giving interest free payroll advances to military.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/20/news/usaa-shutdown/index.html
Thanks! We already passed on that news to them, and we've got another Army buddy who's helping watch out for them.
The one thing that helps in this atmosphere is that the Armed Services watches out for one another. If this furlough goes on for a while, I'm hoping that folks caught in dire straits will reach out.
UGH. That guy.
Yah. It is Durbin's turn now to jaw at us.
There's a great deal that could be done to make it better, I agree. But actions like this are akin to throwng the baby out with the bathwater.
The tactics being used right now are simply leverage to make the Fed. Govt. bigger and more influential in our everyday lives. It's absolutely not reducing the size of the Fed. Govt.
I'll be surprised if there's ever another approved annual budget (as dictated by the Constitution). They've turned this game of temporary government funding into a tool to make the government bigger and screw over their constituencies in favor of special interests.
You didn't get a bailout?
He's probably not a Wall Street banker who gave millions to the DNC. :)
Probably wasn't on Bush' list when Bush doled out our money to the bankers using the TARP program.
USAA is giving interest free payroll advances to military.
That's really cool. My sister's family is an Army family. They had to use WIC in their younger years just to feed the fam. My folks also helped them out when they needed it. They're at least doing a job that the Feds were Constitutionally mandated to do and they've paid mightily for our freedoms that we enjoy. Our troops and veterans should be a priority, but as usual, the Feds have made a mess of supporting them.
The size of the federal workforce should be reduced through nutrition.
That should save some bread.
theGinsue
01-21-2018, 14:24
USAA is giving interest free payroll advances to military.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/20/news/usaa-shutdown/index.html
Thank heavens for USAA. I bitch about some of their policies and fee increases here and there but still stay with them because they stand with the troops when things get tough.
That's really cool. My sister's family is an Army family. They had to use WIC in their younger years just to feed the fam. My folks also helped them out when they needed it. They're at least doing a job that the Feds were Constitutionally mandated to do and they've paid mightily for our freedoms that we enjoy. Our troops and veterans should be a priority, but as usual, the Feds have made a mess of supporting them.
Yep, been there.
Through almost 3/4 of my Air Force career we didn't have spare money to drop into savings. We never owned a fancy car and the couple of new ones we bought were great deals on reliable vehicles. As with your sisters family, we did the best to live within our means, sometimes it wasn't quite enough but we adjusted and worked through it. Only on two occasions did we ask (and receive) family members for emergency loans. It made the critical difference in getting us through tight spots.
As a young troop with a family we relied on WIC for a couple of years. The nutritional requirements for food could be cumbersome but ensured my children had healthy food to eat. When we no longer needed WIC, we stopped participating, but while we needed it, it was a Godsend.
When we first moved to CO in '95 we bought a house. We bought the best home we could afford at the time (and still live in it). Because available housing was so limited at the time the house was actually cheaper than renting a 2 bedroom apartment. Still, with the house payment, etc. we had no spare money and lived paycheck to paycheck. I could have gotten out of the service and taken a private industry job, but that wouldn't satisfy my need to perform a service to our nation which was, and still is, important to me.
During my USAF career I endured a few .gov shutdowns. I can only recall one where my paycheck was delayed (there may have been more, but I don't recall) but when you're waiting for those dollars to come in to pay your bills it hurts, badly. The utility company doesn't care that you didn't receive your paycheck, they want their money.
I'm a .mil contractor now so I still feel like I'm serving the nation and providing for everyones safety. The difference now is that I'm being pay considerably better and have a little I can put into savings while paying it forward to my kids to help ensure they have the essentials for their families that they would otherwise have to do without. Luckily, the contract I'm on is paid out in advance enough that this shutdown shouldn't effect me. Through the years we've picked up a few nice things which make life worth living, but it's not like anything we have is particularly fancy.
With Congress still getting paid, and with the selfish & greedy attitude they have there is absolutely no incentive for them to come to a quick resolution to the problem. While most, if not all .fed employees aren't expecting their next paycheck until the 1st of the month they are concerned about the risks now. A wise person doesn't wait until they're completely out of water before they start to ration what they have when the spring dries up; you start worrying about it immediately and praying the water begins to flow before you run out. The longest .gov shutdown was 21 days. There is no guarantee this will not extend beyond that. For those folks, like our troops, who have just enough to get by, the threat and concern over not being able to pay their bills is very real.
"Drama"? Sure, there's drama. Anyone who can be directly effected by this would be foolish not to be concerned and with that comes drama. For those (looking at you Clodhopper) who can't at least empathize with this situation I feel very sorry for you as you must be very sad individuals.
clodhopper
01-21-2018, 15:07
Yay! I'm the darkhorse!
Ironic that so many claim I don't understand/empathize/have not lived the situation you might be in right now. When did you become an expert on my life experiences? You are farther off than you might think.
Ah well. The internet is the land of "who has more empathy", rather than a discussion of ideas or points of view.
If our govt wasn't so bloated and spending well beyond its means, this wouldn't have happened. But that would mean many of you would be in a different career than the one you currently have and may never have known the joys of government "service". Wait, was that coldhearted? hard for me to discern anymore.
Oh, and to your point Grey:
https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/01/18/legislation-introduced-provide-back-pay-federal-employees-furloughed-shutdown/
You'll get your back pay.
Another communist (T Kaine) is blabbering now. All the damn communists are taking turns, I wonder when McCain, Flake, and Gardner will step to the mike.
hurley842002
01-21-2018, 15:36
Ironic that so many claim I don't understand/empathize/have not lived the situation you might be in right now. When did you become an expert on my life experiences? You are farther off than you might think.
Typically when I have something bad happen to me, or go through a tough time, I use that as a life experience, and in turn am able to sympathize and or empathize with people, not carry an attitude of "well I've had to deal with tough times, so screw you", but that's called building character, something which some aren't capable of doing...
Aloha_Shooter
01-21-2018, 16:37
Back pay is not guaranteed.
I don't know how to use smaller words to make that understood.
It's not guaranteed but has always been implemented in every government shutdown. It is in neither party's interest to create another victim class and wages/salary are a pittance in the vast scheme of government costs. I'm not on board with much of anything clodhopper said but I think back pay for the federal civil workers is a safe assumption. Contractors and others affected by the shutdown are another story but in many cases the contract was prepaid so there are things that can be done. In 2013, my company advised everyone to take the vacation time during the shutdown but also dipped into internal funds so employees who didn't want to (or couldn't) take unplanned vacations could use the time to work on needed training and professional education.
As far as the comment about USAA, I don't think they are covering EVERYONE in the military, just current customers. They've done the same things in past shutdowns, crediting customer accounts as if they got the normal direct deposit on the normal day. This is frequently needed because a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck and would run into cashflow issues even if promised backpay.
While backpay is not guaranteed, we have received it every time I have been through a shutdown. I have forgotten how many times we have been through the drill because it seems that for every actual shut down there have been five threatened shutdowns that were averted at the last moment. Last week was full of emails and phone calls reminding us of our "essential" status. Every time it happens, my wife reminds me that we would be better off if I was not "essential." I get paid after the shutdown is over for work that I was required to do regardless of whether there was a pay check or not. Non-essential employees get what we like to refer to as a paid vacation of unknown duration.
We all chose this profession. 29 years later, I can say that like most choices in life, there have been up and downs. I'm looking forward to my next career in the private sector where I can develop a whole new outlook on being a "bitchy" American worker.
Be safe.
Yay! I'm the darkhorse!
Ironic that so many claim I don't understand/empathize/have not lived the situation you might be in right now. When did you become an expert on my life experiences? You are farther off than you might think.
Ah well. The internet is the land of "who has more empathy", rather than a discussion of ideas or points of view.
If our govt wasn't so bloated and spending well beyond its means, this wouldn't have happened. But that would mean many of you would be in a different career than the one you currently have and may never have known the joys of government "service". Wait, was that coldhearted? hard for me to discern anymore.
Oh, and to your point Grey:
https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/01/18/legislation-introduced-provide-back-pay-federal-employees-furloughed-shutdown/
You'll get your back pay.
All I see there is a whole lot of "legislation introduced" and "should get back pay." I'll believe it if and when the check clears the bank.
For those of you who are assuring everyone that back pay will be reimbursed, I point you to Hoser's post. He did NOT receive back pay for 2013's furlough.
You're no dark horse, Clodhopper. A dark horse is defined as "a candidate or competitor about whom little is known but who unexpectedly wins or succeeds." The only part of that definition that fits you is "about whom little is known." You proffered your point of view. Your view happened to not only be unpopular, but was filled with incorrect assumptions and projected a very cavalier assumption- if, in fact, you were ever in a situation such as a furlough. Was your smug statement "coldhearted'? Poor you, surrounded by people burdened with patriotic "feelz" and the inability to recognize your obviously superior arguments. Thank GOODNESS you were able to shed light on our problem: we wouldn't be furloughed if we weren't government workers. Of course! Why, it really is all our fault that we out ourselves in this position.
You are SO RIGHT.
Stop all back pay for government employees and pay for Elected officials during furloughs except military (they need to get paid no matter what)
It's not guaranteed but has always been implemented in every government shutdown. It is in neither party's interest to create another victim class and wages/salary are a pittance in the vast scheme of government costs. I'm not on board with much of anything clodhopper said but I think back pay for the federal civil workers is a safe assumption. Contractors and others affected by the shutdown are another story but in many cases the contract was prepaid so there are things that can be done. In 2013, my company advised everyone to take the vacation time during the shutdown but also dipped into internal funds so employees who didn't want to (or couldn't) take unplanned vacations could use the time to work on needed training and professional education.
As far as the comment about USAA, I don't think they are covering EVERYONE in the military, just current customers. They've done the same things in past shutdowns, crediting customer accounts as if they got the normal direct deposit on the normal day. This is frequently needed because a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck and would run into cashflow issues even if promised backpay.
Yep, I saw an article put out by them. You have to have direct deposit with them for at least two months, and the max they can lend at 0% is $6000.
I'm happy to say our Army friend has his check deposited in their USAA account, so it's an option for them.
I believe I also saw something about Navy Federal Credit Union also offering something similar.
clodhopper
01-21-2018, 18:14
All I see there is a whole lot of "legislation introduced" and "should get back pay." I'll believe it if and when the check clears the bank.
For those of you who are assuring everyone that back pay will be reimbursed, I point you to Hoser's post. He did NOT receive back pay for 2013's furlough.
You're no dark horse, Clodhopper. A dark horse is defined as "a candidate or competitor about whom little is known but who unexpectedly wins or succeeds." The only part of that definition that fits you is "about whom little is known." You proffered your point of view. Your view happened to not only be unpopular, but was filled with incorrect assumptions and projected a very cavalier assumption- if, in fact, you were ever in a situation such as a furlough. Was your smug statement "coldhearted'? Poor you, surrounded by people burdened with patriotic "feelz" and the inability to recognize your obviously superior arguments. Thank GOODNESS you were able to shed light on our problem: we wouldn't be furloughed if we weren't government workers. Of course! Why, it really is all our fault that we out ourselves in this position.
You are SO RIGHT.
Guess I should have said "Black sheep". Thanks for setting me straight.
And yeah, I have weathered more than one furlough. Course I didn't get the back pay. But like you and everyone else, I have the option to find a new job. As a result of one of those furloughs, I did.
Cavalier? really? whatever.
I retract my initial statements about the concept being unfair to the govt workers who are subject to the situation. Grey has cleared up my opinion that govt workers don't appreciate how good they have it and expect special treatment. It is clear that they could care less about the issues others may have experienced in life and are only concerned with the tribulations of their own lives regardless how inconsequential they may be. I stand with Mazin.
[shakes head at ridiculous state of affairs and wanders off to more important matters]
hurley842002
01-21-2018, 18:18
[shakes head at ridiculous state of affairs and wanders off to more important matters]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180122/04dceec702c52ba8c71af7a2940006a1.gif
Flake is blabbing now in an effort to help his illegal alien buddies.
Gawd I HATE him and McCain.
Shame they let the woman march happen on park property...
Aardvark
01-21-2018, 21:58
Who has to pick up the sootikins?
https://i.imgur.com/xvf8mR3.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/PGq3SVt.png
Grey has cleared up my opinion that govt workers don't appreciate how good they have it and expect special treatment. It is clear that they could care less about the issues others may have experienced in life and are only concerned with the tribulations of their own lives regardless how inconsequential they may be.
I take a little issue with these statements here. "How good they have it?" Government workers don't exactly have it good, by comparison to the rest of us. Be it a file clerk for the IRS, a Special Agent for the ATF, or a lowly buck SGT with the US Army. A job is a job, regardless of if it is government or private. The only difference is that your local CVS pharmacist isn't subject to political games, like a 26 day shutdown (like was seen under Clinton in 1995), that threatens to delay or even furlough their pay. Work should be compensated, regardless of chosen profession. I have a good friend I served with who had to rejoin the army due to family medical issues. That is one benefit or reason to say "they have it good," but in reality those benefits are just a small portion of the bigger picture. Most .gov employees do a ton of work for shit pay. If you took the benefits out of the equation, it's a wonder anyone would pursue a career in the military seeing as how the pay is not anywhere near where it should be for the work and risks done- same goes to pretty much any Federal LE, and just about every single job within the government that doesn't carry risks, but is pretty important and very busy for pennies in compensation. I don't know of hardly any .gov employees who ask for special treatment. Most just ask to make an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, just like you, me or Bob who lives down the street and fixes your Hyundai.
The headline over at FNC is "Dems blink."
Looks like the shutdown is ending, and they caved. They being Team Schumer and his posse of obstructionist democrats (a term they used for the Repubs back during the obama years). Now they want to have both sides come to the table and draft a new DACA deal- which I think is better than something they slapped together in the short-term spending bill. We'll see how it all plays out- but I do want to see funding for a wall. I read an interesting story about USASOC and CBP testing some wall designs- I'll see if I can find it.
SHUTDOWN OVER story. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/22/senate-breaks-dem-filibuster-clearing-way-to-end-government-shutdown.html)
Senate breaks budget impasse, paving way for government to reopen (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-breaks-budget-impasse-paving-way-for-government-to-reopen/ar-AAv1qSW)
Roughly 60 hours after the federal government first shut down, a bipartisan group of negotiators in the Senate reached a breakthrough to reopen the government by uniting Republican and Democratic leaders in an agreement on immigration and spending.
The Senate headed toward overwhelming passage of a short-term spending bill later in the day Monday after voting to end debate by a vote of 81-18. The House was then expected to pass the measure and send it to President Trump for his signature, laying the groundwork for the government to reopen by Monday evening.
The spending bill would fund the government through Feb. 8 and reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for six years.
Yay! We get to play the brinkmanship game again in less than 3 weeks. Oh, and what else is in that legislation that you aren't telling us about? Based on history, I bet 'we the people' are getting screwed yet again.
Senate breaks budget impasse, paving way for government to reopen (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-breaks-budget-impasse-paving-way-for-government-to-reopen/ar-AAv1qSW)
Yay! We get to play the brinkmanship game again in less than 3 weeks. Oh, and what else is in that legislation that you aren't telling us about? Based on history, I bet 'we the people' are getting screwed yet again. Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.
George Carlin
Actor, Author, Comedian, Critic, Producer
OtterbatHellcat
01-22-2018, 20:48
I heard that it takes $65,000 a DAY to keep the Statue of Liberty "open" for visiting, etc, etc.
I don't know where you all stand on that piece of WTF information, but that is some shit they can shut down every other week at least....what in the world is that shit?
I heard that it takes $65,000 a DAY to keep the Statue of Liberty "open" for visiting, etc, etc.
I don't know where you all stand on that piece of WTF information, but that is some shit they can shut down every other week at least....what in the world is that shit?
That cost may include the ferry service that is operated from NJ and NY to the island on a regular daily basis.
I heard that it takes $65,000 a DAY to keep the Statue of Liberty "open" for visiting, etc, etc.
I don't know where you all stand on that piece of WTF information, but that is some shit they can shut down every other week at least....what in the world is that shit?
One of our nations important monuments, it should be kept open.
Great-Kazoo
01-22-2018, 22:30
One of our nations important monuments, it should be kept open.
As compared to? Not looking to debate, just curios what one deems more important than another.
Great-Kazoo
01-22-2018, 22:33
That cost may include the ferry service that is operated from NJ and NY to the island on a regular daily basis.
Ferry service are run by independent entities. The Statue of Liberty ferry service is one "authorized" by the NPS. Like concessions at ball parks.
Ferry service are run by independent entities. The Statue of Liberty ferry service is one "authorized" by the NPS. Like concessions at ball parks.
I realize that but I was just trying to provide one possible explanation for the stated daily cost. Most of the National Parks are "fee areas" now so not all of the cost is borne by the taxpayers. Much of the labor done at parks and monuments are provided by volunteers. Last time I checked, Department of the Interior does not have a significant portion of the federal budget.
One place to make cuts is things like this.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/22/state-department-spending-592500-to-explore-gender-identities-boys-and-men-in-kenya.html
So the situation can be in three weeks+, that she is forced to deliver the kid alone in a foreign country - unable to speak the language - while his leave is cancelled and he is forced to work without pay. You don't see that in the private sector. Ironically, he could take time off without pay for e.g. flu, but being there for the birth of your child during shutdown is unacceptable.
Interesting. Hope it works out okay. $10 says NO ONE will shame her for not speaking the language of a country in which she's living.
theGinsue
01-22-2018, 23:10
Interesting. Hope it works out okay. $10 says NO ONE will shame her for not speaking the language of a country in which she's living.
I, for one, won't be shaming her or anyone else who is in the country because their job put them there.
As compared to? Not looking to debate, just curios what one deems more important than another.
I feel it's a very important one because it signifies diplomacy and the creation of our nation (as it was a gift to the US from France, who helped us win our independence from Britain). Also it has signified hope for generations of immigrants who came here to prosper, escaping dull, meaningless lives from Europe.
Martinjmpr
01-23-2018, 11:28
Here's another catch 22 for this shutdowns that would NEVER affect a private sector worker.
On the flip side, federal government workers generally also don't have to worry about their employer going bankrupt or "downsizing" their job out of existence.
Lots of people who lost their jobs during the 2007 - 2010 recession would love to have had that kind of job security. So it's a tradeoff.
Per your last line -- that's for contractors right? I wasn't aware .civ had to reapply.
Martinjmpr
01-23-2018, 11:43
Per your last line -- that's for contractors right? I wasn't aware .civ had to reapply.
Some Federal jobs are temporary. You see that in the descriptions at USAJobs - it will say something like "temporary appointment not to exceed 2 years" or something similar.
I believe it has to do with whether or not Congress appropriates the $$ to keep the job funded.
Full disclosure: I've been a federal (GS) employee since 2006. ;)
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ron-swanson-tom-e1380810295816.jpeg
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ron-swanson-eliminate.jpg
It's my sincere hope, then, that as a contractor I can be more like Ron and less like Tom.
LOL
https://gabfiles.blob.core.windows.net/image/5a68ba1cc4106.jpeg
That's really cool. My sister's family is an Army family. They had to use WIC in their younger years just to feed the fam. My folks also helped them out when they needed it. They're at least doing a job that the Feds were Constitutionally mandated to do and they've paid mightily for our freedoms that we enjoy. Our troops and veterans should be a priority, but as usual, the Feds have made a mess of supporting them.
Technically from a Constitutional Originalist perspective Only the Navy Department and State Militias were mandated. The Army was only to be called up during a time of war, made up of conscripts that had at best militia training and drilling experience. It would be hard to argue that we as a nation NEED a full time standing Air Force, or Army. Our involvement in all the undeclared brush wars and “Police Actions” has lulled us into thinking we do, but we don’t.
The missions filled by those two services are adequately handled by The Navy Dept. and the 50 States National Guard. Not a popular viewpoint, nor will it get anyone elected to higher office, or become the law of the land anytime soon, but its true. Combined the Navy/Marine Corps Air Wing has the third largest Air Force in the world with the ability to launch from Air Craft Carriers anywhere in the world. The deterrent provided by dozens of nearly undetectable ICBM carrying Submarines, and THE best Infantry in the World provides a monopoly of force projection that leaves enemies and allies alike in a state of envied awe.
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/53/navy-clause
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was speaking generally of 'national defense' to keep it brief, but the details are fun. The founders didn't like the idea of a 'standing army'. The punchline to all of our military prowess is that our borders remain unprotected.
Congress barrels toward spending deadline with no deal in sight (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congress-barrels-toward-spending-deadline-with-no-deal-in-sight/2018/02/01/9ce6ed70-075a-11e8-94e8-e8b8600ade23_story.html)
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. — With a shutdown deadline looming Feb. 8 and no long-term deal at hand, congressional Republican leaders said Thursday they will have to pass yet another short-term spending bill next week to keep the government open.
House GOP leaders are eyeing a spending bill through March 22, aides said, though that date could change. It would have to pass early next week, as government funding is set to expire at the end of next Thursday. Without a new funding agreement, the government would shut down, as it did for three days in January.
Yet attempts to reach a longer-term deal have faltered amid a larger dispute over immigration and disagreement between the two parties about spending levels, as well as reluctance among some conservatives to sign off on massive new government spending in an election year. The three-day partial shutdown late last month was precipitated by Senate Democrats’ demands for protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, called “dreamers,” an issue that remains unresolved.
As Republicans gathered at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia for their annual retreat, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) insisted the government would stay open.
“I don’t think we’ll see a threatened government shutdown again over this subject,” he said. “One of my favorite old Kentucky country sayings is ‘There’s no education in the second kick of a mule,’ so I think there’ll be a new level of seriousness here in trying to resolve these issues.”
Even so, it seemed unlikely that House and Senate negotiators would be able to strike the bipartisan, two-year budget deal they are striving for ahead of Feb. 8. Even if they do, lawmakers would need weeks to turn agreed-upon figures into complete spending bills for all the agencies of government.
Next week’s stopgap legislation would be the fifth short-term “continuing resolution” of this fiscal year, a situation that is causing frustration and finger-pointing on all sides. That includes within GOP ranks, which could jeopardize passage of the resolution as conservative lawmakers and defense hawks both threatened Thursday to withhold their votes.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said his group might not support another short-term spending bill without promises of action on higher military spending levels and other issues.
“I don’t see the probability of the Freedom Caucus supporting a fifth CR without substantial changes by Feb. 8 unless we see dramatic changes,” Meadows told reporters. “We’ve had the land of promise for four times now on CRs. It’s time to put some real commitment to the effort before a fifth CR.”
Defense hawks in the House have grown increasingly frustrated with the multiple short-term spending bills, contending that they threaten military readiness and cost lives, since the Pentagon is not getting the money it needs.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters after a closed-door session with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that both Cabinet members were insisting on an end to short-term spending bills.
“The secretaries were very clear, I think, in encouraging Congress to resolve the budget issues and end the continuing resolutions so that they can manage their departments,” Thornberry said, “and more importantly, so the world knows that we are functioning and can do whatever needs to be done to protect the national security of the United States.”
Thornberry refused to commit to voting for the continuing resolution expected on the floor next week.
“We’re just going to have to see what the situation is when it arrives. Obviously there’s a lot of conversation among members at this retreat about the way forward,” he said. “Nobody wants a government shutdown, but we also cannot continue to inflict the damage that CRs inflict on the military. We can’t keep doing that.”
Overall discretionary spending levels — funding for education, housing, defense and much more — are capped under a 2011 law, and exceeding those limits requires bipartisan agreement under Senate filibuster rules. Republicans are trying to negotiate an enormous increase in military spending in the pending budget deal, which Democrats hope to match with domestic spending.
Budget deals passed under President Barack Obama in 2013 and 2015 proceeded along those lines. But now, with Republicans in the White House and in control of both houses of Congress, GOP lawmakers want to pursue a tougher posture.
Meadows and Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 3 Senate Republican, suggested they might be willing to live with an increase in nondefense spending as long as the extra funding is devoted to infrastructure, a major congressional agenda item for the Trump administration. There is no indication that Democrats, who are pushing for new investments to combat the opioid crisis and beef up veterans’ benefits, would agree to those terms.
“Obviously we’re probably going to need a short-term CR,” said Thune, while acknowledging little progress has been made since last month’s shutdown.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) pushed back at suggestions of an impasse, declaring in a terse statement Thursday that “discussion on the caps deal is going very well.”
With the 2018 spending talks in a rut, the 2019 process increasingly appeared to be over before it even began. House Budget Committee Chairman Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said he was considering skipping the annual task of putting together a budget resolution, which sets out top-line spending levels that set the stage for the appropriations process, and instead having his panel focus on making changes to the budget process itself.
“If we spend our time just spinning our wheels on something that certainly will not have a force of law and, No. 2, is not ever going to see the light of day, it begs this question: Would you be better off spending that time doing something that will have much better long-term effects for what we do as a committee?” he said. “At the early stages of this discussion, I would say that I would support that.”
GOP senators have already acknowledged that the Senate isn’t likely to pass a budget either. In forgoing a budget Republicans give up procedural rules that allow them to pass legislation without risk of a Democratic filibuster, which all but ensures they will make no effort at major entitlement reforms or another attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
The need to raise the federal debt limit is further complicating the budget negotiations. The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the limit will have to be raised above its current $20 trillion level by the first half of March — earlier than expected because of the GOP’s recent tax-cut legislation. The last increase was passed in September as part of a temporary spending agreement brokered between President Trump and congressional Democrats.
Republicans have typically found it hard, if not impossible, to cobble together enough House votes from their own party to increase the debt limit. That gives Democrats further leverage to bargain for spending concessions.
The CBO’s announcement put the issue back into the spotlight, and Meadows said there are “discussions going on right now about the debt ceiling that I’m not at liberty to talk about” on ways to win conservative support for a debt ceiling measure.
Hard-liners have floated a number of proposals meant to rein in federal spending, though none has ever gotten broader buy-in from lawmakers.
Meadows said he has spoken to White House budget director Mick Mulvaney and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin “on how we can effectively make some real reforms in that area, and based on those initial conversations, a number of Freedom Caucus members could potentially support those efforts.”
Thune said all the pending issues, from spending to immigration to the debt ceiling, could end up getting dealt with together.
“There’s sort of a pileup of things happening, all of which I think at some point could end up being merged together,” he said.
For fvcks sake, they own both houses and the presidency. Ram the spending bill through on simple majority votes.
Ride this train and downsize the Fed while we can.
Screw the criminals wanting to be citizens. Deport them all.
Bailey Guns
02-03-2018, 23:23
Cloture requires 60 votes in the senate. It's not as simple as having the majority. Plus there are too many republican douchebags in the senate like Flake, McCain, Graham, etc... 41 votes pretty much locks up the senate.
Passing a budget is one of the few things Congress is mandated to do annually by the Constitution, but they can't manage to do it.
As Trump prepares to unveil State of the Union, Congress struggles to do its job (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-trump-prepares-to-unveil-state-of-the-union-congress-struggles-to-do-its-job/2018/01/29/299ecf46-020e-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html)
Snip...
While lawmakers could still find a way to break the impasse before the Feb. 8 shutdown deadline, odds were rising that Congress will once again punt and pass yet another short-term spending bill, which would be the sixth since Trump took office.
Congress’s inability to handle its most basic constitutional task — managing the federal purse — not only dims prospects for many of Trump’s ambitions but also threatens to deepen a spending stalemate that has had far-reaching ramifications through government and the economy.
The paralysis creates instability for the military and domestic agencies that provide critical services and feeds the public’s growing suspicion toward the institutions of government in general.
It also makes the task of managing the nation’s long-term finances more difficult. Congress now routinely ignores expectations that it pay for new spending or tax cuts — such as last month’s $1.5 trillion tax cut — and there is no clear strategy to lift the federal cap on borrowing by a March deadline.
“Why do you shut the government down? Because you hadn’t passed the appropriations bills,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. “If we do our jobs and in a diligent way, things seem to work out; they always have. But now, at times, we have chaos.”
The State of the Union address begins an annual ritual where the president unveils an ambitious agenda, to be followed by a detailed budget which, in theory, provides a blueprint for Congress as lawmakers work through their own budgeting process and pass the 12 annual spending bills that fund all of government.
It’s been well over a decade since that process functioned as it was intended to. It’s become rare for even a single spending bill to be enacted before the start of the fiscal year in October.
“Budgeting is the most fundamental responsibility of governing. It sets the path for the country, and the broken budget process reflects so many pieces of what’s broken now,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Ahead of the Feb. 8 deadline, lawmakers had hoped to agree on a two-year budget deal that would set spending levels across government.
The GOP is eyeing a roughly $80 billion increase for military spending. Domestic agencies would get an increase of around $63 billion, though Democrats are pushing for more. Unsettled is how much of the spending would be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. It also remains unclear that Democrats would sign off on a deal on the spending levels absent progress on the contentious question of protections for young immigrants.
Even if they can get to a spending deal that resolves the immediate issues, there seems to be little hope among lawmakers that they can overcome the hurdles and get the overall spending process back on track.
‘$4 billion in a trash can’
The U.S. government will spend $4.1 trillion in 2018, and roughly 30 percent of that is supposed to be doled out by Congress.
When that doesn’t happen as it’s supposed to, the gridlocked spending process can’t respond to the changing needs of the nation. Congress, for example, has yet to pass a disaster relief package for last year’s devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Budget stalemates threaten economic growth by fueling uncertainty for the government and the countless private companies that rely on it.
Spending standoffs can affect lifesaving agencies and research programs with bipartisan support. Senate appropriators, for example, have signed off on a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health and $816 million toward the opioid crisis, but those and other spending changes negotiated on the committee level by the members with the most expertise cannot advance until the overall stalemate is resolved.
Military leaders have said the failed budget process has forced them to defer maintenance and training, and they have even linked it to accidents that have cost the lives of U.S. service members. Ships and other equipment sit idle because the military cannot make improvements, but the officials say money is often trapped in programs that don’t need it.
“We have put $4 billion in a trash can, poured lighter fluid, and burned it,” Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer said in December. He said that money was wasted because it could not be reapportioned within the military. It could have been used to buy two new destroyers or a “squadron of F-35” jets, he said.
Snip...
...and once again there will be posturing and rending of clothes, followed by a show of cooperation, and then the politicians will sprain their shoulders patting themselves on the back for resolving a false crisis that they themselves created. Rinse and repeat.
Cloture requires 60 votes in the senate. It's not as simple as having the majority. Plus there are too many republican douchebags in the senate like Flake, McCain, Graham, etc... 41 votes pretty much locks up the senate.
Make the liberals actually filibuster. Make them own it.
Right now, they just take a poll to see if they have 60 votes, and if not, they just carry on attending cocktail parties.
Take an actual vote on the floor for cloture, and if they don't have 60 votes, make them continue discussion on the floor.
Call for a vote every day, multiple times per day, and let the liberals own the delay.
I'm hesitant to ask, because I don't know how this works. Is it safe to assume that the way Congress holds a budget hostage over personal agendas is not the way this system was designed, but is expected behavior?
Is it it possible that Congress could meet to specifically work out a budget, and nothing else? Or, because the budget is what controls all the money for all programs, that discussion is inevitably held up?
Of course the layman will say Congress should budget for required programs with available funds, then when there is no more money, stop. Sorry, no more programs. I assume it is more nuanced than that.
If budget discussions are intended to be the budget without battling over pet programs, could the president conceivably do anything to enforce the correct behavoir, along the lines of more swamp draining?
It seems to me that if party members have to attach something they want to another bill, or hold the budget hostage to get what they want, that whatever the make-up bill is cannot stand alone and should not be discussed until it can.
I've been listening to ex-CIA guy Mike Baker whenever he is on the Joe Rogan podcast (currently four appearances before and after Trump in office) and he has a few times mentioned term limits. Term limits is often tossed around, and almost as often seen as a good idea. He expanded that idea to explain that if you are a corporate lobbyist, and you know that the guy you want to influence is going to be in office for the next 30 years, then you put a lot of effort and money into getting that guy to do what you want. Alternatively, if the person you want to try and influence only has a maximum of two terms, your potential to bribe or otherwise influence each person diminishes significantly. Lobbyists will still find a way, but they'll have to do something else. So with that idea, throwing a hard limit on budgets seems like it'd be more effective with other factors, like term limits in place.
Also, cutting pay isn't always effective, especially for rich people. I don't know how realistic jail time is, or being permanently removed from office, but I was under the impression that if congress people don't do their job, then those could be on the line.
Bailey Guns
02-04-2018, 13:22
Make the liberals actually filibuster. Make them own it.
Right now, they just take a poll to see if they have 60 votes, and if not, they just carry on attending cocktail parties.
Take an actual vote on the floor for cloture, and if they don't have 60 votes, make them continue discussion on the floor.
Call for a vote every day, multiple times per day, and let the liberals own the delay.
Yeah. But that would take actual republican leadership. The current republican senate "leadership" is too busy "reaching across the aisle" giving handjobs to democrats.
Martinjmpr
02-04-2018, 14:16
Term limits is often tossed around, and almost as often seen as a good idea. He expanded that idea to explain that if you are a corporate lobbyist, and you know that the guy you want to influence is going to be in office for the next 30 years, then you put a lot of effort and money into getting that guy to do what you want. Alternatively, if the person you want to try and influence only has a maximum of two terms, your potential to bribe or otherwise influence each person diminishes significantly.
The problem with term limits in Congress is that you end up swapping one problem for another. For example, if Congressman Jones is halfway through his 2nd term and knows he can't run again, why should he care about what his constituents want? He can basically say "screw you, people who elected, me, and screw you, party that supported me, I'm going to do what I want and since I'm term limited anyway, whatcha gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what."
Also, with term limits, congressmen have a strong incentive to "set themselves up" for their post-congress service. Especially after their last election who are they going to listen to - the people who voted them into office (who they now couldn't care less about since they don't have the chance to win another term) or the big lobbyist who says "if you support my bill, we can guarantee a seat on the Board of Directors and a cushy salary?
Re-elections at least have the benefit of forcing the politicians to stay accountable to the citizens who elected them.
Lobbyists will still find a way, but they'll have to do something else. So with that idea, throwing a hard limit on budgets seems like it'd be more effective with other factors, like term limits in place.
Who do you think those "lobbyists" will be? Most of them will be term-limited congressmen who get hired by big $$ interests after their term in Congress.
I think having term limits would change the type of person running as well. Perhaps not drastically, but maybe enough. Restricting the amount allowed to campaign could be another tool as well. We're getting into a bigger topic now though.
Good thought provoking posts today on this subject. Too bad these idiots in power don't have a clue.
Aloha_Shooter
02-04-2018, 20:23
One of the problems with term limits is that it transitions the power to the unelected bureaucrats because a significant portion of the Congress is learning their jobs for the first 2 years and they rely on staffers and bureaucrats to guide them on all but their truly hot-button topics. Add to that, the Congressmen know they will only have time and attention to hit a couple major items before they are out and term limits actually end up undermining the intended form of government. The way to really do term limits IAW the Founders' vision is to implement it at the ballot box but that requires knowledgeable voters like we had 200 years ago.
Funding or spending limits was just a way for the Democrats and their media allies to try to solidify their advantage of free publicity and spin. If Joe Schmoe believes in Candidate $hmoo enough to sink a million dollars into him/her then Joe should do it. It doesn't matter if that million dollars is all Joe has or just 1% of his fortune, he's walking the talk. Joe Six Pack surely isn't going to sink that kind of money into any candidate when his math boils down to how many beers he could buy with that donation.
I prefer sunlight laws that require candidates come clean with their funding sources and quid pro quo donations with criminal penalties attached if they don't reveal donations in a timely manner (like Clinton taking foreign money n 1992 and 1996). The criminal penalties could even include remedies like forcing a new election when pertinent facts are delayed in reporting.
Why should it cost more than $1 million to get your point across to the piblic?
I'm not seeing a convincing argument against term limits so far. Oh it might mess up Congress? Would we even notice?
Zundfolge
02-04-2018, 20:53
I'm not seeing a convincing argument against term limits so far. Oh it might mess up Congress? Would we even notice?
The classic argument against term limits is that it deprives the people of the right to keep someone they like in there forever.
I've been saying for some time now that Term Limits is a bad idea who's time has come.
Aloha_Shooter
02-04-2018, 21:14
Why should it cost more than $1 million to get your point across to the piblic?
Why can't you spend $1M if you want to get your point across to the public? A 30 sec spot on the Super Bowl costs $5M but gets your points to one of the wider audiences imaginable even with how the NFL has beat themselves up this year. We ran really low budget in the Recall Morse campaign but most politically-oriented efforts can get very expensive very fast and even as dedicated as our volunteers were, we'd have failed to get the necessary signatures in time without hiring paid canvassers since most of the volunteers were working people.
My point on spending limits is that it's just another tool by those who want to restrict speech. Sunshine laws are better because they let someone get the equivalent of as much speech as they want or can pay for but the public gets the information on how it was paid for.
As far as term limits go, we've seen the effect they have in many locales. Can you show any state or municipality with term limits where it has improved anything? I'd rather have someone I can hold accountable at the ballot box even if they can pile on a third or fourth or fifth or even sixth term than push more power to the unelected faceless staffers and bureaucrats.
In the early days of our country, those that served did so at a personal sacrifice. They couldn't afford to stay in office as a career politician. Today, how is it that those in Congress increase their wealth so much from their time entering office to their departure? There needs to be a way to take the money out of govt.
Cloture requires 60 votes in the senate..
It's a rule not mandated in the Constitution and can be revoked at anytime by the majority.
Let's have an exercise. Everyone is free to answer.
What is BEST thing that a member of the House or Senate has ever done in your opinion?
How long had said politician been in office when said best thing occured?
The counter point of course can be the worst thing, and time in office.
Simple. No budget passed by Congress by x date, president sets budget for the year.
Need a balanced budget amendment, very few exemptions requiring 75% vote in both houses to raise taxes or exceed revenue.
Need an amendment prohibiting federal money going to local governments and local projects.
Need an amendment making members of Congress employees of the state, not the federal government. Each congressman's budget is set by their state. Remove all post term benefits. Forced retirement at age 65. Require congressmen to spend 300 nights in home state each year. We have teleconferencing/video for their meetings, hearings and votes. (Could strip some lobbying power if not all in DC at same time). Travel out of country approved by state governor.
And finally. No member of Congress or thier immeadiate family can work for any company that receives government money. May not work for any company that lobbies. Same for president and USSC justices.
Impossible dream, but why not dream...
Circuits
02-04-2018, 22:23
It's a rule not mandated in the Constitution and can be revoked at anytime by the majority.
Yep. The specific instances in which the US Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate are limited to: 1) convict in an impeachment; 2) expel a member; 3) ratify a treaty; 4) override a veto; 5) pass a constitutional amendment; 6) restore rebel's rights to serve (14th Amdt; 7) approve a presidential removal (25th Amdt). The last 4 also require 2/3 vote in the House.
GilpinGuy
02-04-2018, 23:00
I like it.
I like it too, but it's a dream. Those there now would never f-themselves or their up an coming buddies.
Term limits. We have 350 million people in this country. I think we can find 535 decent ones every term.
My proposal: ALL federal government employees are limited to 12 years of accumulated service, other than career military. Then they have to get real jobs. So, 1 term in the House, 1 term in the Senate, and one term as president, or 6 terms in the house, or 2 terms as senator, you get the idea.Maximum 2 terms as president. No pension, if they want a retirement account, they can save like ordinary citizens. No career bureaucrats. Salary for legislators would be the national median income. After leaving office, federal employees would be barred from lobbying for 10 years. all of this would also apply to federal judge, .no more lifetime appointments.
We have a way to limit politicians in their quest to hold power. This power is called elections. Representatives run every two years and Senators run every six years. IMO, far too many voters continue to choose the names they know rather than voting against incumbents.
I would much prefer a return to a federal government before the expanded use of the commerce clause.
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/commerce-commerce-everywhere-the-uses-and-abuses-the-commerce-clause
We get the government we deserve.
Less government is the best government.
Martinjmpr
02-05-2018, 11:03
After leaving office, federal employees would be barred from lobbying for 10 years.
So you plan on rewriting the Constitution to remove that stupid "1st Amendment" thing? ;)
HBARleatherneck
02-05-2018, 11:07
So you plan on rewriting the Constitution to remove that stupid "1st Amendment" thing? ;)
lets be honest, you dont really have to rewrite the Constitution in order to regulate it to death. Look at the 2nd. Heaven forbid we regulate the 14th.
So you plan on rewriting the Constitution to remove that stupid "1st Amendment" thing? ;)
Think of it in the same light as a "noncompete" clause in an employment contract in the private sector. Or the obligation to not disclose classified information after leaving the military.
We have a way to limit politicians in their quest to hold power. This power is called elections. Representatives run every two years and Senators run every six years. IMO, far too many voters continue to choose the names they know rather than voting against incumbents.
Congress had an 11% approval rating in 2014, yet 96.4 percent of incumbents were re-elected. Clearly, we need better educated and motivated voters, or some sort of sunset mechanism to keep the disease in DC from festering.
I 100% agree on the commerce clause abuse. Thank Lincoln for that. He was a great man, and did many good things, but the expansion of Federal power during and immediately after the civil war was no one of them.
My proposal: ALL federal government employees are limited to 12 years of accumulated service, other than career military. Then they have to get real jobs. So, 1 term in the House, 1 term in the Senate, and one term as president, or 6 terms in the house, or 2 terms as senator, you get the idea.Maximum 2 terms as president. No pension, if they want a retirement account, they can save like ordinary citizens. No career bureaucrats. Salary for legislators would be the national median income. After leaving office, federal employees would be barred from lobbying for 10 years. all of this would also apply to federal judge, .no more lifetime appointments.
You consider government employees not to have "real jobs"? They're not all politicians, you know. Some are extremely hard-workng individuals.
You consider government employees not to have "real jobs"? They're not all politicians, you know. Some are extremely hard-workng individuals.
My wife had a government job. It was real enough that she hated it and quit.
You consider government employees not to have "real jobs"? They're not all politicians, you know. Some are extremely hard-workng individuals.
No offense intended. Government should not be the largest employer in the country. Those same hard working people could just as easily be employed in the same capacities in the private sector(and be better compensated for their hard work), if the government were to divest itself of its powers not specifically mandated by the constitution. Just as many that work for the government are dedicated and hard working, many are inherently lazy, unproductive, and dictatorial when granted the slightest bit of authority. Bureaucracies provide a refuge for a lot of people too lazy or incompetent to succeed in the private sector.
My wife had a government job. It was real enough that she hated it and quit.
I'm gonna throw out a wild guess and venture that a lot of her frustration stemmed from issues with co-workers, resource allocation, and clueless administration. She's probably also doing similar work in the privates sector now for more money, with less frustration.
I'm gonna throw out a wild guess and venture that a lot of her frustration stemmed from issues with co-workers, resource allocation, and clueless administration. She's probably also doing similar work in the privates sector now for more money, with less frustration.
Pretty much spot on. You must be psychic.
The other thing was she was pretty much the only one working there that wasn’t related to someone else. I remember she had an issue with a coworker once but it didn’t do any good to complain because that persons supervisor was her aunt.
My company has pretty strict rules about hiring family. Apparently the government supports nepotism.
Simple. No budget passed by Congress by x date, president sets budget for the year.
Constitutional separation of powers. There's a reason that the purse strings are as close to the people as possible. One just has to think back to the Obama admin. to see how that could have been a bad situation. I can also see how something like this could be 'gamed' to allow the party of the President to make budgetary allocations outside of the wishes of the people. Then we're getting into a situation where we have taxation without representation.
Uninformed voters...might not vote.
I think there’s a better chance of me seeing a legitimate zombie apocalypse in my lifetime than seeing uninformed voters stay away from the polls.
No voter is completely informed.
No voter is completely informed.
but a large number are utterly uninformed, except for what they see on facebook and occupy democrat...
Right, even the ones that think they are informed.
No offense intended. Government should not be the largest employer in the country. Those same hard working people could just as easily be employed in the same capacities in the private sector(and be better compensated for their hard work), if the government were to divest itself of its powers not specifically mandated by the constitution. Just as many that work for the government are dedicated and hard working, many are inherently lazy, unproductive, and dictatorial when granted the slightest bit of authority. Bureaucracies provide a refuge for a lot of people too lazy or incompetent to succeed in the private sector.
No, they could not. There are specific jobs that cannot be relegated to the private sector- such as jobs involving the defense of the union, and areas that are not privatized.
But we are dealing with things that ARE, not what should be, according to your line of thought.
Private sector jobs also have those same lazy, unproductive, and incompetent social loafers. The government does not have a monoploy on slackers.
I'm gonna throw out a wild guess and venture that a lot of her frustration stemmed from issues with co-workers, resource allocation, and clueless administration. She's probably also doing similar work in the privates sector now for more money, with less frustration.
I actually worked at a company that had those exact conditions. It was hopeless.
No, they could not. There are specific jobs that cannot be relegated to the private sector- such as jobs involving the defense of the union, and areas that are not privatized.
But we are dealing with things that ARE, not what should be, according to your line of thought.
Private sector jobs also have those same lazy, unproductive, and incompetent social loafers. The government does not have a monoploy on slackers.
Excluding military, what positions in defense of the Union are you referencing? I have worked military, government and civilian contractor and agree there are slackers in all. The difference being there is a much higher probability that the civilian slacker will be dealt with. It is much more difficult in the government.
We all know there are hard workers and slackers within each group. It is not a an affront to gov. employees.
OtterbatHellcat
02-05-2018, 20:34
we need better educated and motivated voters
As indicated, it's pretty slim for people that have looked stuff up and done some research independently to completely have their shit together, but at least they tried. This is the type of person that I try to be when I vote....and then again, nobody is perfect.
There are plenty of motivated voters that have zero effing idea what they're voting on, and whom it actually hurts or helps, or WHY those things can actually be bad for them because the front end SOUNDS GOOD to them.
It's difficult for many people to imagine, but one can certainly have a stake in the country without owning land.
hurley842002
02-05-2018, 21:15
It's difficult for many people to imagine, but one can certainly have a stake in the country without owning land.Like
On one hand I agree that it's pointless to argue about something that won't change anyway. On the other hand, if only land owners were able to vote, I can pretty much guarantee that not only would I not own land today, but that "The American Dream" would have died in the cradle.
Why is voter registration so important for the Dems? It lets them know how many ballots they can stuff in the box. The actual voter isn't needed.
Excluding military, what positions in defense of the Union are you referencing? I have worked military, government and civilian contractor and agree there are slackers in all. The difference being there is a much higher probability that the civilian slacker will be dealt with. It is much more difficult in the government.
We all know there are hard workers and slackers within each group. It is not a an affront to gov. employees.
There are many DoD positions that armed forces retirees transfer to. To fill a billet with a civilian contractor would mean that in two years (or however long the contract is for) they may lose the worker and have to re-train them and have them undergo all the education and TDYs required is a drain on the limited resources. My understanding is there are specific billets filled with government workers, so they don't need to re-invent the wheel every time a contract is up.
Aloha_Shooter
02-05-2018, 23:57
On one hand I agree that it's pointless to argue about something that won't change anyway. On the other hand, if only land owners were able to vote, I can pretty much guarantee that not only would I not own land today, but that "The American Dream" would have died in the cradle.
Oh, you can? Because I can pretty much guarantee that the American Dream would NOT have died in the cradle. I can't speak to whether or not you'd own land today but lots of Americans would just as they do today. Why can I guarantee that? Because that is in fact how the country started and the initial restrictions on the power of the vote did not result in a self-powered restrictive autocracy. The American Dream extended and expanded throughout the country's history and only recently as the meaning of voting and civic duty have been diminished that the American Dream itself has diminished.
Sure, back when there were hardly enough people to populate the country. Perhaps I'm being dramatic, but what makes you think there'd be any land available to purchase by the time you came along? Owning land does absolutely zero to ensure that people aren't voting for what they think is best for them.
People die, people move, land will always change hands. Maybe land would be more expensive, but oh well. The land ownership requirement helps to filter out people with no skin in the game from the electorate. "Tax payer" (as in someone from whom state and federal governments actually receive taxes) would suffice today.
Aloha_Shooter
02-06-2018, 16:17
Owning property was simply a means to make sure people with the power to vote had skin in the game. The problem that Madison et al foresaw was with people who contributed nothing being able to vote themselves more largess from the State. That's the problem we're living with now. You can change landowner for taxpayer or in a different bent, apply Heinlein's hypothetical civic test from Starship Troopers (having placed life on the line in national service), or come up with a different metric. The point is to make sure someone is a contributor rather than just a parasite before giving them the power of the vote.
My response was specifically against the idea that you could nearly guarantee the American Dream would have died if using the landowner test. The fact of the matter is that the landowner test WAS in effect and the American Dream not only didn't die, it flourished. The landowner test did go away but the point of the matter is that it did not hamper the American Dream. The only conditions which seem to have hampered the American Dream have been the recent changes which correlate in time with the OPPOSITE of the landowner test, to wit, we have devalued the meaning of American citizenship and the power of the vote. It was only when we decided faceless bureaucrats should be able to control what/how much we were able to spend or say, when we actually elected someone who DIDN'T believe in the American ideals, that the American Dream started to die. We elected the opposite recently and American Dream appears to have started to revive.
kidicarus13
02-06-2018, 16:37
Thursday @ midnight. With no changes since the last shutdown, we're primed for another one.
I'm firmly in favor of voters having to pass a US citizenship test (comparable to that required to become a naturalized citizen) prior to being able to vote. In olden times (prior to the 1970s), this used to be called "passing 5th grade civics"...
buffalobo
02-06-2018, 17:04
I'm firmly in favor of voters having to pass a US citizenship test (comparable to that required to become a naturalized citizen) prior to being able to vote. In olden times (prior to the 1970s), this used to be called "passing 5th grade civics"...Damn straight.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
OtterbatHellcat
02-06-2018, 22:04
Yeah....Like.
Zundfolge
02-06-2018, 22:54
I'm firmly in favor of voters having to pass a US citizenship test (comparable to that required to become a naturalized citizen) prior to being able to vote. In olden times (prior to the 1970s), this used to be called "passing 5th grade civics"...
Except that it will be leftists who write the test so the correct answer to the question "Who does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to keep and bare arms?" will be "The National Guard" and other leftist BS.
Not to mention that whole barrier to rights thing.
Another strong alternative to land owner, would be business owner.
Repeal the 19th and voter balance will favor logic over emotion
Classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_L5YH9Qlr4
I was thinking more along the lines of all of those other alternatives, including land owner. Kind of a checks and balances, but then again, you'd get a similar result with what we have now.
1 Timothy 2:8-15 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+2%3A8-15&version=NASB)
Another strong alternative to land owner, would be business owner.
"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Repeal the 19th and voter balance will favor logic over emotion
Classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_L5YH9Qlr4
THIS again?
A truly bullshit argument, from start to finish. Attempting to blame all women in the states for the crap the noisy liberals are slinging is a real sound, logical argument. [Sarcasm2]
The 19th Amendment will not be repealed any more than the 2nd Amendment will be repealed.
The obvious bias is overlooked by some:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx
I rest my case.
The obvious bias is overlooked by some:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx
I rest my case.
A Gallup poll of 150,000 people shows that women are "likely" democrats, therefore you'd not only be happy to repeal their right to vote, but you throw out some Bible quote as some justification?
There are 157 million women in the US. Had "most" of them been Deocrats, Trump would not be in office.
You and I have gone 'round with this before. You go ahead and soothe yourself with the idea that women will meekly, happily give up their right to vote, so they can go back to being subserviant. It won't happen. Are there women that are happy to let men take charge? Of course. Are there some that will NEVER give up their rights? You bet.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the 19th Amedment to be repealed, based on a single poll and a Bible quote.
StagLefty
02-07-2018, 15:59
Let loose young un's [Pop]
Deal reached. 1 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit.
Fvck these guys freely spending and printing money for moochers.
Just dreaming of a simpler, more logical, less secular time in our nation's history. There were many points along our path that have caused our society to turn from its original design, intended for a moral people. The 19th is just one of the most obvious, and I do understand there is no way back.
Feminism has brought far more damage to our society than benefit. Emotion must take a back seat when it comes to the art of leadership. It has its place in all aspects of society. However, governing is not one of them.
Men and Women are not equal and are not meant to be. Women have strengths that benefit in different ways than men's strengths, and it is a good thing.
People should work within their strengths and not force what does not come naturally.
Enjoy the decline.
Just dreaming of a simpler, more logical, less secular time in our nation's history. There were many points along our path that have caused our society to turn from its original design, intended for a moral people. The 19th is just one of the most obvious, and I do understand there is no way back.
Feminism has brought far more damage to our society than benefit. Emotion must take a back seat when it comes to the art of leadership. It has its place in all aspects of society. However, governing is not one of them.
Men and Women are not equal and are not meant to be. Women have strengths that benefit in different ways than men's strengths, and it is a good thing.
People should work within their strengths and not force what does not come naturally.
Enjoy the decline.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/8e/8ea875d245a42afa1b5c3b263a1eecf293262cd1de0fa15603 4b1315a8006829.jpg
buffalobo
02-07-2018, 17:30
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/8e/8ea875d245a42afa1b5c3b263a1eecf293262cd1de0fa15603 4b1315a8006829.jpgBoth.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
68Charger
02-07-2018, 18:24
How about accepting gov't assistance in exchange for your voting rights?
If you accept public assistance (above a certain point, perhaps), then your vote doesn't count until you've been off the gov't cheese for at least a year....
Never happen, but nothing will likely be done at all until the collaspe.
Stop trolling the mod doctor m'kay?
I hate to see this get ugly. Then again, I'm just here waiting for the lock anyway.
hurley842002
02-07-2018, 19:10
Stop trolling the mod doctor m'kay?
I hate to see this get ugly. Then again, I'm just here waiting for the lock anyway.Irony... the same mod you've gotten a "talking to" from, for "being mean"..... being mean.
Well the government shut down has been averted so there seems to be no more need for this thread.
Buh bye.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.