Somebody explain to me the purpose of a government shutdown
LikeAnOcean
Posts: 7,718
I'm thinking, if they stop doing their jobs, does this mean we can stop paying them and elect people who will?
How does stopping work get work done?
If they can't agree on something, lets get people in there who will do their jobs.
How does stopping work get work done?
If they can't agree on something, lets get people in there who will do their jobs.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
there is nothing worse than career politicians and this is another reason why...they cannot get their shit straight, but they still get their pay checks...cause a melt down in the economy...get your pay check... run a huge deficit and an insurmountable debt...get your pay check...countries unemployment around 9%+...get your paycheck...cannot figure out how to improve healthcare costs...still get your unbelievable benefits...these people need to start living in the world they help create.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And I'd rather see it shut down until they stop using the budget as a vehicle to promote personal ideology & reinstate funding for things like health services.
Essential Vs. Not: Which Jobs Wouldn't Shut Down?
by BRIAN NAYLOR
April 7, 2011
In Washington, D.C., and at federal agencies across the country, the big question employees are asking on the eve of a possible government shutdown is: Am I essential or not? Workers and agencies that are deemed essential will be kept on the job if a shutdown occurs.
The Obama administration says the government agencies that will remain open fall into two broad categories. Most are those necessary for the protection of life and property — including the military, law enforcement such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Border Patrol. The Federal Aviation Administration, whose air traffic controllers are essential to keep airlines flying, will be on the job, as will the Transportation Security Administration to screen passengers for those flights.
Other agencies open are those that have outside sources of income or user fees. That would include the Post Office. Social Security checks will continue to go out, since it's a system that's largely automated. Medicare benefits would be paid. And tax refund checks will go out, for those who filed electronically, according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman.
"In the event of a shutdown, people really should file electronically, because most of these returns are processed automatically and will not experience any delays," Shulman says. "However, taxpayers who file paper returns will experience some delays if we end up in a government shutdown."
The Obama administration says about 30 percent of tax returns are filed on paper. And it says those pesky tax audits will be halted if there is a shutdown.
Federal courts will remain open, since they too rely on the fees they collect for operating expenses. And while the Supreme Court will be open, it isn't in session anyway.
The government says clinical trials currently under way at the National Institutes of Health will continue, but new ones won't be started. And there are a lot of gray areas where it's unclear if government-funded activities will continue.
Roy Meyers, a political science professor at UMBC in Baltimore, points to animal testing that is conducted at FDA labs. "It would be my strong assumption that those FDA employees would be allowed to stay," he says.
So really the decisions have to come down to those fine details about whether an individual's presence on the job is truly essential to carry out that activity, or whether he or she can in effect return to that activity whenever Congress and the president agree on whether to provide funding.
What is frustrating for government employees on the eve of a possible shutdown is that many have no idea whether their jobs are deemed exempt from a shutdown, says John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union.
"Employees are apparently going to be told to report to work Monday," Gage says. "Then they will be released, and those who are nonessential, nonexempt will be released and the other ones will be told to stay."
Gage's union filed suit against the Obama administration this week, demanding details of the agencies' contingency plans for a shutdown. Federal employees who work during a shutdown will be paid eventually. It will be up to Congress to determine whether those who are furloughed will be paid. Military personnel who remain on the job are certain of being paid, but when is unclear. Many could miss a paycheck if the shutdown continues for any length of time. Gage says none of this is fair to federal employees.
"People are really steaming about this," he says. "They feel it's political theater and they are not only concerned about their jobs, their mortgages, their bills, their paycheck — but they also know how devastating these shutdowns are to programs they believe in."
Still, with so many federal agencies deemed essential, it's unclear whether most Americans will even notice if the government is shut down.
it is bullshit how these children can not get together and make a deal for the people. but i am predicting that the dems will cave yet again.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Just like my monthly expenses when I'm behind in debt, the electricity needs to stay but cable, although nice, has to go in tough times.
I see you point, but in the government, like in my job, "non-essential" just means it's not essential that they come in RIGHT NOW - not that they're a luxury. At my job, for instance, doctors have to come in when we're closed for all "non-essential" personnel, but professors do not. It doesn't mean professors should be eliminated or even reduced.
keep in mind they could have passed something last session but chose not to...and you are right, it is political posturing, some people believe one thing, and some believe another but there is no urgency because these people do not live in the real world, ultimately like I said, if we get these fuckers to live life in the world they create I think we would see a different form of democracy than the current one that isn't doing anyone any favors...unless you are friends with a congressman (R) or (D)...then it all works great...
Fuck them...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I agree 100 percent!
It should be illegal for a goverment to just shut down. You don't show up to work because you don't want to do your job, you're fired!
Americans should take to the streets and protest at least, and never again vote for any official who doesn't show up to work.
New Polls: Tea Party Roadblock To Budget Compromise
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46122.html
WASHINGTON -- Two new national polls confirm the political underpinnings of the ongoing budget stalemate: Most independent and Democratic voters want leaders to compromise and reach a budget deal, but the Republican's Tea Party base wants the GOP to stick to a hard-line position -- even if that could force a government shutdown.
The new polls released yesterday by Gallup and the NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling partnership support the results published by the Pew Research Center earlier this week. "The American public," as Gallup explains, "has clearly and consistently expressed a desire for elected officials in Washington to pass a new fiscal year budget without bringing government operations to a halt."
So why the stalemate? Tabulations by party provide the answer:
As the table above shows, slightly better than two-thirds of Democrats want their leaders to compromise on the budget (support ranges from 68 to 69 percent) rather than force a shutdown. Similarly, the majority of independents also want lawmakers of both parties to compromise: between 53 to 76 percent support a deal. But Republicans are split, with more urging their leaders to stick to their positions (between 50 and 56 percent), rather than supporting a compromise to avert a shutdown (between 36 and 44 percent).
Two of these surveys identify Tea Party Republicans as the most resistant to compromise. Both the Pew Research and NBC/Wall Street Journal polls show exactly 68 percent of Tea Party members want the Republican leaders to stick to their positions, while both polls found only 28 percent favor compromise. On the other hand, Republicans who do not identify with the Tea Party on the Pew Research poll favor compromise by a two-to-one margin: 56 percent to 26 percent. (The third survey, from Gallup, did not report results for Tea Party identifiers.)
It is this kind of political pressure from the Republican base that, as the Wall Street Journal reports, "has prompted the Republican-led House to approve a bill calling for $61 billion in budget cuts in the current fiscal year, far more than Democratic lawmakers want."
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll also confirms that Americans are divided and uncertain about whom they might blame if a government shutdown occurs. Roughly the same number say they would blame the Republicans in Congress (37 percent) as say they would blame either President Obama (20 percent) or the Democrats in Congress (20 percent). That result is about the same as the outcomes of three polls conducted by Pew Research and the Washington Post last month, which also asked about "blame" for a potential shutdown.
(Other polls find more Americans ready to give "responsibility" to the Republicans. More details on those polls can be found here.)
But as Nate Silver points out this morning, most Americans are not yet focused on the budget story. Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who conducts the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll with Democrat Peter Hart, warns that the "blame" numbers may change. A government shutdown "will feel out of the blue," he tells the Journal. "This is a country that is not ready."
Americans may not be able to accurately predict their future attitudes, but pollsters can measure current perceptions of which party holds the higher ground in the budget battle.
The results from Gallup on that score are mixed. When they ask who is "doing a better job on efforts to agree on a new federal budget," they find more Americans name President Obama and Democrats in Congress (41 percent) than Republicans in Congress (34 percent).
The Republican number on that question has actually fallen eight points, from 42 percent, since mid-February, according to Gallup. Over the same period, the number for Obama and the Democrats has risen slightly, up from 39 percent.
On the other hand, two questions on yesterday's Gallup survey show that more Americans think that the budget proposals from Obama and the Democrats "do not go far enough in cutting federal spending" (45 percent) than think the GOP proposals "go too far in cutting federal spending" (32 percent).
But again, a real shutdown will raise the profile of the budget story considerably. The last government shutdown, in late 1995 and early 1996, caused the number of Americans following news about the budget debate "very closely" to nearly double (from 20 percent to 36 percent), while the number following the story "fairly" or "very closely" jumped by 19 points (from 55 percent to 74 percent) on the Pew Research tracking poll.
With that sort of increased spotlight, judgments about blame and performance are very much subject to change.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
That's great. I support your overall stance, but as a federal contractor, I would prefer to keep working and not join the ranks of the employed, but not payed, if this does not reach resolution. Thankfully I have a nice nest egg to get me through a few months if needed, but people I work with are truly screwed.
Me too. I'm unemployed at the moment. It happens in the private sector much more than it happens to government employees. It sucks, but it's a part of life.
(I don't want to see people lose their paychecks - other than the politicians - but the point is that the government is so out of control it's almost incomprehensible).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm so sick and tired of these games they play. Are they children? If I could fire every one of them right now I'd honestly do it in a heartbeat.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I can not depend on my government.
The citizens will talk and even yell but the outcome is more distrust and apathy.
As old Abe said "a house divided"
perhaps that is the outcome that some are intentionally working towards.
and then there is chaos that is a great distraction....
I once saw a kildeer in a parking lot .... broke my heart.... I thought it was injured badly.
Wings failing helplessly. It running in circles, it appeared without purpose...lost in pain.
But with a closer look it was all a distraction ... a ruse
it only appeared weak to protect what was most important to it.
Congress should be fired! They will still be getting paid during the shutdown even though they have failed in their job to pass a budget. This isn't a republican or democrat issue anymore. The democrats were in control last year and failed to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011 when they should have. Now, the republicans seem to be holding up the passage. Why do we always have clowns as leaders?
Expect the same thing when the time comes to work on the 2012 budget.
this pandering to their base in this situation is disgraceful.
the gop is demanding 100 billion be cut. the dems have agreed to 76 billion. what is wrong with meeting 3/4 of the way? if we would tax corporations and raise taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share we would not have to cut so much.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I read an article that just removing the tax cuts for the wealthy would give us as much as they want to cut from medicare. Of course, the rich have to keep their money so they can donate to the T baggers and republicans. As much as I dislike the republicans, their riders, and their refusal to compromise, blame must also be placed on the democrats. They were in control of the house and senate last year and did not pass a 2011 budget when they should have. Had they done that we wouldn't be in this mess.
While not necessarily a Tea Party member, I do agree with their philosphy on reducing the federal deficit.
The interesting thing is the articles I have been reading states that it is actually the old guard who Boehner is really being pressured by and they are focusing on mostly social issues (i.e. planned parenthood and EPA), not spending issues.
For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46463.html
According to some of the democrats (Durbin, Pelosi), Boehner is just using the Tea party as his cover when really it is the social issues stumped by the Old Republican guard that is holding up the bill. Pretty disappointing and ridiculous if you ask me as $33 billion or even $40 billion is just another drop in the bucket alongside the Democrat's $1.5 or $1.6 billion in cuts. It's all a sideshow as any of those numbers isn't really going to affect the federal deficit much since they are only cuts in proposed spending, not cuts that will positively affect the budget deficit.
These cuts are not real cuts like the Tea party would like. If the pressure from the Tea Party truly was being considered, I think the discussion would be much more heavily oriented on cuts of a much grander scale; not these superficial cuts. Right now, the Tea Party is simply an easy target to place the blame on since they have been very vocal about the the need to make huge spending cuts.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thanks for mentioning that. Didn't mean to piss you off and I'm pretty sure I do remember reading that last year. My intention wasn't to just blame the dems but I think both parties are to blame for our country's problems. In this current round of budget negotiations, I think the republicans, and especially the t party express, are to blame! I think that due to our country's fiscal situation we do need to have program cuts but we also need to get rid of the tax breaks for the wealthy! If the republicans were really serious about fixing our budget that option would be on the table.
I completely agree. Regardless of anyone's personal ideology on social issues, it's completely, outrageously inappropriate to hold the federal government hostage in order to force the enactment of your ideological agenda. I swear, at this point I feel like they are terrorists and we are in a hostage situation.
And even if it were appropriate to use the federal budget to wage war on a legal medical procedure, NOTHING THEY ARE DOING WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ABORTION SPENDING!! For the love of logic, what they're doing doesn't make any sense - IF their goal is to spend less money or even to decrease abortion.
But I think you have an excellent point that it's really all about pandering. They are trying to enact laws that aren't really about abortion, but they are telling the public they do - and the public actually believes them! It's amazing! They can just totally make shit up and tell people they did it, and then people will think they're great and vote them back into office. Unfuckingbelievable.
Congress Strikes a Budget Deal to Avert Shutdown, Cutting $38.5B
Published April 08, 2011
FoxNews.com
Congressional leaders, with barely an hour to go before a federal government, announced late Friday night they had reached a deal to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.
The deal includes $38.5 billion in spending cuts while leaving the more contention policy matters, such as blocking funding for Planned Parenthood, for a later debate.
"This agreement between Democrats and Republicans on behalf of all Americas is a budget that invests in our future while making the largest spending cut in our history," President Obama said in a short speech to the nation after the deal had been announced.
House Speaker John Boehner, speaking to reporters just before Obama's remarks, said lawmakers would pass one last short-term spending resolution Friday night to buy lawmakers the time needed to prepare and pass the final budget bill next week.
"We fought to keep government spending down because it really will be a jobs creator for our country," Boehner said.
Of the $38.5 billion in spending cuts to Obama's original 2011 budget proposal, the short-term stopgap measure contains the first $2 billion and the final budget bill will cut the other $36.5 billion.
It was a remarkable end to a roller-coaster week of negotiations, in which the government several times seemed headed for a shutdown because the two sides couldn't agree on a full-year deal.
Obama has already signed two temporary spending bills, which included a total of $10 billion in spending cuts, but he said this week he wasn't interested in any more short-term fixes.
As late as hours before the agreement, a government shutdown seemed quite possible -- if not inevitable -- as both sides couldn't even agree, at least in public, on what was holding up a deal.
Democrats said Republicans were pushing for social policy measure, while Republicans said the Democrats hadn't agreed to enough spending cuts.
But in the end, neither side wanted a shutdown that would risk the economic recovery and their political future.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the agreement "historic."
"Both sides have made tough choices, but tough choices is what this job is all about," Reid said.
The Senate passed the short-term spending measure Friday night by a voice vote.
The government's current fiscal year began back in October, but Democrats last year, facing stiff opposition from Republicans, put off a vote on a full-year budget as both parties geared up for the midterm elections.
The standoff began in earnest several weeks ago, when the new Republican majority in the House passed legislation that would fund the government for the rest of the year, but with $61 billion in cuts and numerous curbs on the government that Democrats objected to.
In the weeks since, the two sides have alternately negotiated on a budget for the rest of the year and taken time out to pass interim measures to buy themselves more time.
Republicans originally wanted to ban federal funds for Planned Parenthood, a health care services provider that is also the nation's largest provider of abortions.
Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions except in strictly regulated cases, but supporters of the ban said cutting off government funds for the organization -- currently about $330 million a year -- would make it harder for it to use its own money for the same purpose.
Democrats rejected the proposal in private talks. Officials in both parties said Republicans returned earlier in the week with a proposal to distribute federal funds for family planning and related health services to the states, rather than directly to Planned Parenthood and other organizations.
Democrats said they rejected that proposal as well, and Obama had vowed to veto a bill that the House passed Tuesday to fund then refused to agree to allow a separate Senate vote on the issue as part of debate over any compromise bill.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... z1J01OBqG6
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the people are angry and frustrated, and the more level headed republicans realized that. hats off to those republicans who refused to go down with the tea party ship.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree, but what would you cut? Do you think the tax cuts should be removed? I don't know if this is accurate but I heard on the radio that Ryan's budget proposes further tax cuts for the wealthy in the form of a lower tax rate. At the same time, Medicare recipients will be forced to pay in order to continue receiving benefits. Is it right to ask the wealthiest amongst us to pay less while increasing the burden on the elderly and poor?
If the GOP is serious about the deficit why not cut programs, but to a lesser extent AND raise taxes?
I think they're more serious about the size of government than the deficit. I know I am.
Don't get me wrong, the deficit needs to be reduced...actually make that ELIMINATED, but I am not in favor of raising taxes for anyone. We have far, far, far too much bureaucracy and the government in general is way too big.
There are a lot of things I'd cut. Military spending and the wars would be a big part of it, but so would many social and entitlement programs.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.