or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › TeaBaggers Wet Dream Becoming Reality: Government Shutdown?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TeaBaggers Wet Dream Becoming Reality: Government Shutdown?

post #1 of 50
Thread Starter 
Thanks to MJ1970 for the following-

"According to the shutdown scenario described by the administration, the government would have to significantly cut staffing across the executive branch, including workers at the White House and civilian employees at the Defense Department; close to 800,000 workers would be affected. Congress and the federal court system will also be subject to a shutdown.
At the Pentagon, defense officials were finalizing plans that would lay out how the department would deal with a shutdown. But they already have acknowledged that U.S. military troops — including those in war zones — would receive one week's pay instead of two in their next paycheck if the government were to close.
Military personnel at home and abroad would continue to earn pay, but they wouldn't get paychecks until there was a budget agreement and government operations resumed.
Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the Pentagon would be open on Monday and would be staffed. He said decisions on which Defense Department employees must report to work would depend on their jobs, rather than where they were based.
Key national security responsibilities, including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and earthquake assistance to Japan, would not be interrupted by a shutdown, the Pentagon said.
The CIA also would not close, though it would be drawing down some nonessential personnel to be in compliance with federal law, according to a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.
Officials familiar with the shutdown say essential counterterrorism functions in other parts of the intelligence community would continue, like monitoring of the terrorist watch lists and essential intelligence collection and analysis.
In the event of a shutdown, the Justice Department said it would be forced to stop or significantly curtail most civil litigation, community outreach to victims of crime and the processing of grants.
But other Justice Department functions would continue, including efforts to combat drug trafficking and gun violence. All 116 federal prisons would remain open and prison staff would continue to work. At the department's headquarters and in U.S. Attorneys offices, all criminal cases would continue without interruption.
At the Internal Revenue Service, the tax filing deadline remained April 18 — delayed three days because of a local holiday in Washington. Tax audits, however, would be suspended if there were a shutdown.
The IRS wouldn't process paper returns during a shutdown. Those expecting a refund should file their returns electronically and ask that the money be deposited directly into their bank accounts. Tax payments were welcome, though it was still unclear whether help lines for taxpayers would be staffed.
Social Security payments would continue to be delivered, and applications for benefits would continue to be processed, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said.
Astrue said Social Security headquarters and regional offices would be closed. Some limited services would still be available at field offices, but the details were still being worked out, he said.
Medicare would still pay medical claims for its 48 million recipients, who are mainly seniors but also several million younger people who are permanently disabled or have kidney failure. Payments to doctors, hospitals and other service providers could be delayed, however, should a shutdown continue for several months.
At the National Institutes of Health, groundbreaking medical research would experience a disruption. Patients already being treated at the NIH's famed hospital in Bethesda, Md., would continue to get that care, but new patients could not be admitted. Likewise, no new studies of drugs or other treatments could begin.
The Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees about 30 percent of home mortgages, would stop guaranteeing loans. The issuance of government backed loans to small businesses would be suspended, according to the White House.
The Obama administration said the impact on the housing market would be more severe than in 1995, the last time there was a government shutdown. The Federal Housing Administration accounts for 30 percent of the mortgage market, nearly three times the amount 16 years ago.
The nation's 15,700 air traffic controllers would keep working, as would many of the Federal Aviation Administration's 6,100 technicians who install and maintain the equipment for the nation's air traffic control system.
FAA inspectors who oversee airlines' compliance with safety regulations probably would continue to be at work. But it was unclear Wednesday whether the safety inspectors assigned to aircraft manufacturers would be told to stay on the job. Support personnel at the agency would be told to stay home.
Almost all of the Federal Transit Administration would close and that means local transit agencies would have to wait longer to get federal aid. Most of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which issues auto recalls and makes grants to states for safety campaigns, would also close.
Operation of the International Space Station would be unaffected. NASA's Mission Control in Houston would continue to work around the clock to keep watch.
But it was unclear what impact there might be on preparations for the final two space shuttle missions, said NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs. Endeavour is due to lift off April 29, Atlantis on June 28.
Among other consequences cited by the administration:
_The Environmental Protection Agency would cease issuing permits and stop reviewing environmental impact statements, which would slow the approval of projects.
_Most government websites would not be updated, unless they were deemed essential.
_Federal courts would be unable to hear cases as clerks, stenographers, bailiffs, security guards and other employees would not be at work."
~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_government_shutdown

Brief summary of shutdowns-

"What happens if there's no agreement?

The shutdown would begin at midnight on Friday, the first visible sign being on Saturday morning when the Smithsonian museums and galleries in Washington would be greeted with signs, already printed, saying that they are closed due to government shutdown, and the annual Cherry Blossom parade is cancelled. National parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite would also close. About 800,000 of the federal government's 2.8 million civilian staff face staying at home. The tax office would stop processing many returns, the national housing body would stop new loan guarantees, and the national institutes of health would start to refuse new patients.

Who else would be affected?

The impact would also be felt overseas. In the 1995-96 shutdown, about 20,000-30,000 visa applications a day went unprocessed at US embassies. The White House, like other federal bodies, would have to lay off staff. One of the consequences of the 1995 shutdown was that Monica Lewinsky was on duty at a time when many staff were on forced leave.

Who would not be affected?

Those considered essential for security and safety, such as the military, the department of homeland security, air traffic controllers and law enforcement agencies. The military, with about 1.4*million in service, would receive pay cheques up until Friday and would continue to earn money after that date but not be paid until the issue is resolved.

Why has this crisis developed?

The billions of dollars being bandied about in 2007 and 2008 at the end of the Bush era and the start of the Obama administration in bank bailouts and stimulating the economy upset many, mainly conservative voters, and led to the Tea Party movement. Many Republicans were elected in November with Tea Party support promising to cut the federal deficit, which has risen from $5tn in 1996 to $14tn. Obama has promised to cut $33bn but the Republicans want a further $7bn.

Who will be blamed?

In the last shutdowns Bill Clinton received most blame. But afterwards his poll figures rose, possibly even helping his re-election.

What would a shutdown cost?

There have been 17 shutdowns since 1977. The last one, in 1995-1996 (for six days in November 1995 and three weeks from December 1995 to January 1996) cost $1.4bn.

What will happen?

The chances of a deal are more likely than not. Polls show the US almost equally split over who to blame. Republicans may be reluctant to force a shutdown again, with the economy fragile.

Is this only the start?

This is only a standoff about the budget up until September. A bigger budget battle is looming over the budget for next year and beyond."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ion-and-answer
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thanks to MJ1970 for the following-


Interesting thing is most people don't even realize they are still dealing with LAST years budget because the Democrats refused to do one.


Quote:
At issue is legislation needed to keep the day-to-day operations of federal agencies going through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year. A Democratic-led Congress failed to complete the must-pass spending bills last year, setting the stage for Republicans assuming power in the House in January to pass a measure with $61 billion in cuts that even some GOP appropriators saw as unworkable. It was rejected in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, Boehner told ABC News in an interview that he's in lockstep with tea partiers demanding severe budget cuts.

"Listen, there's no daylight between the tea party and me," he said. "What they want is, they want us to cut spending. They want us to deal with this crushing debt that's going to crush the future for our kids and grandkids. There's no daylight there."

The sad part is that either of the sides consider $61 billion to be a real cut out of a budget that has grown to $3.6 TRILLION dollars.

The Democratic proposals are a joke. If they were your household budget, it would be the equivalent to saying don't go to Starbucks ONCE this month.

The Republican proposals are also a joke. If they were your household budget they would be the equivalent to saying let's turn off the DVR and a couple premium channels on the television.

All this while adding $1.5-1.6 trillion a year to the deficit which is what was added across one term of the Bush administration during those horrible free wheeling and spending days.

Who thought we'd be praying for our government to only be waging one war and only running deficits of $250-$400 billion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Interesting thing is most people don't even realize they are still dealing with LAST years budget because the Democrats refused to do one.




The sad part is that either of the sides consider $61 billion to be a real cut out of a budget that has grown to $3.6 TRILLION dollars.

The Democratic proposals are a joke. If they were your household budget, it would be the equivalent to saying don't go to Starbucks ONCE this month.

The Republican proposals are also a joke. If they were your household budget they would be the equivalent to saying let's turn off the DVR and a couple premium channels on the television.

All this while adding $1.5-1.6 trillion a year to the deficit which is what was added across one term of the Bush administration during those horrible free wheeling and spending days.

Who thought we'd be praying for our government to only be waging one war and only running deficits of $250-$400 billion.

I agree. Real cuts that really would make a difference would entail cutting the military budget by about 80%, getting the super rich to pay 80% in tax and having universal healthcare, releasing 90% of our prisoners and scrapping most of the prisons. Then we would have a real budget.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #4 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I agree. Real cuts that really would make a difference would entail cutting the military budget by about 80%, getting the super rich to pay 80% in tax and having universal healthcare, releasing 90% of our prisoners and scrapping most of the prisons. Then we would have a real budget.

And I'm the one accused of dreaming of a Mad Max future.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 50
A couple of things:

1. The government never really "shuts down" in the ominous way in which it is so often portrayed.

2. The last time this happened a few good things resulted:
a. Clinton moved to the center.
b. The budget got reigned in and moved toward surplus.
c. The economy started on a great run. (Don't dismiss the probable causal relationship of these events.)
d. And, best of all, Clinton got himself a blow job.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And I'm the one accused of dreaming of a Mad Max future.

You'd cut welfare and education which would cause very high incarceration costs to sky rocket even if your not for improsoning people for drugs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #7 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

A couple of things:

1. The government never really "shuts down" in the ominous way in which it is so often portrayed.

2. The last time this happened a few good things resulted:
a. Clinton moved to the center.

If Obama moves any closer to the center he'll be a TeaBagger.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #8 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You'd cut welfare and education which would cause very high incarceration costs to sky rocket even if your not for improsoning people for drugs.

You said you wanted to let out 90% of the prisoners. (Not to mention institutionalize the further looting of some group of people you deem unworthy of keeping their own money.)

Now I do favor legalization of drugs...and maybe 90% of the people in prison are there for drug only crimes...I don't know the stats...

I just found it humorous that because I think government should be much smaller, meddle much less, steal and kill less and that we ought to scale back the massive wealth re-distribution scheme that I'm hoping for a Mad Max world...but the guy who says let 90% of the prisoners go...well...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You said you wanted to let out 90% of the prisoners. (Not to mention institutionalize the further looting of some group of people you deem unworthy of keeping their own money.)

Now I do favor legalization of drugs...and maybe 90% of the people in prison are there for drug only crimes...I don't know the stats...

I just found it humorous that because I think government should be much smaller, meddle much less, steal and kill less and that we ought to scale back the massive wealth re-distribution scheme that I'm hoping for a Mad Max world...but the guy who says let 90% of the prisoners go...well...


Most crimes woukd suit community service and that would be benificial to lots of folks and cost a tiny fraction. The 10% or so would be for the more serious crimes.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #10 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Most crimes woukd suit community service and that would be benificial to lots of folks and cost a tiny fraction

Actually restitution should be the base model. Individuals typically commit crimes (like theft, assault, murder, rape) against other individuals. They don't generally commit crimes against society or community. Elected officials do that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The 10% or so would be for the more serious crimes.

Maybe. I'll take your word for the percentage. I have no idea.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 50
Thread Starter 
"Since Republicans took control of the House in January, they have forced Democrats to agree to $10 billion in cuts from current spending and are seeking roughly $50 billion more. They will soon unveil plans for deeper cuts in 2012 and beyond.

Yet the potential for such deep cuts in domestics spending recently has caused a number of analysts at major corporations and economic forecasting firms to shave their projections of economic growth.

This sign of jobs growth shows the presidents economic plan is starting to work, said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. We should stick with it, and quickly reach a budget deal to avert a government shutdown that would risk these fragile gains.

Many voters are not persuaded that the presidents policies are working; in nonpartisan national polls, slight majorities have disapproved of his handling of the economy. Future monthly unemployment rates will be central to whether those numbers improve as he seeks another term.

If the economy continues to improve over the next year, the fact is it will strengthen President Obamas political position, said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. And, he added, if the economy slows down in the next year, the Republicans put themselves in a position to take a good share of the blame for that, because now a good case could be made that the president had the jobs numbers moving in the right direction until the Republicans pushed through their own fiscal policies."
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/bu...bama.html?_r=2
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #12 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I agree. Real cuts that really would make a difference would entail cutting the military budget by about 80%, getting the super rich to pay 80% in tax and having universal healthcare, releasing 90% of our prisoners and scrapping most of the prisons. Then we would have a real budget.

We could cut the military budget. However what are we going to do whenever a few people show up for some cameras and demand we oust their leader? Devoting 80% of your lifeblood toward society is considered slavery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You'd cut welfare and education which would cause very high incarceration costs to sky rocket even if your not for improsoning people for drugs.

We have high incarnation costs in California and we have very high welfare and educational outlays and treat drug offenses as matters of treatment rather than criminal matters. The two aren't related.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If Obama moves any closer to the center he'll be a TeaBagger.

We could use plenty more movement to say, perhaps only spending in excess of a trillion a year.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually restitution should be the base model. Individuals typically commit crimes (like theft, assault, murder, rape) against other individuals. They don't generally commit crimes against society or community. Elected officials do that.




Maybe. I'll take your word for the percentage. I have no idea.



Criminals charged with violent offences make up about 8% of the prison population.

If the victims want the criminal to reimburse them somehow that would work.

Prisons are making more criminals not less at the moment.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #15 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Criminals charged with violent offences make up about 8% of the prison population.

OK


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If the victims want the criminal to reimburse them somehow that would work.

Well...if they don't...what then? Can you give me an example?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Prisons are making more criminals not less at the moment.

No doubt of that. The whole concept of "reform in prison" has been an abject failure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well...if they don't...what then? Can you give me an example?

Community service.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #17 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Community service.

I was asking for an example of when a victim would not want restitution?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thanks to MJ1970 for the following-

"According to the shutdown scenario described by the administration, the government would have to significantly cut staffing across the executive branch, including workers at the White House and civilian employees at the Defense Department; close to 800,000 workers would be affected. Congress and the federal court system will also be subject to a shutdown.
At the Pentagon, defense officials were finalizing plans that would lay out how the department would deal with a shutdown. But they already have acknowledged that U.S. military troops including those in war zones would receive one week's pay instead of two in their next paycheck if the government were to close.
Military personnel at home and abroad would continue to earn pay, but they wouldn't get paychecks until there was a budget agreement and government operations resumed.
Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the Pentagon would be open on Monday and would be staffed. He said decisions on which Defense Department employees must report to work would depend on their jobs, rather than where they were based.
Key national security responsibilities, including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and earthquake assistance to Japan, would not be interrupted by a shutdown, the Pentagon said.
The CIA also would not close, though it would be drawing down some nonessential personnel to be in compliance with federal law, according to a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.
Officials familiar with the shutdown say essential counterterrorism functions in other parts of the intelligence community would continue, like monitoring of the terrorist watch lists and essential intelligence collection and analysis.
In the event of a shutdown, the Justice Department said it would be forced to stop or significantly curtail most civil litigation, community outreach to victims of crime and the processing of grants.
But other Justice Department functions would continue, including efforts to combat drug trafficking and gun violence. All 116 federal prisons would remain open and prison staff would continue to work. At the department's headquarters and in U.S. Attorneys offices, all criminal cases would continue without interruption.
At the Internal Revenue Service, the tax filing deadline remained April 18 delayed three days because of a local holiday in Washington. Tax audits, however, would be suspended if there were a shutdown.
The IRS wouldn't process paper returns during a shutdown. Those expecting a refund should file their returns electronically and ask that the money be deposited directly into their bank accounts. Tax payments were welcome, though it was still unclear whether help lines for taxpayers would be staffed.
Social Security payments would continue to be delivered, and applications for benefits would continue to be processed, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said.
Astrue said Social Security headquarters and regional offices would be closed. Some limited services would still be available at field offices, but the details were still being worked out, he said.
Medicare would still pay medical claims for its 48 million recipients, who are mainly seniors but also several million younger people who are permanently disabled or have kidney failure. Payments to doctors, hospitals and other service providers could be delayed, however, should a shutdown continue for several months.
At the National Institutes of Health, groundbreaking medical research would experience a disruption. Patients already being treated at the NIH's famed hospital in Bethesda, Md., would continue to get that care, but new patients could not be admitted. Likewise, no new studies of drugs or other treatments could begin.
The Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees about 30 percent of home mortgages, would stop guaranteeing loans. The issuance of government backed loans to small businesses would be suspended, according to the White House.
The Obama administration said the impact on the housing market would be more severe than in 1995, the last time there was a government shutdown. The Federal Housing Administration accounts for 30 percent of the mortgage market, nearly three times the amount 16 years ago.
The nation's 15,700 air traffic controllers would keep working, as would many of the Federal Aviation Administration's 6,100 technicians who install and maintain the equipment for the nation's air traffic control system.
FAA inspectors who oversee airlines' compliance with safety regulations probably would continue to be at work. But it was unclear Wednesday whether the safety inspectors assigned to aircraft manufacturers would be told to stay on the job. Support personnel at the agency would be told to stay home.
Almost all of the Federal Transit Administration would close and that means local transit agencies would have to wait longer to get federal aid. Most of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which issues auto recalls and makes grants to states for safety campaigns, would also close.
Operation of the International Space Station would be unaffected. NASA's Mission Control in Houston would continue to work around the clock to keep watch.
But it was unclear what impact there might be on preparations for the final two space shuttle missions, said NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs. Endeavour is due to lift off April 29, Atlantis on June 28.
Among other consequences cited by the administration:
_The Environmental Protection Agency would cease issuing permits and stop reviewing environmental impact statements, which would slow the approval of projects.
_Most government websites would not be updated, unless they were deemed essential.
_Federal courts would be unable to hear cases as clerks, stenographers, bailiffs, security guards and other employees would not be at work."
~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_government_shutdown

Brief summary of shutdowns-

"What happens if there's no agreement?

The shutdown would begin at midnight on Friday, the first visible sign being on Saturday morning when the Smithsonian museums and galleries in Washington would be greeted with signs, already printed, saying that they are closed due to government shutdown, and the annual Cherry Blossom parade is cancelled. National parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite would also close. About 800,000 of the federal government's 2.8 million civilian staff face staying at home. The tax office would stop processing many returns, the national housing body would stop new loan guarantees, and the national institutes of health would start to refuse new patients.

Who else would be affected?

The impact would also be felt overseas. In the 1995-96 shutdown, about 20,000-30,000 visa applications a day went unprocessed at US embassies. The White House, like other federal bodies, would have to lay off staff. One of the consequences of the 1995 shutdown was that Monica Lewinsky was on duty at a time when many staff were on forced leave.

Who would not be affected?

Those considered essential for security and safety, such as the military, the department of homeland security, air traffic controllers and law enforcement agencies. The military, with about 1.4*million in service, would receive pay cheques up until Friday and would continue to earn money after that date but not be paid until the issue is resolved.

Why has this crisis developed?

The billions of dollars being bandied about in 2007 and 2008 at the end of the Bush era and the start of the Obama administration in bank bailouts and stimulating the economy upset many, mainly conservative voters, and led to the Tea Party movement. Many Republicans were elected in November with Tea Party support promising to cut the federal deficit, which has risen from $5tn in 1996 to $14tn. Obama has promised to cut $33bn but the Republicans want a further $7bn.

Who will be blamed?

In the last shutdowns Bill Clinton received most blame. But afterwards his poll figures rose, possibly even helping his re-election.

What would a shutdown cost?

There have been 17 shutdowns since 1977. The last one, in 1995-1996 (for six days in November 1995 and three weeks from December 1995 to January 1996) cost $1.4bn.

What will happen?

The chances of a deal are more likely than not. Polls show the US almost equally split over who to blame. Republicans may be reluctant to force a shutdown again, with the economy fragile.

Is this only the start?

This is only a standoff about the budget up until September. A bigger budget battle is looming over the budget for next year and beyond."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ion-and-answer

I think they will pull a deal exactly on Friday morning that both sides agree on temporarily and no shutdown will happen. I hope I am right.
post #19 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I agree. Real cuts that really would make a difference would entail cutting the military budget by about 80%, getting the super rich to pay 80% in tax and having universal healthcare, releasing 90% of our prisoners and scrapping most of the prisons. Then we would have a real budget.

Cutting the military budget by 80%. Dude, that is bat-s crazy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 50
Some examples of non-violent, non-extremist rhetoric by Democrats and Friends:

Dump Trash on Boehner's House: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-boehners-pad/

Pelosi calls GOP proposal "war on women." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52793.html

Holmes Norton say shutdown "like bombing innocent civilians"

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/poli...n-talks-040711

Jesse Jackson compares fight to "Civl War"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/07/je...ll-over-again/

And of course, we had Chuck Schumer recorded talking about how the Dems will try to pin this on Boehner and paint him as an extremist. My question: Given the above, who is an "extremist?" Is it the party who seeks to prevent fiscal disaster, or the party that has quadrupled the budget deficit and added $4 Trillion to the debt in less than two years?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I was asking for an example of when a victim would not want restitution?

I'm sure most would but there's bound to be very different wants pending on the nature of the crimes involved. Some, like victims of rape say, are likily to want to sever any possible ties to the rapist.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #22 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm sure most would but there's bound to be very different wants pending on the nature of the crimes involved.

You are probably quite right and you point out a very interesting thing: People are likely to want choices and options (rather than a one size fits all approach) even when dealing with crimes and violations of their rights.

Makes one wonder what other areas of life they might like to have a much wider variety of choices and options than they currently do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Cutting the military budget by 80%. Dude, that is bat-s crazy.

Not to is.

Maybe we need a Pro Cons of cutting military spending thread?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Not to is.

Maybe we need a Pro Cons of cutting military spending thread?

Dude...cuts are one thing. 80%? You have no idea what your talking about. I realize you hate military interventionism. I happen to share some of your sentiment on that. But that's not a reasonable figure. I would say 10 or even 20% would be major. Additionally, we should consolidate our 700+ foreign bases into perhaps 100 or less. Consolidate troops into different locations (US, Europe, Far East, Middle East, etc). With our technology we can have a global military capability without having troops stationed all over the globe.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Cutting the military budget by 80%. Dude, that is bat-s crazy.

If the US government put an end to the continuous war adventures it might not be that far off. 80% might be a bit high, but perhaps not as high as you think. If they decided that the budget was about defense rather than war and meddling, I suspect it could be much smaller.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 50
And who do you think will get the most blame if it shuts down? Hint : It's not Obama or the Democrats.

And it shouldn't be. When side wants the other to just roll over and play dead this is what you get. But hey! It won't be the first time the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If the US government put an end to the continuous war adventures it might not be that far off. 80% might be a bit high, but perhaps not as high as you think. If they decided that the budget was about defense rather than war and meddling, I suspect it could be much smaller.

This might come as a surprise but we do tend to agree here.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And who do you think will get the most blame if it shuts down? Hint : It's not Obama or the Democrats.

And it shouldn't be. When side wants the other to just roll over and play dead this is what you get. But hey! It won't be the first time the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.

Your partisanship is showing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This might come as a surprise but we do tend to agree here.

I'm not surprised at all. Believe it or not I know you can be right sometimes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Your partisanship is showing.

That's nice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...322182190.html



Watch and see what happens. By the way what happened the last time they did this?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And who do you think will get the most blame if it shuts down? Hint : It's not Obama or the Democrats.

And it shouldn't be. When side wants the other to just roll over and play dead this is what you get. But hey! It won't be the first time the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.

That's debatable. It think we simply don't know who will get the blame. As to who we should blame, I think it's clear that it's Obama and the Democrats--in that order. As trump (our trump, not "the" Trump) points out, remember that the GOP is still trying to deal with the fact that the Democrats refused to pass a budget last year (a supreme failure). But Obama bears the blame for not being able to bring people together and get a deal done. In the end he is the leader. Funny though, I seem to recall you believing the phrase "the buck stops here" when Bush was President. Why not now?

This is also very different situation than it was in mid-nineties. Back then we had a GOP Congress (both houses) and a Democratic President. The GOP overreached and took all the blame (as they probably should have). This time we have Democrats refusing to accept cuts that everyone knows need to be made, lest the country risks catastrophe. Also, Obama's approval is in the toilet. He's taken a beating on Libya and doesn't exactly instill confidence (see his comments re: the price of gas). He's in really bad shape. I don't think this is going to help. The GOP will stand up and say "we hate this, but we told you we wanted to cut spending and you voted us in to do that." I think that may carry some weight.

In the end, both parties will probably get some blame. But time will tell. Let's just hope the shutdown doesn't happen.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

By the way what happened the last time they did this?

The budget got balanced (and even went to surplus) and the economy started growing very well. Oh...and the president got himself a blowjob.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 50
Visualizing the two budgets here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This might come as a surprise but we do tend to agree here.

Yep, he's on the money on this one. Still has a bit of a way to go though because climate change unchecked will create war and strife. Invest in real clean energies and our safety dollar for dollar will be much higher than all the crap we spend on wars.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Some examples of non-violent, non-extremist rhetoric by Democrats and Friends:

Dump Trash on Boehner's House: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-boehners-pad/

Pelosi calls GOP proposal "war on women." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52793.html

Holmes Norton say shutdown "like bombing innocent civilians"

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/poli...n-talks-040711

Jesse Jackson compares fight to "Civl War"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/07/je...ll-over-again/

And of course, we had Chuck Schumer recorded talking about how the Dems will try to pin this on Boehner and paint him as an extremist. My question: Given the above, who is an "extremist?" Is it the party who seeks to prevent fiscal disaster, or the party that has quadrupled the budget deficit and added $4 Trillion to the debt in less than two years?

It's that "new tone" that's just as violent and filled with hyperbole as the old tone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And who do you think will get the most blame if it shuts down? Hint : It's not Obama or the Democrats.

And it shouldn't be. When side wants the other to just roll over and play dead this is what you get. But hey! It won't be the first time the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.

I believe John Boehner is playing this perfectly and the Democrats amazingly enough are helping him out. In attempting to define the Tea Party as extreme they make the default position of discussion for middle ground the Republican position.

It becomes a pretty simple story to tell. The Democratic position was extreme and intolerable even to Democrats. If it wasn't then they would have easily passed a budget during time when they controlled both branches of Congress. Yet their position was so untenable and extreme so they couldn't. Now they are out of power and even more extreme due to being a minority. (Remember that was the claim of the Democrats before, that minority positions are extreme ones.) So the majority position, even if it has a minority within it, is the best position from the House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's debatable. It think we simply don't know who will get the blame. As to who we should blame, I think it's clear that it's Obama and the Democrats--in that order. As trump (our trump, not "the" Trump) points out, remember that the GOP is still trying to deal with the fact that the Democrats refused to pass a budget last year (a supreme failure). But Obama bears the blame for not being able to bring people together and get a deal done. In the end he is the leader. Funny though, I seem to recall you believing the phrase "the buck stops here" when Bush was President. Why not now?

Exactly! It is that standard Democratic double standard and blind-spot. President Obama was supposed to be the type of leader that could unite Democrats and Republicans. Obviously he has been a hard partisan instead. So he has united no one. Then to add to that, he couldn't even unite his own party so now Republicans are to blame for that as well.

Quote:
This is also very different situation than it was in mid-nineties. Back then we had a GOP Congress (both houses) and a Democratic President. The GOP overreached and took all the blame (as they probably should have). This time we have Democrats refusing to accept cuts that everyone knows need to be made, lest the country risks catastrophe. Also, Obama's approval is in the toilet. He's taken a beating on Libya and doesn't exactly instill confidence (see his comments re: the price of gas). He's in really bad shape. I don't think this is going to help. The GOP will stand up and say "we hate this, but we told you we wanted to cut spending and you voted us in to do that." I think that may carry some weight.

I don't think the Republicans overreached on budget matters. I think they overreached on impeachment.
Quote:
In the end, both parties will probably get some blame. But time will tell. Let's just hope the shutdown doesn't happen.

I suspect the generational change is waking up to the fact that no amount of rhetoric can alter the path towards default that we are currently on.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Your partisanship is showing.

Um.... where are the Democrats in those polls? They do still control the Senate and still have a sizable number of members in the House.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yep, he's on the money on this one. Still has a bit of a way to go though because climate change unchecked will create war and strife. Invest in real clean energies and our safety dollar for dollar will be much higher than all the crap we spend on wars.

Dude, do you really believe what you're writing? Have you read it back to yourself? "Climate change" is not doing any of that and very well may not exist at all. It's the very last of our concerns right now. And "real clean energy" is a fucking fairytale. It's not going to meet our power needs. We need oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power. You can install windmills and solar panels all you want, but it's not going to stop our dependence on foreign oil and/or stop any wars. If that's your goal, you should be supporting drilling here at home, natural gas development (of which we have massive reserves) and nuclear power. Otherwise, you live in that fairytale I mentioned. So does Obama.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's that "new tone" that's just as violent and filled with hyperbole as the old tone.



I believe John Boehner is playing this perfectly and the Democrats amazingly enough are helping him out. In attempting to define the Tea Party as extreme they make the default position of discussion for middle ground the Republican position.

It becomes a pretty simple story to tell. The Democratic position was extreme and intolerable even to Democrats. If it wasn't then they would have easily passed a budget during time when they controlled both branches of Congress. Yet their position was so untenable and extreme so they couldn't. Now they are out of power and even more extreme due to being a minority. (Remember that was the claim of the Democrats before, that minority positions are extreme ones.) So the majority position, even if it has a minority within it, is the best position from the House.

Agreed. He played it well. It looks like he's getting credit for it, too.

Quote:

Exactly! It is that standard Democratic double standard and blind-spot. President Obama was supposed to be the type of leader that could unite Democrats and Republicans. Obviously he has been a hard partisan instead. So he has united no one. Then to add to that, he couldn't even unite his own party so now Republicans are to blame for that as well.

More than that, he was supposed to be measured and competent. Funny how now it's not his fault. Still blaming Bush...amazing.

Quote:



I don't think the Republicans overreached on budget matters. I think they overreached on impeachment.

Probably a little bit of both. Either way they got the blame for the shutdown. Remember The Gingrich That Stole Christmas?"

Quote:


I suspect the generational change is waking up to the fact that no amount of rhetoric can alter the path towards default that we are currently on.

Agreed. We're screwed if we don't get on the right track....and soon. 3 years ago I felt that our spending levels were regrettable and needed to be changed. I didn't like $200-400 billion deficits. But I also thought they were manageable in the short and mid terms. We've now made $400 billion $1.5 trillion....more than the entire FY 2001 budget. This is unsustainable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The budget got balanced (and even went to surplus) and the economy started growing very well. Oh...and the president got himself a blowjob.

You forgot the part about the Republicans getting the blame for the shut down and having to sit in the back of the bus for awhile.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's that "new tone" that's just as violent and filled with hyperbole as the old tone.



I believe John Boehner is playing this perfectly and the Democrats amazingly enough are helping him out. In attempting to define the Tea Party as extreme they make the default position of discussion for middle ground the Republican position.

It becomes a pretty simple story to tell. The Democratic position was extreme and intolerable even to Democrats. If it wasn't then they would have easily passed a budget during time when they controlled both branches of Congress. Yet their position was so untenable and extreme so they couldn't. Now they are out of power and even more extreme due to being a minority. (Remember that was the claim of the Democrats before, that minority positions are extreme ones.) So the majority position, even if it has a minority within it, is the best position from the House.



Exactly! It is that standard Democratic double standard and blind-spot. President Obama was supposed to be the type of leader that could unite Democrats and Republicans. Obviously he has been a hard partisan instead. So he has united no one. Then to add to that, he couldn't even unite his own party so now Republicans are to blame for that as well.



I don't think the Republicans overreached on budget matters. I think they overreached on impeachment.


I suspect the generational change is waking up to the fact that no amount of rhetoric can alter the path towards default that we are currently on.

Quote:
I believe John Boehner is playing this perfectly

You mean you hope he is. Personally I think it's political suicide. But lets just see what happens shall we. I can be wrong but I don't think so. Not this time. And history would tend to support it. When a party goes to far and causes difficulty for the voter things just don't go too well for that party. Be it Democrat or Republican.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › TeaBaggers Wet Dream Becoming Reality: Government Shutdown?