Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Official Shutdown Thread

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
September 30, 2013 11:06:13 PM

Lim Govt. Spending as x approaches 16.9 trillion= Government shutdown on October 1, 2013.

Blame all you want and who you want, the reality is the American people hate their bureaucrats and hate their leaders. They are sick of the games people play and want balance in the Republic!

Here is the latest, courtesy of CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/government-shutd...

More about : official shutdown thread

October 1, 2013 5:08:33 AM

This thread is going to hit Goodwins law in 6 posts, I can feel it.

I find it amazing that instead of trying to fix a law that conservatives disagree with (That was created by a conservative think tank and put into action by Romney in his state) they decide to shutdown the government.

October 1, 2013 5:08:50 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Lim Govt. Spending as x approaches 16.9 trillion= Government shutdown on October 1, 2013.

Blame all you want and who you want, the reality is the American people hate their bureaucrats and hate their leaders. They are sick of the games people play and want balance in the Republic!

Here is the latest, courtesy of CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/government-shutd...

The American people are paying these politicians and they should start to listen to us.This is political game which is hurting everyone now.GROW UP!
Related resources
October 1, 2013 5:18:28 AM

Watching this from the other side of the pond it all looks very strange!
October 1, 2013 5:25:40 AM

Holy Sh*t! Someone just pointed out to me that in Australia if the government is denied its budget they go and have an election... Can some Aussie verify that?
October 1, 2013 6:00:30 AM

First, realize that a government shut-down is nothing new. Only non essential services are getting shut down. Which raises the question of why the Federal government is providing those services to begin with if they are not essential to running the government. The only people affected are the 800K personnel who work in those non essential services. The majority of Americans will not even notice that the Federal government shut down for a few days, or even a few weeks.

Second, America has had a long history of government shut downs over budget disagreements. The first government shut down was in 1789 when the Framers determined that all appropriations must originate in the House and then approved by the President. This was done to PREVENT the President from determining how Federal dollars are to be spent and to LIMIT the powers of the President.

Third, the Senate has been derelict in their duty and has not/did not vote on a Federal budget for the first 5 years of the Obama Administration. Obama has yet to sign a Federal budget. This is the first time in American history where a Senate and 2nd term President has FAILED to vote and sign off on a Federal budget. Please note that the Republican controlled House has passed a budget every year per their Constitutional duty.

Also, the President and Senate Democrats have openly stated that they are UNWILLING to negotiate with the House to pass a Federal budget and then have the balls to blame House Republicans for this shut-down. The President and Senate Democrats have taken a "my way or the hi-way" stance which has effectively left the House Republicans with no other option but to also take a hard line stance. Given the House determines all appropriations, not the President or Senate, the fault for this shut down falls squarely on the shoulders of the Senate and President for intentionally not negotiating with the House.

Lastly, if you really pay attention to the news, this shut down debate has LESS to do with disagreements between Democrats and Republicans as much as it is an ideological difference between the career Senators and Congressmen compared to the younger blood recently voted into the Congress. This is more about the career politicians wanting to maintain their power and control to maintain baseline budgeting and deficit spending as opposed to cutting the budget and getting the debt under control. Fact is, if the career politicians were truly believe their own bullshit about reducing the national debt, they would also not oppose a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment, the same type of Amendment that exists in over 40 State Constitutions.
October 1, 2013 8:00:37 AM

97% of NASA employees are being furloughed. And Curiosity is going into protective mode, not collecting data.

NASA will be one non-essential service ill miss.
October 1, 2013 9:28:09 AM

Non-essential does not mean "not needed". The nearly 3000 folks I sent home today are certainly needed to ensure the Nation's taxpayers and Warfighters get what they paid for and deserve.

Non-essential refers to folks not needed to support very specific functions. It (the term) is a misnomer that does great injustice (when misapplied) to those who have chosen to serve the Nation as civil servants.

I am proud to serve with those "non-essential" folks.
October 1, 2013 9:30:12 AM

3000! Holy crap! :eek2: 
October 1, 2013 9:39:51 AM

Mousemonkey said:
3000! Holy crap! :eek2: 

...of approximately 10000 spread across the entire organization I am assigned to.
October 1, 2013 9:41:36 AM

Even so that's a lot of people to cheese off in one go!
October 1, 2013 9:48:55 AM

99.999% of them are true professionals and go above and beyond on a daily basis. They (and the Nation) deserve better than this.
October 1, 2013 12:31:28 PM

COLGeek said:
Non-essential does not mean "not needed". The nearly 3000 folks I sent home today are certainly needed to ensure the Nation's taxpayers and Warfighters get what they paid for and deserve.

Non-essential refers to folks not needed to support very specific functions. It (the term) is a misnomer that does great injustice (when misapplied) to those who have chosen to serve the Nation as civil servants.

I am proud to serve with those "non-essential" folks.
COLGeek said:
...of approximately 10000 spread across the entire organization I am assigned to.

COLGeek said:
99.999% of them are true professionals and go above and beyond on a daily basis. They (and the Nation) deserve better than this.


Hmm, let me check my pocket Constitution for a moment. First let's check Article 1, Section 8...nope nothing there...now let me check Article 2, Section 2....nothing there either! Wow! That's interesting, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that it is a function of the Congress or Executive Branch to provide jobs to people who process services for taxpayers and government employees.

It seems to me that those 3000 employee are non-essential, literally, to run the Federal government. I would also hazard a guess whatever function they provide could be privatized.

Don't get me wrong COLGeek, I'm sure that every one of the 3000 people are professionals and nothing more than the unintended consequences as a result of this shut-down. But the truth is they are also an example of just how much the Federal government has grown beyond it's Constitutional boundaries.

Those 3000 people and the Nation DEFINITELY deserve better than this!

October 1, 2013 4:08:32 PM

Some functions are inherently government functions and are not suitable for privatization. Not really a debate.

You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the Constitution (and I would never hold that view against you or anyone).

We do agree, however, that better is what the Nation deserves.
October 1, 2013 5:26:47 PM

The issue rises due to Ideology of the few, their money-backers, and their leather seats.

What needs to happen is both sides must come together, create a compromise budget for all of 2014, and when January 1, 2014 comes around, they can resume the shit-flinging contest one last year before the American people skin them alive one-by-one.

This next election will be a joyful one, I hope.
October 2, 2013 6:14:54 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Lim Govt. Spending as x approaches 16.9 trillion= Government shutdown on October 1, 2013.

In addition to the historic national debt what goes largely ignored by our politicians and media alike is the $225 TRILLION in unfunded federal mandates and programs.

There literally is not enough money in the world to fund all the programs and legislation the Federal government has on the books.

The current government shut-down is nothing compared to the inevitable financial collapse as a result of gross federal over spending.
October 2, 2013 6:42:03 AM

What is your source for the $225T number?

October 2, 2013 7:06:08 AM

COLGeek said:
Some functions are inherently government functions and are not suitable for privatization. Not really a debate.
Of course it's open to debate! Here's the thing, the government itself labels those employees as non essential, the defense that they are inherent and can not be privatized seemingly comes from an institutional point of view.

As some one with 15+ years experience having been through multiple re-organizations and as some one who has re-organized corporations, it has been proven that while some employees may perform "needed" functions, any function that does not impact the core purpose of the organization is absolutely not essential to the organizational structure. What they do and how they do it can be privatized, out-sourced, or otherwise done without those employees. Our elected officials have chosen to create government jobs under the guise of necessity which has only contributed to bloat and waste. Take the Dept of Education or Dept of Defense as examples, there is nothing within those two organizations that can not be re-structured to follow original Constitutional intent, be privatized, or be relegated back to the States.

Now, you have not offered what the 3000 employees function is, nor offered any reason as why they are inherent or essential to the core functions of the government. So, I would be remiss not to change my opinion if compelling information was given about why and how those 3000 employees are absolutely necessary to keeping the government running. I'd also be curious to know if they are Union employees or private contractors.

COLGeek said:
You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the Constitution (and I would never hold that view against you or anyone).
I am not interpreting anything, the Constitution is quite plain about what the core functions of and the limits put on the federal government. It is by claiming an "interpretation" rather than following original intent that has allowed the past 100+ years of the Progressive Era in America to put our society and economy into the poor state it is in today.
October 2, 2013 7:14:12 AM

ObamaCare has a regulation written into it for the first time to regulate tax preparers. Nothing says tax preparers (CPAs, etc) can or should be regulated. The tax code does that for us. By ObamaCare is working to regulate those tax preparers because it generates more money. My accountant warned me of this 3-4 years ago, saying his cost was going to go into the tens of thousands to continue working on his own. The goal being to make everyone go into a giant pool of tax preparers, instead of having your own. In effect, they want to start forcing you to work directly with the IRS when filing your taxes. Instant audits, maximum income generation for the IRS, and you as an individual will end up seeing more money out the door instead of getting returns.
October 2, 2013 7:24:34 AM

Tax preparer regulations were dropped months ago.

Healthcare is a problem, its expensive and doesnt help everyone. This is a step in the right direction, the American people agree. Obama ran on the ACA and was voted in. The plan is based on another plan created by a very conservative think tank, it was implemented by the republican nominee for president in his state, it was found to be constitutional. But instead of trying to improve the plan the minority has decided to stop funding the government. Brilliant.
October 2, 2013 7:47:28 AM

COLGeek said:
What is your source for the $225T number?


Investor and founder of Matterhorn Asset Management, Egon von Greyerz.

Note that searches will show the unfunded liabilities to be only $125T, but this number only accounts for Social Security, Prescription Drugs, and Medicaid. The $125T does not include all other unfunded liabilities like subsidies to the States, pensions, tax breaks, Obamacare, etc...
October 2, 2013 7:47:55 AM

You keep harping on Romney. Even Romney said, it worked for his state but it isn't a solution for all states. Looking over the state's expenses, it turned out to be cheaper for the state to buy residents insurance who couldn't afford it, than to pay/eat their medical bills. It worked for that state. It isn't a cookie cutter approach for all states. That's the issue.

States should resolve their issues, not the Federal gov't implementing a solution, at the state level in cookie cutter format, for the law to be legal.

At the Federal level, the law would mean everyone would have to pay the same amount. Income tax for example, across the country everyone pays the same percentage, no matter what. With ACA, they went to the state level so they could charge people more or less, depending on their income.

My premiums would be $16,xxx a year under the ACA. That's fawking astronomical. But for someone making less money than me, their premiums would be around $3,000 for the EXACT same coverage. How is that fair to me that I'm paying more for the same services!? We all pay income tax percentages and we all receive the same exact services.

I also was talking to my HR benefits person yesterday. The ACA made a significant change that affects a lot of people. In and Out of Network provider laws changed significantly. Previously, if you went to an Out of Network ER, the ER would treat you, stabilize you, then transport you to an In Network ER and your insurance would cover it. Under the ACA, this no longer applies. If you go to an Out of Network provider, you're on the foot for the full bill and your insurance will not cover anything. The Out of Network provider will not transfer you to an in network provider because they don't get paid anymore.

That's just stupid. This is something my coworker is going through.. he had a real emergency, went to the closest hospital ER and now has a $7,000 bill he has to pay because they're out of network.
October 2, 2013 7:48:44 AM

Also, my previous job.. they're all working still. Even after 20% sequestration last fiscal year, they still have enough money left over from last year's budget to fund all 5,500 employees for up to 6 months.
October 2, 2013 8:06:41 AM

wanamingo said:
Tax preparer regulations were dropped months ago.

Healthcare is a problem, its expensive and doesnt help everyone. This is a step in the right direction, the American people agree. Obama ran on the ACA and was voted in. The plan is based on another plan created by a very conservative think tank, it was implemented by the republican nominee for president in his state, it was found to be constitutional. But instead of trying to improve the plan the minority has decided to stop funding the government. Brilliant.
The ACA is a symptom. Centralized government planning is the problem.

The joke is America has had socialized medicine since 1965! But the centralized government planners and progressives re-created the wheel and stole money from the existing social medical benefits rather than re-vamp Medicare and MedicAid!

C'mon mingo, quit buying the sound bytes. The minority has passed bills onto the Senate to fund the government, including the ACA. The minority went along with the party in power and removed the verbiage to de-fund the ACA but replace it with a one-year delay just on the taxes associated with the individual mandate. It is the party in power that refuses to negotiate unless the individual taxes are included in any CR's. The party in power has given thousands of waivers in political pay-offs to Unions and big business so they do not have to pay the taxes associated with not conforming to the ACA but the same party in power refuses to give that same waiver to the individual policy holders. Ironically, the party in power criticized Bush for cronyism and corporatism!

October 2, 2013 9:10:30 AM

The funny thing is that the park is open for people to walk around. They decided to pay employees to put up barriers to keep people out. It's a park. People walk through it. The worst case scenarios are trash or vandalism. I stand with Paul on this, some idiot told them to make it hurt for the people. It doesn't need to hurt for the people, it needs to hurt for the government.

BTW, Toledo Express airport is a sh*t hole airport. They should have flown out of Detroit.

Marcy Kaptur needs to be voted out. She does well for farmers because that's a significant part of her vote, but otherwise she's worthless and has steadily led NW Ohio into the ground. Under her leadership, the area has consistently lost business and declined. Prior to her, the area was growing. Yet, the same fricking idiots in Toledo keep voting her in. Plenty of quality people have run, yet she has significant ties into the UAW and other local Unions that vote for her.
October 2, 2013 10:10:14 AM

Obama Admin orders closure of WWII memorial!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/02/Obam...

Read the article and it will describe to you what the memorial is. If you haven't been to it yet, it's a good read. It's like walking into a Botanical Garden. It's open, no one is around. You go in, look around, walk around, and leave. No doors.. it's outdoors.

Oh another thing. It appears they're hoping a lot of people, like myself if I didn't have healthcare, would opt to pay the fine over getting healthcare. The Fine turns into Grant Money to help others pay their premiums. So, not only would I not receive healthcare, I would be paying a fine that would be turned into a grant to help someone else pay for their healthcare. This is horrible for the working class. It benefits what, 1.1 million people, while affecting 80 million people?
October 2, 2013 11:01:48 AM

Quote:
At the Federal level, the law would mean everyone would have to pay the same amount. Income tax for example, across the country everyone pays the same percentage, no matter what. With ACA, they went to the state level so they could charge people more or less, depending on their income.

My premiums would be $16,xxx a year under the ACA. That's fawking astronomical. But for someone making less money than me, their premiums would be around $3,000 for the EXACT same coverage. How is that fair to me that I'm paying more for the same services!? We all pay income tax percentages and we all receive the same exact services.


The exchanges merely offer another option for people which is partially subsidized by the government based on their income. If the USPS costs too much, go with fedex or UPS.
October 2, 2013 11:32:00 AM

But USPS is the same cost across the board for everyone. ACA is not a set cost across the board for everyone. I make more, I pay more but receive less. Someone who makes less, pays less but receives more.

I'm not paying to overnight something but have it shipped ground, while the guy paying for ground service is getting it overnight. No thank you.
October 2, 2013 12:09:28 PM

If anything, it makes you realize how much you don't rely on the government.

The fiancé is laughing at all the people on facebook freaking out about the gov't shutting down.. You know, the 1st and 3rd bring in your welfare, social security, WIC, etc. The offices are closed and they're all posting about how horrible it is and they don't know what to do.

She said they're unemployed, not married, pregnant or have kid(s).. and all choose to not work. They're all over 20 and under 30. haha
October 2, 2013 12:58:17 PM

riser said:
But USPS is the same cost across the board for everyone. ACA is not a set cost across the board for everyone. I make more, I pay more but receive less. Someone who makes less, pays less but receives more.

I'm not paying to overnight something but have it shipped ground, while the guy paying for ground service is getting it overnight. No thank you.


That's because they are not offering the same amount of service. Do current insurance providers have a blanket price for their customers?
October 2, 2013 1:53:53 PM

Dude.. wtf? You are absolutely clueless about the ACA?!

There are 4 plans you pick. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. It's all the same, pre-existing condition or not. You get the same service. I pay $16,800 for the same service another guy pays $3,000 on.

You get the EXACT same service. What the ACA is doing is making it extremely expensive for me to have and making it cheaper for others. The whole thing is built on people paying the fines to stay out of it so they can use that as grant money to make it cheaper for other people to buy the insurance. If I pay the fine, I'm not receiving that healthcare.. so I'm not costing it anything. But I'm paying 3% of my income into a grant fund that is used to either lower other people's premiums or pay their premium for them.

There is a reason the ACA is not liked by a lot of people. If it is Federally mandated, it should apply equally to everyone. They put it at the State level so they don't have to adhere to applying it equally. That's some BS and that's why it needs to be canned before it becomes a big red financial nightmare.
October 2, 2013 5:14:44 PM

While the Senator answered the question VERY poorly, the question itself was meant to illicit such a response. The question was really about funding some things and not others and trying to play on the emotions of the day.

To fund the government in a piecemeal fashion (as attempting to be done in the House) makes little long-term sense and really just plays on folks emotions and the news networks cameras are eating it up. The WW2 vets and the park incident is another such event.
October 2, 2013 5:22:55 PM

chunkymonster said:
COLGeek said:
Some functions are inherently government functions and are not suitable for privatization. Not really a debate.
Of course it's open to debate! Here's the thing, the government itself labels those employees as non essential, the defense that they are inherent and can not be privatized seemingly comes from an institutional point of view.

As some one with 15+ years experience having been through multiple re-organizations and as some one who has re-organized corporations, it has been proven that while some employees may perform "needed" functions, any function that does not impact the core purpose of the organization is absolutely not essential to the organizational structure. What they do and how they do it can be privatized, out-sourced, or otherwise done without those employees. Our elected officials have chosen to create government jobs under the guise of necessity which has only contributed to bloat and waste. Take the Dept of Education or Dept of Defense as examples, there is nothing within those two organizations that can not be re-structured to follow original Constitutional intent, be privatized, or be relegated back to the States.

Now, you have not offered what the 3000 employees function is, nor offered any reason as why they are inherent or essential to the core functions of the government. So, I would be remiss not to change my opinion if compelling information was given about why and how those 3000 employees are absolutely necessary to keeping the government running. I'd also be curious to know if they are Union employees or private contractors.

COLGeek said:
You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the Constitution (and I would never hold that view against you or anyone).
I am not interpreting anything, the Constitution is quite plain about what the core functions of and the limits put on the federal government. It is by claiming an "interpretation" rather than following original intent that has allowed the past 100+ years of the Progressive Era in America to put our society and economy into the poor state it is in today.

So you fully understand the intent behind the Founding Fathers as it relates to the entire Constitution? If so, you are the only human on the planet that does. I have listened to so-called scholars from across the political spectrum interpret the same document and relate very different outcomes to the very same words. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

The folks I command are responsible for the management and execution of nearly $1T in defense contracts (value spread across multiple years). Everything from socks to advanced weapons systems. They ensure that quality standards are met, contracts requirements are adhered to, and that proper payments are made. This is a government function that cannot be privatized or sub-contracted.

Just food for thought.
October 2, 2013 5:53:07 PM

COLGeek said:
While the Senator answered the question VERY poorly, the question itself was meant to illicit such a response. The question was really about funding some things and not others and trying to play on the emotions of the day.

To fund the government in a piecemeal fashion (as attempting to be done in the House) makes little long-term sense and really just plays on folks emotions and the news networks cameras are eating it up. The WW2 vets and the park incident is another such event.


Not quite, the question was about bundling a bunch of items into a single bill. Why not break out items and pass them and leave the questionable stuff out for real debate?
Instead, what we see is that scenario where the bill for HealthCare doesn't pass because it has a huge carbon tax on it to prevent global warming, etc.

The bills are a joke. They need to strip them down and vote on the stuff that matters, not all encompassing bills.
October 2, 2013 6:52:52 PM

riser said:
COLGeek said:
While the Senator answered the question VERY poorly, the question itself was meant to illicit such a response. The question was really about funding some things and not others and trying to play on the emotions of the day.

To fund the government in a piecemeal fashion (as attempting to be done in the House) makes little long-term sense and really just plays on folks emotions and the news networks cameras are eating it up. The WW2 vets and the park incident is another such event.


Not quite, the question was about bundling a bunch of items into a single bill. Why not break out items and pass them and leave the questionable stuff out for real debate?
Instead, what we see is that scenario where the bill for HealthCare doesn't pass because it has a huge carbon tax on it to prevent global warming, etc.

The bills are a joke. They need to strip them down and vote on the stuff that matters, not all encompassing bills.

Because we only have a single National budget? I agree that the House bills are a joke and have zero chance of passing.

Seems folks have forgotten, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.~Albert Einstein".
October 2, 2013 7:17:15 PM

As one of the furloughed people out here in the trenches....this sucks.

Software I create allows 100,000+ people do their jobs. Everything from fixing jets, to ensuring you get a copy of your medical records in a timely fashion.

Yet through the last furlough idiocy, and now this foolishness, I am not allowed to do my job. Whether my current big project gets finished this week or next week is only a minor matter. But the morale of the civilian DoD workers is declining, fast. No raises, reduced pay, etc, etc. I know many people who have simply jumped ship.

Political games. With regular people as the ball.

I do my job. Why can't they do theirs?
This sucks.
October 2, 2013 7:56:21 PM

Agreed, brother.
October 3, 2013 5:05:22 AM

USAFRet

Quoting provided a wonderful 404.

I agree with you. I left government because I saw how much waste was going on, the mentality, and just overall how it was a crappy environment to work in because of how the decision makers were only about themselves.

Where I previously worked, we did our 20% sequestration without furloughs. Now, there is no budget for operating in this fiscal year. They're still open and able to have all employees continue their daily functions for the next 6 months! This is off last year's budget after 20% sequestration... and they can run 6 months into the next 12 month budget?! How wasteful is that... and I can see how that can make creating a budget difficult at times, or they're putting too much fluff into it.

I went back to private sector. It pays better, I work 5 days a week instead of 4, I don't get as many holidays, but I don't have to deal with expected mediocrity. I'm not going to miss the 1-2% raise. I'm going to enjoy my bonuses and 5% raises.
October 3, 2013 6:37:13 AM

COLGeek said:
So you fully understand the intent behind the Founding Fathers as it relates to the entire Constitution? If so, you are the only human on the planet that does.
Ah yes, the attitude of "all or nothing or nihilism", from your posts I thought you to be above such sophomoric ideology.

COLGeek said:
I have listened to so-called scholars from across the political spectrum interpret the same document and relate very different outcomes to the very same words. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.
I do not purport to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, I do however have a firm grasp on what is written in the Federalist Paper and the Constitution. Anyone of reasonable intelligence and a modicum of reading comprehension with the ability for objective thought can read the same essays and documents and quite plainly discern how our republic was intended to function. The Federalist Papers and Constitution were written so the citizen could understand the powers and limits of the federal government and participate in running that government, not sit idly by and wait for "scholars" to tell them what to think.

COLGeek said:
The folks I command are responsible for the management and execution of nearly $1T in defense contracts (value spread across multiple years). Everything from socks to advanced weapons systems. They ensure that quality standards are met, contracts requirements are adhered to, and that proper payments are made. This is a government function that cannot be privatized or sub-contracted.

Just food for thought.
Well, from that brief description of their function, it seems to me they perform the basic tasks of any contract management and accounts payable department, functions which can and have been readily outsourced. Don't get me wrong, I understand your need to justify that the 3000 employees being furloughed are absolutely necessary to the core functions of our republic as it also justifies your role. But the simple fact that they have been furloughed is proof enough that they are not. It seems to me that you are more of a defender of the status quo rather than challenging the paradigm of indoctrination that the American people can not function without government intervention. It's okay though. I also like to think that I am indispensable to my company and my job is absolutely essential, but working the private sector, I realize the truth.
October 3, 2013 7:29:35 AM

chunkymonster said:
COLGeek said:
So you fully understand the intent behind the Founding Fathers as it relates to the entire Constitution? If so, you are the only human on the planet that does.
Ah yes, the attitude of "all or nothing or nihilism", from your posts I thought you to be above such sophomoric ideology.

COLGeek said:
I have listened to so-called scholars from across the political spectrum interpret the same document and relate very different outcomes to the very same words. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.
I do not purport to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, I do however have a firm grasp on what is written in the Federalist Paper and the Constitution. Anyone of reasonable intelligence and a modicum of reading comprehension with the ability for objective thought can read the same essays and documents and quite plainly discern how our republic was intended to function. The Federalist Papers and Constitution were written so the citizen could understand the powers and limits of the federal government and participate in running that government, not sit idly by and wait for "scholars" to tell them what to think.

COLGeek said:
The folks I command are responsible for the management and execution of nearly $1T in defense contracts (value spread across multiple years). Everything from socks to advanced weapons systems. They ensure that quality standards are met, contracts requirements are adhered to, and that proper payments are made. This is a government function that cannot be privatized or sub-contracted.

Just food for thought.
Well, from that brief description of their function, it seems to me they perform the basic tasks of any contract management and accounts payable department, functions which can and have been readily outsourced. Don't get me wrong, I understand your need to justify that the 3000 employees being furloughed are absolutely necessary to the core functions of our republic as it also justifies your role. But the simple fact that they have been furloughed is proof enough that they are not. It seems to me that you are more of a defender of the status quo rather than challenging the paradigm of indoctrination that the American people can not function without government intervention. It's okay though. I also like to think that I am indispensable to my company and my job is absolutely essential, but working the private sector, I realize the truth.

Have a nice day. We agree to disagree, my friend. It is all good.

Would rather have this debate over a cold beverage.
October 3, 2013 9:28:04 AM

So far regarding the ACA, the turn out has been far lower than expected. Multiple issues and all, but like Cali 5 million hits on the site.. oh wait, only 645,000, and far less signed up.

On top of that, what you're having is a bunch of sick people or people without benefits signing up for cheap. I haven't talked to anyone who has received a better plan under the ACA than what they currently have. My lowest quote has been $629/month for 2. I pay $194 right now. Plus it doesn't cover as much as my current plan.

So who is signing up to offset the cost to provide cheap healthcare to sick people or low income earners?
October 3, 2013 12:16:46 PM

riser said:
Dude.. wtf? You are absolutely clueless about the ACA?!

There are 4 plans you pick. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. It's all the same, pre-existing condition or not. You get the same service. I pay $16,800 for the same service another guy pays $3,000 on.

You get the EXACT same service. What the ACA is doing is making it extremely expensive for me to have and making it cheaper for others. The whole thing is built on people paying the fines to stay out of it so they can use that as grant money to make it cheaper for other people to buy the insurance. If I pay the fine, I'm not receiving that healthcare.. so I'm not costing it anything. But I'm paying 3% of my income into a grant fund that is used to either lower other people's premiums or pay their premium for them.

There is a reason the ACA is not liked by a lot of people. If it is Federally mandated, it should apply equally to everyone. They put it at the State level so they don't have to adhere to applying it equally. That's some BS and that's why it needs to be canned before it becomes a big red financial nightmare.


You continue to miss the point. If I apply for an insurance policy from another company I will get quoted a certain price. If you did the same it would be a difference price. They use different criteria to base their quotes on compared to the ACA exchanges but its fundamentally the same. Not that it really matters because you make enough money to buy insurance else where. Its not like its your only option. The part that affects everyone is that we must all have insurance now and if not we pay extra in tax or a fine if that is what you want to call it.
October 3, 2013 2:07:57 PM

johnsonma said:
riser said:
Dude.. wtf? You are absolutely clueless about the ACA?!

There are 4 plans you pick. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. It's all the same, pre-existing condition or not. You get the same service. I pay $16,800 for the same service another guy pays $3,000 on.

You get the EXACT same service. What the ACA is doing is making it extremely expensive for me to have and making it cheaper for others. The whole thing is built on people paying the fines to stay out of it so they can use that as grant money to make it cheaper for other people to buy the insurance. If I pay the fine, I'm not receiving that healthcare.. so I'm not costing it anything. But I'm paying 3% of my income into a grant fund that is used to either lower other people's premiums or pay their premium for them.

There is a reason the ACA is not liked by a lot of people. If it is Federally mandated, it should apply equally to everyone. They put it at the State level so they don't have to adhere to applying it equally. That's some BS and that's why it needs to be canned before it becomes a big red financial nightmare.


You continue to miss the point. If I apply for an insurance policy from another company I will get quoted a certain price. If you did the same it would be a difference price. They use different criteria to base their quotes on compared to the ACA exchanges but its fundamentally the same. Not that it really matters because you make enough money to buy insurance else where. Its not like its your only option. The part that affects everyone is that we must all have insurance now and if not we pay extra in tax or a fine if that is what you want to call it.


I think you miss the point. You're thinking it is based off your health, etc. It's not based off your health, it is based off your income.
I could be super healthy and I'm paying a ton of money for insurance, whereas the person with a serious condition, etc, is getting the same service for far less because I'm paying more.

John, the entire program is based off how much money you make. Previously at times you had to have a physical and whatnot to get insurance. With the ACA, it doesn't matter. The dividing factor is your income.

So far, a group of us, both left and right leaning, have been trying to find someone who has 1) applied, and/or 2) bought insurance.

At this point, everyone has said the ACA is more expensive than their current insurance. That means people who can afford to pay more aren't paying more because they don't want to pay more for the same or less service.

ACA will be a huge money pit.
October 3, 2013 2:09:16 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
riser, remember the "progression" here. It will take a few years for employers to drop health benefits all together as part of compensation. When that begins happening on a large scale, more and more people at all income levels will be signing up with the government exchanges because that will be the only option available to the average working person.

It's all about progressing towards wiping out private insurance as an industry. Of course the wealthy, like our glorious leaders, will still have their private plans or do as Rush Limbaugh does and just pay cash out of pocket for whatever care they get.


I think at that point will be easy to challenge it as Unconstitutional. The government mandating you having insurance and they being the ones providing it without any other options. Monopoly laws, etc.
October 3, 2013 2:19:11 PM

I appreciate your inputs and I also understand how the ACA has a effect on the discussion; however, this is not an Obamacare thread.

Please resume back to the original topic, or make a new thread...please.

Thank you.
October 3, 2013 2:19:26 PM

Its has already been ruled constitutional. It has followed the progression set forth by the constitution. Obviously, you guys don't agree with it but saying it should be ruled unconstitutional accomplishes nothing.

I know the exchanges are based off income riser, that is what i was referring to when I said they use different criteria. I don't have an issue with this. Maybe it will be money pit, we will see.
October 4, 2013 4:26:45 AM

Tell that to the 800,000 public servants starving at home while the RICH Tea Party TERRORISTS hold the country to ransom.

If this goes on much longer your country is going down the toilet ... and dragging the rest of us wih it.

How irresponsible to block a budget based on laws that had previously been passed by government.

That Boener guy clearly has no control over the radical right wing element of his party.

Looking from the outside it appears to be a clever plot to destabilise the economy.

Thats terrorism ... not democracy.
October 4, 2013 5:04:42 AM

If its not a democracy I can pronounce Boehner however I want now.
October 4, 2013 5:53:50 AM

Quote:
"We’re not going to be disrespected ... We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."
— Rep. Marlin Stutzman

Well if this doesnt sum up the mentality of a few conservatives....
!