U.S. Government Shuts Down

[Gillipig]

I was sent home at 9am. Temporary or permanent loss of funds is not critical for my family unless the shutdown goes to about next July.. I have worked enough OT to cover the rest of the year if needed and then I have my 6 month emergency fund. So I will be enjoying the mandatory time off.

As I left, I heard people calling in on the radio about how they will not be able to do this or that because of no paycheck. I just laughed that they cannot save enough money to be out of a paycheck for one week. I bet they have smart phones, internet, TV, Denver Bronco season tickets, car payments, debt, etc. This attitude of poor money management is the true reason why the government is shutting down.

How would the goverment earn on people saving their money and not spending it?

Its the culture of murica that is sucky.. not the saving of money practices.

Americans today: Maybe I should file a lawsuit for this shutdown and then beg for welfare because I can't afford anything with all this debt.
Americans in the forties: Maybe I should work 2 or 3 part time jobs until this debt is paid off.

I thought you were saying there was no saving money practice and that was the problem, but now it's not about that but about laziness and lawsuits. You need to help me here.

[oVo]

Just heard a list --on the radio-- of all local and regional venues indefinitely closed. It's a reminder of all the programs, sites and things actively funded by the federal government.

Imagine if the feds funded the interwebs...
Omg! The Horror.

Imagine the Federal Government attempting to function
on a daily basis without all the extended credit.

[Phatscotty]

Maybe now would be a good time to re-evaluate the Tea Party? Haters spent the last 3 years ignoring us, misrepresenting us, saying we were co-opted (clearly!!! just look at Boehner and McConnell calling the shots! ), smearing us, lying about us, calling us terrorists, arsonists, astroturf, extremists, hostage takers.

The Republicrats and Democlicans are finished. Thus begins the Tea Party era.

[oVo]

Ted Cruz is the Tea Party's bitch. He is a Canadian import
who is not eligible to run for President.

The Tea Party's fifteen minutes are almost over.

[Phatscotty]

The Tea Party's fifteen minutes are almost over.

hmm, are you sure you didn't already proclaim the Tea Party over in 2011?

[saxitoxin]

Just heard a list --on the radio-- of all local and regional venues indefinitely closed.

I guess the FCC isn't among them?

[saxitoxin]

Great news (possibly). I just called the president's golf course at Joint Base Andrews and they are open, according to the person who answered. Again - the president's golf course at Joint Base Andrews is an essential national defense program.

I have not read this anywhere, this is what the person who answered said and they might be incorrect; so you can call yourself to confirm in case you have any tee-times scheduled with the Under-Secretary of Agriculture (they've updated their twitter feed twice today, though, so I'm inclined to think the person who answered was correct). I assume this must mean the clubhouse is also open in case you want to unwind with a nice cognac after hitting the links.

301-736-4595

[2dimes]

Do they have poutine or chili cheese fries?

[Night Strike]

How would the goverment earn on people saving their money and not spending it?

Because unfortunately our government takes our money BEFORE we get the chance to either save it or spend it.

[Phatscotty]

How would the goverment earn on people saving their money and not spending it?

The government would earn indirectly. A nation of savers is more creditworthy than a nation of people buried in debt, and since our economy is heavily based on consumption and services, there will be more economic activity amongst a nation of savers/people who have money to spend, but that would occur only if it were true collectively.

[DoomYoshi]

Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama or the Democrats. Come on guys, find a more interesting irrelevant comment.

A supporter of Obama Would say that.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, but are you sure you guys read oVo's post that I responded to:

But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

What was the point of you posting that oVo? What kind of response should I have given other than what I gave? Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the author is stating that the Republicans would be complaining if roles were reversed. Okay, so? Should I make a commentary on the legitimacy of the position? It's a hypocritical scenario about hypocrisy. I think a commentary on the hypocrisy of the scenario about hypocrisy is appropriate.

It is not a commentary on hypocrisy -- it's an analogy. He is trying to show why the Republican response is not reasonable by comparing it to another situation that would also be unreasonable. There's no real hypocrisy being discussed here (after all, the Republicans never really did hide how they felt about the ACA). The latter is more like "Republicans voted for the Iraq war, so they shouldn't be arguing against getting involved in Syria."

Considering that Ezra Klein, an ardent and vocal (and moronic) supporter of the Democrats, wrote it, I vote it's a commentary on hypocrisy (by a hypocrit). And you may know science, but I know politics. Ezra Klein - the less famous, Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh. Partisan. Moron.

Also, the Republicans are (mostly) in favor of getting involved in Syria. The Republicans who aren't either weren't in favor of the war in Iraq (Paul) or weren't in office yet.

[thegreekdog]

Do they have poutine or chili cheese fries?

Both. The White House kitchen is still open for business.

[Metsfanmax]

Okay, but are you sure you guys read oVo's post that I responded to:

But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

What was the point of you posting that oVo? What kind of response should I have given other than what I gave? Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the author is stating that the Republicans would be complaining if roles were reversed. Okay, so? Should I make a commentary on the legitimacy of the position? It's a hypocritical scenario about hypocrisy. I think a commentary on the hypocrisy of the scenario about hypocrisy is appropriate.

It is not a commentary on hypocrisy -- it's an analogy. He is trying to show why the Republican response is not reasonable by comparing it to another situation that would also be unreasonable. There's no real hypocrisy being discussed here (after all, the Republicans never really did hide how they felt about the ACA). The latter is more like "Republicans voted for the Iraq war, so they shouldn't be arguing against getting involved in Syria."

Considering that Ezra Klein, an ardent and vocal (and moronic) supporter of the Democrats, wrote it, I vote it's a commentary on hypocrisy (by a hypocrit). And you may know science, but I know politics. Ezra Klein - the less famous, Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh. Partisan. Moron.

Also, the Republicans are (mostly) in favor of getting involved in Syria. The Republicans who aren't either weren't in favor of the war in Iraq (Paul) or weren't in office yet.

It doesn't matter that Ezra Klein wrote it, or what his motives are (again, I repeat my mantra about the legitimacy of a position having nothing to do with who wrote it). A plain reading of the text shows it has nothing to do with hypocrisy -- nothing in there states the Republicans are being hypocritical (one could certainly make that argument with respect to other Democrat-favored laws, though). The fact that you even have to argue it as hypocritical instead of refusing to address the analogy head on leans toward you admitting that it's a valid argument. The last recourse of someone who cannot find a flaw in an argument is to call its author a moron.

[rishaed]

[thegreekdog]

Okay, but are you sure you guys read oVo's post that I responded to:

But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

What was the point of you posting that oVo? What kind of response should I have given other than what I gave? Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the author is stating that the Republicans would be complaining if roles were reversed. Okay, so? Should I make a commentary on the legitimacy of the position? It's a hypocritical scenario about hypocrisy. I think a commentary on the hypocrisy of the scenario about hypocrisy is appropriate.

It is not a commentary on hypocrisy -- it's an analogy. He is trying to show why the Republican response is not reasonable by comparing it to another situation that would also be unreasonable. There's no real hypocrisy being discussed here (after all, the Republicans never really did hide how they felt about the ACA). The latter is more like "Republicans voted for the Iraq war, so they shouldn't be arguing against getting involved in Syria."

Considering that Ezra Klein, an ardent and vocal (and moronic) supporter of the Democrats, wrote it, I vote it's a commentary on hypocrisy (by a hypocrit). And you may know science, but I know politics. Ezra Klein - the less famous, Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh. Partisan. Moron.

Also, the Republicans are (mostly) in favor of getting involved in Syria. The Republicans who aren't either weren't in favor of the war in Iraq (Paul) or weren't in office yet.

It doesn't matter that Ezra Klein wrote it, or what his motives are (again, I repeat my mantra about the legitimacy of a position having nothing to do with who wrote it). A plain reading of the text shows it has nothing to do with hypocrisy -- nothing in there states the Republicans are being hypocritical (one could certainly make that argument with respect to other Democrat-favored laws, though). The fact that you even have to argue it as hypocritical instead of refusing to address the analogy head on leans toward you admitting that it's a valid argument. The last recourse of someone who cannot find a flaw in an argument is to call its author a moron.

Your reading comprehension is flawed. I assume it's because you're supportive of the piece, but that would mean I'm using an ad hominem. The piece is a commentary on hypocrisy. It's a valid commentary on hypocrisy, but it is also hypocritical. Here's how you can tell the piece is about hypocrisy (apart from, you know, Ezra Klein):

But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

It poses a what if (Romney and Senate Democrats) and asks the reader whether he or she would find the same thing reasonable. If the answer is no, then the reader should find the current situation unreasonable. And therefore the reader would be a hypocrit if he or she did find the current situation reasonable.

[Phatscotty]

I concur, Ezra Klein is a horrible person to source, unless you are a Progressive. He said straight up "the Constitution is outdated an we should get rid of it"

[Metsfanmax]

Your reading comprehension is flawed. I assume it's because you're supportive of the piece, but that would mean I'm using an ad hominem. The piece is a commentary on hypocrisy. It's a valid commentary on hypocrisy, but it is also hypocritical. Here's how you can tell the piece is about hypocrisy (apart from, you know, Ezra Klein):

But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

It poses a what if (Romney and Senate Democrats) and asks the reader whether he or she would find the same thing reasonable. If the answer is no, then the reader should find the current situation unreasonable. And therefore the reader would be a hypocrit if he or she did find the current situation reasonable.

This is a piece of logical reasoning that attempts to show you, by analogy, why you should hold a certain belief. If someone found the current situation reasonable but not the alternative reality situation, then yes -- one could construct a basis for accusing that person of hypocrisy. That doesn't make the statement a "commentary on hypocrisy." And you have yet to demonstrate why the statement itself is hypocritical (note: that is different from saying that Ezra Klein is a hypocrite). This is of course meaningless - a statement cannot be hypocritical, only a person.

I could have just as easily repackaged that quote, changed a few words, and posted it as my own. Would you have actually responded to it then?

[Metsfanmax]

I concur, Ezra Klein is a horrible person to source, unless you are a Progressive. He said straight up "the Constitution is outdated an we should get rid of it"

You know who else thought that?

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

[Phatscotty]

I concur, Ezra Klein is a horrible person to source, unless you are a Progressive. He said straight up "the Constitution is outdated an we should get rid of it"

You know who else thought that?

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

The context there was that one generation should not expect the next generation to pay off their debts, and that one generation should not charge up bills and ask the next one to pay them. I totally agree with your point, but not the way you were trying to use it.

Not to mention, when he had the chance and became president, his actions were the opposite of his words. I'm going with the actions (louisiana purchase, carrying over the treasury department, recognizing the national debt)

and....that's why they put in a clause that we can amend/add/subtract/ratify the Constitution when we deem it should be done. But none of this really hits the comment about 'outdated'

So long as people know Ezra is against the Constitution, they can make up their own minds about his agenda and his words.

[karel]

shut it down

[Metsfanmax]

I concur, Ezra Klein is a horrible person to source, unless you are a Progressive. He said straight up "the Constitution is outdated an we should get rid of it"

You know who else thought that?

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

The context there was that one generation should not expect the next generation to pay off their debts, and that one generation should not charge up bills and ask the next one to pay them. I totally agree with your point, but not the way you were trying to use it.

Not to mention, when he had the chance and became president, his actions were the opposite of his words. I'm going with the actions (louisiana purchase, carrying over the treasury department, recognizing the national debt)

and....that's why they put in a clause that we can amend/add/subtract/ratify the Constitution when we deem it should be done. But none of this really hits the comment about 'outdated'

So long as people know Ezra is against the Constitution, they can make up their own minds about his agenda and his words.

Yes, only people who agree with the Constitution should be responsible for changing it. After all, they agree with it already, so they won't even want to change it!

[Phatscotty]

I don't know what you mean there you will have to elaborate a little bit. I would say it's common sense that anyone who wished to change the Constitution already feels like they disagree with something in it, but it could also be improving something or adding something to deal with some major future technology that changes everything. It's one thing to propose an amendment and have a vote on it, but Ezra is talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If there is a problem, there is a process to go about dealing with it.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't know what you mean there you will have to elaborate a little bit. I would say it's common sense that anyone who wished to change the Constitution already feels like they disagree with something in it, but it could also be improving something or adding something to deal with some major future technology that changes everything. It's one thing to propose an amendment and have a vote on it, but Ezra is talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Freedom of speech is not outdated, and neither is a lot of other stuff in the Constitution. If there is a problem, there is a process to go about dealing with it.

The last time the Constitution was amended in a way that fundamentally changed the nation was 1920. We can't even get Congress to keep the government funded -- getting it (or 3/4 of the states) to agree on a amendment that effects meaningful change is pretty much a non-starter in today's political climate. Therefore it's not really practical to suggest that we should amend the Constitution if we want to change it.