Shutdown...a different (non partisan) perspective

Vulchor · October 2013

Lets try this one....and for me I know its odd to say lets not make it political, but here goes.

A feel bad for the people who are not getting paid this week and feel bad for the people missing out on medical care because of this whole thing. I feel somewhat bad for peopel missing the parks and such, but again moreso for the people being paid that work there

I do not feel bad for any member of congress and find it laughable they still get paid. However, I cant understand how I feel about the 6 (so far) who have stated they are keeping their checks vs those who are undecided or that plan to donate them. The donation, while helpful, seems just like another political move to look good, while teh keeping the money looks selfish, but is also seemingly more honest than anything else.

Thoughts?

raisindot · October 2013

Yes.

Once this whole stupid thing is over the first thing Congress should do is rescind the law that allows elected and appointed federal officials--including Congresspeople, the President and VP, the Supreme Court and cabinet secretaries--to keep getting paid during times of government shutdowns. Let them all feel the pain that furloughed lower-level civil service workers are feeling.

And if any agreements that restart the government include back pay, elected and appointment officials shouldn't receive any of it. They started the problem; let them suffer financially for it.

Amos_Umwhat · October 2013

Agreed. Lead by example. If Congress has decided to take action that temporarily stops anyones paycheck, theirs should be the first ones stopped. Also, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that requires that any law passed by Congress, is applicable to Congress, and that any form of Health Care that they receive, all will be able to apply for / buy into, OR, Congress must abide by the individual mandate themselves and purchase all healthcare for themselves and their families from the sources allocated to the public.

Not gonna happen, but we can dream.......

[Deleted User] · October 2013

Their paychecks don't mean squat to them. It's small time chump change and this act of donating, keeping, withholding is all BS. Real legislature needs to be passed, like making the salaries pay 40k, no paychecks when there's no budget, no more top of the line free healthcare - you get what we get or you pay for it yourself. They can't vote themselves, which is absolutely ridiculous.

raisindot · October 2013

james40:
Their paychecks don't mean squat to them. It's small time chump change and this act of donating, keeping, withholding is all BS. Real legislature needs to be passed, like making the salaries pay 40k, no paychecks when there's no budget, no more top of the line free healthcare - you get what we get or you pay for it yourself. They can't vote themselves, which is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't think anyone other than billionaires would run for Congress if the job paid only $40K, and there are already enough of those in the Senate. My district's Representative did not come from wealth and his Congressional salary had to support his family in the district and rent and expenses in Washington. A $40K salary would not only keep the non-wealthy from running, but would probably cause those who did to become ever more entangled with special interest groups than they already are, through various honorarium for speeches, etc.

And while I do agree that their healthcare plans should not be free, they should at least be able to have access to the same healthcare plans (at the same premium costs) offered to rank and file civil service workers. If these plans vary by branch of government, then they should only have the choice of plans offered by non-elected Congressional workers.

Vulchor · October 2013

Agreed with all the sentiment here, though I do think the majority of Congress is doing better off monetarily than any of the "average" Americans. It seems the more special interests are allowed to buy elections, the less the "well meaning person or average means" seems marginalized.

beatnic · October 2013

I agree with you Vulch. ...........................

Alright, who brought the brownies???

Bigshizza · October 2013

The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent. The fact that our health care system ranks 25th is embarrassing. If the 7% of our citizens that this law applies to are able to get the benefits they need, many people will benefit. Plus, it will open up more opportunities for growth in the employment sector.

kuzi16 · October 2013

Bigshizza:
The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent.

as said in the other thread:

I actually don't understand the reasoning "its the law" therefore it shouldn't be blocked. Yes, the congress made it law. The same congress who can unmake it or fight it.

It's absurd to think that if something is passed that it cannot be wrong or undone. By that logic we should keep slavery around since it was "the law.""

your argument that the they should have worked harder to find a candidate that was better to elect and undo this is actually what they are trying to do right this minute. this is part of the process. it seems to me that you are upset that the republicans are trying to do what you are saying they should do if they dont like the law...

also agree with the original nonpartisan post.

Martel · October 2013

kuzi16:
Bigshizza:
The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent.
as said in the other thread:

I actually don't understand the reasoning "its the law" therefore it shouldn't be blocked. Yes, the congress made it law. The same congress who can unmake it or fight it.

It's absurd to think that if something is passed that it cannot be wrong or undone. By that logic we should keep slavery around since it was "the law.""

your argument that the they should have worked harder to find a candidate that was better to elect and undo this is actually what they are trying to do right this minute. this is part of the process. it seems to me that you are upset that the republicans are trying to do what you are saying they should do if they dont like the law...

also agree with the original nonpartisan post.

I see both sides. The work to modify a law is the work of congress, but the modifications they are asking for are guaranteed to be a sticking point, and the GOP knows it. I really don't have a problem with them making changes, but I suspect if the Senate-approved bill were allowed to come to a vote in the house, it would pass, too. If not, I suspect the President and Democrat Party leaders would negotiate points then. It's the no vote that sticks in my craw. I get it's part of how the process works, but it's often what's broken with the system, too.

jadelt · October 2013

Bigshizza:
The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent. The fact that our health care system ranks 25th is embarrassing. If the 7% of our citizens that this law applies to are able to get the benefits they need, many people will benefit. Plus, it will open up more opportunities for growth in the employment sector.

Agree. It is the law. The law also says that it is illegal for the president to change it. Only congress can do that. I can live with the law and I can live with any congress approved changes. I have a problem with the president acting as dictator and changing it. THAT is NOT legal.

perkinke · October 2013

jadelt:
Bigshizza:
The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent. The fact that our health care system ranks 25th is embarrassing. If the 7% of our citizens that this law applies to are able to get the benefits they need, many people will benefit. Plus, it will open up more opportunities for growth in the employment sector.
Agree. It is the law. The law also says that it is illegal for the president to change it. Only congress can do that. I can live with the law and I can live with any congress approved changes. I have a problem with the president acting as dictator and changing it. THAT is NOT legal.

So much for "non-partisan"!

This is an instance we the people need to take a lesson from history. In the middle ages/Rennaissance when the cardinals couldn't elect a Pope, due to internal factions fighting, for over a year the good citizens of Rome blockaed them into Vatican City. Months went by and still no Pope so the Romans blocked them into a chapel. Still no Pope the Romans ceased feeding them anything but bread and water. Still no Pope they then began tearing the roof off to expose the cardinals to the weather ("Let us uncover the Room, else the Holy Ghost will never get at us"). POOF! New Pope. Though I don't suggest we allow the full three years, budget is a bit more immediately important.

Amos_Umwhat · October 2013

kuzi16:
Bigshizza:
The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent.
as said in the other thread:

I actually don't understand the reasoning "its the law" therefore it shouldn't be blocked. Yes, the congress made it law. The same congress who can unmake it or fight it.

It's absurd to think that if something is passed that it cannot be wrong or undone. By that logic we should keep slavery around since it was "the law.""

your argument that the they should have worked harder to find a candidate that was better to elect and undo this is actually what they are trying to do right this minute. this is part of the process. it seems to me that you are upset that the republicans are trying to do what you are saying they should do if they dont like the law...

also agree with the original nonpartisan post.

Yes, the law can be overturned, if one side has enough votes.

They don't have enough votes, and wont have until after another election.

So, to impede all the other processes of government until after another election seems like a pretty poor management strategy. It's like a little league team that lost the championship demanding that they still be given the trophy, even though they didn't win the games necessary.

Hmm, that was off the top of my head, and I think it fits the situation very well. It's time for the coach, Boehner, to tell his team that they need to improve their game, and plan for the next season, and quit pouting and hiding all the equipment. "All part of growing up, kids, we'll just have to try harder next season".

That's whats called "Leadership", now, go buy them some ice cream, and quit holding the hot-dog vendor hostage, some of the other folks would like to eat.

perkinke · October 2013

Amos Umwhat:
kuzi16:
Bigshizza:
The Health Care bill was passed! It's a LAW, if the GOP didn't like where this was heading then work harder at finding a variable candidate that can actually take out the incumbent.
as said in the other thread:

I actually don't understand the reasoning "its the law" therefore it shouldn't be blocked. Yes, the congress made it law. The same congress who can unmake it or fight it.

It's absurd to think that if something is passed that it cannot be wrong or undone. By that logic we should keep slavery around since it was "the law.""

your argument that the they should have worked harder to find a candidate that was better to elect and undo this is actually what they are trying to do right this minute. this is part of the process. it seems to me that you are upset that the republicans are trying to do what you are saying they should do if they dont like the law...

also agree with the original nonpartisan post.
Yes, the law can be overturned, if one side has enough votes.

They don't have enough votes, and wont have until after another election.

So, to impede all the other processes of government until after another election seems like a pretty poor management strategy. It's like a little league team that lost the championship demanding that they still be given the trophy, even though they didn't win the games necessary.

Hmm, that was off the top of my head, and I think it fits the situation very well. It's time for the coach, Boehner, to tell his team that they need to improve their game, and plan for the next season, and quit pouting and hiding all the equipment. "All part of growing up, kids, we'll just have to try harder next season".

That's whats called "Leadership", now, go buy them some ice cream, and quit holding the hot-dog vendor hostage, some of the other folks would like to eat.

When I was last in DC I was fortunate enough to speak to a gentleman that had been a Senate staff person for 25 years on both sides of the aisle. His comment about Boehner was "he got the job, but I don't think he knew what he was asking for, or is capable of doing what is needed." That was 18 months ago. I don't expect him to be able to solve this, I suspect someone else will come to the front for the R's. It's unfortunate that there is a lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle in both houses. SOMEONE should be able to step forward and find a way out of this.

KevinFitts · October 2013

There is a Simple solution to this mess!!!! . Hold them accountable. Require by law that important tasks (like passing a budget) have a deadline. The budget starts on 1 Oct each year, so make the deadline 60 days prior. If congressional staff have not agreed and the prez has not signed off, the Supreme Court issues a reprimand to ALL of them giving them 7 days to be done. If after 7 days it is still not done, a second letter goes out and they are docked pay and benefits with 7 days to comply. If after the 7 days it is still not done they are put into lockdown in a central location and have up to 14 days to have it done. If, it is still not done, every one of them receives a memorandum from the Supreme Court stating that they cannot run for public office ever again and they are investigated further to determine if this was done with intent to defraud the Taxpayer or prevent the judicial process from being completed. Any found guilty in this case would be immedietely removed. For all of the others, when their term is up, they are done. The final budget is then worked and approved by the Supreme Court in 21 days which will mean that it is in place 7 days prior to 1 Oct. This may seem extreme, but keep in mind that this is the same process that is used for Govt employees and Military members so it must be solid on the legal front. All elected officials work for us. (The taxpayers) There sole job is to negotiate and find ways to agree. Whether you are on the left or right and whether you agree with the Affordable Healthcare Act or not, you all have to understand that 800,000 or so innocent bystanders are waiting to go back to work for you. What is in their way are a bunch of elected officials that can't agree or work together. (Which again is what we pay them to do) That is a travesty for all of us!!! The Affordable health care act is 800 pages long. That is 8 reams of paper. Does it need to be included in the budget discussion? Yes. Does it need to be resolved? Yes. The problem is that we are 4 Trillion in Debt which is 3 trillion more than it was when the current prez and many of our elected officials took office. The bottom line is that we don't have all of the money to move forward with it. That is not a budget issue. Example: If your vehicle broke down tomorrow, you would have to buy a new one. You might vote for a Ferrari when in reality you can only afford a Geo. Your options at that point are to either buy the Geo or not drive. The people that we have elected have opted to not drive at our expense. Hold them accountable!!!

raisindot · October 2013

Interesting idea, but entirely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has no legal authority to place demands on Congressional activity, and, in fact, such a provision would have to be passed by Congress itself (quite possibly an amendment to the Constitution would be required, since it's highly unlikely that the SC itself would consider such a bill passed by Congress to be Constitutional).

And while the national debt is still way too high, this year the government deficit is down by 35% over what it was last year, mainly due to restoration of higher taxes on the wealthy and the budget cuts forced by the sequester. The wind-down of the war in Afghanistan should hopefully allow for a drastic reduction in war-related military expenses. There's still a lot more budget cutting that can done--how and who takes the hit is a matter of political horsetrading--but the level of deficit is slowly falling.

Amos_Umwhat · October 2013

Thomas Sowell wrote a recent column that makes some pertinent points. All spending bills originate in Congress, which means that Congress has a right to withold the money. The law remains the law, but Congress can't be forced to fund it. Therefore, since the money to run everything else that is being shut down has been approved, the responsibility for the shutdown lies with the Senate, at the moment.

We have a long history of unfunded mandates, don't we? Seems I remember hearing about it many times. I don't like the way the ACA is put together, I don't think it's the right solution to the problem. I'm less happy with the way the various branches seem to be unable to reach a working compromise. This is getting us nowhere.

I'd really like to see us stop some things that are outrageous, like the new Swiss-Army Knife airplane that the Pentagon (or somebody) wants that's costing somewhere about a trillion dollars, and can't fly in the rain! I think that money could be better spent elsewhere, like providing real services for the public in general.

I know, I know, "we've got to be kept safe", but really, think about it, we're already spending more on our military than the next 48 countries all put together. Then there's Homeland Inscrutiny. C'mon!

It's kind of like, "well, we've got to spend the money on titanium condoms if we're going to be safe while sticking our p ecker into the hornets nest, don't we?"

How about we stay out of the hornets nest altogether? Mightn't that work?

Sorry, rambling on and changed subjects, sort of, but not really......it's all about the $, mine & yours and how the idiots are spending it.

webmost · October 2013

Amos Umwhat:
......it's all about the $, mine & yours and how the idiots are spending it.

Let's recap:

The government is shut down. Shutdown denotes the apocalypse. True, only 18% of government is affected. Nevertheless, this means nasty kooks have hijacked government and are holding it hostage. This impasse results because the election of said nasty kooks is a referendum on their views; though the election of their opponents is clearly no referendum on their views, and vice versa. We are told that of that 18%, only non-essential workers are furloughed. This odd factoid may mislead some to wonder why workers who are not essential have a job. This consideration is not germane to our present impasse. Shut down is such a great tragedy for those noble non essential non workers. That's why said noble non essential will receive their essential pay anyway. This is made possible because even though you do not enjoy their services during their impromptu vacation you will still owe taxes for the time during which the government is shut down.

One thing is patently clear: Our government conducts itself in a high minded and responsible manner at all times. It is precisely because of their unerring probity, wisdom, selfless motives, and reliable management of our affairs that we are so glad to entrust these people with such weighty matters as war, peace, jobs, even handed justice for everyone from pot smokers to mortgage robo-signers, and whether you should be allowed to smoke a cigar. In fact, they conduct themselves so responsibly that I think we ought to add just a mite to their burden. Perhaps we might entrust them with a new trillion dollar scheme to help us afford health care for all. Soon as they efficiently implement that, the glacial epoch could stand a moment of their attention.

p.s. : Despite being shut down, government is still spending money so fast that they will run out of authority to borrow money to pay the interest on the debt they've already run up. But I'm sure they will quickly compromise to figure a way out of that. Yes. These are the guys I want in charge. So much better than making my own decisions.

raisindot · October 2013

Wow, Webmost! You don't use the word "liberal" at all in your response.

That musta been tough for you!

Keep up the good work!

webmost · October 2013

raisindot:
Wow, Webmost! You don't use the word "liberal" at all in your response.

That musta been tough for you!

Keep up the good work!

Is that your hand in my pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

beatnic · October 2013

I refer you back to my last post. "Who brought the brownies?"

phobicsquirrel · October 2013

The gop are going about this all wrong and once again people are losing money over their childish agenda. he'll the last time they did this the country lost some credit, now people list pay, the tax payers are losing more of their money due to the shutdown and all of this makes the country look weak to the international community. after the crash of 08 there was already talk of moving the dollaras the standard and the squabbles in washington are going to push that further. whether one likes the ACA doesn't matter, holding the country by the nuts just to stop it is stupid. if the gop would do their job and just raise the limit and use their time to FIX the bill instead of trying to repeal it 60 some times we would be better off. sadly this is partisan because the gop are insane for doing this. I think the ACA was made way more complicated than it should have been but it's a strong stone. like it or not it's here and if the gop keeps this up we'll continue being the joke around the world.

jgkamin · October 2013

Losing money? Those furloughed will be paid for not working, just not until this is all settled, so why not just send them all back to work now instead of having a laid vacation?

webmost · October 2013

phobicsquirrel:
The gop are going about this all wrong .... and if the gop keeps this up we'll continue being the joke around the world.

What is their alternative? The House sent twelve different appropriations bills to the senate this year. Harry Reid has not allowed even a one of them to come to a vote. Not one. Every last thing needed to end the so-called shutdown is included in the budget rejected out of hand by the senate, and yet the house, not the senate, is universally blamed for leaving one item out awaiting compromise. The president openly says he will not compromise an inch. That is, when he's not too busy hosting open pervert day behind closed doors. Pelosi says the cupboard is bare, there's not another dime left to be cut anywhere. Can you imagine that? There is no cooperation to be had from these people. Without prior tea party brinksmanship our deficit would be twice what it is, at a time when deficit reduction only means less than a trillion of added debt despite another trillion of printed paper. The GOP are being presented with a stark alternative. Facing complete intransigence, political cunning, and blame from the leftist press no matter what they do or don't, the GOP can either fall on their swords for the good of the republic or ... what?

In the end, they will commit suicide on principle, yet you fellows will credit your favorite fascist with having reduced the deficit.

When Bush left there was a deficit of 400 some billion and that was a scandal. Obama this FY has a deficit twice that so far yet that is touted as an accomplishment. Worse yet: Consider that Bush's deficit was about equal to the cost of his medicare drug plan, while the cost of Obamacare has not yet kicked in. Nor will it ever be counted, since so much of this staggering cost is mandated on the employer and the individual rather than counted and disbursed.

Bush is judged on his war. Obama is judged on his rhetoric.

I am beginning to suspect that a brief career angering a Chicago ghetto to swap their votes for special entitlements is insufficient administrative experience to run the biggest show in the world.

Who'd of thunk it?

------------------------------------------------

Partisan? Next election, who among you will back Christie, who has balanced a budget through tough times by compromise, over Hillary, who ... what?

beatnic · October 2013

The brownies are wearing off. LOL

the_barber · October 2013

This is actually a really hot topic around the shop since it happened. We are located near to a big us gov't facility and have a lot of customers who have been furloughed because of it. My thoughts are really simple on the whole thing. 1. The ACA might be law, but needs to be tweaked, let those of us who cant get healthcare from an employer because it is considered small business get it from the exchanges, but give EVERYONE whether they have insurance or not have the option to get it or not....2. As long as people are furloughed and not earning neither should congress or the president. I know its not much of a dent into their wallets but it at least sends a better message to everyone if they weren't getting paid. 3. Congress should have to pass a budget every year without question, if no budget is passed they should be penalized with their jobs.....if I dont cut hair while at work I wont have a job very long, if they dont pass a budget why should they. Oh, and not another note, someone mentioned how congress if not paid, wouldnt matter because they get money from other sources.....I agree 100%. Have you seen how many lawyers and practicing doctors, and corporate CEO's run for and get elected into public office.....why would someone give up a million dollar job to deal with the beuracracy that is capital hill? just saying. IF it were up to me the average Joe, making middle to lower class income, who actually deals with the struggles of the everyday american be the ones who are working for us on capital hill.....simply if the job is a paycut you are not eligible......

beatnic · October 2013

Eric Cantor article!

link

Rhamlin · October 2013

I agree. Without playing the blame game. If all of them from the top down had to do without getting paid maybe they would try harder to come to terms. Compromising doesn't always mean caving in.

the_barber · October 2013

well apparently they are having a both party meeting in the white house tomorrow....wonder how they behave around each other when the doors are closed...i can see it now, everyone files into oval office, pres kicks all the non important people out....soon as door closes he starts pouring everyone a beer and boehner starts handing out sticks and for the next 2 hours they tell college frat party stories and tour momma jokes....then they file out with grim faces and start calling everyone names again....yeah something like that it would seem

phobicsquirrel · October 2013

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/10/2764321/on-eve-of-shutdown-house-gop-rigged-the-house-rules-to-prevent-democrats-reopening-government/

Amos_Umwhat · October 2013

phobicsquirrel:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/10/2764321/on-eve-of-shutdown-house-gop-rigged-the-house-rules-to-prevent-democrats-reopening-government/

But, but, it's still Obama's fault, isn't it?

Shutdown...a different (non partisan) perspective

Comments