U.S. Government shutdown - how does it work ?

[Guest chunky]

in uk the government takes 150bn in income tax every year

then spends 100bn each year on health care

yea the cancer type of stuff is good, heal people up, no problem, fuck cancer

but theres a lot of hilarious type of joke things that also happen

like ladies getting breast enlargement surgery and people going in for sex changes

and it's paid out of income tax

 

so youre going to work, and they take your money and treat cancer patients (good) and put fake tits inside of lonely ladies (heh) and you pay for people to have their private parts reconstructed into mini sculptural artworks (whoa dude)

 

there's a force like gravity that works on public services, one that means the more money is spent, the better. it's slightly removed from the original moral intentions of seeing people without enough money being treated for terrible illnesses. not enough restraint on the companies that are profiting from taxpayer money.

 

one famous scam is the private finance initiative, used to build school'n'hospitals in england

government borrows money to build a hospital, ties itself into a contract for 30 years, new hospital is shoddy and shitty, cant change who maintains the place because the contract has been signed, private company gives no fucks unless it gets paid more, government still paying back at interest 30 years later, taxpayer totally ripped off

[joshuatxuk]

really ultra weird to me that after all the horrendous civil liberties erosions since 9/11 the 'forced healthcare' angle is the one republicans are choosing to go with full force. It's so insanely hypocritical and sad I don't even know what to say.

 

These are the same people who believe that "Christians are persecuted" more than any other group in America. The same ones who pass laws that allow government intrusions into the lives of the LGBT community and then say that there's a "Gay Agenda" working against "the freedoms" of those who are homophobic. They are the ones that, at best, shrug their shoulders and say "well...I dunno" when you say climate change is an issue. The same people who refuse to look at the fact that 100,000+ American troops are stationed in over 100 countries overseas and then balk at the suggestion that this country has imperialist aspects to it and then lecture you on how we are the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

 

And the kicker, is as soon as you catch them in their own hypocrisy as a conservative, they revert to the catch-all answers of "well it's not in the constitution" or "well there are state's rights" or some other bullshit. It's rhetoric that can have it both ways and throw reason and standards out the window. Doublespeak is their basis of most expressions and claims.

 

It's insane for a moderate, an independent or liberal to get that perspective.

 

In other words:

 

 

That's the only caveat to why I can stomach Rand Paul and even Ted Cruz to a certain extent - they are openly more critical of the NSA than most Democrats.

 

The Tea Party was extremely libertarian at it's start in 2008/2009 - it was like a coalition of Ron Paul fans, tax resistors, libertarians, etc. Once it grew and was co-opted - i.e. the GOP got involved and started dozens of PACs and 501© organizations for elections and fundraising, conservative social issues were brought back in and the only "big government" targeted were social programs, healthcare, regulation. It was literally a fucking softball for anti-regulation lobbyists and corporations to do as they please.

 

Those I know who are very anti-Obama, and cite their often hyperbolic fears of the Federal Government and the "erosion of their liberties" were fucking mute during the Bush administration, if not openly supportive of Bush's policies. I don't think that it's racism, at least not with the friends and family I know. I can't look into their hearts and make that claim anyway. I do know that it does stem from various other things 1. core belief American exceptionalism which has played more into the birther conspiracy than racism 2. an adverse reaction to the false sense of progress that the Obama campaign and presidency touts (I share this to a large degree, as do many on the left 3. the practically steadfast belief that defense spending and military presence overseas is crucial.

 

I should say that I've lumped all conservatives as "the GOP" - the fact is that there's really a two-fold aspect of that side. It's both the reason the party flourishes and the reason it's going to implode.

 

Conservative group 1: There's the actual GOP, which honestly is extremely moderate and it's fault is it's de facto siding with lobbyists, the rich, and corporations. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and past presidents and presidential candidates fall in this category. Even Bush, if you exclude Iraq and foreign policy, was hard to differentiate from a moderate Dem, signing off on a $600 million increase in Medicaid spending and advocating for foreign aid to the developing world.

 

Conservative group 2: The far-right. The Christian right, the pro-Israel contingent, the Tea Party, the extremely social conservatives from rural areas, the diverse array of fringe militias and gun nuts. This is the group that the GOP tries to cater to and the group that actually got quite a few candidates in office in 2010 and threatens moderate Republicans during primary elections.

 

Here's the kicker - both groups are masterfully united through effective rhetoric through FOX News and a variety of conservative news outlets ranging from older more intellectual journals like the National Review to the absolutely insane blogs and websites. And of course, Talk Radio. These outlets appeal to both group 1 and 2. The dismiss any moderate liberals or libertarian or green ideologues with snark and arrogance.

 

And yet, so many people who vote for the GOP are anything but far-right. I have very intelligent relatives who are very anti-Obama and think Rick Perry is a-ok and yet they also donate to planned parenthood and are non-religious. Likewise there are very social conservative citizens who are moderate on government policy who refuse to vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat. And then there's 50%+ of the country who don't vote at all!

 

The implosion of the GOP will happen and already conservatives are ready to blame the liberals and moderates for that too, including the immigration reform and anti-voter oppression efforts, which in their conspiratorial minds gives "free minority votes" to the Dems. Some have other theories. Either way, like much of the status quo of the GOP, it's all blame and no ideas. They are whiny children. My only worry is that it'll give the Dems too much power as well. It'd be nice if they imploded too and the sincere left-wingers had a party but that's getting way ahead. In the ideal world the rich and political elite and their corrupt pawns would simply be ousted from power but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Guest A/D]

 

I pay almost $200/month for a plan that only covers emergency room treatment.

and your intelligent, thinking mind can only conceive of one possible solution to that problem, which is to give direct control of your body to your government. no possible way the gov having a direct say in what health care you can receive could ever be abused for political reasons, is there? no way the NSA collecting data from social network sites and phone companies about average, non-terrorist citizens, for who knows what reason exactly, could ever factor in. this couldn't at all be a slippery slope scenario where one day they dictate what foods you are allowed to eat, who you are allowed to have sexual relations with, if you are allowed to reproduce, if you can drink or smoke, or etc etc etc. they are offering 'free' goodies, so why hesitate or ask questions?!

There are many countries with nationalized healthcare, and none of them dictate their citizens' diets, relationships, or indulgences. No one said it was free, either. Can I recommend a psych evaluation when it becomes available? The earlier you catch paranoid schizophrenia the better.

[chenGOD]

genuine Q

 

from where does the federal government get the money to pay the subs?

 

Taxes of course - but this is not an extra tax on the middle class (if you're making more than 200k a year, you are decidedly not middle class). If you read the link I provided, it kind of shows how the numbers work out chunky. Now I'm well aware that numbers are a zionist trick to enslave the white christian male and rob England of her heritage, but sometimes the numbers, well, they're all we have.

[Guest chunky]

 

genuine Q

 

from where does the federal government get the money to pay the subs?

 

Taxes of course - but this is not an extra tax on the middle class (if you're making more than 200k a year, you are decidedly not middle class). If you read the link I provided, it kind of shows how the numbers work out chunky. Now I'm well aware that numbers are a zionist trick to enslave the white christian male and rob England of her heritage, but sometimes the numbers, well, they're all we have.

 

more than 200k, ok i know what you mean about say a computer programmer who makes 200k+ but for say some farmers they technically make that but have to pay to upkeep their land and i would still call those type of people middle class. george orwell was upper-middle-lower-class or was it lower-upper-middle class or something like that? nice to keep a sense of humour about this type of thing. the point you want to make is people who can afford nice things should help to pay for others to receive health care (close enough?). the point i want to make wasnt about the class system but i used the term middle class because i thought it would help to explain my point: the money is taken from A to pay for B, but the debate ignores C, which is profiteering at the expense of A.

 

let me say another way: the 1% takes from one group to give to another group, and that group hands the money back to the 1%.

 

i could understand the argument being 'who cares as long as people get the health care they need'.

 

i use the 1% deliberately to mean the richest people in the usa, not any race or religion in particular. but if you want to make jokes because of opinions in other threads then *wry smiley face* ok cool ;-)

 

re: numbers. yeah they can be used to deceive, especially when they're overwhelming in number. i tend to ignore percentages and statistics in political arguments, because i know that governments lie and deceive constantly on a grand scale to get what they want. but ill happily concede the point about middle class taxrises and agree with the points in the washington post article.

 

"numbers are a zionist trick to enslave the white christian male and rob England of her heritage"

opinion poll companies are, yeah, pretty much exactly this. sad but true. enslave is too harsh a word, more like turn into second class citizens, and that means everyone not just WASPs. historically white men were the only ones capable of restraining this type of behaviour, white people + new testament = ass kickers. thats why marxist ideology hates white men. because marxist ideology is judaism watered down for the goyim (unchosen people from the nations). thats why freudianism opposes christianity. thats why christopher hitchens' final article was a hit piece on gk chesterton. he had the intelligence to know what side he was on and exactly why. his followers lack this intelligence, following blindly.

 

cant find any words by kaiser wilhelm ii about health care but what's interesting is the list of vast spending on absolutely pointless expenditure, it defies belief how much money he would spend. what's funny is the link between his spending and the spending on health care in america. also has similiarities to the EU. the link is that the people that fund the government NEED for there to be massive spending. it doesnt matter what the reason is. it doesnt matter whether spending is for moral or immoral purposes. without spending there's no need to borrow money. without borrowing money, interest can't be made. the web of usury gets washed away by the rain.

[Guest RadarJammer]

what's worse, the republicans calling me a sinner while raping my civil rights.. or the democrats whispering into my ear that they are sensitive to my needs while raping my civil rights

[Guest A/D]

what's worse is the lobbyist paying the politician to come up with the reasons why they're destroying the world . .

still worse the one who pays the lobbyist . .

still worse the one who pays him.

 

capitalism is like religion - a lot of really genuinely good actors on the lower levels; a lot of really bad ones in control.

[pattern recognition]

so the house unanimously approved a bill to provide back pay to the furloughed federal workers. so in the end it'll just be a paid vacation for them, with no hard feelings toward congress? i think if they're going to shut down the government, they should feel the consequences. instead, who suffers? congress is paid. federal workers will be paid. once again, they fuck around and the only ones that'll feel any pain will be joe six pack and donnie bag o' donuts who just want to see the a national park.

 

this country sucks. just drone strike me now.

[cichlisuite]

...what's worse is that all this effort to deceive, charades to cover-up stealing, worldwide political scam networks yadadaadada

once they get what they wanted, they just build ugly houses, expensive cars which they can't even drive, plastic tits for their mistress, dip their greasy ass in a jacuzzi....etcetcetc

And then they die. Their smelly bodies become the very dirt they've been struggling all life to move away from.

 

What's even worse is they give birth to greasy-slimey-retarded-spoiled-ball ver.2 (aka their kids).

 

WHY?! w h y ? !

 

If you think about it, it's like kids in a sandbox. All for nothing really. Egyptians at least got the pyramids built....

 

Humanity!

[SR4]

Egyptians at least got the pyramids built....

 

oh man let's not get into that again...

[Lewps]

in uk the government takes 150bn in income tax every year

then spends 100bn each year on health care

yea the cancer type of stuff is good, heal people up, no problem, fuck cancer

but theres a lot of hilarious type of joke things that also happen

like ladies getting breast enlargement surgery and people going in for sex changes

and it's paid out of income tax

I believe sex changes should be partially covered by health care, everyone has the right to feel comfortable in their own skin.

[Guest cult fiction]

in uk the government takes 150bn in income tax every year

then spends 100bn each year on health care

 

So there are ~60 million people in the UK. That means on average a person in the UK pays $2500 in income taxes each year, of which about $1600 is spent on healthcare? Those numbers are insanely low, and frankly, if you believe those numbers, they're the best argument for nationalized healthcare you could ask for.

[SR4]

 

in uk the government takes 150bn in income tax every year

then spends 100bn each year on health care

 

So there are ~60 million people in the UK. That means on average a person in the UK pays $2500 in income taxes each year, of which about $1600 is spent on healthcare? Those numbers are insanely low, and frankly, if you believe those numbers, they're the best argument for nationalized healthcare you could ask for.

 

 

 

*something something Kaiser Wilhelm was a genius something something Zionists*

[Rubin Farr]

Hits the nail on the head.

 

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/hollywood-ending-republican-party-guest-blog-160317453.html

[goDel]

Interesting piece in the huffpo about the behind the scenes situation during the shutdown:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/obama-reid_n_4136996.html

 

On Oct. 1, the initial day of the shutdown, the scene inside the White House was chaotic. While the entire staff came in that morning, a sizable chunk were forced to leave hours later -- BlackBerrys turned off -- as "non-essential employees." Normal operations were upended. But the administration assured Hill Democrats that the political message remained the same: They weren't budging.

 

In fact, the White House was so concerned with getting the message across that a meeting was called with McConnell, Reid, Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Oct. 2, after aides privately heard from reporters that Republicans thought the president was bluffing. During that session, the president assured the speaker that his intransigence was sincere. A sullen Boehner, leaving the meeting before anyone else, complained to the waiting press corps that Obama was being unreasonable.

Typical narcissistic GOP reasoning? First call bluff. But if your call was wrong because they aren't bluffing, they're being unreasonable? Because, well, they should have been bluffing...and that would be reasonable?

 

It could be reasonable to admit your own bluff (which they are essentially saying between the lines, btw - just by stating the other party are bluffing - and the implied motivation that they hoped they would be bluffing..), and to admit you've made a mistake in doing so.

 

...Ehm, this wasnt the most beautiful sentence in existence, that's for sure. English sucks..

[azatoth]

The GOP accomplished nothing with the shutdown, just lost plenty of political capital and made more people aware of their lunatic fringe, that isn't really that much of a fringe anymore.

[goDel]

But at least they spoke up.

 

And generated a lot of talk about it. *nods to Ted Cruz*

 

... Bringing an entire economy to a halt just to get some message across... What a moron

[goDel]

At least Obama got to play GTA5 during the shutdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShoGiw_vtL0