Good, shut 'er down
Bad, make a deal
Don't Know
Don't Care
US Government Shut Down?
If it happens, and it might.....I think no federal legislator should get their tax-payer salary, and their health benefits should immediately be frozen.
Their salary comes from a "different revenue stream" than soldiers and their families, or other "non-essential" federal workers, but tough shit. If they can't do their damn job, and we can't really fire them with two weeks notice, we can at least withhold their pay. Just like what would happen to other "civil servants".
Seems ridiculous that both parties can't get together and pay for things like soldiers pay while they hash out all the other details.
That being said its really the Democrats fault. They are refusing to cut spending by any real amount. The election in 2010 made it loud and clear that Americans are tired of the massive government spending.
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Its not the amount, its the what, and the Republicans seem to have radically different goals here, and not all of those goals are set on just the budget. Its curious why the Republicans weren't trying this fiscal responsibility facade when they had the power to avoid a shutdown...
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-07-2011 at 11:31 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This is a bipartisan clusterfuck. As much as the new GOP house wants to claim "the people sent us here to cut spending", they only got it half right. While they try to say it's about fiscal discipline and not ideology, their 64 riders look contradictory. The Democrats aren't innocent either, when they presume all this fuss will benefit them in the next elections.
PAUSE.........Politics, As Usual, Sucks Eggs
go go USA #1!
Yes because the incoming Tea Party Freshman were in office in 2003 and 2004...
Its not the amount, its the what, and the Republicans seem to have radically different goals here, and not all of those goals are set on just the budget. Its curious why the Republicans weren't trying this fiscal responsibility facade when they had the power to avoid a shutdown...
You dare call $ 33 bn a serious cut? Let me get this right; are you living in İreland maybe?
Congratulations America
My US House Rep was conducting a "Live phone town hall meeting", but I missed the call so only got a recorded message. I tried calling DC and local numbers but they're busy handling callers, maybe the phone banks are jammed. Last time I recall this happening was during the financial meltdown when Paulson gathered legislators to hear the doom and gloom without a bail out for the banks.
Talking to a friend of mine today, some of her Navy friends didn't get their paycheck this last paydate; still waiting a week later to receive it. Even though they are out to sea on duty. THat's fucking disgusting to do to a military person. They're out there busting their asses while our legislators are going to continue to be paid to do jackshit.
Glad I got my tax return last week. Thanks TurboTax!
But seriously, this is some real gamesmanship by everyone. Not sure it's constructive for anyone at all.
Military was paid on the 1st. The April 15th pay check is still in question however.
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/67324/m...al-budget-woes
American Exceptionalism at work? Too bad all the sailors and soldiers can't drop what they're doing to protest in DC. And the military families are working other jobs and raising babies and trying to make rent, so they can't really drop what they're doing to show up for a protest march, either.
As much as I love America, it's become embarrassing and frustrating to be American.
If they aren't going to be paid, why should they be required to still show up for work? WTF.
They are considered "essential personal" for obvious reasons. I agree it is total BS not to pay them. Both parties should work together to at the very minimum allow military pay checks to continue during the interim.
Some are stuck in boot camp, training in some offshore base, on an aircraft carrier, or already deployed overseas. They can't NOT show up for work. Our wussy fancy pants legislators, however, shouldn't be paid when they choose to lock up federal dollars, while expecting their own.
Remember the newly elected GOP tea party guy whose first congressional question was "Why is there a waiting period before my healthcare benefits take effect, I need them NOW"....or the freshmen GOP house member who said he needed his salary to pay his mortgage and feed his six children? Yeah, those guys. Buncha hypocrites.
you mean the one who was complaining that 174k was forcing him to drive a used minivan? the one who is on the verge of suing the internet to stop that video clip from spreading?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I wasn't aware of any internet law suit, but yeah, the GOP freshman claiming he needed his tax-payer $174,000 salary to make ends meet. While *supporting* bills to remove services for those making less than $20,000/year.
Last edited by GGT; 04-08-2011 at 02:09 AM. Reason: * for the anal retentive amongst us
Then I'll take that as another win for the streisand effect. The more they fought to get it removed, the worst it spread.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
$174k is not a lot if you have a family and paying the costs on two homes (one in the home district and one in an expensive city like Washington DC). Remember when Rahm Emmanuel was living in someone's basement?
So fucking what. These are legislators supposedly representing their constituents, not their own financial house or affording a townhouse in Georgetown while they "conduct business", let alone some bizarre party posturing for political power.
You think you can afford to buy a townhouse in Georgetown on $174k/year minus your home back in your district and other expenses?
Have you heard the famous stories about how Chuck Schumer and some of his friends live? It's not a lot of money to own a home with a family back home and pay for living large chunks of the year in a major city like DC.
You're asking loaded questions. But in essence, no.....I don't think it's good for our republic when reps from North Dakota or Kansas have to fly back and forth to their districts, ONLY because it's too expensive to live in Georgetown. Richer states might agree to pay for Congress or Senate living in DC, but that shouldn't neutralize the salary and living expenses for our representatives. They should come into office knowing exactly what their travel or living accommodations are, and they should try to make it equitable for everyone.You think you can afford to buy a townhouse in Georgetown on $174k/year minus your home back in your district and other expenses?
Have you heard the famous stories about how Chuck Schumer and some of his friends live? It's not a lot of money to own a home with a family back home and pay for living large chunks of the year in a major city like DC.
If they don't, that's just more proof that our legislators are out of touch with the people who voted them as representatives of their state, and our union, instead of their own personal bottom line.
What exactly are you saying? Are you suggesting legislators should be get paid differently based on their state? Even though they are all living in the same city? I honestly can't tell what you're saying.
I suppose I'm asking why legislators recognize their OWN gaps in income based on home state COL, or expenses for THEIR "business travel", but they don't seem to acknowledge the same things happening across the US. Or why they seem to be so ready to treat all seniors as the same, or all working poor as the same, or all corporations as the same, when they draft national/federal bills.
I heard on this forum before that 100k makes you top 10% in the us, so I would think that 174k is more than enough to support two homes, yes. Comfortably. Keep in mind you don't have to live in georgetown, too.
Not that I have anything against politicians living there or earning that much, but it has been annoying me that people say that living off 20k it's easy and they should not complain, and everything is grand for the poor, but at the same time say that 174k is not much if you support a family.. Poor people have families to support too.
Let's see how this really sounds. Sorry, folks, we can't come to an agreement or compromise, even though that's what we were elected to do, and that's our job. We can't figure out the budget, so we'd just as soon stand on social principles like abortion, same sex marriage, welfare, safety nets for seniors or poor people. Never mind the federal workers or military caught in the cross hairs of passing a budget. We get our paycheck no matter how badly we perform. Everyone else can just wait around for us to get our act together.
Quite true. Now you know why there is so much outrage about this. If a few politicians can hamstring the masses, it's no wonder why we have such a mess. (Also why I started a thread about Classism in America.)
So I take it you're saying we should charge different federal income tax rates to people in different states? Because that's what it sounds like.
As with most things, it depends entirely on the region. Washington DC is not a cheap city to live in at all. Plus, legislators have to pay for their home in their home district, costs for their kids, etc in addition to their expenses while in DC. It's like living two lives on one income.
Being in the top 10% doesn't mean much if you happen to be in a city where the top 10% of income isn't a ton of money.
Whoosh, the whole thing flew right over your head, Dread. Constituents don't take kindly to their representatives claiming they have to earn above average wage and maintain two homes, just to do their job of governing for the people. When they refuse to do their job of governing for the people.
Except they do literally have to maintain two homes. And one of them is in a very expensive city. No one expects their federal representatives to live on the street, what's the matter with you.
Even though I intend to vote against him, I wouldn't begrudge my Senator if he wanted to live in something slightly nicer than a cheap two bedroom house in Southeast DC split between four dudes. But he does because of populist demagoguery like what you're producing. Which BTW makes post-service lobbying work that much more appealing after spending so much time living in a dump.
Goddamnit I wrote a super long reply, on my phone, which took ages, and I accidentally lost it. Grr. To summarize: dread, you are half right but half wrong(which is the important half).details will follow at some point..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
