U.S. Government shuts down.

[Jester]

We are split almost equally between those who want more government, and those who want less government. Half of us are angry, and the other half are cheering (mostly because they didn't blink again).

And yet, the level of comprehension of the components of the government budget are so painfully low, that nobody can actually put forward a serious platform about what to cut, and how. The only thing anyone ever seems to agree on is that there should be less foreign aid - which would be a humanitarian disaster, without saving more than a singe percent of the budget.

Try cutting social security, medicare, the military, or farm subsidies, and the "half that wants less government" howls in protest. Add in interest payments on the debt, and that's nearly 80% of US government spending that's basically untouchable - and not because Dems are intransigent, but because it has bipartisan support.

Republican voters seem happy with the generic idea of "smaller government," but unhappy with any of the plausible paths to getting there. And so, it all becomes sloganeering: "Kill Obamacare." No more "moochers." Nothing useful or tangible.

Linky! Note: When you ask Republicans about "health care," a generic category, you get 44% saying cut it, and only 16% saying increase. But ask about "Medicare," a specific program? Only 21% want to cut it, and 24% want to increase spending. Interesting, no?

-Jester

[Taem]

Maybe it's time we took Kath's idea, way back when, and gave more power to the states. Then a government shutdown would be irrelevant to the interests of the state, and we could leave the feds to deal with foreign affairs. Give the states control of the national parks, airports, etc. Just a thought.

[FireIceTalon]

Actually, that would be one of the worst things we could possibly do - unless you don't mind us returning to what this nation looked like prior to 1965. And in some states, it would look more like before 1865. "States rights" is another one of those bogus catch phrases that people are easily attracted to because they take it at face value, but without understanding what the term implies in a material context. The long-term economic and social consequences of devolution would be a disaster, and much worse than the current government shutdown. In effect, 'states rights' is a shield for racism, sexism, oppression of the poor, and discrimination of identities that are considered as "others". Basically, its just another misleading slogan used by racist, white property owning males to strengthen their privileged position and to discriminate and oppress those they see as being lesser. There is a good reason why devolution is a very unpopular idea outside the extreme far right, and won't ever happen. So next time you hear someone use that term, dont believe the hype.

[Jester]

Maybe it's time we took Kath's idea, way back when, and gave more power to the states. Then a government shutdown would be irrelevant to the interests of the state, and we could leave the feds to deal with foreign affairs. Give the states control of the national parks, airports, etc. Just a thought.

Why would this help, exactly?

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

Then again... you might expect people with hard line beliefs on spending to be hard lined on spending. They ran their entire campaign on killing Obamacare, got elected by the 48% of people who think likewise, and they tried 50 times. Now they shut down the government because of it, even if it means they tick off the other 48% of people who like government.

We are a bi-polar nation. We are split almost equally between those who want more government, and those who want less government. Half of us are angry, and the other half are cheering (mostly because they didn't blink again).

Not exactly a true to life representation of this issue. You can't substitute "people that voted for Romney" with "people that want to get rid of government". And it shows as the news keeps rolling in about what is happening in DC right now. If a 'clean' bill were put up in the house it has a good chance that it would pass and this would be all over. What we have is a small minority of the political body taking all the leverage that they can and not caring what damage might come from it.

You can't even make the claim that the Republican caucus in the house is representative of an accurate proportion of the population as in most of the country the districts that they hold have been gerrymandered so completely that despite getting equal or less votes in a given state they still walk away with upwards of 3 times the seats as Democrats. So not only is it a minority mentality, but it's a minority mentality that is magnified massively in this one section of the political body.

Also, while I am at it, this idea of someone being for "small government" is pure political maneuvering and shouldn't be relied on in serious debates. It's like claiming that someone is for "common-sense solutions". It's a statement that purposefully lacks any context or specificity so that the audience can input whatever their personal concept of the issue is without ever holding the politician to any standard. It's a device that only works to inflame inherent personal ideologies and in the same stroke implies that whomever your opponent they are anti-everything. I'm for common-sense solutions! Thus my opponent must be for insipid wastefulness! I'm for small government! My opponent must be for government that wants to take your guns/religion/freedom/whatever the audiences cause de jour may be.

[Taem]

@FIT

Like medical marijuana laws? You're a real tool sometimes fit. I'm personally glad states have separate laws for some things, else gay marriage would never have happened had other states no started the change by making it legal first allowing the federal law to be overturned. Another thing is my wife wouldn't have the necessary medical marijuana she uses with low doses of thc so she hardly feels a head trip, but it takes her pain away, etc. Yeah, on some level, I do think the states should have more power, and more rights. Rather this would be a good thing or a bad thing, I have not really sat down to ponder to full ramifications, but for you to compare what individual states have done with their rights versus comparing state rights to discrimination, racism, and sexism, I have to disagree that not everything is an evil ploy thought up by some bizarre evil entity hell-bent on control, be it big or small government.

EDIT: Made this from my phone so now that I'm back at home, going to fix it up a bit.

[Taem]

@Jester

Why wouldn't it help? Give the states more responsibility over assets in their state, and that's not only less the feds have to worry about, but less that could be shut down if this ever happens again (and it will). It seems rather logical to me; to compare this to another subject happening now in the news, why open The Marketplace for health insurance that crosses state lines? Why not just establish a federally ran health care system? Because the states have the right to choose how they will implement these laws and who will oversee them in their own state. Regarding giving states more responsibility and the feds less, on a personal level I can't really say rather that would be a good or bad choice. In the end, it was just an idea I wanted to throw out there, something that stuck with me of all the subjects discussed here at the Lounge when Kath presented his ideology on a perfect America with the states having more fiscal and law creating control.

EDIT: Made this from my phone so now that I'm back at home, going to fix it up a bit.

[FireIceTalon]

@FIT

Like medical marijuana laws? You're a real tool sometimes fit. I'm personally glad states have separate laws for some things, else gay marriage would never have happened had other states no started the change by making it legal first allowing the federal law to be overturned. Another thing is my wife wouldn't have the necessary medical marijuana she uses with low doses of thc so she hardly feels a head trip, but it takes her pain away, etc. Yeah, on some level, I do think the states should have more power, and more rights. Rather this would be a good thing or a bad thing, I have not really sat down to ponder to full ramifications, but for you to compare what individual states have done with their rights versus comparing state rights to discrimination, racism, and sexism, I have to disagree that not everything is an evil ploy thought up by some bizarre evil entity hell-bent on control, be it big or small government.

EDIT: Made this from my phone so now that I'm back at home, going to fix it up a bit.

I have sat down to ponder its full ramifications. I am all for legalizing marijuana (both for medical and recreational use) and gay marriage, but through devolution isn't the way to do it. The benefits would be outweighed by the consequences.

To know why 'states rights' is inherently a bad thing is to know your history, and what the term itself, historically means and implies by those who advocate it. Since you do not seem to know, I will break it down for you.

It was through the Civil Rights Movement that the right to vote and general civil rights were granted to 'people of color' who lived in the south, by the federal government. Minorities who lived in these states were subject to Jim Crow Laws that were state mandated as a way of maintaining white hegemony in that region of the country. This is where the term 'states rights' come from. Conservatives of various stripes, who are the general proponent of 'states rights', want to rollback these policies that were extended to minorities because they are a threat to white supremacy. Historically, their agenda was to keep minorities (especially blacks) as an economically repressed, uneducated, and socially stratified class to protect white privilege intact in that region. The term 'states rights' is just a code phrase used by those who wish to rollback the progress and civil liberties that were granted to minorities, and they resent the fact that they do not have that power anymore. The Tea Party fascists/racists are the prime example of this today, which is why you always see them hollering about states rights in their little rallies. But tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

In short, fuck 'states rights'. Anyone who supports that crap is a sociopath, nuff' said.

And I'm a tool? LOL, yea ok buddy.

[Lissa]

They ran their entire campaign on killing Obamacare, got elected by the 48% of people who think likewise, and they tried 50 times. Now they shut down the government because of it, even if it means they tick off the other 48% of people who like government.

Not quite. They got there because the shameless amount of Gerrymandering performed with the 2010 census. Every state did it, it's just that Democratic leaning states did it less (or less efficiently) than Republican leaning states. A large number of states have been Gerrymanded to such an extreme that the Republicans have tied up their states and the House until the next census in 2020.

[Taem]

Text

Well, yes, I knew about that (civil rights), but I've said it before, where I live we don't see that kind of racism. I've talked to professionals who work both inland in LA and here on the south coast and they all say, every single one, that they would rather work on the coast because, "the people are so laid back, calm, and nice." Not my words, but I am paraphrasing. We just don't see this type of stuff, so I tend to forget it really exists. Are you right about the tea party? If racism is as rampant as you claim it to be, then I suppose it's a possibility, but because I have not seen it, I cannot independently verify it's (racism) strong support outside of areas in the deep-south and certain parts of Arizona.

And I'm a tool? LOL, yea ok buddy.

Okay, I was obliviously being snarky there. I was using it in the context of someone who is so focused on only one agenda, that they can't see anything else. The irony, of course, is that by my own context, I'd also fit that shoe, as would anyone with a strong opinion, so to that end, I apologetically retract that statement used toward you.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, yes, I knew about that (civil rights), but I've said it before, where I live we don't see that kind of racism. I've talked to professionals who work both inland in LA and here on the south coast and they all say, every single one, that they would rather work on the coast because, "the people are so laid back, calm, and nice." Not my words, but I am paraphrasing. We just don't see this type of stuff, so I tend to forget it really exists. Are you right about the tea party? If racism is as rampant as you claim it to be, then I suppose it's a possibility, but because I have not seen it, I cannot independently verify it's (racism) strong support outside of areas in the deep-south and certain parts of Arizona.

I don't know if people on the coast are nicer and more laidback then in the southern states, or any other states for that matter. I think in general, you will find people of all types anywhere. As someone who is from LA himself, I've met my fair share of douche bags there. But ultimately, the distribution of particular personalities is probably quite hard to quantify just for the fact how do you define "nice" or "laidback", and besides, it isn't too important anyways.

But the southern US has been a very historically racist region. In this context, this probably wouldn't be an issue in CA due to the fact it doesn't have such a history. The problem is, if you grant state rights and power to one state, you have to do it to all of them. So while minorities in CA or other places that do not have a historically racist past aren't likely to be affected, it spells almost certain trouble for those in the southern and midwest states where institutionalized racism has historically been much more prominent, and in many ways, the racist culture and attitudes in those areas persists even today.

I don't think you are racist or want racism, but you have to take into account 'unintended consequences'.

As for the Tea Party being racist or not, they are very much so. I can link videos if you like.

Okay, I was obliviously being snarky there. I was using it in the context of someone who is so focused on only one agenda, that they can't see anything else. The irony, of course, is that by my own context, I'd also fit that shoe, as would anyone with a strong opinion, so to that end, I apologetically retract that statement used toward you.

What agenda? You mean the underlying racist ideology of 'states rights' advocates?

There is no agenda here, comrade. I am objectively analyzing an agenda in its historical context, not promoting one (unless being anti-racist and not wanting a reinstallment Jim Crow laws is somehow an agenda, and if it is so be it). Whenever I hear someone utter 'states rights', the first thing I think of is a desire for rollbacks on the civil liberities of minority groups because of its origin and history, to reestablish and bolster white privilege and subordinate African Americans as an underclass in a racially caste system. I know you are trying to transcend that, but given the reactionary agenda of those who support states rights, it only plays right into their hands, regardless of your own views. To want the states to have more power for your own benefits is also rather selfish. It is possible that I may benefit in some way from stronger states rights, but I would still fundamentally reject it because it would endanger decades of economic, political and social progress for oppressed groups in southern states.

Lastly, I dont view this is a matter of an opinion vs an opinion. I see it as you misconstruing (despite your noble intentions) it to be something that it isnt, and me explaining to you what it really entails, based on historical facts....

[Nystul]

To know why 'states rights' is inherently a bad thing is to know your history, and what the term itself, historically means and implies by those who advocate it. Since you do not seem to know, I will break it down for you.

It was through the Civil Rights Movement that the right to vote and general civil rights were granted to 'people of color' who lived in the south, by the federal government. Minorities who lived in these states were subject to Jim Crow Laws that were state mandated as a way of maintaining white hegemony in that region of the country. This is where the term 'states rights' come from. Conservatives of various stripes, who are the general proponent of 'states rights', want to rollback these policies that were extended to minorities because they are a threat to white supremacy. Historically, their agenda was to keep minorities (especially blacks) as an economically repressed, uneducated, and socially stratified class to protect white privilege intact in that region. The term 'states rights' is just a code phrase used by those who wish to rollback the progress and civil liberties that were granted to minorities, and they resent the fact that they do not have that power anymore. The Tea Party fascists/racists are the prime example of this today, which is why you always see them hollering about states rights in their little rallies. But tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

Actually some guys named Sam Adams and John Hancock refused to ratify the Constitution unless they could include an amendment stating that powers not expressly granted to the federal government were reserved by the states. Eventually it became the tenth amendment to the Constitution. This was only 180 years or so before the issues of which you speak. The concern of the day was that the new federal government would abuse its power and become essentially a new monarchy. Given some of your rhetoric, one might expect you to feel the same way.

[Jester]

Why wouldn't it help? Give the states more responsibility over assets in their state, and that's not only less the feds have to worry about, but less that could be shut down if this ever happens again (and it will).

Except that states can shut down just like the feds can. Do we have some reason to suspect that each individual state would achieve political gridlock less often than the federal government?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I favor distributed systems. If I want a good or service, and a provider happens to "out of commission" I can go elsewhere to a competitor. It is the State and Federal monopolies which are causing any pain we are experiencing now. I'd say if the Feds feel a service is non-essential enough to take it off line, the it is probably something that should not be done at the Federal level at least, or perhaps by government at all. If the Federal government is so big, that its temporary furlough would affect our economy, then I'd say its "too big to fail" and should be broken up into many smaller governments.


Only, the fat cat in the picture above is government, and their friends at Goldman-Sachs.

For example, we didn't get the Feds inaccurate jobs report on Tuesday. Instead, we looked at ADP payroll, and the better estimates of leading economists.

Another; If national park rangers were contracted, perhaps the contract would not be paid on time, but the parks would be open.

I heard that the Army, Navy, and Air force WILL be able to play their football games this weekend. Crisis averted.

[FireIceTalon]

^^You have a very rosy, and therefore unrealistic view of things.

Try telling your story to the 9 million single mothers and their kids that the crisis is averted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor...ram-halts/

Meanwhile, the police shot and killed an unarmed women that was fleeing from them after she ran into a guard rail near the Capitol Building. Guess this is a good sign of what we can expect when us peasants get too close to the palace. I hate to see what their reaction is going to be like when the peasants revolt one day - and that day IS going to come. It's just lovely to know that our supposed cash-strapped state cant provide services to the poor, yet they are still very willing and able to murder someone. Following this...

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took to Twitter to thank the police. “We all owe the Capitol Police a debt of gratitude for their work every day; no finer examples of professionalism & bravery,” Boehner wrote.
On the House floor, legislators rose for a round of applause after Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) praised Capitol Police for providing protection for the Capitol complex.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spoke after the round of applause, telling the police force, “We really appreciate it.”
The chamber also stood and applauded for the staff of the House Sergeant at Arms.

I think I'm going to be sick. These oligarch sociopaths and their corporate sponsors need to be sent to the fucking gallows and put in their rightful place: the dustbin of history. Jesus....

[DeeBye]

I personally love how each side states that it's the other side's fault, and the whole thing could end right now if the other side wanted it to end.

Oh American politics, please never change. You give me such entertainment

[eppie]

Meanwhile, the police shot and killed an unarmed women that was fleeing from them after she ran into a guard rail near the Capitol Building. Guess this is a good sign of what we can expect when us peasants get too close to the palace. I hate to see what their reaction is going to be like when the peasants revolt one day - and that day IS going to come. It's just lovely to know that our supposed cash-strapped state cant provide services to the poor, yet they are still very willing and able to murder someone. Following this...

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took to Twitter to thank the police. “We all owe the Capitol Police a debt of gratitude for their work every day; no finer examples of professionalism & bravery,” Boehner wrote.
On the House floor, legislators rose for a round of applause after Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) praised Capitol Police for providing protection for the Capitol complex.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spoke after the round of applause, telling the police force, “We really appreciate it.”
The chamber also stood and applauded for the staff of the House Sergeant at Arms.

I think I'm going to be sick. These oligarch sociopaths and their corporate sponsors need to be sent to the fucking gallows and put in their rightful place: the dustbin of history. Jesus....

This sounds sickening indeed. (I haven't read the story in the news over here).
But a revolt by the citizens? Forget it; there is too much on TV to have time to go and revolt.

[Jester]

Meanwhile, the police shot and killed an unarmed women that was fleeing from them after she ran into a guard rail near the Capitol Building.

The reporting I have heard suggests she tried to ram down one of the gates with her car. She tried in various times and places to bypass the security fences, and led police on a high speed chase, before trying to flee on foot. That's when she was shot.

That doesn't sound like "ran into a guard rail." The video does not seem to suggest that this was some kind of random accident where security massively overreacted.

Which, if I am understanding correctly, makes your editorializing more than a little specious. "Peasants" visit the "palace" every day, and they get guided tours. They just don't usually try to ram the gates down then flee the cops.

-Jester

[eppie]

Meanwhile, the police shot and killed an unarmed women that was fleeing from them after she ran into a guard rail near the Capitol Building.

The reporting I have heard suggests she tried to ram down one of the gates with her car. She tried in various times and places to bypass the security fences, and led police on a high speed chase, before trying to flee on foot. That's when she was shot.

That doesn't sound like "ran into a guard rail." The video does not seem to suggest that this was some kind of random accident where security massively overreacted.

Which, if I am understanding correctly, makes your editorializing more than a little specious. "Peasants" visit the "palace" every day, and they get guided tours. They just don't usually try to ram the gates down then flee the cops.

-Jester

I also read some more now. The woman was shot by several police officers when she got out of the car UNARMED. Friends told media that she was suffering from a post-natal depression.

So yes she tried to crash some gates, but shooting an unarmed person is being your own judge, or lynching I don't know how you want to call it.
The hero's that shot this unarmed woman did such 'a good job' that it took a while to identify her because of all the blood and bullet holes.

In the US it has gotten so far that the only thing they care about is terrorism and so police officers (a group) feel the need to shoot several times an unarmed woman because they probably were scared of something.

What is say is: wrong job for you! If you are not able to analyze such a situation you should find another job.

It also makes the whole fleeing thing a lot more understandable.....whenever in the US the cops try to stop you just flee because you have a 9 out of 10 chance that they will start shooting at you.

[Jester]

I also read some more now. The woman was shot by several police officers when she got out of the car UNARMED. Friends told media that she was suffering from a post-natal depression.

That was probably an overreaction, although I know if I'd been one of those cops in the video, I'd have certainly been pretty agitated - they almost got run over, even after they'd surrounded her.

Post-natal depression is terrifying and deserves our utmost sympathy, but sometimes it makes you do completely horrifying things. And in this case, the cops didn't really have much time for psychoanalysis. Decisions must be made in high-adrenaline situations in a very short time with extremely limited information.

So yes she tried to crash some gates, but shooting an unarmed person is being your own judge, or lynching I don't know how you want to call it.

It's certainly not a lynching. Police are legally allowed to use lethal force where they feel lives are threatened. (In this case, presumably, theirs...) I agree this was almost certainly an overreaction. But watching the video, it doesn't surprise me that something went wrong. This was not someone signalling that they were sane and harmless, and the grain of truth in FIT's screed is that the police are going to be quicker on the trigger if they think someone is trying to threaten the government.

It also makes the whole fleeing thing a lot more understandable.....whenever in the US the cops try to stop you just flee because you have a 9 out of 10 chance that they will start shooting at you.

You think, if she'd just rammed the barrier, then walked out of her car and surrendered, she would have been shot? Maybe. US police do start shooting far too quickly, although 9/10 chance is way, way overstated. Here, though, I think she upped the ante herself - again, watch the video. The police appear to be keeping their composure, right up until she nearly runs them over while escaping, after ramming a police vehicle. It looked like something out of Grand Theft Auto. Which is not to say that they should have shot her. But this is not Amadou Diallo. She was clearly putting lives, including the police, in danger.

-Jester