U.S. Government shuts down.

[FireIceTalon]

So, nearly a million people will be out of work now (though the lords of private capital in congress still get paid, go figure), all because of the extreme far-right turds in this country who pander to their fascist Tea Bagger base, think Obamacare is "socialism" (even though Obamacare is pretty insufficient and does more to help insurance companies than it does people who can't afford healthcare), and heaven forbid the other center/right-wing party happens to be just ever so slightly to the left of Hayek, or von Mises. And what is more, Obamacare goes into effect tomorrow whether or not the government shuts down. Guess the ruling class has its panties in a bunch cause we might get a few more crumbs off the table than they wanted us to have.

Fuck this country, and its political mockery.

[FireIceTalon]

I would like to add:

The irony of all this is that the Republican party is doing this for the sake of obstruction as end in itself, which is what they have wanted to do since day 1 (Obama's election in 2008). They haven't even passed a SINGLE piece of legislation since winning the House in 2010. It's all to score political points to try and slander the other center-right party when the mid-terms come next year, but even yet more ironically, it is probably going to work AGAINST them. They have fought the Obama Administration tooth and nail on the AHCA (which is a pile of half-assed garbage anyway, but thats another story) and have lost every single time. Further, almost all sources show that the American public is more likely to blame their party, rather than the Obama Administration, for the current shutdown. I guess the results of the presidential election last year are a distant memory in their minds.

This so-called 'new conservative' party continues to shoot themselves in the foot politically, though of course in the big picture of things, the larger interests and agenda of both parties is met, since they retain their six-figure earnings through all this. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of federal workers will be unpaid and in many cases probably face difficulty making ends meet, while the US government occupies and bombs various other countries around the world since 'military function' remain open. This is also going to be just wonderful for working people who have IRA accounts or other interests in the stock market when it goes in the red for who knows how long due to this political fiasco. For the almighty 'Great Men' on Capitol Hill and the CEO's they serve, it is just a game for them - but for the rest of us, it is our livelihood at stake. So, in the midst of American capitalisms' latest failures, the very state apparatus that it protects it proves to be just as dysfunctional as the system itself. Gee, who would have thought?

[Taem]

Re: congress getting paid

On NPR news today, they said government workers who've been furloughed will recieve retro-active pay, meaning no one is loosing their pay.

[Jester]

On NPR news today, they said government workers who've been furloughed will recieve retro-active pay, meaning no one is loosing their pay.

People gotta pay the bills, and not everyone takes IOUs.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Re: congress getting paid

On NPR news today, they said government workers who've been furloughed will recieve retro-active pay, meaning no one is loosing their pay.

That is what has happened in the past, but it doesn't have to happen. When things start back up Congress can legally say, whelp sucks to be you. Just because past shut downs have made the new spending bills retroactive doesn't mean this one will.

[FireIceTalon]

On NPR news today, they said government workers who've been furloughed will recieve retro-active pay, meaning no one is loosing their pay.

People gotta pay the bills, and not everyone takes IOUs.

-Jester

Pretty much this.

And while I would like for Taem to be right, there is no evidence as of yet that this is or will be the case. With all the austerity going on as it is, it plausible that federal employees are gonna get the shaft.

On another note, I wonder how many working class Republicans are closet fans of Obamacare. Many of them are openly opposed to it, but the fact a large percentage of the working class goes without healthcare makes me think that many of them will use it 'in the dark'. I'm not a fan of it either (for different reasons of course, mainly because I do not think it is sufficient), but as someone who has gone without any healthcare for years now (besides the occasional trip to a dentist when I can afford it), I will reluctantly use it. Although I still cannot grasp for the life of me why so many people in this country are opposed to a full-blown single payer healthcare system, when practically the rest of the Western world has it in some form or another. I suspect it has something to do with the ultra-libertarian political roots and minimal government attitude that was a foundation since the Revolution, but surely most people can agree that access to decent healthcare is practically a basic need as much as food, water, or shelter is regardless of ones political stance. If not, it certainly comes very close. This isn;t even about socialism vs. capitalism, this is about common human decency.

The American people voted to have Obamacare (both directly and indirectly), and the Supreme Court upheld it when it went there, yet the GOP insists that we don't want it and shouldn't have it (I can't believe I am actually defending this bill, but I am doing it to make a point). This is pure evidence that they are only interested in maintaining their political privileges or trying to discredit the president they hate so much, and not in making policy that reflects the will of the people (whether it is right or wrong, or whether, in the big scheme of things, it is ultimately futile regardless). The very fact they are willing to shut down the government over the fact they hate this president so much, despite potential consequences this will have for a large amount of people, really shows a lot of who and what they are. And it isn't pretty.

[Archon_Wing]

This is just a slap to the face but the pain isn't too bad relatively speaking.

What is the main worry is the debt ceiling.

Farewell GOP; what the hell happened to you guys?

[kandrathe]

Farewell GOP; what the hell happened to you guys?

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).

But, I woke up this morning to the news media's story de jour. They were interviewing tourists who cannot get into the Statue of Liberty, or go visit the national zoo.

They are making sure to maximize the pain.

[FireIceTalon]

This is just a slap to the face but the pain isn't too bad relatively speaking.

What is the main worry is the debt ceiling.

Farewell GOP; what the hell happened to you guys?

I don't think this is going to directly affect me too much, but I feel for those who it will. More fundamentally, it really is a sign of just how fucked up and dysfunctional the system has become. The thing is a lot of people know the world really sucks right now, they know something is wrong yet just can't quite put their finger on it. But stuff like this is an eye opener for sure, since many already are dissatisfied with both parties. We do not yet know the full effects this will have, or how long it will last, but it is safe to say there are going to be people hurt by this. How much so, remains to be seen.

[Archon_Wing]

Farewell GOP; what the hell happened to you guys?

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).

But, I woke up this morning to the news media's story de jour. They were interviewing tourists who cannot get into the Statue of Liberty, or go visit the national zoo.

They are making sure to maximize the pain.

And this partisanship is causing nothing to be done, and ultimately hurts most of everyone. Trying to prove a point sounds cool and noble, but doesn't work out that well in practice since this will involve more than tick off. It's honestly a dangerous way to divide matters, because in the end that means one feels the other side must die.

Of course, both parties want more government, which leaves pretty much the ones that want less government in the dust. I know one party claims to support less, but it's losing its grip for good reason.

This is just a slap to the face but the pain isn't too bad relatively speaking.

What is the main worry is the debt ceiling.

Farewell GOP; what the hell happened to you guys?

I don't think this is going to directly affect me too much, but I feel for those who it will. More fundamentally, it really is a sign of just how fucked up and dysfunctional the system has become. The thing is a lot of people know the world really sucks right now, they know something is wrong yet just can't quite put their finger on it. But stuff like this is an eye opener for sure, since many already are dissatisfied with both parties. We do not yet know the full effects this will have, or how long it will last, but it is safe to say there are going to be people hurt by this. How much so, remains to be seen.

Yea it's not like they in Congress suffer; they still get paid and it's not like they can get immediately terminated. Oh, they might lose the next election, but I'm afraid some might not even be thinking that far, or even care. Regardless, they don't feel the brunt of their actions relatively speaking, so it's only natural they act the way they do. In the end they will still live their lifestyle-- while those out in the streets... well, you know the drill. It's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

It's easy to rally behind a banner when you're not the one taking the hits.

[FireIceTalon]

Of course, both parties want more government, which leaves pretty much the ones that want less government in the dust. I know one party claims to support less, but it's losing its grip for good reason.

Thank you!

The differences between both parties is very superficial at best; it is more a matter of not how much government is involved, but how it is involved or used. GOP wants lower taxes for the upper strata of the ruling class, less funding on social programs (including education), and high defense spending. The Dems want lower taxes for the petite-bourgeois sector of the ruling class, somewhat more spending on social programs, and a little less spending on military. Neither one are a friend of the working class. The GOP has made that very clear, and the Dems pay lip service to working people but their very position, and thus job, requires them to employ actions that are antithetical to larger working class interests. Some of them don't care and just say what their constituents want to hear for the sake of keeping their political clout, though I think many liberals believe that they are genuinely on the side of the working class. But this is founded on the (incorrect) assumption that the antagonistic relationship between labor and capital can be reconciled. It never has been, nor can it ever be.

At the end of the day, libertarians and other right-wing populists can sing that big government vs. little government false dichotomy tune all they like, but for capitalist systems to survive for any meaningful length of time REQUIRES a heavy handed state to protect private property - regardless of what guys like Hayek, von Mises, Friedman or other scholars of the Austrian school preached about. The involvement of the state can vary of course, and it can take on different forms politically. Then you have an occasional outlier like Somolia, but we see how (un)well that has turned out for them, so they don't really count.

What it really boils down to is anytime I hear some conservative preaching about how they want smaller government, my bullshit detectors go off, and I just shake my head, roll my eyes and move on. Because the truth is they only want smaller government when it is beneficial to their advantageous position in society, otherwise, they want just as big, if not bigger government, than any liberal does. So when you hear a conservative say "the Affordable Health Care Act is socialism!!", what he really means is: "I want healthcare to be only accessible to those that can pay for it (mainly "middle class" suburbanized white people), and I don't want women to have control over their vaginas cause I'm a chauvinistic douche bag that wants the right to enjoy his social & economic position of male privilege". It has nothing to do with bigger or smaller government, but you already know this

[Archon_Wing]

Of course, both parties want more government, which leaves pretty much the ones that want less government in the dust. I know one party claims to support less, but it's losing its grip for good reason.

Thank you!

The differences between both parties is very superficial at best; it is more a matter of not how much government is involved, but how it is involved or used. GOP wants lower taxes for the upper strata of the ruling class, less funding on social programs (including education), and high defense spending. The Dems want lower taxes for the petite-bourgeois sector of the ruling class, somewhat more spending on social programs, and a little less spending on military. Neither one are a friend of the working class.

Well just wanted to comment at this point, since that gets at what I was trying to say.

This is why when people bring up that popular "entitlement" buzzword as of late to deliver moral superiority across actually legitimate issues I want to punch them in the face because it's almost always laced with hypocrisy.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea when I hear the word "entitlement", it usually has a social privilege or ruling class sentiment behind it.

There are some legitimate forms of entitlement though, like social security. If one paid into it, it seems only fair that the federal government pays it to those who are entitled to it. There is the well known problem now of course, that more people are retiring than entering the workforce which creates a dangerous paradox - but the starting point of this problem here is capitalism and not SS itself (see the second half of the Engels quote in my sig). But unfortunately, this has created a socially constructed division between my generation and my parents generation, where the two generations have come to clash. The Baby Boomers hate my generation (X) or the newer generations because they feel like we are lazy, want everything handed to us, etc. They were raised under the so-called bourgeois 'Protestant work ethic'...and my generation hates theirs because we feel like we are going to have it much harder than they did (and we probably are), and that they basically used up all the social benefits and there will be no social security for us. Further, some of us see their generation as being the primary one who controls private capital, and calls us lazy yet won't hire us when we apply for a job. That, and there is a larger percentage of my generation and the younger generations that reject bourgeois values relative to the Baby Boomers. But many Baby Booms can't retire already now as it is, because SS is rarely enough to supplement the cost of living - especially at an age when you are usually having more healthcare costs. Compound that, with the rising costs of education and student loan debt being higher than credit card debt, and the result of all this is finger pointing and scapegoating by both sides, and even ageism in some cases, which is just another division of labor that stratifies workers ever more.

For my part specifically, this is really sad, because it is neither generations fault. It is simply the workings of capitalism at play here. One solution of course, to amend the social security problem would be to tax the ruling class more (like WAY more), but you know they will fight this tooth and nail to the bitter end. And likely, they will win, because of their superior social and political control within the capitalist framework. If things get bad enough, the state is likely to make some concessions to quell growing working class rage, so the US doesn't experience a "1917". Other solutions, like raising the retirement age, privatizing SS, or only allowing it to individuals below a certain income level are simply out of the question as well. So, what gives? American capitalism is bursting at the seams. This system is on its deathbed.

[FireIceTalon]

Getting back on topic: I'd also like to point out that the government shut down, in the case that it only affects parks, libraries and museums is not to be downplayed. So kids, in particular, kids of lower income families, are not to be educated, exposed to science, arts, recreation, and culture.....but hey, we still have our political talking points and the tax-payer paid paychecks coming our way, so fuck the kids, right!? Seriously, this kind of thinking makes me sick. If there is one thing I have come to learn about libertarianism (effectively a code word that means 'socialism for rich people'), and conservatism in general, it is a very attractive idea on the surface, which is why so many are drawn to it...with its claims of wanting small government, freedom, and its ostensible appeal to 'populism'. But in essence, it is a rotten, worm-filled, and heartless political philosophy to the core. Not to mention, most of its contribution to philosophy is boring to study, compared to Leftism which has a whole slew of really interesting things (even if half of them are rather useless) - from feminism, critical theory, structuralism and post-structuralism, to all the tendencies in Marxism, anarchism, syndicalism, etc....but i digress.

[DeeBye]

This is why when people bring up that popular "entitlement" buzzword as of late to deliver moral superiority across actually legitimate issues I want to punch them in the face because it's almost always laced with hypocrisy.

The "entitlement" buzzword confuses me too. I pay my taxes and a portion of those taxes go towards things I'd define as "entitlements" - like clean drinking water, a functioning sewer system, roads, police, firemen, garbage collection, and about a dozen other things. Paying your taxes doesn't mean paying for your lazy no-good neighbour - it's putting money in the pot so that everyone benefits. It's societal living.

[FireIceTalon]

Paying your taxes doesn't mean paying for your lazy no-good neighbour

See, these are the very kinds of statements that bug me (in particular referring to your neighbor as "lazy" and "no good"), and it sends all kinds of red flags (pun intended) through my head. But perhaps you meant something else contrary to how I am interpreting it (as an attack on people who are on welfare, or otherwise poor that rely on more government programs or assistance to help them). Can you elaborate please?

[DeeBye]

Paying your taxes doesn't mean paying for your lazy no-good neighbour

See, these are the very kinds of statements that bug me (in particular referring to your neighbor as "lazy" and "no good"), and it sends all kinds of red flags (pun intended) through my head. But perhaps you meant something else contrary to how I am interpreting it (as an attack on people who are on welfare, or otherwise poor that rely on more government programs or assistance to help them). Can you elaborate please?

I don't really have a lazy, no-good neighbour. I was just describing an argument against "entitlements" that I do not agree with. I'm sorry that you did not understand it. I should have been more clear.

I'm perfectly happy paying my taxes and knowing that the vast majority of my tax dollars are used to help the community I live in. I am also not an idiot, so I know that a small percentage of my tax dollars go towards people that are happily sponging off the system. I'm okay with that, because of baby and bathwater. Nothing's perfect.

[Archon_Wing]

Paying your taxes doesn't mean paying for your lazy no-good neighbour

See, these are the very kinds of statements that bug me (in particular referring to your neighbor as "lazy" and "no good"), and it sends all kinds of red flags (pun intended) through my head. But perhaps you meant something else contrary to how I am interpreting it (as an attack on people who are on welfare, or otherwise poor that rely on more government programs or assistance to help them). Can you elaborate please?

I don't really have a lazy, no-good neighbour.

I do! :p

But yea, I don't really get the negative connotations towards stuff that we pay for, despite those that abuse the system.

It's fair to say some irresponsible people do take advantage of the system at the expense of others. It is definitely a valid concern. But at the same time we see these pundits protect irresponsible businesses that are "too big to fail" and it sours the sincerity a bit.

Personally, I'm not too interested in chest beating over any particular brand of philosophy. It's more important for those responsible for the situation to garner results (aka get this engine running again) regardless of who's more or less wrong. It's not ideal, but rarely is anything ever.

[FireIceTalon]

@ Deebye Ok, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

Although, it isnt technically possible for poor people to "sponge" the system since they are by default at a disadvantageous position in society compared to the upper class. The poor milking the system was a myth created by advocates of the Protestant Work Ethic that bought into the whole sham of the American Dream; that those who are poor are cause of their own fault. Having to depend on government for your livelihood is in many ways almost as dehumanizing and miserable as being forced to sell your labor power to the owners of capital (when and if they want it your labor power) to survive, and the two in many ways of course, are interrelated. Hardly glamorous really. That's part of the reason I consider the 'welfare state' to be an insufficient answer to the inherent problems of capitalism. I for instance, depend on Pell Grants to help me fund my education - without them it would be virtually almost impossible for me to go to college. I'm sure there are people out there that would call me a "sponger" or some other disparaging term, as if I like having to depend on the state to better myself so I can do what I can to make it in this grim, capitalistic world. My mom lives off social security and what she has left in her IRA account, and a couple credit cards that are almost maxed. After working hard as an escrow officer for a stressful 27 years, her hope (and mine, for her) was to retire comfortably and be able to relax in the twilight years of her life at age 63, but that isn't going to happen. Instead, she is extremely stressed financially with little security, probably going to have to go back to work until her dying day (if she even can - her age, health, and lack of experience in something other than escrow are likely to tell against her), and her health has declined sharply in recent times (and she, like me, is w/o health insurance) due to all the stress which she has endured....and I have become very resentful, bitter, and downright angry as a result. Although it isn't the only reason, it is certainly a huge contribution as to why my political views became so radicalized. My disillusionment with capitalism started in around 2009, after the financial crisis hit, but my shift leftwards to where I am now didn't come all at once, rather gradually. Between these circumstances, and discovering the works of Marx and Engels by pure chance, is how I gained my 'class consciousness'. From where I stand, the world is a cold, unforgiving, backwards and barbaric place - it is a struggle just to even have a "stress free" day at this point. I can only imagine how it is for working families who are worse off than me or my family is.

So when I go on my Marxist rants, it isn't just for the hell of it, to look "cool" or try to look better than others by holding radical views (it might look that way, but that isn't my intent). I have very, very legitimate, serious, and deep seeded personal reasons to despise capitalism, and everything about it. Not saying you ever questioned this, but I needed to mention this since I think many here are under the impression that I am just some crazy, mindless communist wack job who is tooting his horn loudly for no particular reason. That isn't the case, I just keep personal contempt out of my posts (or at least attempt to) because it isnt relevant to providing a objective critique of capitalist social relations. But it was probably time to put all that on the table now, and in fact well overdue. As one can see, there is little reason for me to have any sort of rosy view of the world. I'm not looking for sympathy, just telling it as how I see it.

[eppie]

We are a bi-polar nation. We are split almost equally between those who want more government, and those who want less government.

Well that is an oversimplification. The war mongers are fine to have a big government if it is to hassle scary poor people on the street or spending billions to go to war to some country of scary people who all hate us.

What is the fact is that you have a quasi two-party system in which people loose jobs once the other party gets a majority and the other way around. There is an unnatural hostility between the two parties which is much much bigger than just political issues.

I think I mentioned once these interviews they did with average Americans asking them about what they would like to have in a country and what not. They suggested them a system like in Sweden but of course without telling them it was about Sweden. A very high percentage thought this sounded great.

The thing is that if a republican hears a suggestion from a democrat he will automatically be against it (and the other way around).
If the democrats want Obama-care they should just call it Reagan-care and tell everyone they are against it. Withing 5 minutes all tea partiers will accept.

---

I'm perfectly happy paying my taxes and knowing that the vast majority of my tax dollars are used to help the community I live in. I am also not an idiot, so I know that a small percentage of my tax dollars go towards people that are happily sponging off the system. I'm okay with that, because of baby and bathwater. Nothing's perfect.

This is a 100% match with the way I think about it.