Official Shutdown Thread

[riser]

Obama Admin orders closure of WWII memorial!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/02/Obama-Administration-Decided-to-Block-Access-to-Memorials

Read the article and it will describe to you what the memorial is. If you haven't been to it yet, it's a good read. It's like walking into a Botanical Garden. It's open, no one is around. You go in, look around, walk around, and leave. No doors.. it's outdoors.

Oh another thing. It appears they're hoping a lot of people, like myself if I didn't have healthcare, would opt to pay the fine over getting healthcare. The Fine turns into Grant Money to help others pay their premiums. So, not only would I not receive healthcare, I would be paying a fine that would be turned into a grant to help someone else pay for their healthcare. This is horrible for the working class. It benefits what, 1.1 million people, while affecting 80 million people?

 

[johnsonma]

At the Federal level, the law would mean everyone would have to pay the same amount. Income tax for example, across the country everyone pays the same percentage, no matter what. With ACA, they went to the state level so they could charge people more or less, depending on their income.

My premiums would be $16,xxx a year under the ACA. That's fawking astronomical. But for someone making less money than me, their premiums would be around $3,000 for the EXACT same coverage. How is that fair to me that I'm paying more for the same services!? We all pay income tax percentages and we all receive the same exact services.

The exchanges merely offer another option for people which is partially subsidized by the government based on their income. If the USPS costs too much, go with fedex or UPS.

 

[riser]

But USPS is the same cost across the board for everyone. ACA is not a set cost across the board for everyone. I make more, I pay more but receive less. Someone who makes less, pays less but receives more.

I'm not paying to overnight something but have it shipped ground, while the guy paying for ground service is getting it overnight. No thank you.

 

[riser]

If anything, it makes you realize how much you don't rely on the government.

The fiancé is laughing at all the people on facebook freaking out about the gov't shutting down.. You know, the 1st and 3rd bring in your welfare, social security, WIC, etc. The offices are closed and they're all posting about how horrible it is and they don't know what to do.

She said they're unemployed, not married, pregnant or have kid(s).. and all choose to not work. They're all over 20 and under 30. haha

 

[johnsonma]

But USPS is the same cost across the board for everyone. ACA is not a set cost across the board for everyone. I make more, I pay more but receive less. Someone who makes less, pays less but receives more.

I'm not paying to overnight something but have it shipped ground, while the guy paying for ground service is getting it overnight. No thank you.

That's because they are not offering the same amount of service. Do current insurance providers have a blanket price for their customers?

 

[riser]

Dude.. wtf? You are absolutely clueless about the ACA?!

There are 4 plans you pick. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. It's all the same, pre-existing condition or not. You get the same service. I pay $16,800 for the same service another guy pays $3,000 on.

You get the EXACT same service. What the ACA is doing is making it extremely expensive for me to have and making it cheaper for others. The whole thing is built on people paying the fines to stay out of it so they can use that as grant money to make it cheaper for other people to buy the insurance. If I pay the fine, I'm not receiving that healthcare.. so I'm not costing it anything. But I'm paying 3% of my income into a grant fund that is used to either lower other people's premiums or pay their premium for them.

There is a reason the ACA is not liked by a lot of people. If it is Federally mandated, it should apply equally to everyone. They put it at the State level so they don't have to adhere to applying it equally. That's some BS and that's why it needs to be canned before it becomes a big red financial nightmare.

 

[riser]

Good old Harry at it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lFyFJeZSY

Why would you want to help one kid with cancer when you have 2200 people sitting at home not working for the government.

 

[COLGeek]

While the Senator answered the question VERY poorly, the question itself was meant to illicit such a response. The question was really about funding some things and not others and trying to play on the emotions of the day.

To fund the government in a piecemeal fashion (as attempting to be done in the House) makes little long-term sense and really just plays on folks emotions and the news networks cameras are eating it up. The WW2 vets and the park incident is another such event.

 

[COLGeek]

Some functions are inherently government functions and are not suitable for privatization. Not really a debate.

Of course it's open to debate! Here's the thing, the government itself labels those employees as non essential, the defense that they are inherent and can not be privatized seemingly comes from an institutional point of view.

As some one with 15+ years experience having been through multiple re-organizations and as some one who has re-organized corporations, it has been proven that while some employees may perform "needed" functions, any function that does not impact the core purpose of the organization is absolutely not essential to the organizational structure. What they do and how they do it can be privatized, out-sourced, or otherwise done without those employees. Our elected officials have chosen to create government jobs under the guise of necessity which has only contributed to bloat and waste. Take the Dept of Education or Dept of Defense as examples, there is nothing within those two organizations that can not be re-structured to follow original Constitutional intent, be privatized, or be relegated back to the States.

Now, you have not offered what the 3000 employees function is, nor offered any reason as why they are inherent or essential to the core functions of the government. So, I would be remiss not to change my opinion if compelling information was given about why and how those 3000 employees are absolutely necessary to keeping the government running. I'd also be curious to know if they are Union employees or private contractors.

You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the Constitution (and I would never hold that view against you or anyone).

I am not interpreting anything, the Constitution is quite plain about what the core functions of and the limits put on the federal government. It is by claiming an "interpretation" rather than following original intent that has allowed the past 100+ years of the Progressive Era in America to put our society and economy into the poor state it is in today.

So you fully understand the intent behind the Founding Fathers as it relates to the entire Constitution? If so, you are the only human on the planet that does. I have listened to so-called scholars from across the political spectrum interpret the same document and relate very different outcomes to the very same words. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

The folks I command are responsible for the management and execution of nearly $1T in defense contracts (value spread across multiple years). Everything from socks to advanced weapons systems. They ensure that quality standards are met, contracts requirements are adhered to, and that proper payments are made. This is a government function that cannot be privatized or sub-contracted.

Just food for thought.

 

[riser]

While the Senator answered the question VERY poorly, the question itself was meant to illicit such a response. The question was really about funding some things and not others and trying to play on the emotions of the day.

To fund the government in a piecemeal fashion (as attempting to be done in the House) makes little long-term sense and really just plays on folks emotions and the news networks cameras are eating it up. The WW2 vets and the park incident is another such event.

Not quite, the question was about bundling a bunch of items into a single bill. Why not break out items and pass them and leave the questionable stuff out for real debate?
Instead, what we see is that scenario where the bill for HealthCare doesn't pass because it has a huge carbon tax on it to prevent global warming, etc.

The bills are a joke. They need to strip them down and vote on the stuff that matters, not all encompassing bills.

 

[COLGeek]

While the Senator answered the question VERY poorly, the question itself was meant to illicit such a response. The question was really about funding some things and not others and trying to play on the emotions of the day.

To fund the government in a piecemeal fashion (as attempting to be done in the House) makes little long-term sense and really just plays on folks emotions and the news networks cameras are eating it up. The WW2 vets and the park incident is another such event.

Not quite, the question was about bundling a bunch of items into a single bill. Why not break out items and pass them and leave the questionable stuff out for real debate?
Instead, what we see is that scenario where the bill for HealthCare doesn't pass because it has a huge carbon tax on it to prevent global warming, etc.

The bills are a joke. They need to strip them down and vote on the stuff that matters, not all encompassing bills.

Because we only have a single National budget? I agree that the House bills are a joke and have zero chance of passing.

Seems folks have forgotten, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.~Albert Einstein".

 

[COLGeek]

Agreed, brother.

 

[riser]

USAFRet

Quoting provided a wonderful 404.

I agree with you. I left government because I saw how much waste was going on, the mentality, and just overall how it was a crappy environment to work in because of how the decision makers were only about themselves.

Where I previously worked, we did our 20% sequestration without furloughs. Now, there is no budget for operating in this fiscal year. They're still open and able to have all employees continue their daily functions for the next 6 months! This is off last year's budget after 20% sequestration... and they can run 6 months into the next 12 month budget?! How wasteful is that... and I can see how that can make creating a budget difficult at times, or they're putting too much fluff into it.

I went back to private sector. It pays better, I work 5 days a week instead of 4, I don't get as many holidays, but I don't have to deal with expected mediocrity. I'm not going to miss the 1-2% raise. I'm going to enjoy my bonuses and 5% raises.

 

[chunkymonster]

So you fully understand the intent behind the Founding Fathers as it relates to the entire Constitution? If so, you are the only human on the planet that does.

Ah yes, the attitude of "all or nothing or nihilism", from your posts I thought you to be above such sophomoric ideology.

I have listened to so-called scholars from across the political spectrum interpret the same document and relate very different outcomes to the very same words. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

I do not purport to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, I do however have a firm grasp on what is written in the Federalist Paper and the Constitution. Anyone of reasonable intelligence and a modicum of reading comprehension with the ability for objective thought can read the same essays and documents and quite plainly discern how our republic was intended to function. The Federalist Papers and Constitution were written so the citizen could understand the powers and limits of the federal government and participate in running that government, not sit idly by and wait for "scholars" to tell them what to think.

The folks I command are responsible for the management and execution of nearly $1T in defense contracts (value spread across multiple years). Everything from socks to advanced weapons systems. They ensure that quality standards are met, contracts requirements are adhered to, and that proper payments are made. This is a government function that cannot be privatized or sub-contracted.

Just food for thought.

Well, from that brief description of their function, it seems to me they perform the basic tasks of any contract management and accounts payable department, functions which can and have been readily outsourced. Don't get me wrong, I understand your need to justify that the 3000 employees being furloughed are absolutely necessary to the core functions of our republic as it also justifies your role. But the simple fact that they have been furloughed is proof enough that they are not. It seems to me that you are more of a defender of the status quo rather than challenging the paradigm of indoctrination that the American people can not function without government intervention. It's okay though. I also like to think that I am indispensable to my company and my job is absolutely essential, but working the private sector, I realize the truth.

 

[COLGeek]

So you fully understand the intent behind the Founding Fathers as it relates to the entire Constitution? If so, you are the only human on the planet that does.

Ah yes, the attitude of "all or nothing or nihilism", from your posts I thought you to be above such sophomoric ideology.

I have listened to so-called scholars from across the political spectrum interpret the same document and relate very different outcomes to the very same words. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

I do not purport to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, I do however have a firm grasp on what is written in the Federalist Paper and the Constitution. Anyone of reasonable intelligence and a modicum of reading comprehension with the ability for objective thought can read the same essays and documents and quite plainly discern how our republic was intended to function. The Federalist Papers and Constitution were written so the citizen could understand the powers and limits of the federal government and participate in running that government, not sit idly by and wait for "scholars" to tell them what to think.

The folks I command are responsible for the management and execution of nearly $1T in defense contracts (value spread across multiple years). Everything from socks to advanced weapons systems. They ensure that quality standards are met, contracts requirements are adhered to, and that proper payments are made. This is a government function that cannot be privatized or sub-contracted.

Just food for thought.

Well, from that brief description of their function, it seems to me they perform the basic tasks of any contract management and accounts payable department, functions which can and have been readily outsourced. Don't get me wrong, I understand your need to justify that the 3000 employees being furloughed are absolutely necessary to the core functions of our republic as it also justifies your role. But the simple fact that they have been furloughed is proof enough that they are not. It seems to me that you are more of a defender of the status quo rather than challenging the paradigm of indoctrination that the American people can not function without government intervention. It's okay though. I also like to think that I am indispensable to my company and my job is absolutely essential, but working the private sector, I realize the truth.

Have a nice day. We agree to disagree, my friend. It is all good.

Would rather have this debate over a cold beverage.

 

[riser]

So far regarding the ACA, the turn out has been far lower than expected. Multiple issues and all, but like Cali 5 million hits on the site.. oh wait, only 645,000, and far less signed up.

On top of that, what you're having is a bunch of sick people or people without benefits signing up for cheap. I haven't talked to anyone who has received a better plan under the ACA than what they currently have. My lowest quote has been $629/month for 2. I pay $194 right now. Plus it doesn't cover as much as my current plan.

So who is signing up to offset the cost to provide cheap healthcare to sick people or low income earners?

 

[johnsonma]

Dude.. wtf? You are absolutely clueless about the ACA?!

There are 4 plans you pick. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. It's all the same, pre-existing condition or not. You get the same service. I pay $16,800 for the same service another guy pays $3,000 on.

You get the EXACT same service. What the ACA is doing is making it extremely expensive for me to have and making it cheaper for others. The whole thing is built on people paying the fines to stay out of it so they can use that as grant money to make it cheaper for other people to buy the insurance. If I pay the fine, I'm not receiving that healthcare.. so I'm not costing it anything. But I'm paying 3% of my income into a grant fund that is used to either lower other people's premiums or pay their premium for them.

There is a reason the ACA is not liked by a lot of people. If it is Federally mandated, it should apply equally to everyone. They put it at the State level so they don't have to adhere to applying it equally. That's some BS and that's why it needs to be canned before it becomes a big red financial nightmare.

You continue to miss the point. If I apply for an insurance policy from another company I will get quoted a certain price. If you did the same it would be a difference price. They use different criteria to base their quotes on compared to the ACA exchanges but its fundamentally the same. Not that it really matters because you make enough money to buy insurance else where. Its not like its your only option. The part that affects everyone is that we must all have insurance now and if not we pay extra in tax or a fine if that is what you want to call it.

 

[riser]

Dude.. wtf? You are absolutely clueless about the ACA?!

There are 4 plans you pick. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. It's all the same, pre-existing condition or not. You get the same service. I pay $16,800 for the same service another guy pays $3,000 on.

You get the EXACT same service. What the ACA is doing is making it extremely expensive for me to have and making it cheaper for others. The whole thing is built on people paying the fines to stay out of it so they can use that as grant money to make it cheaper for other people to buy the insurance. If I pay the fine, I'm not receiving that healthcare.. so I'm not costing it anything. But I'm paying 3% of my income into a grant fund that is used to either lower other people's premiums or pay their premium for them.

There is a reason the ACA is not liked by a lot of people. If it is Federally mandated, it should apply equally to everyone. They put it at the State level so they don't have to adhere to applying it equally. That's some BS and that's why it needs to be canned before it becomes a big red financial nightmare.

You continue to miss the point. If I apply for an insurance policy from another company I will get quoted a certain price. If you did the same it would be a difference price. They use different criteria to base their quotes on compared to the ACA exchanges but its fundamentally the same. Not that it really matters because you make enough money to buy insurance else where. Its not like its your only option. The part that affects everyone is that we must all have insurance now and if not we pay extra in tax or a fine if that is what you want to call it.

I think you miss the point. You're thinking it is based off your health, etc. It's not based off your health, it is based off your income.
I could be super healthy and I'm paying a ton of money for insurance, whereas the person with a serious condition, etc, is getting the same service for far less because I'm paying more.

John, the entire program is based off how much money you make. Previously at times you had to have a physical and whatnot to get insurance. With the ACA, it doesn't matter. The dividing factor is your income.

So far, a group of us, both left and right leaning, have been trying to find someone who has 1) applied, and/or 2) bought insurance.

At this point, everyone has said the ACA is more expensive than their current insurance. That means people who can afford to pay more aren't paying more because they don't want to pay more for the same or less service.

ACA will be a huge money pit.

 

[riser]

riser, remember the "progression" here. It will take a few years for employers to drop health benefits all together as part of compensation. When that begins happening on a large scale, more and more people at all income levels will be signing up with the government exchanges because that will be the only option available to the average working person.

It's all about progressing towards wiping out private insurance as an industry. Of course the wealthy, like our glorious leaders, will still have their private plans or do as Rush Limbaugh does and just pay cash out of pocket for whatever care they get.

I think at that point will be easy to challenge it as Unconstitutional. The government mandating you having insurance and they being the ones providing it without any other options. Monopoly laws, etc.

 

[dogman_1234]

I appreciate your inputs and I also understand how the ACA has a effect on the discussion; however, this is not an Obamacare thread.

Please resume back to the original topic, or make a new thread...please.

Thank you.

 

[johnsonma]

Its has already been ruled constitutional. It has followed the progression set forth by the constitution. Obviously, you guys don't agree with it but saying it should be ruled unconstitutional accomplishes nothing.

I know the exchanges are based off income riser, that is what i was referring to when I said they use different criteria. I don't have an issue with this. Maybe it will be money pit, we will see.

 

[Reynod]

Tell that to the 800,000 public servants starving at home while the RICH Tea Party TERRORISTS hold the country to ransom.

If this goes on much longer your country is going down the toilet ... and dragging the rest of us wih it.

How irresponsible to block a budget based on laws that had previously been passed by government.

That Boener guy clearly has no control over the radical right wing element of his party.

Looking from the outside it appears to be a clever plot to destabilise the economy.

Thats terrorism ... not democracy.

 

[wanamingo]

If its not a democracy I can pronounce Boehner however I want now.

 

[wanamingo]

"We’re not going to be disrespected ... We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

— Rep. Marlin Stutzman

Well if this doesnt sum up the mentality of a few conservatives....

 

[riser]

Tell that to the 800,000 public servants starving at home while the RICH Tea Party TERRORISTS hold the country to ransom.

If this goes on much longer your country is going down the toilet ... and dragging the rest of us wih it.

How irresponsible to block a budget based on laws that had previously been passed by government.

That Boener guy clearly has no control over the radical right wing element of his party.

Looking from the outside it appears to be a clever plot to destabilise the economy.

Thats terrorism ... not democracy.

Actually buddy, the "right" has passed multiple budgets putting those people back to work. The left keeps voting them down. The right doesn't want to pass new taxes onto the people.

Rey, check this out. Regarding the ACA and the shutdown, over 50% of the rules and regulations governing the ACA have NOT been written. So, the right is taking issue with passing a new tax/fee on the individual when the next 2-3 years are completely unknown about what is going to be written.

You really disagree that it is in the best interest of the people to not be taxed/fined until the law has been completely written?

C'mon buddy. That's signing a blank check.