Government shuts down as Congress fails to prevent Funding Bill

[realizm]

You don't need to break anything down for me because I'm not down with the Democrats or better yet with the nonsense Obama is trying to pull off.  This guy is treated as if he walks on water because he's a Democrat as if Democrats never do any wrong.  We've got Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Charles Rangel and tons of other Democrats that have been proven time and again as corrupt politicians so you don't need to break down the concept about how grand the Democrats are and how evil the Republicans are because they're equally pathetic.

 

Wow didn't I just say that I am not affiliated with any political party?

 

You are still harping on this hand me down programs are stealing my money concept. I obviously showed you that most of your tax dollars cannot be possibly going towards that. Really in terms of welfare recipients or those for example who are collecting unemployment, or those simply taking out loans for college did you know that they are subject to state and federal taxes as well too?  

 

I as an IT professional must be paying for your SSI. Do you see me bitching and moaning over it?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Wow didn't I just say that I am not affiliated with any political party?

 

You are still harping on this hand me down programs are stealing my money concept. I obviously showed you that most of your tax dollars cannot be possibly going towards that. Really in terms of welfare recipients or those for example who are collecting unemployment, or those simply taking out loans for college did you know that they are subject to state and federal taxes as well too?  

 

I as an IT professional must be paying for your SSI. Do you see me bitching and moaning over it?

Oh please.  You clearly side with the Democrats.  Let's be real here and cut the crap.

 

Yes, I'm harping on them because the Democrats are known to rob Peter to pay Paul. They're fiscally irresponsible. Just look at Obama's "stimulus plan".  They pray on the poor to vote for them and promise "change", just like Obama has promised, then run up more debt that we can't pay for.  I can live without that type of change. His jobs' record has been abysmal, and everyone keeps saying, oh give him more time.  Please.  This is his last term.  It's now or never.  Time for him to start producing and stop trying to ram through these entitlement programs that are doing nothing but sinking this country further into debt and luckily the Tea Party (which I agree with) is taking a stand to end this charade.  

[realizm]

Oh please.  You clearly side with the Democrats.  Let's be real here and cut the crap.

 

Yes, I'm harping on them because the Democrats are known to rob Peter to pay Paul. They're fiscally irresponsible. Just look at Obama's "stimulus plan".  They pray on the poor to vote for them and promise "change", just like Obama has promised, then run up more debt that we can't pay for.  I can live without that type of change. His jobs record has been abysmal and everyone keeps saying, oh give him more time.  Please.  This is his last term.  It's now or never.  Time for him to start producing and stop trying to ram through these entitlement programs that are doing nothing but sinking this country further into debt and luckily the Tea Party (which I agree with) is taking a stand to end this charade.  

 

Nope I do not side with either political party. Don't throw words in my mouth. Care to comment on why you still feel that you so enraged over welfare recipient programs when your money is actually going to Syria as of now? I tend to want a specific answer.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Nope I do not side with either political party. Don't throw words in my mouth. Care to comment on why you still feel that you so enraged over welfare recipient programs when your money is actually going to Syria as of now? I tend to want a specific answer.

Handout programs foster more handout programs.  Wars are sometimes necessary to protection American interests.  Handout programs only protect the Democrat's agenda to have the poor in the palm of their hands to use as pawns, giving them empty promises.  

[realizm]

Handout programs foster more handout programs.  Wars are sometimes necessary to protection American interests.  Handout programs only protect the Democrat's agenda to have the poor in the palm of their hands to use as pawns, giving them empty promises.  

 

Source?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Source?

You asked for my opinion and I gave it.  Look at Obama's track record.  That's the source.

[engineerboy6561]

The most interesting part of this whole mess is that there are maybe forty or fifty House Republicans (according to WaPo, at least) who are entirely dead set on keeping the government closed over Obamacare, and the rest could probably be convinced to vote for a clean CR (which would open the government again). There are also currently 14-plus house Republicans, including Pete King, who have gone on record saying that they'll vote for a clean CR as soon as they see it; many of them have also gone on record saying that however distasteful they find Obamacare they think that shutting down the government and playing chicken with the debt ceiling is ridiculous.

 

Hell, even John Boehner and most of the establishment Republicans we have don't particularly seem to want this; however, they're also terrified of a public standoff with the Tea Party because they don't want  to get primaried in 2014. Most of these guys are in safe Republican districts (oh, the joys of owning a majority of state legislatures in 2010), so they don't have to worry about challenges from the left or the center; however, they're now quite vulnerable from the right.

 

Their worst-case scenario looks something like this:

 

-Rep Gomer Pyle (R-Somewhere) pushes for and/or votes for a clean CR in defiance of the Tea Party.

 

-Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, etc. put him on an internal hit list, and promptly start blowing money on attack ads accusing Rep. Pyle of being "too liberal for Somewhere," "attacking the hard-working American taxpayer," "blatantly ignoring the views of the ordinary men and women of Somewhere," and other such insults.

 

-A year later, Rep. Pyle comes up for reelection in what ought to be a safe seat, and finds himself going head-to-head with a shiny new face sitting on top of an enormous corporate-backed war chest. He's already faced a year's worth of mud-slinging that he hasn't had the time or the funds to counter properly, and he's facing a pretty serious uphill battle.

 

-If Rep. Pyle is lucky he'll make it through election season after the fight of his career, and he'll most likely be drained enough afterwards and unwilling enough to go through that again that he'll fall in line behind the Tea Party from then on.

 

-If he's unlucky, then he's out of a job and we have a brand new Tea Partier representing Somewhere. The Tea Partier in question will most likely be mindful of what happened to his predecessor and will vote in lockstep with the wishes of his backers (at least until they demand something even more supremely outlandish from him than they did from Rep. Pyle, at which point the above process repeats.)

 

John Boehner is maybe a vote or two from being able to reopen the government in one shot by bringing a clean CR to the floor; basically every Democrat in the House would vote for it, and he's currently got all but two or three of the 17 Republican votes he needs. However, if he did this he'd lose the speakership almost immediately (and would probably get primaried in 2014); if he wants to keep his prestige and his job he can't bring a clean CR to the floor until the Tea Party agrees to it.

 

Personally, I think that he should just get this nonsense over with and reopen the government as soon as he's got 17 confirmed Republican backers; then again unless he has a sudden stroke of conscience (fat chance of that) he has no personal reason to.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is also interesting but not surprising.  Many on Staten Island, including myself (a former Staten Islander) voted for Grimm in his first campaign because we wanted the wasteful spending to stop.  Anything was better than McMahon, that's for sure.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/staten-island-grimm-joins-lockstep-tea-vote-article-1.1473482

[engineerboy6561]

This is also interesting but not surprising.  Many on Staten Island, including myself (a former Staten Islander) voted for Grimm in his first campaign because we wanted the wasteful spending to stop.  Anything was better than McMahon, that's for sure.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/staten-island-grimm-joins-lockstep-tea-vote-article-1.1473482

 

I actually approve of the amendment that Grimm proposed (Congress gets the same healthcare as poor Americans), and I'd like to additionally propose a Congressional pay cut down to $50K per year (which would save about $66.3 million per year). Furthermore, I'd like to see Congresspeople designated nonessential employees (namely, if the government shuts down or we breach the debt ceiling, nobody gets paid). That said, I completely disagree with shutting down the government and I'd be quite happy to see Rep. Grimm replaced in 2014 over this.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I actually approve of the amendment that Grimm proposed (Congress gets the same healthcare as poor Americans), and I'd like to additionally propose a Congressional pay cut down to $50K per year (which would save about $66.3 million per year). Furthermore, I'd like to see Congresspeople designated nonessential employees (namely, if the government shuts down or we breach the debt ceiling, nobody gets paid). That said, I completely disagree with shutting down the government and I'd be quite happy to see Rep. Grimm replaced in 2014 over this.

Well it's either now or never.  The out of control spending has to stop sometime. 

[Urbanfortitude]

I actually approve of the amendment that Grimm proposed (Congress gets the same healthcare as poor Americans), and I'd like to additionally propose a Congressional pay cut down to $50K per year (which would save about $66.3 million per year). Furthermore, I'd like to see Congresspeople designated nonessential employees (namely, if the government shuts down or we breach the debt ceiling, nobody gets paid). That said, I completely disagree with shutting down the government and I'd be quite happy to see Rep. Grimm replaced in 2014 over this.

Yeah I was amazed that anyone even thought to propose something like that. 

[MTARegional Bus]

If this shut down extends to the Debt Ceiling Obama will be forced to break the law just the save the world economy. 

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/if-congress-wont-raise-the-debt-ceiling-obama-will-be-forced-to-break-the-law/280176/

[Trainmaster5]

I've seen a piece of deception accepted as fact by many news outlets and people in general. There have been statements made in the press and by some politicians that companies are dropping health care benefits and/or hiring part-timers to avoid the provisions of the ACA. I'll try to be a gentleman and say those people are mistaken. Either that or they are flat out liars. This has been going on in the workplace for almost 20 years. Companies have been cutting benefits and hours for almost a generation. Democrats, Republicans,various unions, the whole business community have been speaking about this very issue. Time, Fortune, Businessweek, the WSJ, and the cable networks have all done specials on this dating back to the Clinton years. Ali Velshi used to do a business show on CNN called "Your Money" where this phenomenom was explored in depth. GW Bush was President at the time. Suddenly the focus has turned to Obama and the ACA. It's his fault. Tell that to the many people who lost their jobs and benefits and are now working as temps, sometimes in the same company. Macy's, Sears, JC Penney, as well as Target, and the boogieman called Walmart have been hiring part-timers for the last 15 years at least. I've seen this in Charlotte, Fayetteville, and Raleigh as well as in Brooklyn and in Suffolk County. This isn't something new. Full time positions are for people with specialized skills for the most part and many of those openings don't pay what they used to. No matter which side of the ACA and government shutdown argument you take it really bothers me that some people show such contempt for the average American. Do they really think the public is that stupid? Blame Clinton, GWB, Obama, or anybody else you choose. Just don't suggest that hiring part-timers with little or no benefits just started because of the ACA. Carry on.

[GojiMet86]

You asked for my opinion and I gave it.  Look at Obama's track record.  That's the source.

 

There's absolutely no proof whatsoever. You're starting to sound like charger and 909 with vague conspiracies, pulling shit out of thin air.

[Tokkemon]

I've seen a piece of deception accepted as fact by many news outlets and people in general. There have been statements made in the press and by some politicians that companies are dropping health care benefits and/or hiring part-timers to avoid the provisions of the ACA. I'll try to be a gentleman and say those people are mistaken. Either that or they are flat out liars. This has been going on in the workplace for almost 20 years. Companies have been cutting benefits and hours for almost a generation. Democrats, Republicans,various unions, the whole business community have been speaking about this very issue. Time, Fortune, Businessweek, the WSJ, and the cable networks have all done specials on this dating back to the Clinton years. Ali Velshi used to do a business show on CNN called "Your Money" where this phenomenom was explored in depth. GW Bush was President at the time. Suddenly the focus has turned to Obama and the ACA. It's his fault. Tell that to the many people who lost their jobs and benefits and are now working as temps, sometimes in the same company. Macy's, Sears, JC Penney, as well as Target, and the boogieman called Walmart have been hiring part-timers for the last 15 years at least. I've seen this in Charlotte, Fayetteville, and Raleigh as well as in Brooklyn and in Suffolk County. This isn't something new. Full time positions are for people with specialized skills for the most part and many of those openings don't pay what they used to. No matter which side of the ACA and government shutdown argument you take it really bothers me that some people show such contempt for the average American. Do they really think the public is that stupid? Blame Clinton, GWB, Obama, or anybody else you choose. Just don't suggest that hiring part-timers with little or no benefits just started because of the ACA. Carry on.

 

That was probably the most sensible post I've seen through this whole thing. Well done!

 

At the risk of getting into sociology: Do you think its because the economy has been changing from the way it was in the 60s or 70s when the Boomers were working? They had good jobs that paid well and had benefits, some backed by the strong super-power of the US Government. Now things aren't so hot, and they're retiring. Their kids have been told the dreams of the good times and their expectations have been raised high for good jobs with full benefits, and the unions play along. Now that those kids are grown up and their jobs are getting cut, perhaps they are a bit bitter? Obamacare is a good scapegoat. I'm not saying that's the only thing going against it, but its good for the media. 

[bobtehpanda]

That was probably the most sensible post I've seen through this whole thing. Well done!

 

At the risk of getting into sociology: Do you think its because the economy has been changing from the way it was in the 60s or 70s when the Boomers were working? They had good jobs that paid well and had benefits, some backed by the strong super-power of the US Government. Now things aren't so hot, and they're retiring. Their kids have been told the dreams of the good times and their expectations have been raised high for good jobs with full benefits, and the unions play along. Now that those kids are grown up and their jobs are getting cut, perhaps they are a bit bitter? Obamacare is a good scapegoat. I'm not saying that's the only thing going against it, but its good for the media. 

 

The world was a lot different in the '50s and '60s - the United States had a complete lock on currency markets due to Bretton Woods, and they had no real competition from any other country. Africa was full of thriving economies (Zimbabwe in particular was an economic hub), and South Korea and Taiwan were military dictatorships that mostly farmed.

 

The '70s and the OPEC crisis exposed the Western model's weaknesses, and this is where all the trouble started. Around the same time, Japan was becoming a powerhouse; South Korea would follow in the '80s, with Taiwan and SE Asia following in the '90s and China in the 2000s. All these new companies were much more innovative and less wasteful. America was slow to catch on to the efficiency boosts, particularly in the auto industry, but those companies that survived managed to cut costs.

 

At the same time, the pensions at private companies were starting to become a burden, so there was a move towards stock-based pensions for public government, and direct contributions and 401Ks for private companies. This was all well and good during the long economic boom from the 80's to 2007, but this model promptly fell apart. (It was also cheaper because it inherently provided you with less money for retirement.)

 

While this has resulted in a lot of workers getting their benefits cut, keep in mind that the alternatives are not better. In Japan and Southern Europe, workers were guaranteed lifetime benefits. These costs are ridiculously expensive, so nowadays, even skilled young workers are hired on temp contracts with no benefits. (They have socialized healthcare so that's not as much of an issue, but not being able to feed themselves or live on their own is still an issue.) In the case of Southern Europe, this has created a massive wave of emigration to better-off economies that need young workers, causing a demographic collapse that makes their budget and pension numbers look even worse. So it could be worse.

[CenSin]

That's why we have checks and balances otherwise the House and Senate would just be Obama's puppets.  Their job is to represent what their constituents want, not what Obama wants because their constituents voted for them to represent their interests, not Obama's interests.

Funny how I recall none of these checkers and balancers work for us. Lobbyists, coporations, and the wealthy seem to be doing most of the checking and balancing. We're lucky that there are lobbyists and corporations that are at each others' throats.

Oh please.  You clearly side with the Democrats.  Let's be real here and cut the crap.

 

Yes, I'm harping on them because the Democrats are known to rob Peter to pay Paul. They're fiscally irresponsible. Just look at Obama's "stimulus plan".  They pray on the poor to vote for them and promise "change", just like Obama has promised, then run up more debt that we can't pay for.  I can live without that type of change. His jobs' record has been abysmal, and everyone keeps saying, oh give him more time.  Please.  This is his last term.  It's now or never.  Time for him to start producing and stop trying to ram through these entitlement programs that are doing nothing but sinking this country further into debt and luckily the Tea Party (which I agree with) is taking a stand to end this charade.  

Whose side am I on?

Handout programs foster more handout programs.  Wars are sometimes necessary to protection American interests.  Handout programs only protect the Democrat's agenda to have the poor in the palm of their hands to use as pawns, giving them empty promises.  

Wars are necessary to funnel taxpayer money into military contractors' pockets. Some of our politicians have a stake in these contractors.

[Trainmaster5]

@ Tokkemon   Although you came at the premise from an angle I didn't expect I would say you have a grasp of where I was coming from. Read bobtehpanda's post #92 because he also tracks this from a different angle. I will say that you make a good point about expectations from generation to generation, especially applicable to those who came of age in the sixties-early seventies era. Our parents and grandparents strove to make our lives better than their lives were. Remember, they lived through a Depression and WWII and the Korean Conflict. Most of my relatives from the generation directly preceding mine were civil servants or professionals at NY Telephone or MetLife. The male members of the generation before them worked on the NYC docks. Notice, all were unionized and/or professionals with good retirement and health benefits. That was really stressed in my family, that and education. That is something my generation tried to pass on, too, but the world economic picture has changed drastically. In this country unions have been demonized and membership has declined rapidly. In this country the young have been suckered into working for a living wage with less benefits than the generation before it. Read some of the posts on this board or some of the news networks' boards and between the lines there are elements of hatred toward the older, unionized workers, and the position the young now find themselves in. Bobtehpanda has pointed out how this has played out across the globe but what bothers me is the generational divide in the USA. From the mid '60s to about 1985 or so I never noticed any friction between New York's civil servants and it's private sector workers, unionized or not. I remember delivering mail in my P.O. days down in lower Manhattan where the people in the mail rooms felt sorry for me, a lowly letter carrier. Now I read that USPS workers, Sanitation workers, Transit, teachers are all overpaid and get too many benefits. A generation or so ago these jobs were looked down on. Now that the envy and hatred have taken hold many people, especially the young, are blind to the fact that some corporations and some politicians are the ones who stuck this generation in this fix, not your elders. I watch this debate over the ACA as well as the bankruptcies of cities like Detroit and the makers of Wonder Bread and I see many young people hoping the old people lose their pensions and benefits in whole or in part. I wasn't brought up that way and frankly anyone who says these people deserve that fate disgust me. I'd never heard any American of any race, creed, or social position express that type of thought in my life. Maybe this divide and conquer thing works on this generation? My rant. Carry on.

[mfs NJT459]

came across this... a schoolhouse rock video the media might have missed other than the Bill song

[realizm]

So what I am gathering from bobtehpanda, Tokkemon and Trainmaster 5 is that the US economy made a change for the worse because the entire world scenerio changed.

 

Decades ago we were in what was in a tighter economy with a strong manufacturing sector. Inflation was way lower then it is now. There was much better job security and many jobs were unionized with excellent pay and benefits down to what were even considered low skilled professions. The United States back then really did not have much global competition in terms of industry as the United States were the industry leader in manufacturing and space age technology in our heyday.  Today paints a different scene, which is not good. I initially thought that the reason that we are experiencing a downtrend *now* is solely due to the continued infighting on the confessional level as well as the continued mismanagement of federal dollars but it looks like now to me it's because of a much worse situation as we are like bait in shark infested waters in a global economy. I sensed it but could'nt put my finger on it.

 

It seems now like we are only the industry leader where it comes to the production of arms as CenSin was alluding to. I was always distrustful as to how the US carries out diplomatic foreign relations around the world with other nations today and it is pretty clear to me the reason is because of needed revenue. In other words, war is big business.

 

Now my thoughts, some of which that I have never expressed here in this discussion were confirmed. I'm glad I am not the only one here that sees things for what it is.

[Urbanfortitude]

I've seen a piece of deception accepted as fact by many news outlets and people in general. There have been statements made in the press and by some politicians that companies are dropping health care benefits and/or hiring part-timers to avoid the provisions of the ACA. I'll try to be a gentleman and say those people are mistaken. Either that or they are flat out liars. This has been going on in the workplace for almost 20 years. Companies have been cutting benefits and hours for almost a generation. Democrats, Republicans,various unions, the whole business community have been speaking about this very issue. Time, Fortune, Businessweek, the WSJ, and the cable networks have all done specials on this dating back to the Clinton years. Ali Velshi used to do a business show on CNN called "Your Money" where this phenomenom was explored in depth. GW Bush was President at the time. Suddenly the focus has turned to Obama and the ACA. It's his fault. Tell that to the many people who lost their jobs and benefits and are now working as temps, sometimes in the same company. Macy's, Sears, JC Penney, as well as Target, and the boogieman called Walmart have been hiring part-timers for the last 15 years at least. I've seen this in Charlotte, Fayetteville, and Raleigh as well as in Brooklyn and in Suffolk County. This isn't something new. Full time positions are for people with specialized skills for the most part and many of those openings don't pay what they used to. No matter which side of the ACA and government shutdown argument you take it really bothers me that some people show such contempt for the average American. Do they really think the public is that stupid? Blame Clinton, GWB, Obama, or anybody else you choose. Just don't suggest that hiring part-timers with little or no benefits just started because of the ACA. Carry on.

 

I'm gonna add banks and insurance firms to your list or even go so far as to say companies across the board in nearly every field of employment are pulling this shit.  Other than that its just as you said.  

[bobtehpanda]

So what I am gathering from bobtehpanda, Tokkemon and Trainmaster 5 is that the US economy made a change for the worse because the entire world scenerio changed.

 

Decades ago we were in what was in a tighter economy with a strong manufacturing sector. Inflation was way lower then it is now. There was much better job security and many jobs were unionized with excellent pay and benefits down to what were even considered low skilled professions. The United States back then really did not have much global competition in terms of industry as the United States were the industry leader in manufacturing and space age technology in our heyday.  Today paints a different scene, which is not good. I initially thought that the reason that we are experiencing a downtrend *now* is solely due to the continued infighting on the confessional level as well as the continued mismanagement of federal dollars but it looks like now to me it's because of a much worse situation as we are like bait in shark infested waters in a global economy. I sensed it but could'nt put my finger on it.

 

It seems now like we are only the industry leader where it comes to the production of arms as CenSin was alluding to. I was always distrustful as to how the US carries out diplomatic foreign relations around the world with other nations today and it is pretty clear to me the reason is because of needed revenue. In other words, war is big business.

 

Now my thoughts, some of which that I have never expressed here in this discussion were confirmed. I'm glad I am not the only one here that sees things for what it is.

 

Part of the problem was globalization, but there are other parts to it as well. The Western model of the '50s and '60s assumed that commodity prices would always be low, and was particularly resource inefficient. OPEC managed to bring all Western economies to their knees in the '70s, proving it wrong.

 

The other problem was that companies and politicians did not realize how unfundable their pension promises actually were. Advances in medical technology and sanitation have led to people living well past their expected life expectancies when they were working-age. In addition, American politicians in particular have a bad habit of promising ever greater benefits and then leaving office before the bill is due - a 20/50 pension plan was a factor in sinking the transit system here in the '70s. Pension benefits are considered contracts under American law, and in some states they are enshrined in the Constitution, so cutting benefits for current workers is a no/no. In effect, this means that the benefits of new workers must be cut to pay for those of the old, because no politician wants to cut the benefits of a very motivated, large, and organized workforce.

 

Not only this, but most states assume that their pensions will increase by 8% a year due to investing in the stock market. A lot of hedge fund managers don't make 8%, so liabilities are actually bigger than they seem.

 

Protectionism, however, is not the answer. Japan is the third-biggest economy in the world, has the highest paid workers in the world, and is probably the most protectionist 'rich' country. However, this only seems good on paper - when adjusted for PPP (how much they can buy with their money), they earn less than Taiwanese workers, because import tariffs are so high. Japan's conglomerates also promised lifetime benefits for all their workers during the boom years; now, the liabilities are so high (because Japanese workers are so healthy, and live a long time) that nearly all young workers are hired on a temp basis, regardless of skill level. And this is just the young people who have jobs.

 

Besides, globalization is not inherently bad. Brazil managed to change from a net importer of food to a top ten exporter in nearly everything, without subsidies. India pioneers cheap, fast medicine - they churn out lots of generics, and perform open-heart surgeries for $10,000. The problem was that the promises of the past were built on an illusion of cheap commodities and good times forever, but reality kicked in in the '70s.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I've seen a piece of deception accepted as fact by many news outlets and people in general. There have been statements made in the press and by some politicians that companies are dropping health care benefits and/or hiring part-timers to avoid the provisions of the ACA. I'll try to be a gentleman and say those people are mistaken. Either that or they are flat out liars. This has been going on in the workplace for almost 20 years. Companies have been cutting benefits and hours for almost a generation. Democrats, Republicans,various unions, the whole business community have been speaking about this very issue. Time, Fortune, Businessweek, the WSJ, and the cable networks have all done specials on this dating back to the Clinton years. Ali Velshi used to do a business show on CNN called "Your Money" where this phenomenom was explored in depth. GW Bush was President at the time. Suddenly the focus has turned to Obama and the ACA. It's his fault. Tell that to the many people who lost their jobs and benefits and are now working as temps, sometimes in the same company. Macy's, Sears, JC Penney, as well as Target, and the boogieman called Walmart have been hiring part-timers for the last 15 years at least. I've seen this in Charlotte, Fayetteville, and Raleigh as well as in Brooklyn and in Suffolk County. This isn't something new. Full time positions are for people with specialized skills for the most part and many of those openings don't pay what they used to. No matter which side of the ACA and government shutdown argument you take it really bothers me that some people show such contempt for the average American. Do they really think the public is that stupid? Blame Clinton, GWB, Obama, or anybody else you choose. Just don't suggest that hiring part-timers with little or no benefits just started because of the ACA. Carry on.

Of course it's been going on for years.  That's no secret.  The argument being made is that Obamacare will in some cases accelerate this and lead to more jobs and benefits being cut.  When you factor in the job growth being anemic, you can't sit here and say with a straight face that Obamacare has nothing to do with companies doing this.  They're specifically talking about companies that currently have relatively generous healthcare plans for their employees and how those companies will be cutting back.

 

There's absolutely no proof whatsoever. You're starting to sound like charger and 909 with vague conspiracies, pulling shit out of thin air.

lol... Yeah because you're too afraid to accept the obvious.  

 

 

Funny how I recall none of these checkers and balancers work for us. Lobbyists, coporations, and the wealthy seem to be doing most of the checking and balancing. We're lucky that there are lobbyists and corporations that are at each others' throats.

 

Whose side am I on?

 

Wars are necessary to funnel taxpayer money into military contractors' pockets. Some of our politicians have a stake in these contractors.

1. The system is broken.  No shock there.

2. I don't know.  I'm for what's best for America as a whole and not class warfare.  Propping up the poor will not help create jobs and what's even more disturbing is the notion that they pay so much in taxes when it's the middle and upper middle classes that pay the taxes for the most part.  Someone making 20,000 a year is not paying much in taxes.

3. Yes, and that's no secret, but wars are also necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens.  Aside from a few incidents, we've been fairly safe since 9/11 and it's important that we don't let down our guard and protect our Western way of life.

[Around the Horn]

There's absolutely no proof whatsoever. You're starting to sound like charger and 909 with vague conspiracies, pulling shit out of thin air.

Thank you!Its clear VG8 just keeps drinking the Kool Aid(and not the kids drink)

[CenSin]

3. Yes, and that's no secret, but wars are also necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens.  Aside from a few incidents, we've been fairly safe since 9/11 and it's important that we don't let down our guard and protect our Western way of life.

That's a difficult conclusion to make. Just because we're safe and at war doesn't mean we are safe because we are at war. The same reasoning applies to the NSA and overbroad spying powers as well. Would we have suffered many more attacks had the NSA not illegally spied on citizens?

 

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. —Ben Franklin

 

Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. —Ben Franklin