Does anyone really care if it shuts down?

Not trolling, asking. Someone went to so length to discribe what the congress has accomplished in the last number of weeks and it basically amounted to naming building. I for one believe that the government can go without those vital naming abilities for a few weeks without undo harm to the country.

If they are not doing anything as several posts and topics have pointed out, then again, I don't see the downside in locking the doors.

Can someone ... Without a partison viewpoint ... Point out what the downside is? I only know of the park system being shut down. I know when a state government shuts down the only true "felt effect" to the general public is the state licences cannot be issued or renewed (liquer, building .. Etc)

What is the "felt effect" to the general public of a government shutdown?

If the government doesn't pay its bills, the economic slowdown would be felt by everyone. Got a business? Try surviving without the money spent by people on Social Security, for example.

We have been over this a million times. The Government can pay those obligations out of the Regular Tax Revenue taken in each month. They would have to cut other non Vital Spending. It's only Obama that Claims if you don't pass it, I will have to not send out SS checks. Nothing but scare tactics.

Besides, if a Government shut down means no SS checks go out, then it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt SS is a Ponzi scheme. The God Damn Money for SS benefits is suppose to be in a TRUST fund, waiting to be paid out, not part of the General Budget.

Haven't YOU been paying attention?!?! If the government shuts down, who's going to send out the checks? I think you're playing with words. If some people are still going to get paid, then the government isn't really shut down. It's like you've got this little fantasy going that everything you don't like would go away, but the important stuff would still go on. How would that possibly work? SHUT DOWN IS SHUT DOWN. If it isn't, you're going to have to define your terms better and quit moving the goal posts. When my grocery store shuts down, I can't get any milk or toilet paper, no matter how important it is or how much I need it.
 
If the government doesn't pay its bills, the economic slowdown would be felt by everyone. Got a business? Try surviving without the money spent by people on Social Security, for example.

We have been over this a million times. The Government can pay those obligations out of the Regular Tax Revenue taken in each month. They would have to cut other non Vital Spending. It's only Obama that Claims if you don't pass it, I will have to not send out SS checks. Nothing but scare tactics.

Besides, if a Government shut down means no SS checks go out, then it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt SS is a Ponzi scheme. The God Damn Money for SS benefits is suppose to be in a TRUST fund, waiting to be paid out, not part of the General Budget.

Haven't YOU been paying attention?!?! If the government shuts down, who's going to send out the checks? I think you're playing with words. If some people are still going to get paid, then the government isn't really shut down. It's like you've got this little fantasy going that everything you don't like would go away, but the important stuff would still go on. How would that possibly work? SHUT DOWN IS SHUT DOWN. If it isn't, you're going to have to define your terms better and quit moving the goal posts. When my grocery store shuts down, I can't get any milk or toilet paper, no matter how important it is or how much I need it.

You said it. The Govt will never really shut down. Its a blatant lie.
 
Still no answers detailing the downside ... Is there one?
I'm not in favor of shutting the government down.

I'm not in favor of shutting down the National Parks because with no one guarding them, the national buffalo herd would be shot when they crossed into Montana by ranchers who think every buffalo in Wyoming has brucellosis. This could start a war because the buffalo is the symbol on the Wyoming State flag, and people there do not appreciate those who shoot the buffalos, and neither do the Shoshoni, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Crow, and Utes tribes.

I'm not in favor of cutting funding for the Postal Service that has delivered mail to Americans since 1775 when Benjamin Franklin became the First Postmaster

I'm against the shutting down the NASA Space program, public schools until another system is provided for school-aged children to learn to read and conduct mathematical business for their future.

And if you knock out Homeland Security, do you have 12 times the amount in the treasury that this shut down would "save" when terrorists took advantage of this nerdy little plan?

You gonna fuggedabout our military personnel who lost life and limb whose widows and children depend on their benefits and promises made at sundry times for such future items as education, retraining and prosthetics? Gonna pull the plug on electricity in veterans who need machines to get them through a health crisis on account of one of their injuries in a hospital?

And I think this little shortsighted idea sucks lemons.

ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!
 
As a TPer, this would actually play into what I want. It's rather 'hardball' in my book, but sense the government isn't doing anything anyway, what's wrong with shutting it down? It would stop descretional spend and the checks would still go out to those that need them. I don't have plans to vacation in a national park at this time .... I'm really having a hard time seeing the downside in a temporary government shutdown.

I'm sure someone will enlighten me to the downside. What is it, if there is one

Honest question here. Would you have ever asked this during bush's eight years? I am being serious here. What were your thoughts on Bush when he was destroying our country? Remember how close we came to a depression? Where you vocal back then? If so, mad respect...if not, you being a bagger means nothing.

To answer your question, Zona, Yes, I objected when the federal government grew bigger under Bush. I wasn't on this board at the time, but I was on others, and there I said just what I am saying now. We needed LESS government then, and we need less government now. I objected to forming a "Department of Homeland Security"; we didn't need one. All we really needed was to dismantle the artificial barriers (in the form of executive directives) that kept the FBI and our intelligence agencies from sharing information. The Coast Guard and FEMA were fine where they were; we didn't need a new department to run those either; all that did, was add an additional layer of bureaucracy that was completely superfluous. We do not need a "Department of Education" Where the hell is there ANY constitutional authority for federal management of public education? There isn't any.

I object to the Patriot Act, and its shameless treading on the constitution, as I have since its inception. Benjamin Franklin said it well, "Those who are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security". I did not like it when Bush basically said the constitution was "just a piece of paper", and I didn't like it, when Obama said essentially the same (Yes, I realize FDR and LBJ did that too; it's still wrong, and it is still an attack on precisely what I (and you) swore a solemn oath to "support and defend". I refuse to sit by in silence while any president and/or congress pisses all over the constitution, no matter which party is doing it. Now, how about you do the same. I don't ask, I INSIST, that NO person or political party be permitted to violate the constitution, no matter what the supposed "nobility" of the stated purpose. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of this Republic. You down with that, or is it OK for liberals to shred the constitution, "because they mean well"?
 
Still no answers detailing the downside ... Is there one?

There are many downsides. One would be that national parks and monuments would close. That may not mean much to you; but there are people who work at those places. If their place of employment is closed, they don't get paid; if they don't get paid, they don't spend money; if they don't spend money, the economy suffers. Then there is the lost revenue from park visitors and tourists. Not only would the gov't lose out on their money (something that I suspect doesn't concern you), but so would local businesses (hotels, restaurants, shops). It might sound good on paper as a knee-jerk reaction to an ineffective gov't; but shutting the gov't down is never a good thing.
 
As a TPer, this would actually play into what I want. It's rather 'hardball' in my book, but sense the government isn't doing anything anyway, what's wrong with shutting it down? It would stop descretional spend and the checks would still go out to those that need them. I don't have plans to vacation in a national park at this time .... I'm really having a hard time seeing the downside in a temporary government shutdown.

I'm sure someone will enlighten me to the downside. What is it, if there is one

You're kidding right:confused: ?
 
Still no answers detailing the downside ... Is there one?

There are many downsides. One would be that national parks and monuments would close. That may not mean much to you; but there are people who work at those places. If their place of employment is closed, they don't get paid; if they don't get paid, they don't spend money; if they don't spend money, the economy suffers. Then there is the lost revenue from park visitors and tourists. Not only would the gov't lose out on their money (something that I suspect doesn't concern you), but so would local businesses (hotels, restaurants, shops). It might sound good on paper as a knee-jerk reaction to an ineffective gov't; but shutting the gov't down is never a good thing.

People that work in parks, monuments, museums will be out of work, and that is a sad situation for them, but it's the same situation the our glorious leader is subjecting the oil and gas workers along the gulf coast, except the gonvernment shut down is temporary.

The postal service would still function. It is not a branch of government. It's it's own seperate entity with it's own (failed) funding mechinism.

These things maybe bad for some, but the current administration and the way they do business is bad for all of us. Some (like those on the gulf) it's downright hostile to.

These things do not add up to "the sky will fall" as the left seems to want to paint. I didn't not know this until I read the CNN archives on the 96 shutdown.

Either others posting on this thread also didn't know and were just parroting the party line, or were willfully trying to redirect the topic away from the facts by "not understanding what I meant by government shutdown" ... It seems that this is a viable political stratagy as the government has it's own department to deal with it (Office of Management and Budget) that require each government department to have a plan ready to go in the event if a shutdown ... The OMB decides what gets funded with the incoming fax revenue during the shutdown ... Is I noted, it funds only
the essentials
 
It looks as if a shutdow as of October 1 has been averted:

Congress poised to avert government shutdown - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Anyway, the people you don't want getting money would still be getting it. And vice versa. I worked for the VA in 96 and everyone thought the nurses were getting paid, but we weren't.

That's the Senate bill ... The one without offset spending cuts I believe. The House rejected that once already. Never know though.

As for you not getting paid. That sucks. I read today about the 96 shutdown and it said specifically VA hospitals were funded ... History is not being kind to you. I'm glad you made it through alright

If they were funded the money at the one where I worked did not come down the pipeline. I was working weekends moonlighting and my boss called me in and threatened to fire me. I said, 'go ahead, your'e not paying me anyway.' He didn't.
 
We have been over this a million times. The Government can pay those obligations out of the Regular Tax Revenue taken in each month. They would have to cut other non Vital Spending. It's only Obama that Claims if you don't pass it, I will have to not send out SS checks. Nothing but scare tactics.

Besides, if a Government shut down means no SS checks go out, then it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt SS is a Ponzi scheme. The God Damn Money for SS benefits is suppose to be in a TRUST fund, waiting to be paid out, not part of the General Budget.

Haven't YOU been paying attention?!?! If the government shuts down, who's going to send out the checks? I think you're playing with words. If some people are still going to get paid, then the government isn't really shut down. It's like you've got this little fantasy going that everything you don't like would go away, but the important stuff would still go on. How would that possibly work? SHUT DOWN IS SHUT DOWN. If it isn't, you're going to have to define your terms better and quit moving the goal posts. When my grocery store shuts down, I can't get any milk or toilet paper, no matter how important it is or how much I need it.

You said it. The Govt will never really shut down. Its a blatant lie.

In a shutdown, they differentiate between 'essential' and 'non essential' workers. If you are non essential, you go home. In 96, I was essential and mandated to work, but I didn't get a pay check for 8 weeks. Then when I did, I only got about half what it would have been because they took out so much in taxes due to the increased amount.

If am employee is non essential, then what is he/she and why is he/she working? I mean, is this 'luxury' staff or what?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top