Can we just shut the government down already?

• O-Trap

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1517462 wrote:The Government is shutdown....it is what it is.

  If the government were actually shut down, then I'd agree, but the fact that the government is using government employees to specifically keep people out indicates that the government isn't functionally shut down except in whatever ways it seems to want to be (for whatever reasons, be they unnecessary or for the purpose of political positioning).
  
  Consider if they used the same manpower to keep said memorials open ... if it even takes as much to keep them open as it has taken to block them off. I would be curious to see those numbers, to be honest: How much is spent and how much manpower is used, all in order to run them when they're open? How much is being spent and how much manpower is being used, all in order to keep them blocked off?
  

  ptown_trojans_1;1517462 wrote:Don't complain what is and not open.
  A solution is needed.

  I don't know. I think there is room for a gripe about this whole thing. I think it is demonstrating that there are some things that government has, until this point, been involved in, but which do not actually REQUIRE government involvement in order to function properly on a day-to-day basis.
  
  Telling people the government is shut down, but then using government to keep people from doing things they wouldn't need government in order to do, hardly seems as though the government is ACTUALLY even shut down.
• I Wear Pants

  They don't just get to choose what they keep open. If they did then Dems would just open everything and say f-you to the GOP. But they don't get to choose. And they can refuse to staff them if you want our National Parks and memorials and monuments to be covered in graffiti and litter.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1517484 wrote:They don't just get to choose what they keep open. If they did then Dems would just open everything and say f-you to the GOP. But they don't get to choose.

  Actually they do. The vast majority of the federal government is up and running. And everyone is getting paid so this in no more than deferred vacation pay for those non "essential" federal employees.
  

  I Wear Pants;1517484 wrote:And they can refuse to staff them if you want our National Parks and memorials and monuments to be covered in graffiti and litter.

  A full operating federal government can't stop the leftist hoards from trashing parks and memorials.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Most people that come to national parks and memorials are not going there to trash the place. They have tremendous respect for it and will take care of their own trash and not just drop it on the ground.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  O-Trap;1517469 wrote:If the government were actually shut down, then I'd agree, but the fact that the government is using government employees to specifically keep people out indicates that the government isn't functionally shut down except in whatever ways it seems to want to be (for whatever reasons, be they unnecessary or for the purpose of political positioning).
  
  Consider if they used the same manpower to keep said memorials open ... if it even takes as much to keep them open as it has taken to block them off. I would be curious to see those numbers, to be honest: How much is spent and how much manpower is used, all in order to run them when they're open? How much is being spent and how much manpower is being used, all in order to keep them blocked off?
  
  
  
  I don't know. I think there is room for a gripe about this whole thing. I think it is demonstrating that there are some things that government has, until this point, been involved in, but which do not actually REQUIRE government involvement in order to function properly on a day-to-day basis.
  
  Telling people the government is shut down, but then using government to keep people from doing things they wouldn't need government in order to do, hardly seems as though the government is ACTUALLY even shut down.

  I get ya.
  Thing is, the number that is "open" is already written into law, and can't really change it. Most of the open is DOD, State Dept., SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and DHS services. Those are already passed, by the end of the FY.
  
  Everything else has no money, or has little carry over. They are limited by law on what they can do. It is just the way it is. One cannot pick and choose really what is open and not.
  And, most of the people that are on the Mall are volunteers, that do not have to be there, but choose to be there. Plus, most are turning a blind eye to the mall, and the WWII Memorial, making the thing today a total BS political stunt.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1517494 wrote: Most people that come to national parks and memorials are not going there to trash the place. They have tremendous respect for it and will take care of their own trash and not just drop it on the ground.

  Yeah, the free market stops litter too!!!
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1517497 wrote:Yeah, the free market stops litter too!!!

  No. Responsible individuals do.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1517484 wrote:They don't just get to choose what they keep open. If they did then Dems would just open everything and say f-you to the GOP. But they don't get to choose. And they can refuse to staff them if you want our National Parks and memorials and monuments to be covered in graffiti and litter.

  I would submit, then, that that which is currently closed can, in large part, remain closed.
  
  As for the monument:
  
  #1. That staffing still doesn't prevent graffiti and/or litter.
  #2. It wouldn't be difficult, I don't think, to allow non-profit organizations to fund such efforts on a donation basis, and I daresay there would be plenty who would do so.
  #3. Honestly, if there aren't enough people who want to fund such an initiative (or have the money to do so), then perhaps we don't need the monument. They don't hold intrinsic, objective value, and if the public doesn't value a monument or memorial, then perhaps it's simply not necessary to be kept.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;1517495 wrote:I get ya.
  Thing is, the number that is "open" is already written into law, and can't really change it. Most of the open is DOD, State Dept., SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and DHS services. Those are already passed, by the end of the FY.
  
  Everything else has no money, or has little carry over. They are limited by law on what they can do. It is just the way it is. One cannot pick and choose really what is open and not.

  Again, then, I'd submit saying that the government is "shut down" is a bit of a misnomer. If there is this much of the government that doesn't shut down, even without the budget passed, then it doesn't really seem as thought the government will ever shut down short of total economic collapse (I'm picturing worse than early-1990s USSR).
  

  ptown_trojans_1;1517495 wrote:And, most of the people that are on the Mall are volunteers, that do not have to be there, but choose to be there. Plus, most are turning a blind eye to the mall, and the WWII Memorial, making the thing today a total BS political stunt.

  I do hope that latter part is true. It wouldn't at all be surprising as political posturing, which is disappointing despite not being a surprise.
  
  As for the people at the Mall who are volunteers, are you referring to the security personnel?
  

  I Wear Pants;1517497 wrote:Yeah, the free market stops litter too!!!

  No, but neither does increased authority.
  
  It's funny. The places in which there is very little litter, across the country, are usually places where people simply take pride in the appearance of their homes, streets, and yards. I daresay that there aren't cops closely patrolling the streets, looking for spraypaint-wielding artists and litterbugs.
• Glory Days

  

  majorspark;1517494 wrote:Actually they do. The vast majority of the federal government is up and running. And everyone is getting paid so this in no more than deferred vacation pay for those non "essential" federal employees.

  Incorrect, only the military is getting paid. I am federal employee still going to work everyday as usual. I stopped getting paid Sept 30th. and up and running isn't is a good term. I have no funding to do anything when I am at work. I only wonder how long it will be before they turn our phones off, shut down the internet, and we are force out of our buildings since we are paying leases in some offices.
• majorspark

  

  Glory Days;1517586 wrote:Incorrect, only the military is getting paid. I am federal employee still going to work everyday as usual. I stopped getting paid Sept 30th. and up and running isn't is a good term. I have no funding to do anything when I am at work. I only wonder how long it will be before they turn our phones off, shut down the internet, and we are force out of our buildings since we are paying leases in some offices.

  God forbid your government provided phone gets shut off. For a family of five it runs me about $250/per month and Verizon would give me a couple of months before they cut service. Internet and cable about $130/month. I would say TWC would give me a couple of months as well before they cut service. Hope this helps.
  
  Like I said everyone is getting paid. Legislation has already been passed. Its just deferred for federal employees not in the military whether they are working or not. Your guaranteed lump sum payment for your service is coming soon. I'd be more offended at those that ordered employees deemed not "necessary" that will be receiving compensation for needlessly sitting on their ass.
• Glory Days

  

  majorspark;1517629 wrote:God forbid your government provided phone gets shut off. For a family of five it runs me about $250/per month and Verizon would give me a couple of months before they cut service. Internet and cable about $130/month. I would say TWC would give me a couple of months as well before they cut service. Hope this helps.
  
  Like I said everyone is getting paid. Legislation has already been passed. Its just deferred for federal employees not in the military whether they are working or not. Your guaranteed lump sum payment for your service is coming soon. I'd be more offended at those that ordered employees deemed not "necessary" that will be receiving compensation for needlessly sitting on their ass.

  You do realize I was talking about the phones and internet I use for my job? And even if I were talking about my personal phones/internet, they aren't just going to forgive the late payments if I couldn't pay on time. so I MAY get a lump sum payment eventually, but not after all kinds of extra charges and bills have been added that I don't normally have.
  
  and last I checked, the bill to give back pay to federal employees only passed in the House and hasn't been through the Senate yet. Now not that I don't doubt it eventually will make it through, but that means nothing if they don't end the shutdown before its too late.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1517456 wrote:That the administration has barricaded our Memorials is simply sinful.
  
  Throw the sons of bitches in the streets!!!!

  I visited the memorials this weekend. They had barricades up for everything but there were tons of people crossing the barriers anyway. The police and security guards did nothing.
• QuakerOats

  I can tell you this, if Mr. Romney had been elected president we would not be having this debate. He would have had his sleeves rolled up and had all the decision makers around the conference table, and forged a consensus that all parties could live with. That is what he has done during his career: manage through difficult situations to obtain results. Contrast that with the immeasurable lack of leadership by obama, and his activist method of continued agitation and antagonistic insults. The only thing he has been right about: elections do have consequences.
  
  Dire consequences, in this case.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1517672 wrote:I visited the memorials this weekend. They had barricades up for everything but there were tons of people crossing the barriers anyway. The police and security guards did nothing.

  Because they're probably there to make sure nothing stupid or dangerous happens, not to lock veterans out like Ted Cruz wants you to think.
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1517719 wrote:I can tell you this, if Mr. Romney had been elected president we would not be having this debate. He would have had his sleeves rolled up and had all the decision makers around the conference table, and forged a consensus that all parties could live with. That is what he has done during his career: manage through difficult situations to obtain results. Contrast that with the immeasurable lack of leadership by obama, and his activist method of continued agitation and antagonistic insults. The only thing he has been right about: elections do have consequences.
  
  Dire consequences, in this case.

  You're such a fucking clown. Yes...the only problem with the entire system is one guy in the White House and if it was the other guy, nothing at all would go wrong because he'd save the world by the sheer power of his will. Lol...
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1517745 wrote:Because they're probably there to make sure nothing stupid or dangerous happens, not to lock veterans out like Ted Cruz wants you to think.

  Actually the stupidity is closing open air memorials. It actually costs them more to close it than to keep it open considering most of the maintenance is done by volunteers.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Heretic;1517752 wrote:You're such a fucking clown. Yes...the only problem with the entire system is one guy in the White House and if it was the other guy, nothing at all would go wrong because he'd save the world by the sheer power of his will. Lol...

  I actually agree w/ Quaker. This 'situation' would be a whole lot different if Romney was in the White House.
• Heretic

  

  SportsAndLady;1517767 wrote:I actually agree w/ Quaker. This 'situation' would be a whole lot different if Romney was in the White House.

  Well, yeah, in the concept that no Obamacare related shutdown would have happened under Romney. I just think it's funny to assume that if there was a shutdown, he would have singlehandedly dragged us back from the cliff because of how great he was. I mean, six years ago, dude wasn't good enough to be worth his party's nomination and now he's THE MAN WHO WOULD SAVE THE WORLD...IF ONLY...
• WebFire

  Heretic;1517773 wrote:Well, yeah, in the concept that no Obamacare related shutdown would have happened under Romney. I just think it's funny to assume that if there was a shutdown, he would have singlehandedly dragged us back from the cliff because of how great he was. I mean, six years ago, dude wasn't good enough to be worth his party's nomination and now he's THE MAN WHO WOULD SAVE THE WORLD...IF ONLY...

  I can agree with what he is saying without assuming he'd be a great President. You can't tell me that Obama's lack of leadership in this is astounding. Instead of rallying the two sides together to get something done, he is choosing 100% Obamacare and his party over America. Plain and simple.
• TedSheckler

  

  I Wear Pants;1517745 wrote:Because they're probably there to make sure nothing stupid or dangerous happens, not to lock veterans out like Ted Cruz wants you to think.

  Yea, the look prepared to keep things calm.
  
  
• QuakerOats

  obama regime doing all they can to make people think they need government.
  
  Literally the exact opposite of what we used to be about.
• I Wear Pants

  WebFire;1517788 wrote:I can agree with what he is saying without assuming he'd be a great President. You can't tell me that Obama's lack of leadership in this is astounding. Instead of rallying the two sides together to get something done, he is choosing 100% Obamacare and his party over America. Plain and simple.

  If they delay it then Republicans are going to do the exact same thing next year and the year after. They don't get to do that. Both sides don't want to budge on ACA so calling one of them inflexible because of it is ridiculous. They both are.
• Heretic

  

  WebFire;1517788 wrote:I can agree with what he is saying without assuming he'd be a great President. You can't tell me that Obama's lack of leadership in this is astounding. Instead of rallying the two sides together to get something done, he is choosing 100% Obamacare and his party over America. Plain and simple.

  Sadly, I think that's more today's climate than anything else. Seems that most of the people propped up by their side's powerbrokers are more along the "empty suit; follow their directives" types than actual leaders. I wouldn't claim things would be the exact same if Romney was in office instead, but when push comes to shove, I think both sides would wind up taking the "we're right and they're wrong, so work to spin things to make them look like the obstructing villains" direction because they'd look at anything else as essentially conceding defeat, which would equal showing weakness, which could be used against them during elections to hurt them in trying to gain or maintain control.
  
  I think it should be less "L vs R" and more "outsider vs career insider" as far as politics go because the main problem is the career politicians basing everything around maintaining their power or taking the other side's power instead of actually working in the country's best interests.
• Glory Days

  

  QuakerOats;1517802 wrote:obama regime doing all they can to make people think they need government.
  
  Literally the exact opposite of what we used to be about.

  yeah, its completely obvious Obama called the DC police chief and ordered more police.....
• Glory Days

  

  QuakerOats;1517719 wrote:I can tell you this, if Mr. Romney had been elected president we would not be having this debate. He would have had his sleeves rolled up and had all the decision makers around the conference table, and forged a consensus that all parties could live with. That is what he has done during his career: manage through difficult situations to obtain results. Contrast that with the immeasurable lack of leadership by obama, and his activist method of continued agitation and antagonistic insults. The only thing he has been right about: elections do have consequences.
  
  Dire consequences, in this case.

  Yup, the Democrat controlled Senate would have rolled over for Romney.....
• WebFire

  I Wear Pants;1517824 wrote:If they delay it then Republicans are going to do the exact same thing next year and the year after. They don't get to do that. Both sides don't want to budge on ACA so calling one of them inflexible because of it is ridiculous. They both are.

  So proposing a clear CR with no change to ACA isn't budging?
  
  I agree though, both sides are playing the game. That is why it is so important for the President to step in and take charge of this. But his agenda is more important than the economy I guess.