Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 233 posts

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#141

Post by wpietri »

mbreese wrote: post #41
beedogs wrote: post #30

How do the Republicans reckon they'll come out ahead after this? It'll be a GOP bloodbath in 2014.

GOP moderates will take a hit. The more conservative members that are driving this shutdown will end up strengthening their base, so they won't feel as much pressure.

In addition, some theorize that the Republicans can use the chaos and votes supporting the ACA to go after vulnerable Democratic senators.

And maybe I'm getting too cynical, but the extreme Republican line for years has been that government is the problem, not the solution. So I don't think the members chasing the base have the same interest in a functioning state that the rest of them do.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#142

Post by anigbrowl »

nostromo wrote: post #24

We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down." Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the ver…

Oh, you will if it goes on more than a few days. I remember the 1995 one quite well; you may be surprised by the ripple effect.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#143

Post by nknighthb »

twoodfin wrote: post #76
nknighthb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is no monarch or governor general. There are no reserve powers. There is no provision for early general elections. The President is not a Prime Minister, and Congress is not a parliament. Neither is responsible to the other. The House of Representatives and the Senate can each freely block the other indefinitely. The only Constitutional mechanisms available for breaking a deadlock are Congressional election…

which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day OK, I'm not thrilled that this article isn't [dead] already, but regardless: This is not reddit and absurdities like that comment do not contribute to the discussion.

In my experience, pointing out the hysterical racism involved does contribute to the understanding of the situation by non-Americans. And you don't get to accuse me of absurdities when the other side's motto is "Keep the government out of Medicare!". You just don't.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#144

Post by invalidOrTaken »

ubernostrum wrote: post #125
invalidOrTaken wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One downside: it shafts young men uninsured through their employers (read: a considerable part of the HN demographic) pretty hard: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premi...

Obviously it would be better to keep things as-is, with non-employer-provided insurance ranging from difficult to impossible to obtain at any price :)

Well, maybe it's not a downside. One could argue that young men have life on easy mode and should be the ones to bear burdens that their advantages let them handle more easily than others.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#145

Post by [deleted] »

ck2 wrote: post #104
001sky wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 trillion in red ink

Middle class is virtually gone, so what do you think happens when the vultures circling see that all government protection is gone from their prey? The red ink is from everything that is still running right now, ie. the military industrial complex.

[deleted]

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#146

Post by jonah »

scottjad wrote: post #120

So like 1% of the Federal government (by spending, just making this number up) is going to be closed. National parks, EPA, WIC, and Housing and Urban Dev. 99% of the federal government (by spending) will remain open, including: US Military, Food stamps, Unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, TSA, air traffic control, border patrol, Federal Reserve, and the Post Office. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitic…

Oh, so shutting down the parts which don't support industries with strong lobbying or lots of political contributions. How am I not surprised?

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#147

Post by aroman »

vacri wrote: post #119
throwaway420 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for clarifying for me what opinions I'm allowed to have.

It appears that you don't think I should be allowed to share opinions of my own. This is curious, given your clear opposition to the trappings of oppression.

I think he was objecting to your presentation of your opinion as axiomatic fact.

(Notice, for what it's worth, that I said "I think" and not "Actually, he was". The core meaning is the same, but the former phrasing makes it more clear that I am aware the statement was my opinion. Acknowledging that something you say is an opinion is an important part of having a healthy discussion, I think.)

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#148

Post by icambron »

001sky wrote: post #102
icambron wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk is very explicitly directional. E.g. Wikipedia has it as: > Risk is the potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction When was the last time you checked?

Instability is volatility (sigma). check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100630193942AA...

I didn't even mention volatility or stability. I was challenging your assertion that risk was agnostic to direction. It is not.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#149

Post by shirro »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #60
shirro wrote: post #21

Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? In Australia if the government can't get a bill through the senate, they can try again in 3 months and if it still doesn't go through then it can be used a trigger to dismiss the house of reps and the senate and call a new election.

Isn't there a lot of flexibility in Commmonwealth countries with regard to dissolving government and calling for a new election? In Canada you usually just proclaim "this parliament is dysfunctional" and then call a snap election.

I am not a parliamentary expert but there are lots of ways I think. Not passing a supply bill (equiv to the budget crisis) would trigger an election, not passing a non-supply bill repeatedly can be a trigger, a motion of no-confidence in the government. Or governments can resign.

Not being able to pass bills required to finance the government would be seen as equivalent to the government having lost the confidence of parliament and I think under a Westminster system they would have to resign or face being dismissed by the head of state as they have clearly lost the ability to govern.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#150

Post by Steko »

scottjad wrote: post #107

What has surprised me about this issue is how so much of the media has automatically adopted the Democrats narrative (especially on point #1, see below). Surprisingly, the media stories covering this shutdown are actually pretty fair in their summary (at least with respect to point #1). The Democrat narrative has at least three elements: (1) The House Republicans are unwilling to compromise and will shutdown the gove…

"So much of the media has ignored the Republican narrative:"

Maybe because it's bullshit.

"Congress as a whole not being able to compromise"

There's no compromise being offered, this is hostage taking. As Kevin Drum said earlier today:

If my neighbor threatens to steal my car, and then comes back and says he'll settle for just stealing my TV set, what kind of compromise is that? What am I getting out of the deal?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/i-think-republ...

Post reply on HN