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

221–230 of 233 posts

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#221

Post by nknighthb »

twoodfin wrote: post #219
nknighthb wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart bumps 35,000 to full-time, and another 35,000 temps to permanent part-time. This besides the 55k seas…

We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. And it was always racism? I don't think you're being consistent.

We know it's racism this time because they keep accidentally telling the truth. Reflexive use of existing talking points is not tied to motivation behind opposition.

By the way, you also don't get to accuse me of being inconsistent when you're the one engaging in debates on HN that you argue shouldn't be here. You're a hypocrite, the most disgusting, loathsome of sub-humans.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#222

Post by twoodfin »

nknighthb wrote: post #221
twoodfin wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. And it was always racism? I don't think you're being consistent.

We know it's racism this time because they keep accidentally telling the truth. Reflexive use of existing talking points is not tied to motivation behind opposition. By the way, you also don't get to accuse me of being inconsistent when you're the one engaging in debates on HN that you argue shouldn't be here. You're a hypocrite, the most disgusting, loathsome of sub-humans.

Ha! And it's the right that's accused of "epistemic closure"!

I'm sorry it bothers you I'm having a little fun while hn slides into Eternal September. But I'm old enough to remember these same arguments 17 years ago, and believe you me, Republicans were still obstructionist jerks when the whitest white guy who ever played a saxophone was president.

It's somewhat amusing. Presumably you were not a fan of the last president's Manichean streak. Yet here you are, describing the folks your neighbors vote for in stark, black-and-white terms.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#223

Post by nknighthb »

tptacek wrote: post #218
asabjorn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This needs serious backing as evidence seems to show the opposite. For instance, if we pick firefighting as an example what is there evidence that private firefighting is a good idea? In recent history this kind of thinking have led to disasters like in Tennessee: - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.UkpUgGSidTp and during the 1800s private firefighting w…

The Tennessee firefighter story has come up on HN before, probably because it was used as an allegory in discussions about the Democratic PPACA health care plan (which I support, ftr). Some addition fun facts you want to know before making up your mind about what happened in this "disaster": * The structure that burned down was on unincorporated land outside the tiny town of South Fulton, which is about as far as you…

"Individuals make catastrophically bad decisions that the collective can avoid" is a perfectly reasonable lesson to learn from it. Another reasonable lesson is how easily money corrupts people. For want of $75, supposed "firefighters" already on-scene would not even turn their hoses a few inches. I don't know how they sleep at night.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#224

Post by nknighthb »

twoodfin wrote: post #222
nknighthb wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know it's racism this time because they keep accidentally telling the truth. Reflexive use of existing talking points is not tied to motivation behind opposition. By the way, you also don't get to accuse me of being inconsistent when you're the one engaging in debates on HN that you argue shouldn't be here. You're a hypocrite, the most disgusting, loathsome of sub-humans.

Ha! And it's the right that's accused of "epistemic closure"! I'm sorry it bothers you I'm having a little fun while hn slides into Eternal September. But I'm old enough to remember these same arguments 17 years ago, and believe you me, Republicans were still obstructionist jerks when the whitest white guy who ever played a saxophone was president. It's somewhat amusing. Presumably you were not a fan of the last pres…

> I'm having a little fun

These are peoples lives, you incredible jackass. Including the lives of my family. How much more inhuman can you possibly get?

> I'm old enough to remember these same arguments 17 years ago

So am I. I also know that the current law was their counterproposal 17 years ago. But now it's the end of the world.

> describing the folks your neighbors vote for in stark, black-and-white terms

I live in rural Washington. My neighbors are every bit the insane bigots they vote for.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#225

Post by jlgreco »

base698 wrote: post #175
clumsysmurf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother Jones has a good summary of what this means for us http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/who-gets-screwed... Some things that surprised me: * Campers: People living (or vacationing) in national parks and forests will have 48 hours to relocate. * People who make money off tourists: Shuttered national parks are bad news for the hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that feed off them. * Employers: The…

I keep wondering if the campers have to leave but the rangers aren't working, then how do they force them to leave?

Rangers are technically law enforcement right? They are probably "essential personnel".

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#226

Post by MaulingMonkey »

robomartin wrote: post #200
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if this is inflammatory, but: "I guess when you have a president who isn't even qualified to run a cookie baking operation" -- this is where you lost all my interest, hyperbole or not.

Don't take my word for it. Here. Do this. Go to Monster.com or the appropriate job board. Find a job description for a CEO of a non-trivial business. Say, a manufacturing operation with thousands of employees, international reach, a complex supply chain and a well developed channel of distribution. Now go back and find Obama's resume from 2008. Objectively look at it and compare it to the resume of seasoned C-level e…

You appear to misunderstand what I mean when I say I'm not interested.

I don't mean "I won't take you at your word". Being a polarizing political subject, I would take the word of not even myself - I can and have been wrong on such matters. Personal interest in reasonable arguments from both sides may lead me to entertain various arguments, especially if they're well conveyed, including on subjects which I do not feel personally affect me, but which do affect the rest of society.

In losing that interest, I've lost my only reason to entertain your suggestions as for what to look into, and so I shall not. Why would I be interested when you so willfully distract from the subject at hand -- that distraction being polarizing hyperbole about irrelevant fictional cookie baking, and arguments about how this is factual and relevant? This is not time well spent!

I will note presidential budget vetos can and have been overridden by congress. This budget hasn't even gotten to his desk, correct? If you wish to blame the presidency in this, you must also blame congress as a whole for failing to be able to build and reach the consensus necessary to override him, and you must also blame the electorate for voting for that congress. Your interest in hanging this albatross from his neck does not inform, entertain, or otherwise interest me -- discouraging me from informing, entertaining, or otherwise trying to interest you.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#227

Post by ars »

quanticle wrote: post #220
ars wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". (It's definitely an artificial distortion of the mark…

A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". I'm not sure how the conclusion follows from the premises. Farm subsidies do consume federal funds. Where do yo…

> Large agribusinesses are quite capable of taking subsidy rents and stashing them away as profit rather than using them to compete on prices if their market is more like a cartel and less like a perfectly competitive free market.

What does this have to do with a subsidy? You can do this identically without a subsidy (assuming you can do it at all). The subsidy just lowers the starting price.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#228

Post by tptacek »

nknighthb wrote: post #223
tptacek wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tennessee firefighter story has come up on HN before, probably because it was used as an allegory in discussions about the Democratic PPACA health care plan (which I support, ftr). Some addition fun facts you want to know before making up your mind about what happened in this "disaster": * The structure that burned down was on unincorporated land outside the tiny town of South Fulton, which is about as far as you…

"Individuals make catastrophically bad decisions that the collective can avoid" is a perfectly reasonable lesson to learn from it. Another reasonable lesson is how easily money corrupts people. For want of $75, supposed "firefighters" already on-scene would not even turn their hoses a few inches. I don't know how they sleep at night.

What collective? We're talking about people who deliberately excluded themselves from "the collective".

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#229

Post by mooted1 »

scottjad wrote: post #95
nhaehnle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic stabilizers for the economy. When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same principles as every other us…

This is basically argumentation by story. You told one of many possible stories as if it was obviously and indisputably true. You provided no support for it. What about all the other plausible stories that you ignored? What if these "stabilizers" (i.e. money creation) are doing more harm than good, or even causing the business cycle? What if social safety hammocks decrease growth? What if welfare provided by prudent…

What if the government was behind 9/11?!!!11

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#230

Post by nawitus »

pyoung wrote: post #196
nawitus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In fact, you can see this difference play out in slow motion in the Eurozone, which still has not recovered from the financial crisis. Things would have played out very different had their been a Eurozone federal government that provides at least the basic components of the social safety nets. I don't understand this argument. Are you claiming that there's no social safety nets in Europe? There are and have been and…

The issue is with the ability to issue currency, not with the social safety net. The sentence that you reference is a little misleading. What was implied, was that if the Eurozone had a federal government with the ability to issue currency, and that same government was also in charge of the social safety net (among other programs), then there wouldn't be as much of a crisis because they could print money to pay for t…

You can "print money" by loaning it from the central banks, which individual member states certainly can do. In fact, that's what all EU members are doing.
Post reply on HN