Show HN: govuptime.com • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#151

Post by readme » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 4:17 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #137

bmelton wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a small minority of republicans are subverting the budget process because they don't like a law So, not to get into a partisan argument (because I'm not a Republican), but the Supreme Court battle for the individual mandate imposed by the ACA circumvented the House's budgetary authority here, and that's why we're log-jammed at the moment. The Constitution prescribes that all spending bills must originate in the Hou…

None of what you say makes sense. Obamacare is constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was constitutional, that's how our system works. The Republicans are dead set against the law and are prepared to burn the government down to stop it. Simple as that. It's not some techinical procedural legality as you make it out to be.

The republicans are willing to take jobs away from families in order to make sure the poor and sick don't get equal access healthcare. That's how simple it is.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#152

Post by joe5150 » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 4:45 PM UTC

daned wrote: post #140

joe5150 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It truly does not matter.

Words matter. source: George Carlin

Oy vey. I don't know what George Carlin has to say on the subject of idiomatic constructions in English, but if we lived in a world where phrases could only be used in the most literal understandings of the literal definitions of their component words, idioms like "toe the line" wouldn't exist in the first place. The handy thing about it being an idiom is that it works even when the literal meaning, the context, and the history are forgotten. The difference between "toe" and "tow" is nil in terms of how it affects the meaning of the phrase, since the meaning of the phrase is not derived from adding together the meanings of the words.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#153

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 4:49 PM UTC

joe5150 wrote: post #152

daned wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words matter. source: George Carlin

Oy vey. I don't know what George Carlin has to say on the subject of idiomatic constructions in English, but if we lived in a world where phrases could only be used in the most literal understandings of the literal definitions of their component words, idioms like "toe the line" wouldn't exist in the first place. The handy thing about it being an idiom is that it works even when the literal meaning, the context, and…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#154

Post by nhebb » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

bithive123 wrote: post #67

Metrics are cool and all, but this glosses over the really important story here, which unfortunately seems to elude much of the general public: that a small minority of republicans are subverting the budget process because they don't like a law. They cannot be allowed to do this. I can only assume the rest of the RNC is going along with it because they are stupid or cowards.

> They cannot be allowed to do this.

Government shut downs are practically the norm since the 70's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_Unit...

The federal government shut down once under Ford, five times under Carter, eight times under Reagan, once under Bush Sr., and twice under Clinton. Both parties have been responsible over the years.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#155

Post by bmelton » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 5:12 PM UTC

canweriotnow wrote: post #135

bmelton wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this argument is one of semantics, so I'll just attempt to clarify. Justice Roberts, the swing vote, would have struck down the penalty but for his characterization of it as a tax, as well as having characterized that tax as a flat penalty against which modifiers were imposed. As a result of its tax characterization, it violates the Origination Clause of the Constitution, which has never been remedied. Wh…

I think you're also forgetting: post Marbury v. Madison, the meaning of the Origination Clause is at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Match point.

Well, that the Constitutionality of all things is ultimately determinable by the Supreme Court is of course subject to judicial review, there was nothing in Marbury v Madison that has any direct impact on the Origination Clause whatsoever.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I don't see what point it is that you're making. Please clarify?

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#156

Post by pmorici » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 5:13 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #143

Since a major part of the federal budget is its several million employees, I'd also like to see a ticker that shows how the deficit is behaving during the massive furlough ... is it going down? And what about unemployment? Is it funded even with the shutdown? And are furloughed federal employees eligible for unemployment compensation? I'm not going to pick sides in the current battle, but I do think the federal gover…

"I'd also like to see a ticker that shows how the deficit is behaving during the massive furlough ... is it going down?"

Doubtful; historically furloughed employees are given back pay once a shutdown of this nature is over. Also don't forget all the lost productivity from all those employees sitting at home instead of doing what they normally do.

"are furloughed federal employees eligible for unemployment compensation?"

Yes.

"we can see what it's like without most of the government"

I don't think you can. If you didn't mow your grass or trim the landscaping in your yard for a week or two no one would likely notice. Let it go longer and all of a sudden your property is the eye sore on the block and you're going to get angry calls from the neighbors.

I'm with you on government being generally too big or rather inefficient but politicians never seem to want to address that in a meaningful way it's always in terms of we are spending to little or to much. Instead they might look at making it easier to fire an under performing worker and provide more budget flexibility and incentives for automation and efficiency instead of just throwing more clerical workers or benjamins at a problem.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#157

Post by bmelton » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 5:48 PM UTC

GabrielF00 wrote: post #131

bmelton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just due to the politicization of the shutdown. The Executive has actually taken great pains to make things as inconvenient as possible for the citizenry, to ensure that they get the message that government is necessary to their daily lives, whether it would otherwise impact them or not. Websites are shut down, but not like, in a way that would save any actual money. Instead of turning the servers off, they're…

If you owned property, would you allow huge numbers of tourists access to it if you had no staff onsite and no idea when you were going to be able to get staff? Now consider if you owned 401 pieces of property* across the country. Some of these are historic sites that are pretty delicate. Some of these consist of thousands of square miles of wilderness where people get killed even when there ARE park rangers around.…

No, but if my complaint was that I didn't have the money to staff it with the fraction of a full time employee it takes to run and administer (periodically, I might add; There is no full time staff for any of the particular monuments in DC), I would have a hard time justifying paying for multiple guardsmen, police and park rangers to keep people out of them.

The rental of barricades I can see as sensible -- the rental of barricades as well as a 1400% increase in staff? I cannot.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#158

Post by dmm » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 6:46 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #33

The federal government is operational, so the text at the top of the page is politically dishonest. We still have a federal government that is taking care of national defense, among a number of other things. "Non-essential" services have been suspended, while "essential" are still operational. Frankly, I'd like it if it stayed this way. The government shouldn't tax-and-force in "non-essential" areas.

Entitlements , interest and defense are most of the federal budget. discretionary spending is only about 17%.

That includes all sorts of nice things like the National Parks. The budget is really dominated by mandatory spending, not affected by this shutdown.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#159

Post by o0-0o » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 6:55 PM UTC

bithive123 wrote: post #67

Metrics are cool and all, but this glosses over the really important story here, which unfortunately seems to elude much of the general public: that a small minority of republicans are subverting the budget process because they don't like a law. They cannot be allowed to do this. I can only assume the rest of the RNC is going along with it because they are stupid or cowards.

Are you aware the Democrats shut down the government eight (8) times during the Reagan administration?

In case you were unaware, the House of Representatives is responsible for funding. They can choose what they want to fund. Not the President. Not the Senate. In fact, the Senate and President do not even get to sign off on funding.

If you want a system where the President chooses what gets funded, you'll have a happier time in Cuba or such.

Re: Show HN: govuptime.com

#160

Post by o0-0o » Sat, Oct 05, 2013, 7:02 PM UTC

readme wrote: post #151

guelo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you say makes sense. Obamacare is constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was constitutional, that's how our system works. The Republicans are dead set against the law and are prepared to burn the government down to stop it. Simple as that. It's not some techinical procedural legality as you make it out to be.

The republicans are willing to take jobs away from families in order to make sure the poor and sick don't get equal access healthcare. That's how simple it is.

Equal access to healthcare? You have got to be kidding me. This is a state by state argument, not a federal one. In fact, it's even more local than that. Anyone poor as you say already gets free healhcare in every state. What more do you want? Fact it, this is just another redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor. The rich (which you infer are Republican, although most wealthy people vote Democrat to keep the poor there) are not impacted by this anyway. I love how you can boil down an 11,000 page bill to two sentences. Ignorance must be bliss. Tell us what it's like, and in the meantime save those finger movement keystrokes for something enlightening. Win-win, that.