Federal Government Shutdown

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, its unwise for people with such crippling conditions to live alone if you ask me.

But...it's wise not to breathe so long as family is around?


(Note to self...do NOT take Mehmet's medical advice...ever!)

It's not a medical advice, though, its just a generic advice.
I still say its unwise for people with medical disabilities to live alone.

[Mystical]

Imagine living life breathing through a straw with a donkey hitched on your back, with the constant physical feeling of falling off a cliff. That's just from the altitude. Then add full body joint pain from the disease itself, nerve pain in the lining of your brain, constant muscle cramps, intermittant fevers, and you're still not there. Now add severe nausea from the medications and pure exhaustion. oh and things like heart clots and ptsd from the treatments the doctors prescribe to treat you and you still have no clue. Just take it from me, When you're playing a game of :how to live with the least amount of symptoms for yours and everyone's well being: you don't have a choice. I was using far more federal insurance to support me there (physical therapy and home healthcare Svcs plus 24/7 oxygen services, and transportation because I need to be hIghly medicated there). Where I live now I don't need any of those services and I'm not a drag on anyone and less of a drag on society. If I could live near family of course I would. Of course it's smart. Its just not practical for me.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, perhaps should a family member just move to your area then.
Can't this be done?

[Mystical]

I live in a far worse economy here than there, they'd have to work themselves to the ground to make a fraction of what they make. Plus, no one wants to live where I live but me (solely for altitude benefits) because where I live sucks in every aspect imagineable its just that its heaven here for me and hell for anyone else. Not to mention I spent 8 yrs living with family being cared for and got to the point realizing life for them was no good like that. Now they're doing much better and happier and healthier. And so am I. My goal is to get off support services alltogether one day, and my best chance for that is to stay where I am.

[Captain Colostomy]

I think the real question is 'How can we make sure Luckie never has to worry about her disability being cut by dickheads who get their money even as they shit all over their responsibilities to pass a budget thanks to ideology and brinkmanship'?

Yeah, run on sentence. Don't care.

[Aractus]

I enjoyed reading your post DP.

No one is suggesting the debt isn't a problem that needs to be addressed ...except the Republicans when they're in power. There's a pattern we've seen in this country in the last 30 years and it's something we need to keep in mind as the GOP feigns such grave concerns for our grandchildren.

• Republican in the White House: "Deficits don't matter! Spend money on all the things conservatives love! Wars! Defense spending! Corporate giveaways! War on Drugs! Cut taxes for the rich! Wheeeee!"
  
• Democrat in the White House: "OMG! OMG! Where did all this debt come from? Quick! Slash and burn all the liberal programs now!"
  

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at the recent history:

Reagan tripled the debt and HW Bush was equally unable to balance his budget. When Clinton came into power, he was forced to deal with the problem. He had to give up all the things he campaigned on and instead focused on cutting spending and bringing down the debt. As a result, he created a surplus.

I agree that Clinton is the only US president - in my lifetime - that has tried to do something about it.

W Bush ran against that surplus with the campaign platform "it's not their money, it's your money". Once in office, he made good on his promise and slashed taxes for the rich. He also ran two wars off the books, gave away sweet no-bid contracts to his corporate friends and passed a budget-busting corporate giveaway in Medicare Part D. His grand finale was giving away 700 billion in bailouts to banks, needed as a result of the economy he crashed.

So my summary is correct, that the parties and the president appease the wishes of the rich, being that the rich turn up and vote on election day.

What you need is electoral reform: 1. make it manditory to be on the electoral roll, 2. make it an offense to have your enrolment on the electoral roll incorrect/out-of-date (this may already be the case), 3. make voting manditory, and set a fine in the ammount of $50-100 for not voting, without a good reason (certain people will be exempt, eg the mentally disabled, the dyslexic, the aged, etc). Unless everyone turns up to vote, you don't really have a democracy.

Can you imagine if courts worked the way that voting in america works at present? Jurors have to reach a unanimous decision in criminal matters, this is the model that we're all used to, imagine if voting in the juror's room was optional and you could be convicted because 4 of the 12 jurors wanted to vote and the others decided they didn't want to vote? No one would accept such a system, and yet, this is essentially what the US electoral system is like!

Currently, the US spends more than the next four nations combined and doubled. We could cut the Pentagon's budget in half and still be ahead of the next four nations, two of which (UK and France) are our allies. The Soviet Union is long gone but we're still running in the arms race all by ourselves. The Military-Industrial complex isn't about to let its gravy train go and no politician wants to "look weak".

Well, yes, the USA has a history of using its military force against nations who would have no vested interest in engaging them with military force. The main dangers that the USA faces though is not military action however, but fiscal. Now China has a co-dependant relationship with the USA, if they up and liquidated their usd 1.3 trillion bonds, it would certainly spell a severe depression for the USA, but it would also mean a depression just as horrible for China. If Japan liquidated their usd 1.1 trillion bonds, then both China and the USA would face a sevre depression as a result. Japan would too, and Australia would also be affected by a huge recession that may well become a depression too.

That doesn't mean that China can't take fiscal action, however. They could liquidate a more limited number of bonds, and force the USA into recession, without facing the same economic backlash, and it could work to strengthen the Euro or whatever currency China chooses to invest into.

Last but not least, there's the tax cuts for the rich which were supposed to stimulate the economy and trickle down to the rest of us. In reality, the money trickled off into offshore bank accounts. We've tried Reagonomics for 30 years now. It's time to admit it doesn't work and the rich need to pay their fair share of the sacrifice needed to get our budget under control.

Correct.

[Airyaman]

People say the Mass care is well like and successful. Bravo, state power. That is how health care should be approached instead of at a national level with 314 million people across fifty states and thousands of cities and towns.

But so long as we're stuck with an unworkably large state structure, the status quo is but one of many options. I personally won't be satisfied until we have single payer and put every single private insurance company out of the health business. However I will celebrate when even this modest attempt is finally fully enacted and funded.

SS and Medicare will run out of money in in decades. Then what? You cannot keep adding national entitlements and expect them to be sustainable. All of them are grossly inefficient. So while you like the idea of single payer, you'd have to find a way to fund it.

We are almost 17T in debt and climbing daily. Without drastic changes, we will continue to pile on debt. Now is not the time to add another debt creator.

---

@Creed of Heresy, I will try to address your post later, got other stuff to do for some time. I just ask one question in the interim: would countries in Europe be better off if there was a central government for Europe that the various countries had to answer to?

[Tonus]

You know, if this is going to crush the world economy in a few weeks, it wont just be the American people who will hate the republicans but pritty much the entire world.

It won't. The GOP's biggest problem is its association with the religious right, which doesn't hurt them as much now (due to the high number of religious in this country) as it will in the future. And their economic agenda is easily sold as "less money to government means more money for you" which also makes it more popular than you would think (though the left has hurt this by linking them to both wealthy individuals and wealthy corporate interests).

But more than that, they know when to give up the fight and, like any good politician, proclaim a victory of sorts. Remember that the demographics in the USA are different from Europe. We have something like 21% of the population who identify as conservative and as many as 80% that identify as religious. Thus, many of the ~40% who identify as "independent" can lean just as far to the right as they might to the left (witness Reagan's 1984 victory, where a president who struggled to get a 34% approval rating just crushed Mondale).

And in the end, the damage will be limited enough that most Americans will forget about it (indeed, I wonder how many are even aware that the government has been "shut down"?). The GOP's biggest fight is not really with Democrats as much as it is with the faux-Libertarian Tea Party, which threatens to fragment them in some states where they would otherwise be fairly cozy. Similar to its relationship with the religious fundamentalists, the GOP must walk on eggshells around the Tea Party in the hopes of keeping the "fewer taxes" message while pretending that they don't hear the stuff about legalizing drugs and abortion. This is what really threatens the party's long-term survival, IMO-- being linked with ideologies that are being left behind by societal progress.

[Dragonetti]

Sorry, but the government is not a company, and should not be ran like a company. The unions are powerful, but they are represent the employees, which have the right to unionize.

I am sorry, but you keep mentioning cutting funds, but where? Entitlements are only a part of the government spending, and cutting all entitlements is not the solution. We need to cut and reform the budget across all government departments, close tax loopholes, and raise taxes. Yes, raising taxes on the rich, and stop with the trickle down effect. Defense needs to be cut, and hell get rid of the crazy GWB's DHS (which grew the government by 40%)! Baby boomers are starting to retire, and they will suck the system dry.

Reform of the medical system is required to cut cost not just cutting services completely.
Health care should never be about profits, which what is has become today.

Businesses are about the bottom line! Some services should never be about the bottom line.

The United States has lost it way as being the exporter of education, innovation, technology, and ideas.

[DeistPaladin]

So while you like the idea of single payer, you'd have to find a way to fund it.

Raise taxes. Medicare is far more efficient than private health insurance. Forget the human factor, it's also cheaper. I'll happily pay more in taxes to cover all my employees with Medicare and save money by not having to pay through the nose for their crappy health insurance plans.