Government Shut Down

[infinite monkey]

Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.

Hey Adak, have a modicum of respect for the office, will you, you anti-american fuck?

(cue adak talking about his fake service and other feats of magic he's performed.)

Sorry you lost! Better luck next time!

[glatt]

The paper today was talking about winners and losers.
I think the only winners here are China. And we in the USA are all losers.

Oh, and if tw really moved his money around to profit on a default, maybe he's a loser more than others. How did that go tw? Did you take a big hit?

Originally Posted by tw

Ironically, I make money if the wacko extremists do make America fail. Says how much faith I have in Cantor and the boys.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yeah, well, the debt graph is boring. It just keeps going up exponentially. The deficit graph is where the real data is, because you can see how government policy and economic factors work together to increase the debt slightly or rapidly.

The reason I point it out is because the Afghanistan and Iraq wars never showed up in the budget. They paid for through Emergency Spending Measures, not that they were emergent or unforeseen.

Originally Posted by glatt

I think the only winners here are China. And we in the USA are all losers.

Yep.

Question: Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?

Answer: The U.S. debt is more than $16.7 trillion. Most news headlines focus on how much the U.S. owes China. And, in fact, China is the largest foreign owner of U.S. debt. However, the biggest single owner of national debt is the Social Security Trust Fund, aka your retirement money. How does that work, and what does it mean?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.

Hey Adak, have a modicum of respect for the office, will you, you anti-american fuck?

(cue adak talking about his fake service and other feats of magic he's performed.)

Sorry you lost! Better luck next time!

There was only an American loss this time, because it was a stupid political maneuver. I'm not saying they were wrong in their goal, but the way they worked toward that goal, was unwise.

Infinite Monkey - did you see the layout of the dead (painted silhouettes), from D-Day, laid out on the beaches at Normandy earlier this year?

There were over 9,000 men - you could barely get two feet, between one dead "GI", and the next one.

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to give the veterans of foreign wars respect, is VERY questionable!

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!

If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.

But he won't of course.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Adak

There was only an American loss this time, because it was a stupid political maneuver. I'm not saying they were wrong in their goal, but the way they worked toward that goal, was unwise.

Infinite Monkey - did you see the layout of the dead (painted silhouettes), from D-Day, laid out on the beaches at Normandy earlier this year?

There were over 9,000 men - you could barely get two feet, between one dead "GI", and the next one.

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to give the veterans of foreign wars respect, is VERY questionable!

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!

If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.

But he won't of course.

Good idea, he could apologize for the Republicans. It'd be a nice sound bite for the next election cycle... Wait, maybe the baggies are Democratic operatives?

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Adak

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!

If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.

I was informed today by people who lived and worked here during the government shutdowns in the 1990s that ALL of the memorials - yes, the memorials for veterans of foreign wars - were closed during those shutdowns. Since the longer one took place during January, nobody, including the veterans of foreign wars, cared whether the memorials were shut down! No veterans jetted in to demonstrate and climb over barriers! The weather was lousy so the memorials didn't mean as much, I guess.

Or maybe there was a specific effort to fly vets in this time so that people like you, Adak, could whine on and on about the memorials being closed. Or maybe it wasn't a real issue then and isn't one now.

I vote for the latter.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!

But again the facts get ignored. Wacko extremists caused those closures because they 'knew' closed memorials do not matter. They also knew (and openly say) that a default would not hurt the country. They feel; therefore it must be true. They even reasoned they were winning. Sounds much like Charlie Sheen and his victory.

What did they accomplish? Nothing. Why do they associate Obamacare with closed memorials? Adults acting like children. Such emotional reasoning is common among extremists. Another example of why only moderates are informed, educated, adult, and therefore patriotic.

To keep their disciples misinformed, they blamed Obama for closed memorials. Not the 30 wacko extremists who did nothing useful - to hype their political agenda. Eventually enough moderate Republicans had the balls to vote down their wacko peers. Then the memorials opened.

[henry quirk]

"troll"

Eye of the beholder.

*shrug*

##

"a narcissist"

Possibly.

#

"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."

Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.

##

"your point of view is within the total political spectrum"

Mebbe so...haven't had an interest in finding sympathetic souls.

#

"Of course we benefit from having our federal gov't."

Sure. I think, however, there might be better ways to get the same benefits.

As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.

#

"Think of all the natural resources we have: coal, gas, oil, timber, prime farmland, big cities with expensive infrastructure."

All had by way of private concerns and private concerns in conjunction with local government. Pretty much all those things could be had by way of proxies.

#

"If we had no military, etc., we'd be conquered by some country in a heartbeat."

Certainly you need peace keepers and defenders. Question is: can you get the same or better service by way of proxies? That is: must defense and peace keeping come from an overarching 'governor', or, can the same be had by way of local proxies coordinating with other proxies?

#

"fuck you, I got mine"

Not what I'm saying at all, but it does raise a question.

What exactly is wrong with 'fuck you, I got mine'?

Example: Joe and Henry are in the wilderness. There is exactly enough water to get one of the men into town. Joe has possession of that water. Henry, understandably, wants some. Joe says 'no, sir...if I share, we both die...that's senseless'.

Joe is sayin' 'fuck you, I got mine'.

Within the context of my example: why is Joe wrong?

##

"A government funded research experiment"

What you mean to say: a taxpayer funded research experiment. Government is merely the collector, conduit, and director of monies, it ponies up not a dime of its own ('cause it has nuthin' of its own to call its own).

And: who did the research?

Who currently maintains the net infrastructure (both tangible and intangible)?

[glatt]

Henry it's really hard to follow your posts. I can't easily tell what you're quoting and what's new. It's all jumbled together.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.

One of biggest changes in mindset I've had over the past 6 years is my switch of preference from a highly idealistic socio-economic setup to a more pragmatic robust society. This is due to the simple fact that social and economic interactions are HIGHLY complex and there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account.

This is reason why the highly idealistic communist system failed and will always fail. It makes an assumption that everyone will readily embrace the values of the system. However, this has always turned out to be untrue and some bastardized form of "communism" was always the result. Leftists keep on saying that the theory needed to be refined but I'm convinced that it just too fragile of an idea to realistically be implemented. The same goes for libertarianism in my opinion.

Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model. However, history almost always shows - except for nomadic societies - that the decentralized city-state model tends to centralize through war due to human ambition. Beyond that, our current technology would force these "proxies" to cooperate at levels unheard of throughout human history. The best guide to how your "proxy society" would work is to observe how our current decentralized state model works on a global level, aka the UN.

"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."

Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.

See above. The decentralized model has historically only worked for nomadic or pre-agricultural societies. Our current technology requires a high level of planning and cooperation and experience shows us that only a centralized state is really capable of doing this (and they are not even that good at it). When you get multiple actors, each with their own interests, all cooperation goes to shit.

[henry quirk]

"Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't..."

Of course they can...they choose not to.

The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.

The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?

The answer to that question is the answer to "what would prevent that from happening in (my) *system?"









*and: I don't have a system...the word you're looking for is 'transaction'...A and Z transact, each gettin' what each needs from the other...there's gonna be an exchange one way or another, by way of violence or by way of trade...civillization is about 'trade'...it gets ruined when folks unable or unwilling to transact get all huffy and begin goin' on and on about inequities and whatnot...it's friggin' envy, pure and simple (you have more than me...I can't get what you have on my own, so me and my tribe are gonna take what you have)

[henry quirk]

"Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model."

The current system is based on a similar assumption: that folks will willingly live and work within a centrally planned economy and nation. For those that won't (will not readily embrace the values of the system) there is jail and/or death.

Make no mistake: I got no illusions that americans will ever take the route of self-sufficiency...the population is far too domesticated for that...but, as toad says up thread, "it sure is nice to dream".

No I expect things to tick along in the U.S. (and globally) as they have for a long time now.

#

So, PH, I do get how it all works...your mistake, then, is thinkin' of my posts as advocacy instead of just musings.

Really, where (in this thread or in this forum) have you seen me advocate any changes? Sure, I play the gadfly now and again, but mostly, you'll find, I just say no, I ain't doin' 'that' when some bleedin' heart gets all righteous and says I really need to give a flip about starving old folks or freezing kids or beached whales or corporate greed or whatever the issue du jour happens to be.

#

"there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account"

Sure there is: the unrestrained market (not capitalism).

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

But again the facts get ignored. Wacko extremists caused those closures because they 'knew' closed memorials do not matter. They also knew (and openly say) that a default would not hurt the country. They feel; therefore it must be true. They even reasoned they were winning. Sounds much like Charlie Sheen and his victory.

That "wacko" was Obama, and no one else. Before he leaves office, he will have increased our national debt TWICE the amount of ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

Think about that.

What did they accomplish? Nothing. Why do they associate Obamacare with closed memorials? Adults acting like children. Such emotional reasoning is common among extremists. Another example of why only moderates are informed, educated, adult, and therefore patriotic.

In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.

Does that sound like the cheaper health care insurance we were told we'd have with Obamacare, or does that sound like his BLATANT LIES, again?

To keep their disciples misinformed, they blamed Obama for closed memorials.

We tried to blame it on the Republicans like everything else, but it just wasn't believable!

Not the 30 wacko extremists who did nothing useful - to hype their political agenda. Eventually enough moderate Republicans had the balls to vote down their wacko peers. Then the memorials opened.

I remember the Washington Monument and other closed memorials being closed. I believe Lincoln's was barricaded by Clinton. But the WWII memorial - no, I never heard that one was closed. That's the only one that has the "honor flights" of old vets, coming in to pay respects, for the last time.

I get it - if Obama took a blowtorch to your dog, you'd find a way to blame the Conservatives for it - I get it.

The truth is, the whole shut down strategy was poorly thought out, by some Conservatives, who had promised their constituents they'd do everything they could to stop Obamacare. It was a brash thing to promise, but they felt that once it was promised, they HAD to do what they said they would.

There is a strong movement among the Conservatives, to put up strong Conservative challengers into the primaries, to challenge every neo, every RINO, every John McCain type Republican, currently in office - and get rid of them.

They have split the party with a lot of their votes, and in some cases, just plainly were bought out like street hoe's - Nebraska, Florida, Kentucky, etc. You can say that their votes weren't bought and paid for -- except that they were.

The days of the "Go along to get along", Republicans, are coming to an end, in response to the wholesale socialist agenda of the current Democratic party.

Since Obama can't manage to spend within the national income of the federal gov't, you have to wonder "where's the Treasury Dept getting the money to pay our bills?

Simple, from the large Trust Funds. And what Trust fund has been raided the most, because it has the most?

Social Security.

Oh, we got a big fat IOU in there, for whatever it's worth.

Have you heard anything about that in the major media?

Nope. When it's Obama, it's all good. ANY other President would have been BBQ'd long ago, to a cinder, for that kind of irresponsibility with our finances, and our future.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.

So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.

My problem with listening to Limbaugh, is that he continually attacks the Democrats - not just their policies, but them, unnecessarily.

I admit some Democrats seem to be so far removed from reality that they become icons for inanity: Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

Or they're terrible hypocrites like Dianne Feinstein, who keeps pushing gun control bill after gun control bill - all the while having a concealed gun permit, and a handgun she keeps with her. Dianne has been around several violent crimes (Milk assassination, Jones' cult in Guyanna when she went to investigate it, her home was burglarized, etc.). But she acts like she's the ONLY person who was ever the victim of a violent crime! When she was in S.F. politics, you couldn't get a CCW permit in S.F., because of her.

But we need to try to stay focused on the issues and policies, not the human failings of our politicians (as people).

Why do you think there's been a backlash against Obamacare? HINT: It's not because the rates are too cheap!

No, I didn't catch the researchers name, but that kind of info is coming out more, as people try to sign up at the ACA exchanges in their state.

So far, less than 1% of those who go to the websites, actually enroll in Obamacare, at any level, according to the British papers.

Washington Post (Not a Conservative paper), had this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...45b_story.html

Read this balanced article, with analysis by Actuaries, and you'll know the good, and the bad news about rates under Obamacare. Some groups will do well - older, poorer, sicker, but healthier, younger, or those with a larger family, will do much worse.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/10/...why_are_s.html

ACA doesn't allow a family to be insured as a group anymore. They have to rate each individual, and then add them all up to get the family's premium rate.