Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
I'love it when posters send legit material;in fact your your article eased our fears..:-)..And I hate fear mongering,so Senator Reid must watch his statements.
When I said it was no laughing matter,I was not affected but this time it's personal!..:-)The stock market is already taking a bit hit;imagine what this will do.
,"During the nearly four-week shutdown, Social Security checks were not mailed and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements were disrupted. According to a Center for American Progress report entitled “The Big Freeze,” the shutdown ultimately “cost the American taxpayer over $800 million and rattled the confidence of international investors in U.S. government bonds.”
The Washington Post article said Federal offices are preparing for a large layoff.
I better go to lunch;I'm scaring myself ...lol
Come on Mike none of those things are what Reid implied. He said our troops would not get paid!!! No Social Security for seniors...
Now that is too funny...
Not saying the things YOU mentioned are a laughing matter because you make more sense than the all mighty Reid himself !
I know it's not a laughing matter.
The last time the government shut down was 1995-96, when Congress twice failed to pass a budget bill while former President Clinton was in office. Here’s a look at some federal services that shut down then—and could again:
Veterans’ services: Disability benefits and pension claims were held up for more then 400,000 veterans during the last budget standoff.
National museums, monuments, and parks: Nine million visitors were turned away as museums, monuments, and 368 national parks closed.
Visa and passport services: Some passport agencies shut down altogether while others operated with minimal staff. Thousands of visa and passport applications went unprocessed.
Health services: New patients were not accepted into clinical research trials at the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance, according to a report compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Federal employees: During the five-day shutdown in November 1995, an estimated 800,000 “non-essential” employees were sent home. According to law, the government is forbidden to accept services from employees and pay them while the government is not being funded. Employees sent home in the 1995 shutdown were eventually paid retroactively.
During the longer 21-day shutdown at the end of the year that ran into 1996, about 284,000 federal workers were furloughed, according to ABC News.
"A shutdown could send our fragile economy back into a recession, and mean no Social Security checks for seniors, less funding for border security and no paychecks for our troops," Reid said.
Someone please tell me he was not serious! Had to share this...LOL
In fact, Social Security checks would go out as scheduled. Troop pay would be unaffected, as would a host of other government operations, like border protection, law enforcement, air traffic control and food inspection. But applications for passports and visas, national parks and payments to federal contractors would be affected.
jbjreeder blamed Obama and I responded to his/hers knowledge of the president's feelings.
I gave two examples of Mike Huckabee (flip flopper)of how one day he was reasonable the next day he said a shutdown was not so bad.He would not have the authority since he is not an elected official.
It still boils down to majority rules because a consensus would have to met to go the route of a moderator...I don't they need one because senators have a track record of breaking off in a group to make a decision from within.
It does not matter what Obama thinks or feels, we are the ones who live the decisions he makes or does not make. So it just matters what he does, and we make our assessments of his decisions based on this.
Mike Huckabee may be a political conservative, but he represents the views of a portion of the senators and he thinks clearly and respects the views of others. I would nominate him as one of the mediators, if given the opportunity. With another mediator representing the Democratic view, and the same principals of clear thinking and respect, maybe a bipartisian group of congressmen could come up with a compromise. We are now making major policy changing decisions based on "bigger party rules", and get it through using all the Washington trickery. Maybe some clear thinking and cooperation would result in some better outcomes.
you don't have any personal knowledge of President's Obama's feelings about the deficit..The house & the senate are out for the week;doesn't seem like they are too worried.
Massive cuts lead to job losses;not exactly what we need....As a president said" everyone wants things to be done, yesterday."
Many economists say that draconian cuts will stifle our frail economy. In fact that's what the bipartisan deficit reduction commission said. We don't have to panic.
Unless we do something about the entitlements and defense spending; the deficits and debt will remain high. Congress proposals are only 12% of the budget.
If we don't get the federal deficit under control, we're going to have a Permanent government shutdown. Obama refuses to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. Yes, there might be some room for compromise on where to cut, but massive cuts need to be made or our creditworthiness will be shot.
The people that represent us seem to all be grandstanders! Shutdown government - get the attention. Keep government going - get the attention. Somehow we have to identify people that understand that running this nation isn't a game - like Farmville! It is the real deal and not one decision made in Washington is made withOUT impact to people. The men and women in Washington need to grow up and do their job - and if they make the tough decisions and don't get reelected - so be it.
That's why I can't trust Mike Huckabee one day he talks against shutting down the government....The next day he tells CBS
"Likely Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that a government shutdown might be inevitable -- and that, really, won't be so bad for needy Americans.
"It's a very different environment this time. It think first of all, a lot of the things that were shut down were automated --like Social Security checks and Veterans checks -- so it's not going to be as draconian, if it does happen," Huckabee said on CBS. "But there has to be at some point a reckoning with reality."
"I think it could happen. And maybe it has to," he added. "Because sometime, either now or later, the government's going to shut down, either from bankruptcy in the future, or from a targeted effect to try to get someone's attention that we're overspending and not managing at all."
There's a difference between wanting a shutdown of government and naive legislators that would see it as a victory because they had not thought out the consequences.
We still have to follow parliamentary procedures but I believe there's enough senators in the senate, with the help of CBO that can convince their colleagues that a compromise is in order.The mindset of Mike Huckabee? He's a social conservative republican! ... It's not only the dollar amount that is in question it's the partisan programs the GOP wants to cut. You really think Mike Huckabee will agree no to cut Planned Parenthood,NPR and PBS?
Politically, some do support a shutdown, to make the other side look bad. It's all about one-upmanship.
We need a committee made up of representatives from both parties and maybe with an outside non voting mediator or two who think like Mike Huckabee.
I don't think anyone supports shutdown.
I don't think people who support a shutdown realize just how much it might affect them too.