Government Shutdown is Putting a Damper on Science in Seattle and Elsewhere (geekwire.com) 443
It's been called the "Super Bowl of Astronomy," but when the American Astronomical Society's winter meeting plays out in Seattle this week, some of the stars won't be taking the field. From a report: The AAS meeting is just one of the scientific endeavors diminished by the partial government shutdown in Washington, D.C., which entered its 17th day today. NASA representatives, and researchers whose travel would typically be funded by NASA, have had to cancel their plans to be in Seattle due to the tiff involving the Trump administration and Republicans on one side, and Democrats on the other.
The shutdown affects only a quarter of the federal government -- which means that the Defense Department and the Energy Department can continue research and development activities. Work continues as well at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and at the National Institutes of Health. But most employees at NASA as well as at the Agriculture Department, the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service are on furlough. Further reading: National Parks Face Years of Damage From Government Shutdown.
The shutdown affects only a quarter of the federal government -- which means that the Defense Department and the Energy Department can continue research and development activities. Work continues as well at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and at the National Institutes of Health. But most employees at NASA as well as at the Agriculture Department, the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service are on furlough. Further reading: National Parks Face Years of Damage From Government Shutdown.
99 percent of US is unprotected (Score:2, Offtopic)
Virtually all terrorists come in via plane and sea, the remainder drive from inside the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And precisely zero come in over the US-Mexico border outside a normal point of entry.
The emergency Trump is citing is phony floor to ceiling.
Re: (Score:2)
About 24,000 criminals caught entering the US [cbp.gov]. That's quite a few - and about a 10% recidivism rate a well... Most are those are outside the official ports of entry [cbp.gov] - about 500,000 arrests in FY2018 outside the ports of entry. And at least 15 terrorists have crossed the SW border [cis.org].
But let me ask you - do you lock your doors and windows when you leave? If not - do you advertise that you leave your doors and windows unlocked?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it depends. If having people come on to my land means I have to pay tens of thousands a year for them, and I cannot realistically get rid of them (because there are some sanctuary laws in place), then I put up the fence. Can I come into your house and just squat until I feel it's time that I should go - and until then, you have to provide food, shelter, and care?
As far as ineffective, I keep hearing that from politicians, but the border patrol agents - those who actually work there daily - overwhelm
Using what for evidence? (Score:3)
Virtually all terrorists come in via plane and sea, the remainder drive from inside the US.
And how is it that you (or whomever originally made the claim) KNOW this to be true? It's really hard to check when the people in question are NOT coming in through anywhere they can be checked.
Like election fraud: All the "There's little to no election fraud occurring." claims turn out to really be: "There's little to no PROSECUTION of election fraud." This is as easily explained by the claim that the people in p
Re: (Score:2)
People keep arguing about the thousands of terrorists and whether they come in over the border or at airports. I don't believe the number in the first place.
Since 9-11 every event that could be dubbed 'terrorist' was either by a US citizen or a legal immigrant that predated 9-11. The whole 'terrorist flooding the country' narrative is a silly easily refuted myth. Zero humans have come to the US post 9-11 and committed a terrorist attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Virtually all terrorists in the USA are home-grown. Taking history into account, the number which have come in from outside amount to a rounding error. (And most of them come from Saudi Arabia, but we're spending our effort banning people from OTHER countries.) Absolutely none of this is about security, let alone terrorism.
Centralized Conferences cause carbon pollution (Score:3, Funny)
Given the state of global warming, wouldn't we all be better off if this "conference" was held virtually in cyberspace instead of wasting fossil fuels for everybody to travel?
Not just science conferences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pai pulling out is valid. Of the 800,000 people not getting paid (huge swaths of the government already got funded and are open normally), 420,000 are doing essential work. They are not allowed to do unessential work (e.g. speak) even if they want to do it for free. Like, Pai wouldn't get in trouble for doing it, but according to regulations he should. And someone lower on the totem pole would.
Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody uses science.
And science will happen regardless of US or its troubles.
But - where will it happen, who will use it and who will benefit from it?
This is like... (Score:2)
Doubt (Score:2)
In all the "look at all the shit that's not working because of Trump" stories, I have yet to read anyone express the slightest question about - should the Federal government really be running all this stuff?
I sincerely doubt anyone in government has the balls after this shutdown to say "Yeah, y'know, we can probably get along without that, that, and that. Nobody really missed them."
http://thefederalist.com/2014/... [thefederalist.com]
Re:Doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much every Republican commentator says "we can get along without this". But, it's not a matter of balls. It's just a stupid assertion. You never point to a specific single thing you think is a mistake. You say "the sky hasn't fallen yet, so none of it must have been important." But there's no evidence you actually know the state of things.
I mean, if your plane's engines fail (as a passenger), you're going to still have a good amount of time before you'll even notice the issue, let alone crash.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, sorry... The current cost is set at 5.6 Billion, my mistake.
Back in the 70's, 6 Million could buy you a Bionic Man.
Today, a wall costs you 6 Billion.
Wow, now that is inflation!
Could we maybe build a troop of 70's Bionic Men to patrol the border, instead of a wall . . . ?
That maybe would be a compromise that both parties could accept, and reopen the government again.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, all those American factories which manufactured leisure suits back in the 1970s have been shuttered for a few decades - and you can't have a bionic man without his leisure suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it will only cost you 5 Billion and the next national election..... Don't be fooled, this isn't about money... it's about votes.... For BOTH sides.
This is the type of thought which allows people like Trump to get elected. Once you convince yourself no politicians actually care about the electorate at any level, who cares who gets voted in?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump WAS the lesser evil. Until you get that, you will continue to be perplexed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump WAS the lesser evil. Until you get that, you will continue to be perplexed.
Until you understand that is nowhere close to being true, you will continue to be perplexed by nearly any complex topic.
That is not technically true. Plenty of smart people can still be affected by tribal mentality. Most of the time it is hard to know which tribe is being more ridiculous, but in this case the US literally elected someone who doesn't even know what the President does, other than it is a powerful position. He is a buffoon whose only skill is public relations (and the benefit of a complete lac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of sad indictments of our country. Trump beating Hilary isn't one of them.
He was the lesser evil because of his inexperience and lack of connections. So far, the last 2 years (besides the hyperbolic press) have been mundane status quo governance. The most contentious things are undoing bad actions from the previous administration.
He may be a buffoon but we have always known this and that was on the table during the election. A dumb buffoon is better than a smart well established crook that
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Trump] was the lesser evil because of his inexperience and lack of connections. So far, the last 2 years (besides the hyperbolic press) have been mundane status quo governance.
Wow. I mean, wow. [...reading it again...] Wow. [...shaking my head...]
He may be a buffoon but we have always known this and that was on the table during the election. A dumb buffoon is better than a smart well established crook that is in bed with the media.
Okay ... I doubt anyone can get you to change your mind about Hillary Clinton being a crook. Fine. But consider this: given a choice between voting for the knave and voting for the fool, you should vote for the knave. Why? Because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk. Hell, watch anyone in power like a hawk.
As you say, smart people can still be affected by tribal mentality. How tribal is it to have a policy of "anything against Trump". I mean, the whole Syria pull out is a prime example. Dems are now sounding like the warhawks.
I guess you have been reading selective accounts of current events. Even the Rs don't like the way DJT is pulling out of Syria. And several erstwhile cabinet-members who are generals didn't like it either.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk.
You missed part of my description. "In bed with the media". We already saw what happens when the media doesn't do it's job in accounting for a president with Obama. "Zero scandal president." Pfff. Trump is being watched like a Hawk and I doubt that Clinton would have even remotely been given a tenth of the same scrutiny. If "being watch liked a hawk" is your guard against bad leadership then Trump is better because the media will actually report on the crap he does. The problem is because they are so blinde
Re: (Score:3)
mundane status quo governance
In terms of actual legislation, you're right. Trump is a very weak president who can't get anything done because his whole MO is about dividing the country, and that has the effect of paralyzing congress. A stronger Republican president would certainly have killed the Affordable Care Act, for example.
However, legislation is not the issue here. The real threat that Trump poses, the thing that makes him such a disaster, is that he is destroying public trust in the institutions which protect us from people
Re: (Score:2)
Nicely stated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
his whole MO is about dividing the country,
No it's not. Just because there are such things as "Never Trumpers" doesn't mean his MO is to divide the country. When it gets to a point where it doesn't matter what he does it "divides" the country then it isn't Trump.
he real threat that Trump poses, the thing that makes him such a disaster, is that he is destroying public trust in the institutions which protect us from people like him.
Is that like campaigning to end the Electoral College because it didn't give the result you wanted and one of the first orders of business when you retake the House amidst a shutdown? Is that like stating you should "stack the court" to get the opinions you want? Is that like disparaging the
Lack of connections? (Score:3)
And so what if he's a dumb buffoon. Do you think he's running the show? His cabinet is full of the same Goldman Sachs guys who have been screwing you for 30 years.
Hilary would have been bad juju, sure, but she would have been the stable bad juju. She'd have been the conservative option (real conservative, e.g. opposed to change). And we could
Re: (Score:2)
I don't subscribe to the "Listen and Believe" model of journalism perpetuated by media and many on the left.
I think for myself. Scary I know especially for a NPC.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? I cannot see Clinton whining about and generally causing NATO headaches. And she was unlikely to be Putin's cockholster. I doubt she'd be stupid enough to start a trade war with China. And she wouldn't have been snookered by that whore Erdogan on Syria and sell out our allies, the Kurds, and then backtrack on the decision, and the lie about how he wasn't backtracking. She wouldn't have been stupid enough to think some idiot Great White Wall would solve immigration and drug trafficking, all in one shot...it's one amazing wall. She also wouldn't have declared war on the environment and science in general.
Yep, you got yourself one fucking genius there, just ask him. By the way, he just informed us that no one knows as much about drones as he does. Lookup Dunning-Kruger effect sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
You 'cannot see'...hence you are blind and apparently know it.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in CA, my vote was wasted in any case. So I voted Vermin Supreme.
Re: (Score:2)
It got us less evil. Not no evil, but that wasn't a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that only 2 choices exist, citizen. Make no effort to change anything. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re: (Score:3)
There were only 2 contenders. Sorry, but that's a fact.
Trump is the best chance we've had in decades of getting the Ds and Rs to dump the dirt they've got on each other. Then we get two new parties that might not be hopelessly corrupt.
I'm in a safe D state, I didn't vote for Trump.
Vermin Supreme 2020! Surely you noticed how incompetent the prominent 3rd party candidates were last cycle? The Greeny was a bad joke, the Libertarian couldn't speak. Hillary had people everywhere trying to engineer every a
Re: (Score:2)
I expect to be even more amused in 2020 than I was in 2016. That was the hardest I laughed in a long time.
So many things to look forward to...Ginsburg kicking, Trump's reelection, Hillary's imprisonment. Guess what they have in common?
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, it will only cost you 5 Billion and the next national election..... Don't be fooled, this isn't about money... it's about votes.... For BOTH sides.
This is the type of thought which allows people like Trump to get elected. Once you convince yourself no politicians actually care about the electorate at any level, who cares who gets voted in?
What caused Trump to get elected was lack of any other choices, and the high entertainment value.
I have nothing against having a woman as president. Just not a Clinton. or a Kennedy. or a Bush. We've had enough of that.
With very few exceptions, there aren't that many Congress Critters that should be re-elected.
Re: (Score:2)
the high entertainment value.
This cannot be understated. Politics has been almost like a comedy show than anything these last 2-3 years. Makes me want to vote for the guy in 2020 just to keep the entertainment alive.
My personal favorites:
Warren 1/2020th.
Women clawing at SCOTUS doors.
To Canadian PM: Didn't you guys burn down the WH?
CNN wrestling meme tweet.
People walking on a highway at night to protest election results. (Spoiler, someone got hit)
Re: (Score:2)
the high entertainment value.
This cannot be understated. Politics has been almost like a comedy show than anything these last 2-3 years. Makes me want to vote for the guy in 2020 just to keep the entertainment alive.
My personal favorites:
Warren 1/2020th.
Women clawing at SCOTUS doors.
To Canadian PM: Didn't you guys burn down the WH?
CNN wrestling meme tweet.
People walking on a highway at night to protest election results. (Spoiler, someone got hit)
I just hope (and I am by no means anything near an optimist) someone worth electing is actually nominated by a party for 2020.
I'm not holding my breath though.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote Pony Party!
Everybody gets a pony.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't possibly imagine why Trump supporters aren't infuriated at being asked to pay for a wall that he repeatedly promised he wasn't going to make the American taxpayers pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason democrats weren't infuriated when they couldn't keep their doctor or insurance plan?
When you have promises "improved health care" and "keep your doctor". If you get the former the later isn't as important.*
When you have a promises "border wall" and "Mexico pays for it". If you get the former the later isn't as important.
*Not making a quantitative judgment on the ACA but rather the perception of what it means to an average Democrat.
You can keep bringing up the fact that Mexico is indeed not going
Re: (Score:2)
That's the basic rationalization, anyway, as far as I can tell.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell Pelosi and Schumer to stop putting a damper on science in Seattle!
Or maybe Donald should keep his campaign promises. He said the Mexicans would pay for the wall, and now he wants my taxes to pay for it.
Nancy and Chuck should hold him to his word. Good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a better idea: don't hold the country hostage when the lawmakers don't want to make the laws you want them to make. They have a Constitutional duty to be a check on executive power, it's right there in the book. That's what they're doing. Both sides need to work on a budget bill to open the government, and then they can continue arguing about the wall. Holding the country hostage until the president gets what he wants is a really stupid precedent to start. I mean, for decades we've said we don
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought that was why they charged 50,000 a year and had a 10 billion dollar endowment...but it turns out that was just to pay for the Diversity Officers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are you on Slashdot, if you hate science this much?
Re:Maybe science needs to find a new funding metho (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are you on Slashdot, if you hate science this much?
"Hating" science is not the same thing as disagreeing with how it is funded. Something is wrong with our society when space science funding is suspended because of a political disagreement over "The Wall". It is hard to imagine two things that should be more unrelated.
That's not the half of it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why it's almost childishly simple. It's not a policy, it's a memory trick to keep him from going too far off script.
That's what I thought during the campaign: It was just a trick to get the votes of stupid people.
But now the whole point of the shutdown is a concerted attempt by the GOP to turn it into ACTUAL POLICY.
There is now a very good chance that the wall will be at least partially built ... and the Mexico won't be paying for it.
You're misunderstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, the president of the United States couldn't remember basic immigration talking points without a simple, 3 word chant ("Build the Wall!"). That's the scary part. It means even during the campaign Trump wasn't all there, his handlers knew it, and they knew how to hide it.
Now try to imagine the state he's in now after 2 years of pressure from the highest office in the world. Seen Oba
Re: (Score:3)
The stupid shit you say...
Re: (Score:3)
Something is wrong with our society when space science funding is suspended because of a political disagreement over "The Wall".
Something is wrong in your society in general when funding for operational services are suspended because of political disagreement for any new law or proposal. The science part is completely irrelevant. Other countries have laws that specifically state that you can't tack anything not related to operational budget to the operational budget bill.
Re:Maybe science needs to find a new funding metho (Score:5, Interesting)
And the answer is to decentralize the funding sources.
That is one solution.
Another is to create endowments for basic science, so funding is not buffeted by every political tantrum.
Yet another solution would be to ban peacetime deficit spending, so that the proposed wall would require an immediate tax increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another solution would be to ban peacetime deficit spending, so that the proposed wall would require an immediate tax increase.
Or the voters could cut budgets. Which do you think will gain more popular support funding 10 guys looking for exoplanets, or keeping 10,000 construction workers from losing theirs to illegals ?
Even the Democrats understand this as every major Democrat has taken the position that illegal immigration is wrong they just remarkably choose to do nothing after elections.
Re:Maybe science needs to find a new funding metho (Score:5, Insightful)
Which do you think will gain more popular support funding 10 guys looking for exoplanets, or keeping 10,000 construction workers from losing theirs to illegals ?
Can you expand on that? Because it looks a lot like a false equivalence. How is funding for "10 guys looking for exoplanets" mutually exclusive with "10,000 construction workers from losing their [planet? job? something]"? You're suggesting that if we spend our money on one of those, then we can't have the other one? Do the 10 guys have to be looking for exoplanets, or could they be doing anything that advances science? Do the 10,000 people need to be working in construction or could they be doing any manual-labor job? Or any job at all, maybe?
Moreover, why exactly are the guys losing their jobs to "illegals?" It's already illegal to hire people not allowed to be in the country, so why are their employers firing the US citizens and hiring undocumented workers to take their place? Shouldn't one of those ten thousand people report their employer?
Also, why are these even being compared? Those ten guys use government funding, sure, assuming that they're working for NASA, but why exactly are those ten thousand manual laborers being paid with public dollars? Don't they work for private companies? Are we subsidizing another industry now?
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, why exactly are the guys losing their jobs to "illegals?" It's already illegal to hire people not allowed to be in the country, so why are their employers firing the US citizens and hiring undocumented workers to take their place?
Because the Americans are lazy and do poor work in comparison. That's how it was when I worked at a place that hired illegals.
Re: (Score:3)
"Because the Americans are lazy and do poor work in comparison. That's how it was when I worked at a place that hired illegals."
Americans won't work hard for shit money. Illegals have been fucked so hard that our shit money looks like good money to them. So we get yet another race to the bottom as those willing to hire illegals outcompete those not willing to do so. We never would have got here in the first place without government enabling it, though. Deportation is used as a profit maximization tool. Just
Re: (Score:3)
My only brush with organized crime in USA was with M-13. They brutally murdered a son of my acquiescence.
THAT's the problem. Illegals are perfect community for these degenerates that liberal public loves so much. Muslims are subjected to "terrorism enhancement" all the time, while organized crime gets slap on the wrist despite the fact that they kill disproportionately larger amount of people as part of their gang activity, starting from killing absolutely innocent people that have no relation to any of the
Re: (Score:3)
I don't hate science. I love science. I hate government schills pretending to do science when in reality they're only writing grants to get taxpayer money and doing no real science at all.
William Proxmire is that you ? I heard you were dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Live in a constitutionally limited democracy?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist... (Score:3, Insightful)
to figure out that if your employer is $21 TRILLION dollars in DEBT, your job and its regular paychecks are hardly guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
to figure out that if your employer is $21 TRILLION dollars in DEBT, your job and its regular paychecks are hardly guaranteed.
The real cause of the resistance right there. What is Trump's famous catch phrase ? "YOU'RE FIRED"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't all legitimate travel expenses be paid by the employer? Isn't going to a X-science conference a legitimate travel expense for an X scientist? I don't see what is wrong with that. Here the employer happens to be the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Common Sense not a Good Guide (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Non-story: They can go anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The government may pay back bills when they get funded, but they most certainly will not reimburse even exempt employees for non-green lit expenses. And the employees who green-light are probably furloughed. 2) Odds are they're not even allowed to show up. I went to an event in the last shut down with heavy involvement by government employees. They weren't allowed to come into the offsite event while furloughed under threats of pretty bad punishments. Literally, they could go pretty much anywhere but their office or the event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:False Outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
Where was your outrage when Obama did the EXACT SAME THING over ObamaCare? Hypocritical clowns.
Considering that never happened, it's hard to see any hypocrisy here. Assuming you mean the 2013 shutdown, Obama was using the veto threat only to prevent new legislation to de-fund Obamacare from being passed. Congress was free to strip new legislation from the bills and get them passed. In this case both the House and Senate have shown willingness to pass bills without new wall related legislation (the 115th Senate was literally unanimous) to keep the government funded.
Both scenarios may have resulted in a shutdown, but no meaningful details are similar.
Trump and McConnell are the ONLY problem actors here. Trump for threatening veto and McConnell for refusing to bring a bill to vote. Any somewhat functional Senate would just override Trump's veto.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress is free to keep the border wall in the legislation.
The border wall was not in the last budget, so adding it is not the status quo. Shutting down the government because it won't fund your pet project is not the same thing as vetoing bills trying to affect previously passed legislation by de-funding it. This isn't rocket science here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Obamacare wasn't part of the status quo whats your point?
Obamacare had been passed over 3 years earlier, and was certainly the status quo. It was passed legislation.
Its basically President vs Congress each time thats all that matters.
That is a very shallow way of looking at it. If you think every time a President and Congress dispute each other the nuance of their disagreement doesn't matter, it is impossible for you to have an intelligent discussion about this.
vs How many voters voted for the Wall? (Score:2)
Dare say 60 million voted for Trump specifically to shutdown the Federal government if they refused to build a wall.
The needs of the many....
Re: (Score:2)
Except that 60 million is the few, are they not? Not even 20% of the population...
Re: (Score:3)
And more than those 60ish million people voted for a specific not-Trump. To say nothing of the 240ish million who, via not voting, supported the rough status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. You're technically correct (although you said "illegals" when you meant "immigrants"). Trump got the second most number of votes in the election and like 1/2 or 1/3 as many people wanted the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
and like 1/2 or 1/3 as many people wanted the status quo.
Impossible. The "status quo" was not an option. The same US Constitution which defines the method of electing the President (which is the process we follow here and which Trump won), also prohibited Obama (the "status quo") from being elected again.
I do agree that there are a huge number of ignorant people (like those who keep complaining about the fictional "popular vote" for President) but I doubt that the number of people you claim "voted" for the status quo by not voting at all really thought they wer
Re: (Score:2)
806,300. It's not in any one area of the US either: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:How many workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: How many workers? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
why does Trump need approval for funding for the wall in the first place if Mexico was going to pay for it?
1. Because even if Mexico DOES pay for it he needs congressional approval to spend the money through normal pathways.
2. Because congressional action is necessary to set up the laws (even trade-agreement implementing laws) that enforce Mexico paying for it.
60 votes needed (Score:2, Funny)
It's interesting how many people continue to pretend that the Republicans hold the Senate when it takes 60 votes to get a budget passed.
Democrats are holding up the process.
Republicans have been ready to go.
Mexico would have paid for the wall long ago if the Democrats hadn't blocked the efforts.
Re: 60 votes needed (Score:3)
Re:60 votes needed (Score:5, Informative)
The House just passed the same budget bill that the Senate passed 3 weeks ago. The Senate isn't reauthorizing it because Trump said he no longer likes it because Hannity told him he didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Mexico would have paid for the wall long ago if the Democrats hadn't blocked the efforts.
Haha, because the US Congress passes a law saying "Mexico is paying for this. Signed, Congress" and that's all there is, right? That's how it works?
Yeah, OK buddy. Hey, by reading this post you agree to transfer 100 bitcoins to an address of my choosing. I just wrote it up, even signed my name on the paper and everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans need their own Nancy Pelosi to keep everyone in line. Last time Dems had that much power, Pelosi ramrodded Obamacare through.
Pelosi is very skillful but in fairness, Democrat leadership was more unified about the need for healthcare than Republicans were for the wall. Paul Ryan just didn't care about the wall or what Trump wanted.
Re:How many workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's holding who ransom?
Did Democrats suddenly experience an outbreak of fiscal responsibility?
What do you mean sudden? Which party exploded the budget with $1.5T of tax cuts for the rich? Which party deregulated banks until it caused a collapse? Which party has continually made a total mess every time they have the majority?
I not a member of either party but even I can tell it's the Republican party that has unrealistic fiscal aspirations that have all but driven this nation into the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
In the second paragraph of your source it says "The Treasury Department reported this week that individual income tax collections for FY 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion. That's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017". Wow, up $14B out of $1.7T, around 0.8% growth in an economy with around 3.5% growth. Way up!
Reading the article further does supply some useful numbers:
Re:How many workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why you say "lately". Reagan, Gingrich and Bush Jr. weren't fiscally responsible either.
I will say that H.W. was the most fiscally responsible leader we've had in Washington in 100 years, even sacrificing his approval ratings (and second term) to put the budget in order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fun fact, 800,000 direct government employees. Far more than that in the private sector. For instance, cafeteria workers close to government offices have had their shifts just cancelled. And unlike government employees, they won't get backpay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interstate commerce clause, you can make anything and everything constitutional with it.
Re: (Score:3)
So while the government is shutdown they have to go 'full Junket'? No work, just party? Nice.