#110 Oct 1, 2013
Infectious disease surveillance: The CDC will be unable to track outbreaks and monitor infectious diseases at a local level.
People on food assistance: The USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) will stop making payments on October 1.
Food inspections: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration warned of "inability to investigate alleged violations" due to a lack of funding; food imports will also go unexpected.
Automobile recall inspectors: "Routine defects and recall information from manufacturers and consumers would not be reviewed," according to the Department of Transportation.
Food and drug safety research: The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, will furlough 52 percent of its staff.
ARPA-E: The Department of Energy's cutting-edge research arm—and one of the crowning legacies of the stimulus—will shut down, putting projects such as "squirtable batteries" on hold.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: The agency could furlough more than 92 percent of its employees next week, with much of the remaining staff handling inspections.
People without heat: If the shutdown persists, it could affect the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which funds heating assistance programs.
Consumers: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission will furlough 652 of its 680 employees and maintain only a "bare minimum level of oversight and surveillance" to stop fraudulent practices.
People trying to pay taxes: The Internal Revenue Service will shutter its tax hotline, and stop processing tax payments.
College students: Cutbacks at the Department of Education could slow Pell grant and student-loan payments.
Economists: The Bureau of Economic Analysis will cut back on its data collection.
Welfare recipients: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—welfare—runs out of funding on October 1, although individual states may pick up the tab.
Head Start: The child development program, already hammered by the effects of sequestration, will stop doling out new grants on October 1.
Air monitoring: A 94 percent reduction in staff won't leave the EPA much room to enforce its new carbon regulations.
Golf: Courses at National Park Service sites will close for the shutdown. So at least we have that going for us.
#111 Oct 1, 2013
Wow Dude, you have such a short memory...
Civics Class schooled you on the type of government we have way back on Post # 61...he wrote back then that our government is a Republic, and the link I provided CLEARLY confirms that and further explains the difference between a Republic and a Democracy...it really is too bad you have major comprehension issues, but we're done trying to explain it to you and we will move on. The link provides no such choice as a Republic with or without a Democracy, but I'm sure in your warped world it does.
The only "rabbit hole" as you call it is in your own mind.
Civic Class...thanks for the info and you can dismiss class now.
The ills of ObamaCare will show up very quickly, and then we will talk again...you are obviously ignoring what people have been saying about employers reducing hours and other methods they've been using to get around this ridiculous mandate, so I don't hold out much hope to teach you anything, but we'll see.
#112 Oct 1, 2013
Talk about "the sky is falling", the news is basically saying that the government shutdown as you are so aptly crying about is a government slimdown.
Thank You Republicans for reminding us that the nation can function and the whole world doesn't stop just because Obama and the Democrats don't want to play nice!!
Government doesn't create economic output you moron, BUSINESSES DO!!
#113 Oct 1, 2013
Oh I see, only Faux Snews counts?
"It should be noted that every democracy is a republic, but not every republic is a democracy. Some countries are republics, but are not considered democracies. Examples include Nazi Germany, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. While not "democratic" countries from a "Western" point of view, they are or were technically republics, since they had no monarchs and even had elections. However, it's also a matter of perception- for example, North Korea calls itself a "democratic people's republic" and tries to brainwash its people into believing that, but from an outside point of view, it is arguably the most undemocratic country in the world."
Right there for you.
YOU think we're the Nazi kind, the China kind, the North Korea kind cause, the difference is, "representative Democracy", WE get to ELECT representatives, so just great, thanks for playing.
You don't like to have to say it, that's the only reason you CAN'T ADMIT IT!
#114 Oct 1, 2013
Oh really, "the news" is saying that!??!!? You're such a tool, Faux Snews is the only one saying that, well, Faux Snews and Michelle Bachmann!!!!!
"In mid-August, the Heritage Foundation hoped to convince congressional Republicans that a deliberate government shutdown would be a political winner for the already unpopular party. The far-right activist group didn't want to call it a shutdown; it preferred the phrase "a temporary slowdown in non-essential federal government operations."
Yes, in Republican politics in 2013, even a government shutdown is subject to rebranding.
Rep. Michele Bachmann told TPM over the weekend, "There is no such thing as a shutdown. It's only a slowdown." Fox News had a similar pitch this morning, posting this image to its homepage:
Matt calls it, shut down denialism!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaa and your a denier 100%!!!
It's an interesting messaging tactic. Here's a good list over at Mother Jones of all the different classes of people who'll be impacted by the elimination of non-"essential" government services. It includes everyone from people who need permits for oil and gas exploration to people who might worry about the absence of CDC infection disease monitoring. Thanks to the shutdown it'll be harder to get a small business loan and harder to get many classes of mortgages. Poor people are going to lose safety net benefits and FBI agents will work without pay.
But don't worry, America, it's really just "a temporary slowdown in non-essential federal government operations," being imposed on the nation because Republicans lost an election. It may hurt the economy and hundreds of thousands of people, punishing the country for no particular reason and with no real policy goals in mind, but just think of it as a "slimdown."
Republicons think they can simply call things other words and re-brand them into something else!!!
It's a Government Shutdown, caused by Republicons, as I said, you're only fooling yourselves!!!!
Check that list of what is "shutting down" above!!! Is that slimming? No, not at all slimming, their closing.
Faux Snews LIES Factless, it sends you into defending the indefensible. When are you going to learn, Faux Snews LIES!!!!!
#115 Oct 1, 2013
#116 Oct 1, 2013
Before I even click on this site what is ' slate.com '? By the way, after reading your posts I can tell you are popular with the ladies. I know a nice girl who is currently single. She's into angry little guys who are into politics and possibly starred in The Lord of The Rings movie as Bobo Baggins. I think I should give you her number.
#117 Oct 1, 2013
Yup yup yup...just Fox News.
All essential personnel will continue to go to work and the government isn't shutting down...so the people that planned to go see the Statue of Liberty have to reschedule...big deal.
Social Security will still send checks, the post office will still deliver junk mail...all the normal sorts of things...wow, thats too bad.
If the President and Democrats ever decided to actually work with Republicans in the house instead of CONSTANTLY focusing on keeping Republicans in a bad light, they might actually get something done.
Here's a question for you smartass...
Name one thing that The Senate has done since Obama has been in office to reach across the isle and work with their counterparts in The House...just one.
#119 Oct 1, 2013
it's right in front of you, this CR, it's spending levels are at Sequestration, that's a give!!
So, there's your answer, one for you
Why didn't Republicans in the House go to Committee with the budget six months ago like they are supposed to do?
Here they are, making believe they offered that, except, they offer it under duress of extortion at midnight last night!
"'As a last-minute stunt, House Republicans, who've spent the last six months refusing to enter budget negotiations with Democrats, announced late last night that they're ready for budget negotiations with Democrats. Early this morning, GOP leaders selected the eight members they'd like to send to these negotiations, known as a "conference committee."
True to form, Republicans chose eight middle-aged, far-right white guys, most of whom are from the south. They then put the eight GOP lawmakers in a conference room across from empty chairs, and tweeted the picture in the hopes of making it appear that they, unlike those rascally Democrats, are "ready to negotiate."
And if there's one thing Republicans are good at, it's debating empty chairs, right Clint Eastwood?
In case anyone is tempted to find this silly little picture/gambit compelling, let's note a few relevant details Republicans desperately hope you don't know.
1. Democrats pleaded with Republicans to enter budget talks for six months, but Republicans refused, fearing such talks might lead to a compromise. For GOP officials to throw out the idea last night with literally less than an hour to go before the shutdown deadline was cheap and childish, even by Republican standards.
2. GOP leaders now say they're ready to "compromise," but only if they take away health care benefits, and only if Republicans don't have to accept any concessions. I've come to believe GOP lawmakers are genuinely, sincerely confused about what the word "compromise" actually means. I'm tempted to take up a collection and buy them all dictionaries.
3. Democrats have said they're prepared to participate in the conference committee anyway if Republicans would only end the government shutdown.
So if the eight middle-aged, far-right white guys want to stop losing a debate to empty chairs and start governing, they should move past these little stunts and turn the government's lights on."
Stunts, Hissy fits, grandstanding, Hostage taking, extorion and shutting the Government down! THAT'S how today's Republicons THINK we're supposed to work.
#120 Oct 1, 2013
Cat take your mouse? Still waiting for an answer about Democrats reaching out to Republicans to work together...what about it smart guy?
#121 Oct 1, 2013
History will not be kind
In the years since Boehner has been the Speaker, NO MAJOR BILL has ever been passed through the House, Not one piece of legislation has passed the house.
#122 Oct 1, 2013
The president’s nomination of conservative Republican Chuck Hagel to his cabinet is just another example in a long line of Obama’s attempts to reach across the aisle and work with a recalcitrant Republican minority. Here are a few other gems, as we highlight some of Obama’s most bipartisan gestures of his first term and the Republican response.
Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense
In January, 2009: Obama is inaugurated and immediately seeks out Republican lawmakers willing to work with his new agenda. He makes it a point to maintain Robert Gates (previously appointed by Republican President George W. Bush) as his Secretary of Defense. Some Republicans on the Hill even whisper that Obama was working with them more than Bush ever did.
Republican response in January, 2009: Rush Limbaugh welcomes the president with a hearty “I hope he fails."
Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates
In May, 2009: Obama begins the first of several sessions meeting with pro-choice advocates and their detractors in order to help design legislation that protects both the lives of women and the unborn.
Republican response in September, 2009: South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at the president during Obama’s speech to Congress wherein he intended to reach out to Republicans and voice his concerns with our failing healthcare system and his plans to fix it. To make matters worse, fact checkers have disproved Wilson’s claim, saying that the healthcare proposal explicitly does not provide for illegal immigrants.
Obama listens to Republicans on health care
In January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
Republican response in October, 2010: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the most important objective of the Republican Party is to make Obama a one-term president, not fixing our budget/debt issues, our broken healthcare, education or immigration systems, and certainly not protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal
In December, 2010: Obama compromises on his previously-stated goal of not prolonging the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy by agreeing to a budget deal. By doing so, Obama provides for the continuation of unemployment benefits to the needy, establishes a payroll tax holiday, renews the inheritance tax, and ensures that the government continues paying its debts.
Republican response by Spring of 2012: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, delaying their being placed on the bench by greater than four times more than Democrats ever did to Bush judicial nominees.
Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"
On January 1st, 2013: Obama once-again compromises on a “fiscal cliff” deal by raising the threshold of the income level for whom taxes would rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families and pushing back sequestration of funds allocated to the military. His deal-making resulted in the Federal government receiving even less revenues than Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had previously offered to allow.
There's 6, now, tell me ONE where Republicans compromised??????
#123 Oct 1, 2013
Now that the U.S.A is vulnerable with a non-functioning government, this is the time for Canada's Armed Forces to jump in and take over the U.S. misadministration and set it right.
Of course most of the taxes will be redirected to Ottawa, and French will be obligatory in all schools.
Vive le Canada!
#124 Oct 1, 2013
You were given the CR, which is already at compromise levels, idiot brickhead much?
"When it comes to understanding the negotiating postures of the congressional caucuses, the playing field isn't exactly level. On the one side we see Republican lawmakers who insist on undermining the Affordable Care Act -- somehow, some way, for some reason -- just for the sake of doing so.
For GOP leaders, recent developments are simply outrageous -- why won't Democrats ignore the election results, the public good, and their own principles, and simply give the party that lost the elections what they want? What's so unreasonable about that?
On the other side, we see Democratic lawmakers who ... aren't making any demands at all.
For more information on what Democrats have already compromised on in this process. The short answer is, "Everything."
Dems passed the Affordable Care Act a few years ago, which itself was a compromise -- Dems traded away many progressive goals and priorities, embracing a Republican-friendly health care plan in order to get the legislation done. Since then, lawmakers in both parties have approved all kinds of spending bills that included funding for the health care law.
Over the last several weeks, however, with a shutdown deadline looming, it was time for the parties to lay out their demands. Republicans demanded fewer health care benefits for Americans. Democrats could have demanded anything -- an end to the damaging sequestration policy, elimination of the debt ceiling, a vote on immigration reform, universal background checks -- but instead started in the center. Congressional Dems were even willing to accept painfully low spending levels, as evidenced by this chart Michael Linden and Harry Stein published yesterday, just to ensure the government didn't shut down.
Democrats, in other words, acted like grown-ups, putting aside their own policy agenda -- an agenda the public endorsed in the recent national elections -- in the interest of avoiding a crisis. Republicans could have taken this as a win and moved on, but they wouldn't take "yes" for an answer.
As Greg Sargent explained yesterday, "Only one party is demanding major concessions from the other in exchange for keeping the government open at sequester spending levels -- levels leaders of that same party have already declared is a victory for them --while the other party is demanding exactly nothing in exchange for doing that."
Dan Balz added, "Amid all the maneuvering and hand-wringing ahead of the government shutdown, one thing remained clear: House Republicans are continuing to grapple unsuccessfully with what it means to be a governing party."
"The Senate-passed measure to keep the government operating represents an enormous compromise by progressives to avoid a damaging government shutdown. The Democrat-controlled Senate agreed to temporary funding levels that are far closer to the Republican-controlled House budget plan than they are to the Senate’s own budget for fiscal year 2014. Moreover, this concession is only the latest of many such compromises over the past several years.
The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a continuing resolution, or CR—a temporary funding measure meant to keep the government operating—that would set the relevant funding levels at an annualized total of $986 billion. That’s about $70 billion less than what the Senate endorsed as part of its comprehensive budget plan back in April. But that actually understates the extent of the compromise.
When President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, his budget proposed $1.203 trillion in discretionary spending for FY 2014. The Senate CR is about $216 billion, or nearly 18 percent, lower than that. Actual enacted funding levels for FY 2010, when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, totaled $1.185 trillion in 2014 dollars. The Senate CR is about $200 billion below that, a cut of nearly 17 percent.
#125 Oct 1, 2013
After the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives and offered a budget plan that proposed dramatic spending reductions. That plan, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), envisioned FY 2014 funding levels at $1.095 trillion. Note that the funding in the current Senate-passed CR is about 10 percent less than the levels in the original Ryan budget.
Finally, in August 2011, after a prolonged standoff over the debt limit, President Obama and Congress agreed to cut even more spending than the original Ryan budget demanded. The original spending caps in the 2011 debt limit deal limited funding to $1.066 trillion in FY 2014. The Senate CR accepts a cut of an additional $80 billion, or nearly 8 percent, from that compromise level.
Progressives have repeatedly made significant concessions in order to protect the economy from a series of manufactured crises. Today’s manufactured crisis is no different. The Senate-passed legislation to keep the government open sets funding levels that are even lower than previous compromises. If the Tea Party shuts the government down anyway, it will not be because progressives were inflexible. Just ask House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)—the compromise incorporated in the Senate CR was originally his idea.
#126 Oct 1, 2013
Me thinks you have enough problems of your own!
Besides, Canada couldn't take over an elementary school!
#127 Oct 1, 2013
You were just given 7, agree with them or not.
How about just ONE where Republicans reached accross the isle and compromised?
We'll be waiting, for ever I'm sure!
#128 Oct 1, 2013
I'm just wondering how much it's going to cost me when they lock you up in a crazy people hospital.
#129 Oct 1, 2013
You gave me a bunch of nonsense that pretends to claim that he worked with Republicans...not even going to try to discuss such BS.
#130 Oct 1, 2013
If Obama wanted to work with Republicans, he wouldn't be blaming them each time something happens...that is always the very first thing out of his mouth...the Republicans did it.
Add your comments below
|Tempers flare as Shirley police officer fired (Nov '16)||3 hr||Darn Tootin||14|
|Fitchburgs corruption being exposed (Feb '16)||Tue||This Just In||451|
|Lynch Surfaces From The Sewage Pond||Tue||Whiskey Tango Fox...||1|
|All Fitchburg & Leominster Residents||Tue||Ha ha ha||27|
|Snow removal on Sidewalks||Tue||Gary||4|
|Shareholders meeting Turtleboy Sports||Jul 24||Jack Maguire||37|
|Show your support for Social Justice (Jan '17)||Jul 24||Jack Mcguire||16|
Find what you want!
Search Leominster Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC