Gov Shutdown

[JohnStOnge]

But it's better than it was two years ago.

unemployment is still high, gas prices are higher than they've been in a couple years. We're barely better off than where we were at the end of Bush's term

Without looking it up my guess is that both gas prices and unemployment are higher than they were when Bush left office. That's not necessarily a fair way to compare things. But that's my guess.

[Wedgebuster]

Watch Michelle Bachmann on the tube. Uber conks, please...

Are you going to own up to this shit?? I'm a betting on a couple at least, and I'm not tellin'!







Teabaggers!

[griz37]

I'm just glad that the shutdown will not happen, now Glacier will remain open & the roads will continue to be plowed. Nice work dipshit politicians.

[BDKJMU]

If you really think that his approval ratings matter in comparison to other presidents during specific times of their presidency and that they pertain to the next election outcome you are full of more anal jelly than you let on

I'll defend KY on this point. Historical patterns often repeat themselves. Reagan and Clinton were both mired in some pretty nasty recessions (Clinton's not quite as nasty) and Obama obviously inherited the worst one since the Great Depression from Bush. The first two were reelected.

Repeat after me: It's the economy, stupid.

Obama has 18 months to make something happen. The economy has already started perking up. If that continues, he probably wins.

Wrong on Clinton. The recession of 90-91 officially lasted 8 months, from July of 90' to March of 91'. During the 92' fall election campaign the donks kept talking about how bad the economy under Bush's daddy was, "worst economy since blah, blah" but the recession had ended a yr and a half earlier. Clinton didn't enter office until Jan 93', 22 months after the recession had officially ended. He inherited an economy that was on the full upswing and doing quite well.

We're now 27 months into Obama's presidency. 27 months into Clinton's 1st term, April 95', the economy was entering the mid-late 90s dot com bubble, and doing FAR better than it is now.

[BDKJMU]

No, it's not. The economy is better than it was at the same point in Reagan's term. And the economic problems at the end of HW's term/beginning of Clinton's aren't in the same stratosphere as the recession of 2008-2009.

Unemployment was 10.3% in March 1983. Unemployment is 8.8% in March 2011.

Thats because there weren't any major economic problems at the end of HWs term/the beginning of Clinton's- see my previous post.

When you say 8.8% unemployment I'm assuming you are using the Dept of Labor #s. Gallup has it at 9.7%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallu ... force.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Dept of Labor's #s don't count the couple of million that have dropped out of the work force having given up looking for jobs.

[youngterrier]

Skelly full of anal jelly for as long as we can remember

[Skjellyfetti]

When you say 8.8% unemployment I'm assuming you are using the Dept of Labor #s. Gallup has it at 9.7%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallu ... force.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Dept of Labor's #s don't count the couple of million that have dropped out of the work force having given up looking for jobs.

How many people dropped out of the workforce having given up looking for jobs in March of 1983? I don't know that number. So, I can't compare March 1983 to March 2011 using the Gallup figure.

Even the Gallup figure from 2011 is less than the Labor Department figure from 1983 though. So the fact remains that unemployment is less now than it was at this point in Reagan's first term.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a newsflash for you, Myron: 90% of the BUDGET is a SOCIAL STATEMENT. It's almost impossible to cut funding to something without making it a "social" statement.

So, stick to your "teabaggers are evil" mantra....it only makes your incessant bleating look even more stupid (which, I know, seems impossible).

Big difference between your average social statement and PLANNED FUCKING PARENTHOOD, shitforbrains.

Nope. No difference whatsoever. One person's cause is another person's "I don't give a fuck".

[BDKJMU]

Congress reaches deal to avert shutdown
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -shutdown/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

What a buffoon...

The Federal fiscal year ends on September 30th of every year meaning that there needs to be a budget in place starting the next fiscal year on October 1st. The ONLY reason it wasn't tackled is because Obama's proposed budget was an exploding bomb of federal spending and the Donks were scared shitless to finalize a budget with that much spending so close to the election.

That alone is nothing short of pure cowardice.

Believe me, the Tea Partiers would have LOVED for the Donks to pass that budget because there is very little doubt the Conks would have easily controlled BOTH houses of Congress if it did.

Baldy, you're the biggest fucking crybaby conk hater here and anything Obama does is gonna be a disaster to you.

I know you are but what am I?

[kalm]

Reagan spent and hoped his way out of the recession.

[D1B]

Big difference between your average social statement and PLANNED FUCKING PARENTHOOD, shitforbrains.

Nope. No difference whatsoever. One person's cause is another person's "I don't give a fuck".

It's an abortion issue Z. Admit it.

[D1B]

Reagan spent and hoped his way out of the recession.

[AZGrizFan]

I'd love to see Bush Sr. approval ratings, or Bush Jr for that matter.

the economy as of now is worse than both.

No, it's not. The economy is better than it was at the same point in Reagan's term. And the economic problems at the end of HW's term/beginning of Clinton's aren't in the same stratosphere as the recession of 2008-2009.

Unemployment was 10.3% in March 1983. Unemployment is 8.8% in March 2011.

You keep hanging your hat on the 8.8%. You conveniently forget the 10+% who've stopped looking altogether.

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. No difference whatsoever. One person's cause is another person's "I don't give a fuck".

It's an abortion issue Z. Admit it.

Oh, I fully agree it's an abortion issue, but you zealots need to understand that THIS particular issue isn't any more important than any OTHER social issue....funding planned parenthood isn't the issue...cutting ALL discretionary spending (like PP) is the only way we're going to save the country.

[Chizzang]

Oh, I fully agree it's an abortion issue, but you zealots need to understand that THIS particular issue isn't any more important than any OTHER social issue....funding planned parenthood isn't the issue...cutting ALL discretionary spending (like PP) is the only way we're going to save the country.

There is truth in that statement...
I'm not sure Zealots is the right word there but other than that I kind of agree
It would be nice to whack the military industrial complex down about 33% but fat chance of that

[93henfan]

It would be nice to whack the military industrial complex down about 33% but fat chance of that

Keep your pretty little mouth shut sweetheart. The MIC drives the economy.

I mean, how much money do you think changed hands getting this graphic done at 12:01 am yesterday?

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, I fully agree it's an abortion issue, but you zealots need to understand that THIS particular issue isn't any more important than any OTHER social issue....funding planned parenthood isn't the issue...cutting ALL discretionary spending (like PP) is the only way we're going to save the country.

There is truth in that statement...
I'm not sure Zealots is the right word there but other than that I kind of agree
It would be nice to whack the military industrial complex down about 33% but fat chance of that

More and more people (defense hawks, like me) are beginning to agree with that statement, clitorus.

[93henfan]

There is truth in that statement...
I'm not sure Zealots is the right word there but other than that I kind of agree
It would be nice to whack the military industrial complex down about 33% but fat chance of that

More and more people (defense hawks, like me) are beginning to agree with that statement, clitorus.

No doubt. As I've said before, I'm all for drastically reducing DoD as soon as I've started at my next job outside DoD.

[Grizalltheway]

More and more people (defense hawks, like me) are beginning to agree with that statement, clitorus.

No doubt. As I've said before, I'm all for drastically reducing DoD as soon as I've started at my next job outside DoD.

Therein lies the rub. Far too many (powerful) people stand to lose out big time in the event of drastic defense cuts.

[AZGrizFan]

More and more people (defense hawks, like me) are beginning to agree with that statement, clitorus.

No doubt. As I've said before, I'm all for drastically reducing DoD as soon as I've started at my next job outside DoD.

Get busy, Hen.

[Col Hogan]

Oh, I fully agree it's an abortion issue, but you zealots need to understand that THIS particular issue isn't any more important than any OTHER social issue....funding planned parenthood isn't the issue...cutting ALL discretionary spending (like PP) is the only way we're going to save the country.

There is truth in that statement...
I'm not sure Zealots is the right word there but other than that I kind of agree
It would be nice to whack the military industrial complex down about 33% but fat chance of that

Here's the problem with wacking down the M-I-C as it is currently constructed... (I'm in favor of it as you are, but fear it for the following reasons)

A number of years ago, there were 5 - 7 major military aircraft manufacturers...we're down to really two...

There were a dozen or so ship-building companies...we're down to two...

Only one company really has the ability to make tanks...only a two companies are still in the heavy military-truck business...

I could go on, but the simple fact is, with higher-complex systems (technology and all that)...its not easy to start up a company when the time comes for a need...

Lead time is now years on systems...not months as in WWII...and a small start-up could not get the capital needed to build a prototype to compete with the few big guys...

Now, those big-guys threaten to get out of the business if the government doesn't purchase more...and more...and so, when these cuts that are coming hit...you know what gets cut...

Not modernization...but maintenance...procurement of beans and bullets, not new ships and planes...

I know the Air Force best...we could get by for a few more years on some of our fighters if we were given the money to fix aging issues...but that money is being diverted to purchase new planes...meaning the stuff we need right now is literally falling apart...at the same time we're flying it more...

Yea...DoD needs to be cut...I'm just afraid the stuff that will end up being cut will make us a hollow force for the next 10 years or so...

[CID1990]

I have heard rumors that I'll be losing some pay and/or benefits. (I hope it's dental first, I have yet to figure out what my dental plan pays for)

Dude, our dental plans are worthless. Best to just pay out of pocket.

You are correct, Sir.

I have had two procedures done here in Saigon, one was a crown on a molar that disintegrated around an old filling. I paid out of pocket for both procedures (cost me about 60% what they would have in the US) and did not even bother with trying to navigate the process with my insurance. They did not even pay for a checkup for my daughter in Maryland last year (because she isn't 4 yet or something).

[CID1990]

There is truth in that statement...
I'm not sure Zealots is the right word there but other than that I kind of agree
It would be nice to whack the military industrial complex down about 33% but fat chance of that

Here's the problem with wacking down the M-I-C as it is currently constructed... (I'm in favor of it as you are, but fear it for the following reasons)

A number of years ago, there were 5 - 7 major military aircraft manufacturers...we're down to really two...

There were a dozen or so ship-building companies...we're down to two...

Only one company really has the ability to make tanks...only a two companies are still in the heavy military-truck business...

I could go on, but the simple fact is, with higher-complex systems (technology and all that)...its not easy to start up a company when the time comes for a need...

Lead time is now years on systems...not months as in WWII...and a small start-up could not get the capital needed to build a prototype to compete with the few big guys...

Now, those big-guys threaten to get out of the business if the government doesn't purchase more...and more...and so, when these cuts that are coming hit...you know what gets cut...

Not modernization...but maintenance...procurement of beans and bullets, not new ships and planes...

I know the Air Force best...we could get by for a few more years on some of our fighters if we were given the money to fix aging issues...but that money is being diverted to purchase new planes...meaning the stuff we need right now is literally falling apart...at the same time we're flying it more...

Yea...DoD needs to be cut...I'm just afraid the stuff that will end up being cut will make us a hollow force for the next 10 years or so...

Spot on correct.

Look back to who started producing M1 rifles as well as military aircraft during WWII when the need was there.

Martin Typewriter comes to mind when it came to making M1 carbines.

You don't even WANT to know who was making TBF Avengers by war's end.

Yes, there was profit to be made, but at the end of the day we needed 100% of American industry producing warfighting equipment in order to get the job done. The technology was fairly simple, in a slide-rule kind of way.

No way Siemens, Johnson & Johnson or Microsoft would be able to suddenly re-tool and build F-22s and M1 Abrams if the Chinese decide they need Lebensraum (which they will, one day).

[YoUDeeMan]

Yes, there was profit to be made, but at the end of the day we needed 100% of American industry producing warfighting equipment in order to get the job done. The technology was fairly simple, in a slide-rule kind of way.

No way Siemens, Johnson & Johnson or Microsoft would be able to suddenly re-tool and build F-22s and M1 Abrams if the Chinese decide they need Lebensraum (which they will, one day).

First of all, if the Chinese need more room, they'll be looking towards Russia first.

Secondly, if we need to build something, and some companies are holding our feet to the fire, then fvck them...a quick nationalization would do the trick.