You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 12:10:34 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: government shut down  (Read 12995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #400 on: October 16, 2013, 01:21:21 PM »
I understand everyone's frustrations here, but the stock market has surged again today, so the insiders probably know something we don't.

I'm quite confident a deal will be reached, but Fitch's has already downgraded USA's credit rating

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: government shut down
« Reply #401 on: October 16, 2013, 01:29:09 PM »
I think he means 'hysteric' rather than 'historic'.

I doubt they really put aside their differences but in fact it was just their wife and kids who told them to stop playing stupid games and get to work because they couldn't go to school anymore without being bullied.

At least in my mind that's how it is.

You know not every Republican is an asshat you know. Mitch Mc.Connel strikes me as a moderate nan, among the GOP types.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: government shut down
« Reply #402 on: October 16, 2013, 01:30:25 PM »
I understand everyone's frustrations here, but the stock market has surged again today, so the insiders probably know something we don't.

I'm quite confident a deal will be reached, but Fitch's has already downgraded USA's credit rating

You know.more than I do in finance but I can't see how anyone can make lasting gains out of this foolishness but clearly someone must.

Online Dashenka

Re: government shut down
« Reply #403 on: October 16, 2013, 02:00:09 PM »
Fitch has downrated the US from AAA to AA+ a while back right? I think a handful of European counrties (mostly the north and central), Australia, Canada and Singapore are the only ones who still have AAA I think.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: government shut down
« Reply #404 on: October 16, 2013, 02:03:59 PM »
Fitch has downrated the US from AAA to AA+ a while back right? I think a handful of European counrties (mostly the north and central), Australia, Canada and Singapore are the only ones who still have AAA I think.

The U.S. is at AAA (for the moment).

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: government shut down
« Reply #405 on: October 16, 2013, 02:07:03 PM »
It was S&P that downgraded it last time.  Fitch is having a review.  Not heard anything about Moody's

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #406 on: October 16, 2013, 02:27:52 PM »
Yeah, my mistake, I meant that Fitch had placed the US on "downgrade watch."

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/fitch-signals-it-could-downgrade-u-s-credit-rating-8C11399906
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 02:30:19 PM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Bloodied Porcelain

  • E's Masked Lady ~ Swamp Witch ~ Sisterkitten ~ Little Red ~ Crowley ~ Baby Girl ~ Muse Crack ~ Code Monkey ~ LLS ~ Favorite ~ Good Girl ~ Pointe Shoes & Combat Boots
  • Dame
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Catching 'em all.
  • Gender: Female
  • Captain Of Team Fuck Up Your Sheets
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: government shut down
« Reply #407 on: October 16, 2013, 02:50:05 PM »
And now for a Rant, cause BP has about had it.



Quote from: Boehner
We fought the good fight, we just didn't win.

Excuse me, Sir, but in what world was this a "good fight"? In what world was this a fight at all?? This wasn't a fight. This was a selfish, self-centered temper tantrum that cost people money, jobs, and security in both. This was a debacle the likes of which did nothing more than hurt your party and hundreds of thousands of government and military employees, while you and others in Congress continued to collect a paycheck (kudos to the few that donated their checks or refused to collect them, but it doesn't change the damage you did). How can you (or anyone else who let it get this bad) look at yourself in a mirror? Sure it's all fine and dandy that you're talking about cooperating now, after people have been out of work for weeks, after the Stockmarket has been acting like it's under the influence of someone with multiple personality disorder and a deep seated love of causing people mild heart attacks.

You, Mr. Speaker, have a responsibility and a duty that goes beyond pushing your party's agenda. You have a duty beyond administrative and procedural functions. You have a responsibility to the people of this nation. This is your greatest responsibility and you have failed us miserably. It is my sincerest hope that after this debacle, the American people will WAKE UP, and that you and the Tea Party members you bowed to, will never serve again.



/endrant
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 02:55:58 PM by Bloodied Porcelain »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #408 on: October 16, 2013, 03:05:54 PM »
Okay, looks like they put a deal together that's likely to pass at five minutes to midnight, and with the GOP "blinking first". Unless Michelle Bachmann filibusters it or something...

Next time this particular tv show is rolling though, we'd like to see a way of handling politics that doesn't rely on duelling threats, countdowns, calling from out of one another's smoke-filled and burning houses across the yard at the O.K. Corral, or emerging holding a woman in front of you with a gun to her head and kicking a list of demands tied under a stone over to the other bunch. A bit less of the Wild West hormone in elite politics and more of, erm, sometimes boring, efficient and safer committee work - and real bipartisanship, please?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 03:07:05 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: government shut down
« Reply #409 on: October 16, 2013, 03:10:53 PM »
Okay, looks like they put a deal together that's likely to pass at five minutes to midnight, and with the GOP "blinking first". Unless Michelle Bachmann filibusters it or something...

Next time this particular tv show is rolling though, we'd like to see a way of handling politics that doesn't rely on duelling threats, countdowns, calling from out of one another's smoke-filled and burning houses across the yard at the O.K. Corral, or emerging holding a woman in front of you with a gun to her head and kicking a list of demands tied under a stone over to the other bunch. A bit less of the Wild West hormone in elite politics and more of, erm, sometimes boring, efficient and safer committee work - and real bipartisanship, please?

You'd have to roll back 2 DECADES of GOP leadership policy to get bipartisanship back in the Capital. The Hastert rule will have to go, the GOP will have to return to a seniority rule on who gets what positions rather than the current 'spoils' system.

Short of a LONG list of GOP 'leaders' stroking out before the new year I don't see it happening. A LOT of established and entrenched idiocy at work here, and not JUST the elected GOP leadership here. You got folks like the brain trust behind the 'Cato Institute' and other things.

Offline dragonsen

Re: government shut down
« Reply #410 on: October 16, 2013, 03:30:55 PM »
Can somebody explain to me in plain simple English what it means if nothing happens before tomorrow and the US reaches that debt limit?

I know it means the US cannot loan any more money but what does that mean for the American citizens?

Let me explain this from my point of view. I live in a town in Idaho, a smaller town. I can't find numbers but I know that at least 1/4 of the people here rely on some form of government aid to get through the day. I am one of them. My family receives about $500 a month for food. Our children are on Medicaid. Others around here get housing assistance to pay their rent. That assistance ranges from $50 to $1,000 a month depending on various circumstances. All of these programs have enough money to get through October. November is another story.  I work. I'm a self-employed accountant. I just barely managed to negotiate with my clients for higher pay and I still can't get all of my bills paid. Losing food stamps for my family means defaulting on a different bill, most likely a credit card bill. For one of my friends who relies on housing assistance AND food stamps, this would mean that their family of 6 (2 parents and 4 kids under the age of 8) would be kicked out of their apartment with no food while the father tries to get to work each day.

In this town of roughly 50,000 people, assuming my estimate of 1/4 using government assistance is correct, (Personally, I feel that ratio is conservative and might closer to 1/2) that means that 12,500 people rely on government subsidies for food and/or rent. Breaking that number into families of 2 adults and 2.3 children, that means there is about 2907 families who get around $300-$1000 a month for food alone. That is $872,100 to $2,907,000 a month in grocery purchases in our podunk town. I don't know of any business that can afford any loss like that. Granted, they shop at various stores but that is still a significant portion of the local economy. That is how I see the shutdown affecting people.

I know there are a lot of assumptions in my math. I wish I could get the actual numbers to back me up. I have erred on the conservative side as stated earlier. I do know that roughly 1 in 4 renters in this town rely on government housing assistance. I also know that if you qualify for housing then you automatically qualify for food assistance. If you qualify for food assistance then your children at least qualify for Medicaid. There are also many more people in my situation who are renting their house from a bank instead of a landlord who do not qualify for housing but do qualify for food assistance.

I did some more digging and found data to back up my claims. This comes from 2012. Idaho had a reported population of 1,595,728 with 233,034 on Food Stamps alone. The data referenced includes other assistance programs but since my argument was only about Food Stamps, I'm concentrating on that one for now. This means that 14.6% of the population of Idaho is on Food Stamps. The town I live in has a disproportionate population due to rural location and proximity to a Native American Reservation so I still stand by my 25% or higher estimate for my town only. According to that report cited, the average monthly amount is $129.18 per PERSON, not family. This means that $30,103,332.12 was given in food stamps alone for one month. Using the same ratios as the data, my town of 50,000 has an estimated 7,300 people on food stamps spending $943,014 a month. That number is within my estimates previously mentioned.

To put it simply, just over 250,000 in Idaho alone, over 47,000,000 in the entire US, will not be able to pay for food using government programs in November. Grocery stores, notable for having one of the lowest profit margins in the services sector, cannot afford to lose that sort of money. In the end, it's a big house of cards and Congress is bumping the table in their petty squabble.

Online Dashenka

Re: government shut down
« Reply #411 on: October 16, 2013, 03:37:46 PM »
Let me explain this from my point of view. I live in a town in Idaho, a smaller town. I can't find numbers but I know that at least 1/4 of the people here rely on some form of government aid to get through the day. I am one of them. My family receives about $500 a month for food. Our children are on Medicaid. Others around here get housing assistance to pay their rent. That assistance ranges from $50 to $1,000 a month depending on various circumstances. All of these programs have enough money to get through October. November is another story.  I work. I'm a self-employed accountant. I just barely managed to negotiate with my clients for higher pay and I still can't get all of my bills paid. Losing food stamps for my family means defaulting on a different bill, most likely a credit card bill. For one of my friends who relies on housing assistance AND food stamps, this would mean that their family of 6 (2 parents and 4 kids under the age of 8) would be kicked out of their apartment with no food while the father tries to get to work each day.

In this town of roughly 50,000 people, assuming my estimate of 1/4 using government assistance is correct, (Personally, I feel that ratio is conservative and might closer to 1/2) that means that 12,500 people rely on government subsidies for food and/or rent. Breaking that number into families of 2 adults and 2.3 children, that means there is about 2907 families who get around $300-$1000 a month for food alone. That is $872,100 to $2,907,000 a month in grocery purchases in our podunk town. I don't know of any business that can afford any loss like that. Granted, they shop at various stores but that is still a significant portion of the local economy. That is how I see the shutdown affecting people.

I know there are a lot of assumptions in my math. I wish I could get the actual numbers to back me up. I have erred on the conservative side as stated earlier. I do know that roughly 1 in 4 renters in this town rely on government housing assistance. I also know that if you qualify for housing then you automatically qualify for food assistance. If you qualify for food assistance then your children at least qualify for Medicaid. There are also many more people in my situation who are renting their house from a bank instead of a landlord who do not qualify for housing but do qualify for food assistance.

I did some more digging and found data to back up my claims. This comes from 2012. Idaho had a reported population of 1,595,728 with 233,034 on Food Stamps alone. The data referenced includes other assistance programs but since my argument was only about Food Stamps, I'm concentrating on that one for now. This means that 14.6% of the population of Idaho is on Food Stamps. The town I live in has a disproportionate population due to rural location and proximity to a Native American Reservation so I still stand by my 25% or higher estimate for my town only. According to that report cited, the average monthly amount is $129.18 per PERSON, not family. This means that $30,103,332.12 was given in food stamps alone for one month. Using the same ratios as the data, my town of 50,000 has an estimated 7,300 people on food stamps spending $943,014 a month. That number is within my estimates previously mentioned.

To put it simply, just over 250,000 in Idaho alone, over 47,000,000 in the entire US, will not be able to pay for food using government programs in November. Grocery stores, notable for having one of the lowest profit margins in the services sector, cannot afford to lose that sort of money. In the end, it's a big house of cards and Congress is bumping the table in their petty squabble.

That looks pretty serious. On the other hand...

Without wanting to sound mean but nearly $950 on food a month??? That's seems a bit excessive to me.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: government shut down
« Reply #412 on: October 16, 2013, 03:42:08 PM »
That looks pretty serious. On the other hand...

Without wanting to sound mean but nearly $950 on food a month??? That's seems a bit excessive to me.

That would be for a family of 5, if I'm reading dragonsen's post correctly.  That comes to roughly $200 per individual per month.

Offline dragonsen

Re: government shut down
« Reply #413 on: October 16, 2013, 03:43:21 PM »
You'd have to roll back 2 DECADES of GOP leadership policy to get bipartisanship back in the Capital. The Hastert rule will have to go, the GOP will have to return to a seniority rule on who gets what positions rather than the current 'spoils' system.

Short of a LONG list of GOP 'leaders' stroking out before the new year I don't see it happening. A LOT of established and entrenched idiocy at work here, and not JUST the elected GOP leadership here. You got folks like the brain trust behind the 'Cato Institute' and other things.

Quote
In our American form of government, the responsibility to find solutions to the problems of our citizens rests chiefly upon the Congress. As a member of the Senate for twenty-four years, I learned that nearly every issue that comes to Congress for solution represents a conflict of interest between groups or forces within our society or our economy, or between other elements of the government itself—conflicts which those involved have been either unable or unwilling to resolve themselves. When they come to Congress, these problems are made complicated because of the Congress’s own set of internal conflicts, created because each member must represent not only his state or district, but also the nation as a whole, and his own personal philosophy of government and moral standards. Nor are the bills considered ever limited to single, simple right-versus-wrong issues to which you can give a simple yes-or-no answer. In fact, in nearly every case when a Congressman tries to serve his constituents by standing firmly on an “all-or-nothing” basis, he gets nothing.

So compromise is an important element in lawmaking, the search for a combination of ideas that will not only provide the highest level of satisfaction for each and all of the groups whose interests are in conflict, but also, of necessity, attract the support of the needed majority to get the bill passed. But this is not all. There is still another dimension to the problem of which most people are unaware. This might be called “involuntary compromise.” Most bills are made up of many separate and often unrelated sections. This is particularly true of tax and appropriation bills, the parts of which sometimes run into hundreds. Inevitably every Congressman and Senator must support some and oppose others, but when the vote for final passage comes, he has to vote either yes or no on the whole package.

Having explained why I believe that legislation is impossible without compromise, I can now explain why this is not essentially evil. Must a legislator sacrifice his moral standards when he votes for a compromise? Never, unless he makes his personal decision for dishonorable reasons such as personal gain or paid-for political support. The most effective legislator is one who always keeps himself free to use his best judgment in doing all he can to see that every bill on which he works contains the best possible and fairest possible balance between the interests of the various entities that will be affected by it.

Is compromise good or evil? As with many processes, the answer to that will depend upon the reasons for a compromise—and the mode of its use.

This quote is from Wallace Bennett, former Utah Senator. He said this in June 1976. I think it goes along with what we have been discussing. As far as the argument that ACA is already law, laws can change. Ask Rosa Parks. Ask Norma McCorvey (the Roe in Roe vs. Wade). Are the Republicans who caused this traitors? That depends on where you stand in the first place. Every man that signed the Declaration of Independence was a traitor to their government at that time. I applaud the Republicans for their courage to stand up and fight. I DO NOT agree with why they were fighting but I do not refuse them the right to do so, even though it would have cost me considerably. Were they representing their constituents? Some yes and some no. We'll see next election if anyone even remembers this SNAFU.

Offline dragonsen

Re: government shut down
« Reply #414 on: October 16, 2013, 03:47:09 PM »
That looks pretty serious. On the other hand...

Without wanting to sound mean but nearly $950 on food a month??? That's seems a bit excessive to me.

Honestly, it is a bit excessive but my family was getting almost $800 a month at one time for our family of five. My wife buys very frugally and we can get by on about $300/month for food but that means very little surplus for things like microwave dinners or snack foods or soda/pop/drinks/whatever the hell you call them. :P At the same time, I know of a family of three getting the same amount of food stamps ($700/month) and they ran out of money by mid month every single month. They were always at our place begging for money to get milk or bread so their child could eat.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #415 on: October 16, 2013, 03:53:38 PM »
You'd have to roll back 2 DECADES of GOP leadership policy to get bipartisanship back in the Capital. The Hastert rule will have to go, the GOP will have to return to a seniority rule on who gets what positions rather than the current 'spoils' system.

Short of a LONG list of GOP 'leaders' stroking out before the new year I don't see it happening. A LOT of established and entrenched idiocy at work here, and not JUST the elected GOP leadership here. You got folks like the brain trust behind the 'Cato Institute' and other things.

*looks up "Hastert rule"*.

So if the current deal, once it got to the house, had relied 90% on the Democrats there, and getting it through would have depended on their (and the Senate) getting the support of a small number of GOP house members to win a majority*, then the normal thing for Boehner to do, the standard procedure, would have been to refuse to allow a vote, because the bill was definitely not being supported by a majority of his party in the House, the majority party? Yikes.


*because the GOP and the Tea Party would really not want to be seen as giving in, in the House
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 03:55:39 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #416 on: October 16, 2013, 03:54:24 PM »
I think dragonsen's post goes back to my earlier post, regarding the potential long-term risks of having a significant percentage of the American population's sustenance dependent on the federal government.  I certainly realize that government aid is necessary for many people to simply stay afloat in this recession, and that unemployment is a chronic issue - however, I think all of us can agree that an "ideal future" is one where government and politics can promote the free-market economy, which attempts to provide incentives for businesses to increase full-time positions, which enables people regain their financial independence, and slowly wean the need for government programs. 

Given the volatility of American politics, and the real threat of federal default now clearly evident to us with this recent set of events, it makes me concerned that an increasing number of people will be using government programs in the future - and the potential ramifications this could have.  From the research I have done, both the Democrats and Republicans essentially have policies that ultimately yield more people on government programs.  The Republicans might claim they are against welfare programs, but their hyper pro-corporate business policies tend to favor outsourcing, leading to many blue collar workers turning to the government.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 03:56:38 PM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: government shut down
« Reply #417 on: October 16, 2013, 04:01:00 PM »
This quote is from Wallace Bennett, former Utah Senator. He said this in June 1976. I think it goes along with what we have been discussing. As far as the argument that ACA is already law, laws can change. Ask Rosa Parks. Ask Norma McCorvey (the Roe in Roe vs. Wade). Are the Republicans who caused this traitors? That depends on where you stand in the first place. Every man that signed the Declaration of Independence was a traitor to their government at that time. I applaud the Republicans for their courage to stand up and fight. I DO NOT agree with why they were fighting but I do not refuse them the right to do so, even though it would have cost me considerably. Were they representing their constituents? Some yes and some no. We'll see next election if anyone even remembers this SNAFU.

I doubt it.. Citizens United ensures that there will be PLENTY of money to run nasty mudslinging adds that makes this ALL the fault of everyone but the persons to blame. .

I don't think that the GOP reps are traitors. I do think they are playing to the music set to them by corporate and special interest money.  I would say that denying your constituents their government support in the various manners that the shut down has done. If I hadn't spent 200 bucks I really couldn't afford for an expedited passport I'd be out of it. (Moot point since the DoD shutdown means the three jobs I need it for won't see their contracts till January at the current rate).

I am currently unemployed, thanks to being in a 'right to work' state, and have been blacklisted for commenting on my 'firing' to the man doing it. (Turned out all the 'Tech 3s' hired for less than a year were 'let go' for one reason or another to put in 'tech 1s' who got paid about 1/2 of what I did and could do only 60% of what I could.). Right now there are FIVE contracts I'm up for hiring for. ALL are in abatement till the 'Slimdown' (as fox puts it) ends. So yeah, I'm very angry and bitter after 3 years of no real helpful work.

*looks up "Hastert rule"*.

So if the current deal, once it got to the house, had relied 90% on the Democrats there, and getting it through would have depended on their (and the Senate) getting the support of a small number of GOP house members to win a majority*, then the normal thing for Boehner to do, the standard procedure, would have been to refuse to allow a vote, because the bill was definitely not being supported by a majority of his party in the House, the majority party? Yikes.


*because the GOP and the Tea Party would really not want to be seen as giving in, in the House

Actually no.. the way I read it.. ANY solution going through the House reguires either House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (or his chosen rep) to okay it. So, I am curious to see if the Senate Bill actually gets to hit the floor. If they do deny the Senate resolution via that clause.. its' going to KILL any claim that they aren't the problem though.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: government shut down
« Reply #418 on: October 16, 2013, 04:08:43 PM »
Actually no.. the way I read it.. ANY solution going through the House reguires either House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (or his chosen rep) to okay it. So, I am curious to see if the Senate Bill actually gets to hit the floor. If they do deny the Senate resolution via that clause.. its' going to KILL any claim that they aren't the problem though.

I don't think the Hastert rule is the same as that nasty bit of procedural entanglement in that video.  From what I've read, it's more of an 'unspoken rule' along the lines of not wearing white after Labor Day (or is it Memorial Day?  Or is that when it's okay to wear white again? *wears black instead*).

Ahem.

In short, it's not something codified, just something that them good ol' boys in the Grand Old Party decided to do as a show of solidarity.  And if you go against it, there's gonna be a 'conversation' behind the wood-shack.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #419 on: October 16, 2013, 04:09:39 PM »
Actually no.. the way I read it.. ANY solution going through the House reguires either House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (or his chosen rep) to okay it. So, I am curious to see if the Senate Bill actually gets to hit the floor. If they do deny the Senate resolution via that clause.. its' going to KILL any claim that they aren't the problem though.


*imagines Cantor and Boehner doing the traditional "shoot your way out with a lady held in front" act*

"Hands up, MF's! You first, sheriff Pelosi! It's my way or the highway, or the woman is sure to be dead!"

(To be fair to Boehner though, he hasn't stuck very rigidly to the rule in situations where it could have been applicable, according to Wikipedia - and of course, as Oniya said, wéll it's an uncodified agreement)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 04:17:02 PM by gaggedLouise »

Online Dashenka

Re: government shut down
« Reply #420 on: October 16, 2013, 04:13:01 PM »
That would be for a family of 5, if I'm reading dragonsen's post correctly.  That comes to roughly $200 per individual per month.

Honestly, it is a bit excessive but my family was getting almost $800 a month at one time for our family of five. My wife buys very frugally and we can get by on about $300/month for food but that means very little surplus for things like microwave dinners or snack foods or soda/pop/drinks/whatever the hell you call them. :P At the same time, I know of a family of three getting the same amount of food stamps ($700/month) and they ran out of money by mid month every single month. They were always at our place begging for money to get milk or bread so their child could eat.

Even for a family of 5, $950 a month just on food sounds like a lot, especially if dragonsen can do it for 300 by being frugal. So let's say you spend a bit more on some snacks and drinks, you get to 400, 450 dollars a month. What kind of food do you buy if you don't have enough for 940 dollars.

Now I'm not judging people on what they buy or telling what to buy but there is a difference between not getting enough and thinking you're not getting enough.

Maybe a stupid idea from my side but I know that in the Netherlands there are special 'money coaches' who train people how to spend their money. I know this because a friend of mine who lives there is on benefits. He's got a good head on his shoulders so he knows how to make ends meet food wise but I thought it was a good idea that once you get the benefits (or assistance) you automatically get the option to see a coach to help you with your money issues.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: government shut down
« Reply #421 on: October 16, 2013, 04:17:56 PM »
Even for a family of 5, $950 a month just on food sounds like a lot, especially if dragonsen can do it for 300 by being frugal. So let's say you spend a bit more on some snacks and drinks, you get to 400, 450 dollars a month. What kind of food do you buy if you don't have enough for 940 dollars.

Now I'm not judging people on what they buy or telling what to buy but there is a difference between not getting enough and thinking you're not getting enough.

Maybe a stupid idea from my side but I know that in the Netherlands there are special 'money coaches' who train people how to spend their money. I know this because a friend of mine who lives there is on benefits. He's got a good head on his shoulders so he knows how to make ends meet food wise but I thought it was a good idea that once you get the benefits (or assistance) you automatically get the option to see a coach to help you with your money issues.

You also have to account for family needs. Does the family have diet restriction, for religion or dietary needs, or how much does the food cost. I've seen milk vary by as much as 2-3 dollars a gallon in a town. Small groceries offer less choice, bigger bills and tend to be closer to small income locations whereas the 'big stores' can be out of range of a family who relies on buses, bikes, foot traffic.

I can save almst 10% by going on base since I don't pay sales tax for the same goods and the Exchange system has as big a foot print as the grocery store down the road.

And most states, particularly red states, it's 'heres your money.. get out. We did the minimum, we don't need to teach/train/offer suggestions so we dont.'
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 04:19:59 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #422 on: October 16, 2013, 04:28:12 PM »
Most people would feel it was very humiliating and encroaching to be *made* (effectively forced, because once the policy was in place, and you would not have been asked, it would be a requirement if you wanted to continue to receive any money from let's say welfare or social security) to walk around a local food store with a social assistant telling them in full view of neighbours, friends and strangers: "You should buy this kind, don't you know, you had better buy this... and no choco, no tobacco, bad, bad - seen this? This is the good budget brand! You can save two bucks a week on this one, Miss...- NO! You can't have that one. Miss" etc etc. And in a kindly patronizing voice.

I would have strangled somebody who tried to force me to submit to such a condition just because I was short on money, out of work and had kids to feed.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 04:30:25 PM by gaggedLouise »

Online Dashenka

Re: government shut down
« Reply #423 on: October 16, 2013, 04:34:10 PM »
It's not walking around the shop with the coach but the coach is making you aware that sometimes, there are cheaper alternatives. I understand that in red states this is a bit of a 'privacy' issue but would it help some people? I think it would.

I don't mean to offend anybody but when there are such big differences that some families can manage for 400 dollars and other families the same size cannot with double the money, there is a problem somewhere. Dietary reasons are legit but if those items are too expensive for small incomes to afford, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. Religious reasons not to eat certain things? I'm sorry but if your God wants you to eat and drink stuff you cannot afford, you need to get yourself a new religion.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: government shut down
« Reply #424 on: October 16, 2013, 04:46:12 PM »
It's not walking around the shop with the coach but the coach is making you aware that sometimes, there are cheaper alternatives. I understand that in red states this is a bit of a 'privacy' issue but would it help some people? I think it would.

I think having one's reliance on welfare taken out into full public view would be a privacy issue almost anywhere, except in a disaster-struck area. If there's one thing people who are on welfare are anxious to cover from full view of the outside world, it's the fact that they are on welfare, or on the dole, or whatever. The client/parent being made to use food stamps that restrict you to certain approved shops and which expose you to everybody's eyes at the check-out line, because you're not paying with ordinary money or with a card (tried recently in Asutralia, and might get ptried in some places in the UK) is a very invasive method.

Okay, being babywalked around the store isn't quite what they tried in the Netherlands. I do think this kind of measure, as part of a local municipal welfare scheme these days, always tends to slide from the "kindly offered to teach you suggestions" to a requirement enforced on anyone who is applying for money to get them through the next month.