Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

[rightwinger]

Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not.

Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.

Has anybody figured out yet, if some services are "non-essential", why do we restart funding them at all after the shutdown is over?

Non-essential means they are not necessary for safety and national security. Think Doctors and FBI
Doesn't mean their job is non-essential....only that nobody will die if they are sent home

 

[ScienceRocks]

Republicans may win but the people lose...
-Poor people are hurt
-People wanting to see the national parks are hurt
-Science is hurt

Fuck just about everything....Being a anarchist is the most stupid fucking thing on earth.

 

[kiwiman127]

No need to worry folks. It's all good.

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be. Admittedly, past government shutdowns — or threats of shutdowns — have worked against conservatives. With Trump, however, it would likely be a different story....

even a partial shutdown plays precisely into the Trump agenda and his campaign promises of draining the swamp. Trump’s base, as well as “swing voters” who are fed up with out of control spending, would, of course, be cheered by such a move. Moreover, such a shutdown plays into Trump’s hands by giving him every excuse to slash funding to “sanctuary cities,” to bloated university programs, to global warming science grants, and on and on. Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not. Deep State bureaucrats who so depend on the federal government for their very existence would be the ones most hurt. In short, Trump can not only make even a partial shutdown look like the Democrats’ fault but shield many of the (normally) loudest voices from the pain.

More important, every minute the bloated government is shut down reinforces the perception of Trump as a businessman who cuts the fat, extracts more efficiency, and makes the U.S. government more like a business. Unlike the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown battle, the control over what sectors of the government get their money is in the hands of a Republican president, not a Democrat who held up funds on the most visible and sympathetic programs. Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.​

How do you figure all of this?
This whole thing is all about Trumps special wall and the funding for the wall.
59% of Americans are against the wall and 63% of Americans, don't want to pay for the wall.
Poll: Americans oppose Trump’s wall, easing regulations
So, it's a huge win for Trump, who forcing a shutdown all because of a unpopular wall that people don't want in the first place?
Yeah,,you betcha!

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Original shut down in 2013 is what woke me up to just how bad the republican party was for this country...I stopped defending it and slowly became a democrat.


The party has one goal. To make the rich richer and to fuck everything else.

 

[oreo]

No need to worry folks. It's all good.

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be. Admittedly, past government shutdowns — or threats of shutdowns — have worked against conservatives. With Trump, however, it would likely be a different story....

even a partial shutdown plays precisely into the Trump agenda and his campaign promises of draining the swamp. Trump’s base, as well as “swing voters” who are fed up with out of control spending, would, of course, be cheered by such a move. Moreover, such a shutdown plays into Trump’s hands by giving him every excuse to slash funding to “sanctuary cities,” to bloated university programs, to global warming science grants, and on and on. Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not. Deep State bureaucrats who so depend on the federal government for their very existence would be the ones most hurt. In short, Trump can not only make even a partial shutdown look like the Democrats’ fault but shield many of the (normally) loudest voices from the pain.

More important, every minute the bloated government is shut down reinforces the perception of Trump as a businessman who cuts the fat, extracts more efficiency, and makes the U.S. government more like a business. Unlike the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown battle, the control over what sectors of the government get their money is in the hands of a Republican president, not a Democrat who held up funds on the most visible and sympathetic programs. Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.​

Trump can't shut the government down, he's not in charge of the purse strings. Only congress can do that.

Trump attempting to shut down the government only makes the entire Republican party look inept, and let's face it, he's already made enough Republican enemies on the hill, and Democrats certainly aren't going to show any love for him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree?

Yes and no.

• Yes, at the most simplistic level of analysis, overextending oneself is never a good or responsible thing for anyone to do; however borrowing, in and of itself, does not constitute doing so.
• No because it is quite possible for individuals, businesses and other entities like governments to responsibly use credit to obtain money, thus the things they want or need to buy using that money. It's in nobody's interest not to maximize the return they can obtain from their assorted resources. Part of doing that involves using existing resources as a lever for obtaining additional ones. (Thus the financial industry's bastardization of the word "leverage.")
  
  I've purchased several things -- appreciating assets in each instance -- for which I didn't have the cash to buy without using credit to do so. I'm sure many people have. Some of those people's uses of credit are/were responsible, and others were not.
  
  It comes down to the borrower's ability to pay and the subjective and objective analysis of borrowing situation. Congress, the Executive Branch, well run businesses, banks, and others have units dedicated specifically to performing that analysis.
• Allegorically speaking, there are hugely material differences between an individual's borrowings and those of a government. If you're of a mind to go down that path, you'd do well to know what you need to address if you aim to do so both cogently and coherently. Don't go down that road with me and not, from a variety of angles, know inside-out what you're talking about. (Given the alluded to ideas, I suspect you are vaguely familiar with notions advocated by the Chicago School of thought.)
  • Private Debt vs. Government Debt
    
  • How Can Governments Borrow so Much?
    
  • Government Debt
  • Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt
    
  • Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?
    
  • THE IMPACT OF HIGH AND GROWING GOVERNMENT DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EURO AREA
    
  • Perspectives on Recent Trends in Consumer Debt
    
  • Financial Crises: Explanations, Types, and Implications

I await your essay that connects cogently the thread topic "Trump winning by dint of the government shutting down" with the ideas you've introduced. We've gone about as far off-topic as I think it fair to do, unless you are the thread OP, in which case, fine, you can allow "whatever" to go on in your own thread.

 

[jc456]

No need to worry folks. It's all good.

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be. Admittedly, past government shutdowns — or threats of shutdowns — have worked against conservatives. With Trump, however, it would likely be a different story....

even a partial shutdown plays precisely into the Trump agenda and his campaign promises of draining the swamp. Trump’s base, as well as “swing voters” who are fed up with out of control spending, would, of course, be cheered by such a move. Moreover, such a shutdown plays into Trump’s hands by giving him every excuse to slash funding to “sanctuary cities,” to bloated university programs, to global warming science grants, and on and on. Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not. Deep State bureaucrats who so depend on the federal government for their very existence would be the ones most hurt. In short, Trump can not only make even a partial shutdown look like the Democrats’ fault but shield many of the (normally) loudest voices from the pain.

More important, every minute the bloated government is shut down reinforces the perception of Trump as a businessman who cuts the fat, extracts more efficiency, and makes the U.S. government more like a business. Unlike the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown battle, the control over what sectors of the government get their money is in the hands of a Republican president, not a Democrat who held up funds on the most visible and sympathetic programs. Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.​

Trump can't shut the government down, he's not in charge of the purse strings. Only congress can do that.

Trump attempting to shut down the government only makes the entire Republican party look inept, and let's face it, he's already made enough Republican enemies on the hill, and Democrats certainly aren't going to show any love for him.

so goof ball, if trump can't shut down the government, then how can Trump shut down the government? did you read your own fking stupid post?

 

[usmbguest5318]

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct?

The losers are described in the content you'll find at the link in my initial post. Had you clicked on it, you wouldn't have to ask me who the losers are.

no, I stated the american populace is the real loser when the government spends more than they receive. And I asked you if you feel they ought to spend within the money they receive or not? Why didn't you just answer my question?

Why didn't you just answer my question?

I directly answered that question. Did you not read the bullet points that began "yes" and "no?"

 

[jc456]

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct?

The losers are described in the content you'll find at the link in my initial post. Had you clicked on it, you wouldn't have to ask me who the losers are.

no, I stated the american populace is the real loser when the government spends more than they receive. And I asked you if you feel they ought to spend within the money they receive or not? Why didn't you just answer my question?

Why didn't you just answer my question?

I directly answered that question. Did you not read the bullet points that began "yes" and "no?"

I just deleted it after I saw the second post. my apologies.

 

[jc456]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree?

Yes and no.

• Yes, at the most simplistic level of analysis, overextending oneself is never a good or responsible thing for anyone to do; however borrowing, in and of itself, does not constitute doing so.
• No because it is quite possible for individuals, businesses and other entities like governments to responsibly use credit to obtain money, thus the things they want or need to buy using that money. It's in nobody's interest not to maximize the return they can obtain from their assorted resources. Part of doing that involves using existing resources as a lever for obtaining additional ones. (Thus the financial industry's bastardization of the word "leverage.")
  
  I've purchased several things -- appreciating assets in each instance -- for which I didn't have the cash to buy without using credit to do so. I'm sure many people have. Some of those people's uses of credit are/were responsible, and others were not.
  
  It comes down to the borrower's ability to pay and the subjective and objective analysis of borrowing situation. Congress, the Executive Branch, well run businesses, banks, and others have units dedicated specifically to performing that analysis.
• Allegorically speaking, there are hugely material differences between an individual's borrowings and those of a government. If you're of a mind to go down that path, you'd do well to know what you need to address if you aim to do so both cogently and coherently. Don't go down that road with me and not, from a variety of angles, know inside-out what you're talking about. (Given the alluded to ideas, I suspect you are vaguely familiar with notions advocated by the Chicago School of thought.)
  • Private Debt vs. Government Debt
    
  • How Can Governments Borrow so Much?
    
  • Government Debt
  • Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt
    
  • Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?
    
  • THE IMPACT OF HIGH AND GROWING GOVERNMENT DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EURO AREA
    
  • Perspectives on Recent Trends in Consumer Debt
    
  • Financial Crises: Explanations, Types, and Implications

I await your essay that connects cogently the thread topic "Trump winning by dint of the government shutting down" with the ideas you've introduced. We've gone about as far off-topic as I think it fair to do, unless you are the thread OP, in which case, fine, you can allow "whatever" to go on in your own thread.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

And I do understand the difference between government debt and my own. Not sure what you wish to make out of this. And in that I say let it shut down. Nothing will happen. Money is still coming in. They need money they can make it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct?

The losers are described in the content you'll find at the link in my initial post. Had you clicked on it, you wouldn't have to ask me who the losers are.

no, I stated the american populace is the real loser when the government spends more than they receive. And I asked you if you feel they ought to spend within the money they receive or not? Why didn't you just answer my question?

Why didn't you just answer my question?

I directly answered that question. Did you not read the bullet points that began "yes" and "no?"

I just deleted it after I saw the second post. my apologies.

Okay. Accepted.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree?

Yes and no.

• Yes, at the most simplistic level of analysis, overextending oneself is never a good or responsible thing for anyone to do; however borrowing, in and of itself, does not constitute doing so.
• No because it is quite possible for individuals, businesses and other entities like governments to responsibly use credit to obtain money, thus the things they want or need to buy using that money. It's in nobody's interest not to maximize the return they can obtain from their assorted resources. Part of doing that involves using existing resources as a lever for obtaining additional ones. (Thus the financial industry's bastardization of the word "leverage.")
  
  I've purchased several things -- appreciating assets in each instance -- for which I didn't have the cash to buy without using credit to do so. I'm sure many people have. Some of those people's uses of credit are/were responsible, and others were not.
  
  It comes down to the borrower's ability to pay and the subjective and objective analysis of borrowing situation. Congress, the Executive Branch, well run businesses, banks, and others have units dedicated specifically to performing that analysis.
• Allegorically speaking, there are hugely material differences between an individual's borrowings and those of a government. If you're of a mind to go down that path, you'd do well to know what you need to address if you aim to do so both cogently and coherently. Don't go down that road with me and not, from a variety of angles, know inside-out what you're talking about. (Given the alluded to ideas, I suspect you are vaguely familiar with notions advocated by the Chicago School of thought.)
  • Private Debt vs. Government Debt
    
  • How Can Governments Borrow so Much?
    
  • Government Debt
  • Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt
    
  • Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?
    
  • THE IMPACT OF HIGH AND GROWING GOVERNMENT DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EURO AREA
    
  • Perspectives on Recent Trends in Consumer Debt
    
  • Financial Crises: Explanations, Types, and Implications

I await your essay that connects cogently the thread topic "Trump winning by dint of the government shutting down" with the ideas you've introduced. We've gone about as far off-topic as I think it fair to do, unless you are the thread OP, in which case, fine, you can allow "whatever" to go on in your own thread.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

And I do understand the difference between government debt and my own. Not sure what you wish to make out of this. And in that I say let it shut down. Nothing will happen. Money is still coming in. They need money they can make it.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Not sure what you wish to make out of this.

I don't wish to make anything out it. In my third major bullet point, I wrote what I did and shared the corresponding linked content to give you a small advance understanding of the nature of some of the economic and financial ideas against which I'd consider a line of discussion that you might present and that went down the road of correlating government debt with personal debt and, then, based on such correlation asserting truisms fitting for individuals and businesses, but not so much so for governments.

I did so because, were you to have done so as one might have inferred you would given the thread topic and your question, you won't be the first person who's pursued such an angle. In short, taking that tack successfully will require innovative economic and financial thought that is completely original. Such high quality thought does not belong here, but rather in a dissertation, journal article, or widely circulated book that makes one both rich and famous.

 

[jc456]

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree?

Yes and no.

• Yes, at the most simplistic level of analysis, overextending oneself is never a good or responsible thing for anyone to do; however borrowing, in and of itself, does not constitute doing so.
• No because it is quite possible for individuals, businesses and other entities like governments to responsibly use credit to obtain money, thus the things they want or need to buy using that money. It's in nobody's interest not to maximize the return they can obtain from their assorted resources. Part of doing that involves using existing resources as a lever for obtaining additional ones. (Thus the financial industry's bastardization of the word "leverage.")
  
  I've purchased several things -- appreciating assets in each instance -- for which I didn't have the cash to buy without using credit to do so. I'm sure many people have. Some of those people's uses of credit are/were responsible, and others were not.
  
  It comes down to the borrower's ability to pay and the subjective and objective analysis of borrowing situation. Congress, the Executive Branch, well run businesses, banks, and others have units dedicated specifically to performing that analysis.
• Allegorically speaking, there are hugely material differences between an individual's borrowings and those of a government. If you're of a mind to go down that path, you'd do well to know what you need to address if you aim to do so both cogently and coherently. Don't go down that road with me and not, from a variety of angles, know inside-out what you're talking about. (Given the alluded to ideas, I suspect you are vaguely familiar with notions advocated by the Chicago School of thought.)
  • Private Debt vs. Government Debt
    
  • How Can Governments Borrow so Much?
    
  • Government Debt
  • Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt
    
  • Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?
    
  • THE IMPACT OF HIGH AND GROWING GOVERNMENT DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EURO AREA
    
  • Perspectives on Recent Trends in Consumer Debt
    
  • Financial Crises: Explanations, Types, and Implications

I await your essay that connects cogently the thread topic "Trump winning by dint of the government shutting down" with the ideas you've introduced. We've gone about as far off-topic as I think it fair to do, unless you are the thread OP, in which case, fine, you can allow "whatever" to go on in your own thread.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

And I do understand the difference between government debt and my own. Not sure what you wish to make out of this. And in that I say let it shut down. Nothing will happen. Money is still coming in. They need money they can make it.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Not sure what you wish to make out of this.

I don't wish to make anything out it. In my third major bullet point, I wrote what I did and shared the corresponding linked content to give you a small advance understanding of the nature of some of the economic and financial ideas against which I'd consider a line of discussion that you might present and that went down the road of correlating government debt with personal debt and, then, based on such correlation asserting truisms fitting for individuals and businesses, but not so much so for governments.

I did so because, were you to have done so as one might have inferred you would given the thread topic and your question, you won't be the first person who's pursued such an angle. In short, taking that tack successfully will require innovative economic and financial thought that is completely original. Such high quality thought does not belong here, but rather in a dissertation, journal article, or widely circulated book that makes one both rich and famous.

Do you think the congress should let the government shutdown then?

 

[usmbguest5318]

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree?

Yes and no.

• Yes, at the most simplistic level of analysis, overextending oneself is never a good or responsible thing for anyone to do; however borrowing, in and of itself, does not constitute doing so.
• No because it is quite possible for individuals, businesses and other entities like governments to responsibly use credit to obtain money, thus the things they want or need to buy using that money. It's in nobody's interest not to maximize the return they can obtain from their assorted resources. Part of doing that involves using existing resources as a lever for obtaining additional ones. (Thus the financial industry's bastardization of the word "leverage.")
  
  I've purchased several things -- appreciating assets in each instance -- for which I didn't have the cash to buy without using credit to do so. I'm sure many people have. Some of those people's uses of credit are/were responsible, and others were not.
  
  It comes down to the borrower's ability to pay and the subjective and objective analysis of borrowing situation. Congress, the Executive Branch, well run businesses, banks, and others have units dedicated specifically to performing that analysis.
• Allegorically speaking, there are hugely material differences between an individual's borrowings and those of a government. If you're of a mind to go down that path, you'd do well to know what you need to address if you aim to do so both cogently and coherently. Don't go down that road with me and not, from a variety of angles, know inside-out what you're talking about. (Given the alluded to ideas, I suspect you are vaguely familiar with notions advocated by the Chicago School of thought.)
  • Private Debt vs. Government Debt
    
  • How Can Governments Borrow so Much?
    
  • Government Debt
  • Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt
    
  • Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?
    
  • THE IMPACT OF HIGH AND GROWING GOVERNMENT DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EURO AREA
    
  • Perspectives on Recent Trends in Consumer Debt
    
  • Financial Crises: Explanations, Types, and Implications

I await your essay that connects cogently the thread topic "Trump winning by dint of the government shutting down" with the ideas you've introduced. We've gone about as far off-topic as I think it fair to do, unless you are the thread OP, in which case, fine, you can allow "whatever" to go on in your own thread.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

And I do understand the difference between government debt and my own. Not sure what you wish to make out of this. And in that I say let it shut down. Nothing will happen. Money is still coming in. They need money they can make it.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Not sure what you wish to make out of this.

I don't wish to make anything out it. In my third major bullet point, I wrote what I did and shared the corresponding linked content to give you a small advance understanding of the nature of some of the economic and financial ideas against which I'd consider a line of discussion that you might present and that went down the road of correlating government debt with personal debt and, then, based on such correlation asserting truisms fitting for individuals and businesses, but not so much so for governments.

I did so because, were you to have done so as one might have inferred you would given the thread topic and your question, you won't be the first person who's pursued such an angle. In short, taking that tack successfully will require innovative economic and financial thought that is completely original. Such high quality thought does not belong here, but rather in a dissertation, journal article, or widely circulated book that makes one both rich and famous.

Do you think the congress should let the government shutdown then?

I think Congress should not let the government shutdown.

 

[Aries]

No need to worry folks. It's all good.

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be. Admittedly, past government shutdowns — or threats of shutdowns — have worked against conservatives. With Trump, however, it would likely be a different story....

even a partial shutdown plays precisely into the Trump agenda and his campaign promises of draining the swamp. Trump’s base, as well as “swing voters” who are fed up with out of control spending, would, of course, be cheered by such a move. Moreover, such a shutdown plays into Trump’s hands by giving him every excuse to slash funding to “sanctuary cities,” to bloated university programs, to global warming science grants, and on and on. Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not. Deep State bureaucrats who so depend on the federal government for their very existence would be the ones most hurt. In short, Trump can not only make even a partial shutdown look like the Democrats’ fault but shield many of the (normally) loudest voices from the pain.

More important, every minute the bloated government is shut down reinforces the perception of Trump as a businessman who cuts the fat, extracts more efficiency, and makes the U.S. government more like a business. Unlike the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown battle, the control over what sectors of the government get their money is in the hands of a Republican president, not a Democrat who held up funds on the most visible and sympathetic programs. Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.​

"We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be."
yea who cares if thousands of citizens are out of work, unpaid. maga!

 

[rightwinger]

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree?

Yes and no.

• Yes, at the most simplistic level of analysis, overextending oneself is never a good or responsible thing for anyone to do; however borrowing, in and of itself, does not constitute doing so.
• No because it is quite possible for individuals, businesses and other entities like governments to responsibly use credit to obtain money, thus the things they want or need to buy using that money. It's in nobody's interest not to maximize the return they can obtain from their assorted resources. Part of doing that involves using existing resources as a lever for obtaining additional ones. (Thus the financial industry's bastardization of the word "leverage.")
  
  I've purchased several things -- appreciating assets in each instance -- for which I didn't have the cash to buy without using credit to do so. I'm sure many people have. Some of those people's uses of credit are/were responsible, and others were not.
  
  It comes down to the borrower's ability to pay and the subjective and objective analysis of borrowing situation. Congress, the Executive Branch, well run businesses, banks, and others have units dedicated specifically to performing that analysis.
• Allegorically speaking, there are hugely material differences between an individual's borrowings and those of a government. If you're of a mind to go down that path, you'd do well to know what you need to address if you aim to do so both cogently and coherently. Don't go down that road with me and not, from a variety of angles, know inside-out what you're talking about. (Given the alluded to ideas, I suspect you are vaguely familiar with notions advocated by the Chicago School of thought.)
  • Private Debt vs. Government Debt
    
  • How Can Governments Borrow so Much?
    
  • Government Debt
  • Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt
    
  • Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?
    
  • THE IMPACT OF HIGH AND GROWING GOVERNMENT DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EURO AREA
    
  • Perspectives on Recent Trends in Consumer Debt
    
  • Financial Crises: Explanations, Types, and Implications

I await your essay that connects cogently the thread topic "Trump winning by dint of the government shutting down" with the ideas you've introduced. We've gone about as far off-topic as I think it fair to do, unless you are the thread OP, in which case, fine, you can allow "whatever" to go on in your own thread.

I don't see Trump being hurt at all if the government shutdown. That in itself is a win.

And I do understand the difference between government debt and my own. Not sure what you wish to make out of this. And in that I say let it shut down. Nothing will happen. Money is still coming in. They need money they can make it.

Trump is forcing people to take sides on his wall

He will lose

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We'll see how he & Congress fair from a shut down.

I doubt anybody will even notice. No one did last time.

 

[Aries]

No need to worry folks. It's all good.

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be. Admittedly, past government shutdowns — or threats of shutdowns — have worked against conservatives. With Trump, however, it would likely be a different story....

even a partial shutdown plays precisely into the Trump agenda and his campaign promises of draining the swamp. Trump’s base, as well as “swing voters” who are fed up with out of control spending, would, of course, be cheered by such a move. Moreover, such a shutdown plays into Trump’s hands by giving him every excuse to slash funding to “sanctuary cities,” to bloated university programs, to global warming science grants, and on and on. Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not. Deep State bureaucrats who so depend on the federal government for their very existence would be the ones most hurt. In short, Trump can not only make even a partial shutdown look like the Democrats’ fault but shield many of the (normally) loudest voices from the pain.

More important, every minute the bloated government is shut down reinforces the perception of Trump as a businessman who cuts the fat, extracts more efficiency, and makes the U.S. government more like a business. Unlike the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown battle, the control over what sectors of the government get their money is in the hands of a Republican president, not a Democrat who held up funds on the most visible and sympathetic programs. Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.​

Trump can't shut the government down, he's not in charge of the purse strings. Only congress can do that.

Trump attempting to shut down the government only makes the entire Republican party look inept, and let's face it, he's already made enough Republican enemies on the hill, and Democrats certainly aren't going to show any love for him.

so goof ball, if trump can't shut down the government, then how can Trump shut down the government? did you read your own fking stupid post?

congress has the ability to shut down the government. Trump and his shity policies, shitty "leadership," and shitty negotiation skills will be the cause of government shutdown.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not.

Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.

Has anybody figured out yet, if some services are "non-essential", why do we restart funding them at all after the shutdown is over?

Boom.

Why indeed.

Shut it down. And keep it shut down.

This is like a troll post, right? You are really not this stupid, it is just an act?

When I was in the Corps stationed in Okinawa when a typhoon would could all non-essential personnel were restricted to the barracks. By this stupid view of yours none of those people were needed, ever.

No wonder so many of you idiots voted for Trump, you have the IQ of a loaf of bread.

 

[Aries]

We'll see how he & Congress fair from a shut down.

I doubt anybody will even notice. No one did last time.

except probably the thousands of workers who were out of work, unpaid.