Government shutdown

1. 0

   Hxprofposted 6 years ago

   What are the horrors America can expect when the federal government is shut down?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      RTalloniposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If you are speaking of the current chatter, none. Of course, if you are speaking of a permanent situation due to unforeseen circumstances we would all have trouble picking up the pieces, many would even die for various reasons.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      1. Many government and civilian contractor employees go without pay, which damages the economy because they aren't spending money.
      
      2. Closure of fee-based services, such as national parks, which reduces government revenue and expands the skyrocketing deficit.
      
      3. Delays in the approval of new life-saving drugs.
      
      4. A lovely new rule from the Trump tax cut automatically cuts Medicare and other programs if the shutdown lasts long enough.
      
      Shutdowns always have a negative impact on GDP. It just depends on the length of the shutdown.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I would have to say that #2 is true; we will lose a few dollars from fee based parks.
         
         And if #1 is also true - that some people will not be paid - then we will save huge barrels of borrowed money, cutting the deficit far more than the handful we lose from park visitors could ever supply.  (You might want to consider that our parks are NOT self-sustaining with those fees - shut down the park and the savings is considerably more than the income lost.)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            For #2, the actual total is $500 million. Not a few dollars.
            
            And I said "such as" the parks. They aren't the only government service that generates fees.
            
            If people aren't paid, they don't spend and boost the economy.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               $500 million.  For lost fees for a few days of shut down.
               
               Sorry - I'd have to see those figures from the govt. to believe them.  Maybe for a few months, but we've never been shut down for more than a few days.
               
               You don't "boost the economy" by spending money that is simply taken from one person and given to another.  As in taxes.  The money will be spent by either the person earning it or the person that gets it, but either way it will be spent.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Where did I say "a few days of shut down"?
                  
                  I think it's better to do research and use facts in such discussions rather than guessing and cherry picking.
                  
                  The lost $500 million came from last shutdown in 2013:
                  
                  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -shutdown/
                  
                  The cost is $76 million per day:
                  
                  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … t/2957033/
                  
                  If the economy doesn't get a boost from spending, then how does it get a boost if the money just sits there in a bank?

                  replyreport
2. 78

   hard sunposted 6 years ago

   This "fake media" article seems pretty thorough. well sourced, and reasonable. I'm glad the National Parks will remain open with a partial shutdown. It sucks to plan a trip then have the park closed. But, doesn't Trump say we can't ever take CNN seriously?
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics … index.html

   replyreport
   1. 78

      hard sunposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I misinterpreted the ranger's statement here. Indeed, it seems it depends on the park.

      replyreport
3. 94

   Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago

   I live near Yosemite, and local news says even if the shutdown goes into effect the park will be open and visitors will "not notice the difference".

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It depends on the park. Some that have fees will stay open, but you'll be able to go in without paying anything. Others will be closed.
      
      Keep in mind that a "national park" includes historical sites. If those sites have buildings, they will close such as visitor centers at Gettysburg and other locations.
      
      Rangers won't be available for safety and to act as guides. Restrooms won't get cleaned. No food at the major sites.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         You're right - it depends on the park.  Obama chose to close those areas that would have the highest impact on visitors in a political ploy to anger people that those terrible Republicans closed the govt.
         
         Perhaps Trump will limit the damage rather than making it as high as possible.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Is that your an opnion or a provable fact?

            replyreport
            1. 91

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Go back and look at which "parks" he closed.  You can start with those around the mall area in DC and have very low costs associated with them, per visitor.  Yes, it's provable if you care to look and are honest.  Are you?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  No, you post what parks he closed other than simply and conveniently claiming without any proof that he just closed the DC parks.
                  
                  You are the one who made the claim. So back up it up if you are honest. Are you?

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Do you not recall shutting down the mall exhibits (Lincoln Memorial, Washington monument, etc.) and the cries from thousands of tourists that could not view our history as a result?  I also recall shutting off the only access to privately owned homes inside parks as well - do you?
                     
                     Because I'm pretty sure you DO recall that, and simply wish to put a stumbling block into the discussion.  Not much interested in refreshing your memory if you don't, though.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        What in the world does that venting have to do with my original post showing what happens in a shutdown?
                        
                        A couple of random examples also has nothing to do with a baseless claim that he targeted certain parks for political gain.
                        
                        Besides, you said a shutdown is just for "a few days", so what does it matter?

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           You aren't following the train.  It concerns which parks are closed and what is saved in costs per visitor.  Obama closed those least costly, but with the most public impact.  Perhaps Trump will do the opposite.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              You still aren't naming the parks to back up your attacks. Why not?

                              replyreport
            2. 69

               Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Fund the Wall, the big beautiful wall... make it Huuuuuuuuuuuuuge... and the government won't be shut down, simple enough.
               
               De-fund the entire government, especially Congress, the useless windbags... out of the ten trillion a year they are spending, I am sure a measly .oo5% can be set aside for the wall.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I strongly favor border security and strongly oppose illegal immigration.
                  
                  That said, a whole lot of smart people say a wall is a waste of money because of tunnels and sneaking into the country on boats.
                  
                  As I have said on here before, enforce the law against businesses that hire them. No jobs, no illegals.
                  
                  Business fines are a great way to increase federal revenue at a time when deficits are skyrocketing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     And a whole lot of other countries (66, I believe) think that those smart people aren't so smart after all...as they build and continue to build walls.
                     
                     But which is easier - wading a shallow (used to be) river and walking in unopposed or digging a tunnel from 50 yards inland, under that river AND wall AND 50 yards inland on the other side and crawling through that?
                     
                     Which is easier - wading a shallow (used to be) river and walking in unopposed or boating the ocean in plain view for 25-50 miles?
                     
                     Maybe, just maybe, what is very difficult will halt some of the trespassers?

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        It would be so much easier to go after businesses that hire illegals. The motivation for people to come here is work. Remove the motivation and they'll stop coming.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Yeah, walls are a great idea if they are 500 feet tall and paid for by Mexico, as Trump promised. But don't fine the businesses that hire the illegals.
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh, I wouldn't just fine businesses; I'd suggest that by the third offence the fine should be all the assets of the company.  With some lenience for companies with 50 locations and 50 managers doing the hiring.
                           
                           1st offence: 6 months profit, from IRS filings, or $50,000
                           2nd offence: 1 years profit, from IRS filings, or $100,000.
                           3rd offence: confiscation of the company.  Or perhaps the location for large corporations.
                           
                           But that has to be dependent on an effective method of determining legality of an employee.  So far we don't really have it.
                           
                           But I notice you didn't reply to the point: walls are harder to cross than a ditch and start walking.  Except to be sarcastic and dismissive about a 500' tall wall - was that because you don't want to discuss the inanity of comparing a strong, monitored wall with nothing at all?

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I sincerely think that those truly interested in border security, and who don't already know most everything there is to know, take a look at this 2007 Heritage Foundation piece. -"15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern Exposure" 
                              
                              Here's a sampling of what it states about border fencing or walls:
                              
                              "In some areas, erecting fences is the best way to tackle the illegal-entry problem. But the cost makes it important to use fencing only in areas with a low "melting point." The melting point is the time it takes for an individual to cross the border and "melt" into a landscape unnoticed. In urban border communities, spending money on physical barriers makes sense because individuals can easily cross the border and sneak quickly into the urban landscape (for example, one can hide in a building or steal a car and drive away). But in other areas, like the middle of the desert, the barren landscape makes it easy for Border Patrol agents to detect border crossers.
                              
                              CBP has made considerable progress in constructing border infrastructure, though installation has been slowed by dramatic increases in the cost of materials and litigation. Additionally, the initial estimates for fencing requirements did not account for the increase in deployments of manpower and technology at the border.[44] As a result, CBP should reassess the cost effectiveness for any additional infrastructure, and Congress should listen to their recommendations."
                              
                              Of the 15 steps, border fencing is not too much of a priority. I also found it interesting: "Leave NAFTA alone" is listed as a positive for border security.
                              
                              Should everything in this piece be taken as absolutely , unquestionable correct? Of course not. However, I think it gives people a lot to think about, besides a messy, expensive, and likely not so effective expansive/all encompassing wall.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 https://www.heritage.org/homeland-secur … n-exposure

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Thank you for making up a fake law rather than addressing my point about enforcing current law.
                              
                              Why demand that I say a wall is harder to cross than a ditch? Even simple minds know that much.
                              
                              Please address my point that walls can be crossed. Try not to snarl in response as usual. Did you look at the photos?
                              
                              Again, please address my point that your President promised to make Mexico build his wall.
                              
                              I'm perfectly fine with that idea. Are you?

                              replyreport
                              1. 91

                                 wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Please address my point that walls can be crossed."
                                 
                                 Sure!  Anything can be crossed.  2,000 miles of ocean.  50 miles of anti-tank trenches, mined to the hilt.  Miles of hot molten lava.  The highest mountain peak.  Hundreds of miles of glaciers.  A thousand yards of razor wire.
                                 
                                 And, last but not least, any wall we could build.  If we could build a wall to the edge of space it could be crossed.
                                 
                                 Not sure what the point is, though.  Unless you are now deciding that any and all efforts are a waste and open borders is the way to go?
                                 
                                 (You mean your president made that promise.  Or perhaps our president.  And please don't snarl as you recognize that simple fact.)
                                 
                                 But whatever - you have a great Christmas!  I'm out of here, going to be with family the next couple of days.

                                 replyreport
4. 93

   Kenna McHughposted 6 years ago

   Yawn

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Hxprofposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think you hit the nail on the head.  For all of the hubub that's being made over this shutdown, it's really nothing to get worked up over.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         True, if you don't care about screwing up the economy for the sake of Trump's ego.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            LOL  Whose ego was responsible for all the other shutdowns, and the threats of shutdowns as well?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               The President who said on national TV that he was shutting down the government after rejecting a bipartisan plan to keep it open.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't really mind that Trump is fighting for what he believes in nor do I hold that against any other politician. If you want what you believe in and think it's important, then pick the fight.
                  
                  I think it's possible Trump is making a mistake by doing it because the Republicans will be blamed, but I also think it's possible people will hold the Democrats responsible for continuing to look like they don't take border security and illegal immigration seriously. They need to get on the right side of that issue.

                  replyreport
5. 78

   hard sunposted 6 years ago

   "Even the Border Patrol agents and Transportation Security Administration officials who are directed to continue working during the shutdown will not be paid until Congress funds their agencies."
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … smsnnews11

   replyreport
   1. 91

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Have to wonder just how legal it is to demand employees work without pay.  Even if one assumes they WILL be paid one day, it is still far beyond their agreed upon pay date.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         hard sunposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah. It's certainly shady to work without knowing when that next check will come. I guess it's legal if the powers that be say it is, especially with it being the government. With all the lawsuits flying every which way, state laws differing, and decisions being reversed by higher courts, it's difficult to tell what's legal these days. I'm not sure exactly how much this is different than it used to be, but it seems things are a lot more muddled than they were say 20 years ago. It's likely a reflection of the hyper partisan politics.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Agree.  It seems the powers-that-be can do whatever they want.

            replyreport
6. 76

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years ago

   We can expect persons with IQ scores far below average, and fake Hubpages profile names to act like children in the forums. Exactly like every other day.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      hard sunposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I only see one profile from those commenting on this thread that doesn't reflect a real name. I'd love to have my forum nickname match with my real name on my profile, but I don't think there's a way to change that.
      
      If there is a way, it would be great to know how.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I agree.  Wish I could get my name on there rather than what was chosen years ago with anonymity in mind.  It shows on the hubs, why not the forum posts?

         replyreport
      2. 76

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I wasn't thinking of you at all. I'm willing to bet you could name some persons I was thinking of though.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Do you mean readmikenow? But if you are referring to me, just click on my profile link to see my full name. I have nothing to hide.

            replyreport
         2. 78

            hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I can figure it out, lol. I just took the chance to get out my grievance with the forum nickname issue. It's good to for me not to bottle these things up...ha.

            replyreport
         3. 90

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            As an aside about anonymity. Have you ever had your life threatened online? I have. Not saying I took it all that seriously, but it happened. So feel free to call me out for keeping my real name off these forums. I don't really care.

            replyreport
   2. 90

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Could you provide a list of those with low IQ scores? I'd like to avoid those people.

      replyreport
7. 68

   JAKE Earthshineposted 6 years ago

   Maybe I missed something over the last few years while this atrocious nightmare has played out, but please tell me WHEN is the last time Circus Clown Bozo Trump tried to limit the damage of anything ?? On the contrary, his sick little mind appears to be all about maximum disturbance: Perhaps in an alternative fake universe he acted normally and rationally but not here in our once great nation called the USA:
   
   Government workers will not get paid around Christmas time and many aspects of OUR government will cease to function at 100% which is NOt good and makes us vulnerable to our enemies but what else is new with this guy, all this just so a grotesque looking narcissist perched in the oval office who appears to ONLY care about personal gain, can tell neo-white nationalists like Ann Coulter, Sean Hammity and Rush Limpy that he tried to get billions for a useless pile of concrete which a $50 ladder could breach:
   
   YES, take the mantle Bozo because YOU own it: BTW, a 2,000 mile pile of concrete really has nothing to do with 'border security' and everything to do with a place to try and plaster the Trump logo and please, try to keep your legs in an acceptable position when talking to REAL leaders like Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer, not like you're watching an adult film premiere at the local movie house and please try to keep your tiny little hands which have been God knows where, at your side or in your lap when talking in public:
   
   YOU own the shut down BOZO:
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-q3KxCopM

   replyreport
8. 96

   Readmikenowposted 6 years ago

   What would happen if the government remains shut down...and NOTHING happens?  Would that mean we can identify some government department that could be merged or eliminated?  This may turn out to be a long-term cost savings solution.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      JAKE Earthshineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think we've already identified one position which should be eliminated yesterday, it's called the presidency, at least until he's officially REMOVED:

      replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      replyreport
9. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

   For my friends waiting to see what happens on payday this is not abstract

   replyreport
10. 61

    newsiticsposted 5 years ago

    So now that polling shows that the majority of Americans blame Trump and Republicans for the Government shutdown, when do you think he will fold?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Trump might be looking for some way out of this that will allow him to save face, or he might not seriously be considering it.  My take is that public opinion would have to sour a bit more before he'd cry uncle.

       replyreport