Government Shutdown!?!?

it all screwed up i agree , but i bet you the congress men/women will still get paid even if the goverment closed. I personally think that the congress person's pay should be adjusted based on the national avg income for about min wage and made to struggle like the rest of us. why is it they asked to be voted to a postion and then get the better pay than joe blow out here working and then get everything they want/need in kickbacks and donations from companies .. shoot i only want enough to get by aka own my own place(instead of struggling at home) and to keep my bills paid on time. it not like i want trips on ptivate plane, or trips everywere claiming it work related, golf fancy dinners, big vacations are not work that spoiled living.

Hey guys, wanted to give everyone a heads up it looks like the government shutdown has been avoided. http://content.usatoday.com/communit...nt-shutdown-/1

I just checked to see if my pay on the 15th would still be affected, this is what I got:

Quote:

---

Due to DFAS system maintenance or high volume, your Account Statement is currently unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience

---

Guess I'll try tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratus_020202

I don't think I agree with this. I mean, it sounds good, but what if we did have the choice of who to fund with out tax money? Do you really think enough people would support the military? I doubt. And then we're screwed.

On the other hand, how is it legal to ask someone to work without pay? I know, it's the government, but still. Won't this open a huge window for other companies?

---

Yo, what's up Stratus?

You definitely bring up a good point. Many people voice the same concerns about those that might not choose fund the military if given the choice.

The first thing that comes to my mind when I read your comment is "Suppose an individual does not wish to fund the military: Is it then OK to use coercion or violence (if it comes to that) to make them pay?" My second point is this: Had I choice to decide how to spend my own money, in the first place - politicians would have been unable to use it instigate, provoke, or otherwise facilitate animosity between or among other societies. Thus greatly reducing the risk of sudden attack from the get go.

But as to asking others to work for free - I would never! :) I value the freedom that I do have and I understand that defense and a sense of protection is needed. However, it seems the government constantly commits atrocities. Also, it seems, to me, that the government is highly inefficient. If other companies were able to provide better defensive services - I would gladly pay for them.

Of course, at least with today's societal structure, this is all theoretical simply because the government doesn't allow for competition or individual choice in these matters. So, it's an inherently difficult position to defend considering the modern political paradigm.

Just my thoughts, let me know what you think.

Lucas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K

Also, unless you have really bad credit, most companies you can call and tell them and they'll give you the time you need to pay it given the circumstances.

---

Wife and I stopped by the bank that holds our mortgage yesterday and asked about the shutdown and what we can do if we don't get paid (I'm military) and they basically said tough cookies...hopefully Congress can get it's *%(& together...but really...what do they care? They would still get paid. :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tache

Also, it seems, to me, that the government is highly inefficient. Lucas

---

Just curious what experience you have working with the average Joe government employee...I work alongside them everyday...please don't lump the average GS-4,5,6, 12 etc in with Congressman and Senators...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratus_020202

I don't think I agree with this. I mean, it sounds good, but what if we did have the choice of who to fund with out tax money? Do you really think enough people would support the military? I doubt. And then we're screwed.

On the other hand, how is it legal to ask someone to work without pay? I know, it's the government, but still. Won't this open a huge window for other companies?

---

Agreed. and no one would ever want to pay for things like this and Police service until they were being burglarized or their country was being invaded. Until recently this past February when I quit my job to become a stay at home mom I worked as an accountant for the local city. I saw the budget process, and where the money was spent etc. Luckily the city I worked for was responsible and was prepared when the economy crashed but it surprised me how many local governments were not and was working on a large debt already. :O

I see absolutely no reason that they couldn't have budgeted better to be prepared for this situation. Instead of cut backs like they should have been doing they were paying people to get new cars! (Cash for Clunkers) Seriously?! Now that I would have been like to decide not to fund!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sho220

Just curious what experience you have working with the average Joe government employee...I work alongside them everyday...please don't lump the average GS-4,5,6, 12 etc in with Congressman and Senators...

---

Ha, I'd say Congressman and Senators are highly efficient at achieving their goals! :) Increasing their pay and increasing the size of the government, thus securing their jobs and influence.

When I say the government is inefficient I mean it in the broadest possible sense. It seems reasonable to assume that the stated goal of the war on drugs is something akin to creating a "drug-free" America. In reality, all empirical data suggest that current policies only increase the profit drug producers can make, so it increases their incentives to get others addicted. This is only one example, but evidence as to how bad these policies are is so widely available. Perhaps there are services that the government does perform effectively. But whether or not that is true is a separate question. I am asking: Is the use of coercion or violence, against me, justified should I happen to object to these "services"?

You youngsters need to realize that this is just a game that politicians play when they have not done their job of approving a budget, which in this case should have been done a year ago.
This is not the first time that they claimed that "the Government may shut down" and it will not be the last time that you hear this in your young lives.
The sky is not falling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsirkle

You youngsters need to realize that this is just a game that politicians play when they have not done their job of approving a budget, which in this case should have been done a year ago.
This is not the first time that they claimed that "the Government may shut down" and it will not be the last time that you hear this in your young lives.
The sky is not falling.

---

Ageist much? You know, ageism is only a small step or two away from racism.

Age has nothing to do with this. Yes, its happened before, yes it'll happen again. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't concern those directly affected by a government shutdown, nevermind those who aren't.
It may appear as a game to some, but when it comes to affecting people's lives' it is no longer a game.
Don't look down on those who are concerned and who want to see changes made to correct the problems in government. If there is anyone who is to be looked down on, it is those who see the problem, understand the problem, and simply write it off as "the way things are".

Er...... what? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Reptiles

Ageist much? You know, ageism is only a small step or two away from racism.

---

Do you have the vaguest idea how idiotic that statement was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisted Reptiles

Age has nothing to do with this. Yes, its happened before, yes it'll happen again. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't concern those directly affected by a government shutdown, nevermind those who aren't.
It may appear as a game to some, but when it comes to affecting people's lives' it is no longer a game.
Don't look down on those who are concerned and who want to see changes made to correct the problems in government. If there is anyone who is to be looked down on, it is those who see the problem, understand the problem, and simply write it off as "the way things are".

---

Age, in this context, equals a greater timeframe in which to have aquired direct experience and wisdom. Which allows a better judgement to be made about the actual threat level in this latest example.

I think your interpretation of this as "looking down on" is inaccurate and far from the intention of the quoted post.

I cannot comment on your political structure as, especially as in regards to situations like this one, it is radically different to the one in my country where something like this would simply not be tolerated even if it were actually possible.

I would say, if you want to prevent those involved thinking this is a legitimate game, vote for a different type of person.


dr del