Media Bias

[Dave Gray]

I am turned off by the fact that the social media narrative right now is about how Trump got dogged by Pelosi.  He definitely lost the fight in terms of politics.  He stayed in the poker hand too long with no cards, called and he folded.  Fine.

But it’s unfair for people to ask him to do the right thing, then for him to cave to do the right thing (under pressure or not) and then to be ridiculed as getting beat for doing the right thing.   Trump sucked it up and took the L.  I won’t bash him for it.

[pondwater]

I am turned off by the fact that the social media narrative right now is about how Trump got dogged by Pelosi.  He definitely lost the fight in terms of politics.  He stayed in the poker hand too long with no cards, called and he folded.  Fine.

But it’s unfair for people to ask him to do the right thing, then for him to cave to do the right thing (under pressure or not) and then to be ridiculed as getting beat for doing the right thing.   Trump sucked it up and took the L.  I won’t bash him for it.

You claim that Trump took a loss. I disagree. I could be wrong but I think he's playing the long game and has a bigger picture in mind. And I just watched a Yahoo video with the headline, "Democrats declare victory in the shutdown battle." It was a video of Pelosi and Schumer taking the opportunity to chide Trump and take credit.

What did they win? No one has won anything. It's like saying you won the coin toss at the beginning of the Superbowl and then claiming you won the game. Unless they plan on giving Trump something he wants there will be another shutdown next month. So what happens when they don't offer Trump anything close to what he wants? At that point, the next shutdown will be on them.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Giving Palosi or Trump credit is wrong.  The folks who ended this shut down are the brave air. traffic controlers who said enough is enough, if you aint paying we aint working. 

Every government worker should learn from them and say....next time you shut down the government, it will be shut down for real.  No airports, no secret service, no boarder controls, no FBI, no nothing.

[Spider-Dan]

There are a few bills in the works that would end the possibility of future government shutdowns; they would automatically continue funding at existing levels until a bill is passed affirmatively changing them.

Good, I say.  This idiotic shutdown dance is almost as dangerous as the debt ceiling dance, and neither of these issues should exist.  No one believes that the government should actually shut down, and you can tell this is true because even the people who will be against ending future shutdowns will tell you that federal prison guards, air traffic controllers, TSA agents, etc. can't stay home.

The real lesson to be learned here is that if airports were the first thing to be closed, we would never, ever have a government shutdown.  All that talk about "why do you just borrow some money from your dad while you aren't getting a paycheck?" ended the moment flights started getting cancelled in the northeast.

[pondwater]

Good, I say.  This idiotic shutdown dance is almost as dangerous as the debt ceiling dance

What exactly are you referring to by "debt ceiling dance"?

[Spider-Dan]

The dance where the federal government passes bills authorizing spending, and then debates after-the-fact whether or not we should default on paying for those goods or services.  The idea of a "debt ceiling" is ridiculous; the ceiling should be whatever spending the duly elected government of the United States has authorized.  If Congress and the WH passes a $5T budget, then that should necessarily trigger whatever debt increase is needed to execute that budget.

[pondwater]

The dance where the federal government passes bills authorizing spending, and then debates after-the-fact whether or not we should default on paying for those goods or services.  The idea of a "debt ceiling" is ridiculous; the ceiling should be whatever spending the duly elected government of the United States has authorized.  If Congress and the WH passes a $5T budget, then that should necessarily trigger whatever debt increase is needed to execute that budget.

Unfortunately that's flawed thinking. Nobody, including the government should be spending more than they are taking in on a consistent basis. $22 Trillion and counting, this model is unsustainable for very much longer. The government spends entirely too much money on bullshit. There should be a balanced budget amendment.

the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, the U.S. Constitution creates a government of the people to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

If we followed that, we wouldn't be in the deep shit we're in. So no, we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling. If that means that we can't authorize spending, then so be it. But yeah, let's elect more idiots like AOC and implement more and more socialist programs and run the debt up even more. In the not too distant future, life will be very hard for the future citizens of the United States. Keep your head in the sand because numbers don't lie. And the numbers are unsustainable.

[Dolphster]

Giving Palosi or Trump credit is wrong.  The folks who ended this shut down are the brave air. traffic controlers who said enough is enough, if you aint paying we aint working. 

Every government worker should learn from them and say....next time you shut down the government, it will be shut down for real.  No airports, no secret service, no boarder controls, no FBI, no nothing.

I work for a federal law enforcement agency.  I'm not sure if it is true for the civilian agencies or not, but it is literally illegal for me to go on strike.  It is a pretty sweet gig.  I get to work for free (although we will get back pay) during shutdowns, it is illegal for us to strike, AND it is against regulations for me to take a part time job to try to make a few dollars during a shutdown.  Actually, in my agency's brilliance they said that if we want to take a part time job during a shutdown, we have to get approval from our legal division.  The beautiful part of that, our entire legal division was furloughed so if we tried to get approval for a part time job, all we got was a voice mail saying our message will be returned after the shutdown ends.   

[Spider-Dan]

Unfortunately that's flawed thinking. Nobody, including the government should be spending more than they are taking in on a consistent basis.

Then you should convince Congress to pass bills with lower spending (or take in more money, but we both know that's not what you meant).

Here is the problem: Congress writes bills to authorize spending, and Congress also writes bills to raise the debt ceiling.  So why are these two processes separate?  It makes no sense for Congress to authorize spending and then have to separately raise the debt ceiling for the spending they just authorized.  It creates a completely unnecessary point of failure for our economy.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I work for a federal law enforcement agency.  I'm not sure if it is true for the civilian agencies or not, but it is literally illegal for me to go on strike.  It is a pretty sweet gig.  I get to work for free (although we will get back pay) during shutdowns, it is illegal for us to strike, AND it is against regulations for me to take a part time job to try to make a few dollars during a shutdown.  Actually, in my agency's brilliance they said that if we want to take a part time job during a shutdown, we have to get approval from our legal division.  The beautiful part of that, our entire legal division was furloughed so if we tried to get approval for a part time job, all we got was a voice mail saying our message will be returned after the shutdown ends.   

it is illegal for them too.  But if 90% of you went on strike you would win the strike.  If only 10% the ones on strike would likely be fired.  That is why i called the air traffic controllers brave.

[Fau Teixeira]

Unfortunately that's flawed thinking. Nobody, including the government should be spending more than they are taking in on a consistent basis. $22 Trillion and counting, this model is unsustainable for very much longer. The government spends entirely too much money on bullshit. There should be a balanced budget amendment.

If we followed that, we wouldn't be in the deep shit we're in. So no, we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling. If that means that we can't authorize spending, then so be it. But yeah, let's elect more idiots like AOC and implement more and more socialist programs and run the debt up even more. In the not too distant future, life will be very hard for the future citizens of the United States. Keep your head in the sand because numbers don't lie. And the numbers are unsustainable.

Not raising the debt ceiling would be like buying a car and then when the 3rd monthly payment came due on your car, you decided to not pay the $300 cost because your reached $3000 total spending for the month even tho you have $4k in your bank account.

debt ceiling has nothing to do with how much money the government spends, it's an entirely artificial number that morons in congress without a basic understanding of economics decided to slap on to budgets. it should be eliminated entirely. It's grover norquist level of stupid.

[pondwater]

Not raising the debt ceiling would be like buying a car and then when the 3rd monthly payment came due on your car, you decided to not pay the $300 cost because your reached $3000 total spending for the month even tho you have $4k in your bank account.

If you make $30k a year and are in debt $150,000 on credit cards you don't finance a car. It doesn't matter if you have $4k in your account.

debt ceiling has nothing to do with how much money the government spends, it's an entirely artificial number that morons in congress without a basic understanding of economics decided to slap on to budgets. it should be eliminated entirely. It's grover norquist level of stupid.

However, total US debt is not an artificial number. We owe that money. The amount has reached a level that will never be paid back. What happens when the interest gets too much to handle? Don't say it can't or won't happen. We will fall just like all the other empires the world has seen.

[Fau Teixeira]

If you make $30k a year and are in debt $150,000 on credit cards you don't finance a car. It doesn't matter if you have $4k in your account.
However, total US debt is not an artificial number. We owe that money. The amount has reached a level that will never be paid back. What happens when the interest gets too much to handle? Don't say it can't or won't happen. We will fall just like all the other empires the world has seen.

Name one empire that's failed because of too much government debt?

[pondwater]

Name one empire that's failed because of too much government debt?

Rome & The Ottoman Empire. But then again, empires don't rise and fall for a single reason. However, economy and financial reasons are almost always intertwined when empires, countries, and nations fail.  If you think the US is too big to fail, you are part of the problem. Anyhow, go read for yourself if you need a history lesson.

[Dolphster]

it is illegal for them too.  But if 90% of you went on strike you would win the strike.  If only 10% the ones on strike would likely be fired.  That is why i called the air traffic controllers brave.

I suppose you are right that if 90% of us went on strike we would win.  However, I would say that at least 75% of us would never strike even if it was legal because at least 75% of us feel that our commitment to duty is why we do our jobs.  The vast majority of us are prior military and we have been instilled with the mindset that our job goes on regardless of the chuckleheads in Congress/WhiteHouse and their political games.  We understand we are pawns. But we do our job for our country (corny sounding, but true) and for each other.  I will admit though that if we didn't get back pay after a month of working for free, those percentages would probably change significantly.