skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

How San Diegans Will Feel The Government Shutdown

Above: Members of the U.S. Park Service place barricades around the Lincoln Memorial on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. A partial shutdown of the federal government has led to the closing of national parks.

Aired 10/1/13 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Congresswoman Susan Davis, (D-53rd)

Ron Nehring, former California Republican Party Chair

Transcript

Special Feature How Is The Government Shutdown Affecting You?

The U.S. government has shut down nonessential services and furloughed thousands of federal workers after House Republicans and Senate Democrats failed to reach an agreement on a federal spending bill. Have you been impacted by the government shutdown? Share your experiences and we may ask to interview you for a story.

Aired 10/1/13 on KPBS News.

From Washington D.C. to San Diego, a government shutdown will have far-reaching impacts.

From Washington D.C. to San Diego, a government shutdown will have far-reaching impacts.

Thousands of government employees, including some of the 26,000 local civilian employees of the Department of Defense, will only be working a half-day today to take care of shutdown-related tasks. Then they’ll be out of work — and a pay check — until Congress comes to a resolution.

The region’s federal parks will be closed, including the Cabrillo National Monument in Point Loma, and there will be no federal loans available for small businesses and people buying a home.

One exception to the shutdown, military service members will still be paid; President Obama signed it into law late Monday night.

A bipartisan group of San Diego City Council members on Monday afternoon called on Congress to avoid a shutdown of the federal government, San Diego City Councilman and mayoral candidate David Alvarez said the city has a substantial reserve to keep essential services going, for now.

"If this goes on for a prolonged period of time then we’re going to have some situations we’re going to have to be dealing with in the next couple of months, but at least for the short time being, we have enough in our reserves to manage and continue our operations as normal," said Alverez.

Airport operations and the U.S. Postal Service are not expected to be impacted. Also unaffected will be people receiving Medicare, social security and unemployment checks.

There will also be no interruptions or delays for California's supplemental food program for women, infants and children, known as WIC. Officials stated in a news release: "California WIC currently has available funds, and will proceed with funding the WIC program in order to continue providing benefits to participants."

Comments

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 1, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Basically the entire country suffers due to an internal Republican struggle between the reasonable moderates and the far right wing tea party fanatics.

And where do local congress people stand?

Well, Issa admitted he is part of the loony tea party fanatic wing of the party yesterday by affirming he agreed with trying to stop the affordable healthcare act.

A multi-millionaire congressman who's family will never have to worry about access to the best healthcare in the world is telling the poor they don't deserve healthcare access at all,

Issa and his ilk are no better than 3rd world dictators who hoard extreme wealth while their citizens are in extreme poverty.

He's a plutocratic immoral criminal, as are the other tea party extremists putting us all through this now.

This is truly government at its ugliest - a shameful day in our nation's history.

President Obama passed healthcare reform legally, it was upheld by the highest court in our country, and he was re-elected by the American people with this reform as a central issue of the campaign.

It's law.

The tea party extremists are completely out of bounds shutting down our economy to try as dismantle something that has gone through all legal hurdles and still withstood the scrutiny.

Shame on these extremist animals.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 1, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ― 11 months ago

Today is a great day!

The federal wheel of corruption has grind to a halt! Breathe the fresh air my fellow Californians for as much as I would like this to last forever, it will not. But for now, the air is cleaner, the birds sing louder, and the sun shines brighter.

Enjoy the taste of freedom!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 1, 2013 at 1:51 p.m. ― 11 months ago

And how exactly will San Diegans feel the impact of a shutdown? The article listed virtually nothing.

Just the closure of Cabrillo NM, which is sad, but hardly any impact. And 26,000 federal employees will not get paid. I'm a little shocked to know that there are 26,000 in San Diego alone and we won't even notice their absence. Can we say bloat?

Our state, county, and city provide virtually all services we rely on each day. Can you imagine how good we would have it if all federal taxes were kept local?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | October 1, 2013 at 2:56 p.m. ― 11 months ago

CaliforniaDefender, you are right on the money! I've been in a great mood all day! How will San Diegans feel the government shutdown? They will feel enlightened when they realize they don't need so much Government. It feels good to save money, a step in the right direction.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 1, 2013 at 11:20 p.m. ― 11 months ago

CADefender and Alex want this to last forever?

Things like cancer research funding are being impacted.

Way to wish the USA sink ever further behind the rest of the world.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 1, 2013 at 11:24 p.m. ― 11 months ago

And Alex, the shut down is COSTING US money, not saving money. Get your facts straight.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/shutdown-would-cost-u-s-economy-300-million-a-day-ihs-says.html

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'tbsdca'

tbsdca | October 2, 2013 at 8:46 a.m. ― 11 months ago

It's not just just some faceless person who we will never meet who suffers.

Our medical scientists stop being funded...... IMMEDIATELY.

Decades of research just.........STOP.

And remember..... when, or if, it's solved, aborted research doesn't pick up where it left off like a card game of poker.

Research is not like your instant oatmeal prepared in 90 seconds.

The research to figure out the pulmonary fibrosis that killed my mother......STOPS.

The research to understand the causes of cancer that killed my father ...... STOPS.

May God have mercy on our ignorance..... for the many who suffer because of it.

You have email..... write your representative.
You have a phone.... call your representative.
You have a voice..... use it. Please.

There are no magic-endowed group of elfs waiting in the wings to come and change the status quo.
This isn't a 'cold' where we're told to wait 7 days and it goes away by itself.

And regardless of whether it was Burke, Aked, or Kennedy who said it, the following applies to each of us:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Oceanside'

Oceanside | October 2, 2013 at 9:28 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Many, most, of the Federal Employees in San Diego county are educated, skilled, professionals, who provide a valuable service to the government. Commonly, they providing engineering and other technical support our nation’s Navy and Marine Corps on the various large military bases located in our county. They support the Navy and USMC missions by maintaining vessels, weapon systems, ammo, etc., that our service members, currently at war, must rely on to function properly. Very easy to breath easily and claim you "won't even notice their absence" when oblivious (intentionally?) to the effects on our military service members.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 2, 2013 at 10:28 a.m. ― 11 months ago

I heard on NPR this morning that 90% of EPA staff are furloughed.

I guess the anti-government crowd who thinks this is a good idea apparently think it's up to each individual citizen to make sure their air and water are clean.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | October 2, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ― 11 months ago

It's very unfortunate that some of the military can't be furloughed. That would save lots more money than shutting-down parks and scientific research.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 2, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Tea Party Philosophy:

Most important: war, prisons, corporate and millionaire tax breaks

Not important: research, health care, infrastructure (ours, not Iraq's or Afghanistan's); environment

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | October 2, 2013 at 11:38 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Wow, I didn't know that there was no scientific research happening before we had this overwhelmingly huge national debt, amazing. So, the only way to have a functional US economy is to overspend and create programs and have a gigantic government? How did we survive so long in the dark ages of smaller government? The poor American citizen sheep had no shepherd! Hurry Obama, save us! Tax me and spread my wealth around! Advance us closer and closer towards socialism, it will be utopia! Let's do away with presidential term limits so Obama has more time to bring the leftist, faux utopia to fruition. American's used to be able to pride themselves on being independent and free... but now, about half of Americans are being enabled to live like helpless, dependent babies. To fix this, there may be a little pain. Things may have to get worse before they get better. So 90% of the EPA is furloughed? Oh, the agony. Great step in the right direction.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 2, 2013 at 11:43 a.m. ― 11 months ago

The shutdown will cost more in the short term. If it can actually avoid unaffordable costs in the future it may be worth the pain. Either way it will be interesting to see how it plays out and which side is more intransigent.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 2, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. ― 11 months ago

Duck,

There are a few small elements of the US government where pooled state resources are more effective. But it would be far better for states to band together in research blocks or to provide grants than the US government returning money (after taking their regular cut plus all the fraud, waste, and abuse they are so famous for).

The US has already sunk well below the rest of the world in all important areas like research, infrastructure, transportation, education, healthcare, happiness, etc. But not the military as the US is still #1. Backwards priorities. We need to protect our state and our city. California is the way forward, not a corrupt union.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 2, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ― 11 months ago

tbsdca,

Not true. Take the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the largest stem cell research center in the world, or the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla. They are not shutting down at all.

Oceanside,

It is your opinion that has brought us to the place we're at: a bankrupt government shutting down. The military is bloated and out of control. The US spends more on war than the rest of the world combined. It is not necessary and harms our entire society.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 2, 2013 at 2:35 p.m. ― 11 months ago

The problem is conservatives claim they want "small government" but they don't.

They want big, huge government and are only at odds with WHAT they want the money spent on.

A healthy and innovative research sector has both public and private components.

I realize people like Alex think for profit corporations are perfect and can do everything the government can and better, but that's a fallacy proven wrong many times.

There are certain responsibilities and core functions a government, not for profit corporations, need to be able to do.

Just like the tea party cranks who march in the streets against "socialized medicine" but use their own Medicare or military health benefits, the people on this board who support this shutdown will be the first ones whining when something that impacts them gets cut.

It's the "I have mine, screw the rest of you" mentality, and the tea party wing of the Republican Party lies by that mantra.

Look at tea party favorite Michelle Bachmann as just one example.

She votes against food stamps and health care for the poor, but she votes FOR fa aid subsidies so her and her well-off lawyer lawyer husband of whom he serves as a bear for can get thousands of dollars from the government simply because they own farmland.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 2, 2013 at 2:42 p.m. ― 11 months ago

The problem is conservatives claim they want "small government" but they don't.
They want big, huge government and are only at odds with WHAT they want the money spent on.
A healthy and innovative research sector has both public and private components.
I realize people like Alex think for-profit corporations are perfect and can do everything the government can and better, but that's a fallacy proven wrong many times.
There are certain responsibilities and core functions a government, not for-profit corporations, need to be responsible for.
Just like the tea party cranks who march in the streets against "socialized medicine" but use their own Medicare or military health benefits, the people on this board who support this shutdown will be the first ones whining when something that impacts them gets cut.
It's the "I have mine, screw the rest of you" mentality, and the tea party wing of the Republican Party lives by that mantra.
Look at tea party favorite Michelle Bachmann as just one example.
She votes against food stamps and health care for the poor, but she votes FOR farm aid subsidies so her and her well-off lawyer husband (of whom he serves as a beard for) can get thousands of dollars from the government simply because they own farmland.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 2, 2013 at 2:54 p.m. ― 11 months ago

By the way, in most cases both political parties are responsible for fouling things up.

But in this particular situation, it falls squarely on Republicans.

And more precisely, not all Republicans, but the renegade right-wing extremist part of the party.

"Obama and Democrats won't negotiate" is their talking point.

Negotiate what?

These fools already LOST on healthcare reform.

You don't "negotiate" when you have lost.

What house Republicans are doing is like someone losing 100K in Vegas and then whining that the hotel casino won't "negotiate" giving some of their money back.

When healthcare reform was moving through congress to become law, THAT was the time to negotiate.

When healthcare reform was moving its way through the courts, THAT was the time to negotiate.

When a presidential election in which healthcare reform was central to the campaign THAT was the time to negotiate.

Now is NOT THE TIMETO NEGOTIATE, and it's sure as hell not the time to hold the federal government hostage because you do t like a law passed by congress, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and validated in a presidential election in which this was a central component.

If any Democrat so much as thinks about negotiating even one letter of this law to passing these tea party terrorists I will personally pepper them with calls and emails complaining.

Republicans are far out of line here, healthcare reform IS the law of the land and became so completely legally and legitimately.

Accept it or leave.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 2, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD "Republicans are far out of line here, healthcare reform IS the law of the land and became so completely legally and legitimately."

While this is true, it is also true that passing a CR with language repealing that law is also legal and legitimate.

Lots of people want the law, lots of people don't. It isn't unreasonable to think that the Republicans may have won so many seats in the House midterm election specifically for this purpose. I.e. because enough people wanted this law stopped that they were willing to vote in the guys who would stop it.

It sounds somewhat slanted for you to intimate that the process is somehow legitimate when you are winning but unfair when you are losing. Very human and understandable, but slanted none the less.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 2, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. ― 11 months ago

Sorry Benz, not buying it.

You don't hurt the entire country by shutting down the government if you don't agree with a piece of legislation that has already been vetted.

We had had how many mass shootings the past couple years and not a single piece of federal gun control legislation has passed.

Would you be ok with the Democrats shutting down the government and refusing to budge until republicans are willing to "negotiate" and "compromise" on gun control?

I wouldn't favor that, and I desperately want gun control.

So no, I not being a hypocrite and I firmly stand behind my opinion that this entire fiasco is not about Obama, it's not about Democrats not "negotiating" it IS about an infight in the repug party between reasonable moderates and extremist tea party radicals.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | October 3, 2013 at 6:58 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Does anyone need to be reminded that Mitt Romney lost? HIs brand of Darwinian plutocracy was already put to a vote. The Republican or Independent who wins the presidency in 2025 after Hillary Clinton's second term can change it if he/she wants.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 3, 2013 at 8:20 a.m. ― 11 months ago

I'd still like the conservatives who think this is a good idea to weigh in on how they would feel if democrats were pulling this over gun control.

I bet if the show was on the other foot they wouldn't think this is such a great idea.

Come on republicans, give us universal background checks or we will default on our nations debt.

You want our national monuments open? Give us an assault weapons ban.

Want cancer research to continue? Then give a little on magazine capacity.

Open military commissaries? Only if you agree to background checks on ammunition.

Playing chicken with our government this way over contested legislation is wrong regardless of whether it's gun control or HEALTHCARE.

But the gun control hijacking is hypothetical.

The health care hijacking is real.

The tea party people are making a mockery on our government and hurting millions of Americans.

Shame on anyone who thinks this is an acceptable way to do business.

If everyone in congress acted like the tea party radicals, we would have absolute anarchy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 8:37 a.m. ― 11 months ago

As I am not a republican, I cannot speak for them, but it does seem like there is reason to take different negotiating stances on constitutionally protected rights and welfare programs.
That said, if the democrats feel it is in their best interest to shut down all but the essential parts of the federal government until they can remove those rights then they can do so (the democratically controlled senate could pass the house bill just like the house could pass the senate bill).

Think of it this way, There are lots of bills being submitted that will ease the effects of the shutdown in a piecemeal way. Why not fund the portions of government we can (almost) all agree on? If we agree on 99.9%, why not pass what we can agree on and then argue about the 0.1% until we can either agree or those who cannot agree are replaced through failure to win re-election?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 3, 2013 at 10:06 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Benz, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Certain government actions have long been established as critical and procedural, and traditionally off limits to this type of abuse.

These include operating the government, raising the set ceiling to pay bills congress already approved, and another thing that the right wing has abused in recent year -filibusters.

Once rare occurrences used in circumstance, Republicans have made these common occurrences now and have increased there use exponentially - far beyond what the founders of our government ever envisioned.

I'm not saying Republicans can't negotiate or fight for what they want, I just think it's irresponsible for them to tie it to something so broad and far-reaching.

And another point, if people against this health reform are so convinced it will be bad for America, then why not just let it proceed in full force?

If it's as bad as you all say, then the quickest way to repeal it will be to let I take place and prove to be the nightmare you claim.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 10:46 a.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD "just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."
I agree

PDSD "These include operating the government, raising the set ceiling to pay bills congress already approved"
Is there any level of debt where you blieve this should not be the case? If so, how much do YOU think is "too much"?

PDSD "And another point, if people against this health reform are so convinced it will be bad for America, then why not just let it proceed in full force? If it's as bad as you all say, then the quickest way to repeal it will be to let I take place and prove to be the nightmare you claim."

Again, I don't want to speak for others, but I do not believe it is realistic to expect most politicians to attempt to disestablish entitlements once they have taken hold. 'Everybody' wants 'more free stuff from the government' and will punish politicians who do not continue to bring home the pork, regardless of whether or not we can afford it. The best way to prevent it is to nip it in the bud, or perhaps now the branch. Cutting down the tree once it takes root and starts undermining your foundation is much harder.
Why would you prefer to cancel it after incurring a large debt?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 3, 2013 at 11:13 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Benz, your last statement seems to imply the people are stupid and politicians know better.

So if the people want certain entitlements politicians should ignore that?

Despite what some in this country think, the government expanding healthcare access is not some crazy idea.

Every industrialized first-world nation on the planet does this.

The argument that "we need to stop it before it starts because once it starts it will be popular" seems ridiculous to me.

Maybe this is a philosophical difference.

Maybe you feel American soviet would be better off if opponents prevented social security and Medicare from ever coming Ito existence, is that the case?

I'm a firm believer in a mixed-government philosophy.

Pure communism and pure capitalism are both bad.

Having a free market economy wth certain safety nets and entitlements to carry both individuals and soviet at large through the pitfalls of a free market is what I believe in.

I guess this is in contradiction to what house Republicans believe.

Do SS and Medicare have problems?

Of course they do - no program that massive won't have problems.

But the problems stem from changin demographics (aging of the baby boomers) and not because there is something inherently wrong with the entitlements.

In fact, both of these have delivered as promised to millions and millions of American seniors for decades and have often literally meant the difference between life and death for many.

Even by corporate free market standards, these programs have been a success.

No company that massive that has delivered as planned for that long exists without needing to be tweaked now and then - new branding, new products, etc., so why are successful goverenment programs that deliver as promised for decades branded as "failures" because they need tweaking to survive?

Same thing with the affordable care act. It's massive. It will have bugs. It will need to be tweaked. But overall, it WILL give tens of millions of Americans who don't have access to healthcare access.

And that doesn't simply benefit those receiving te benefit, it actually makes our entire nation stronger by having a healthy population at all levels, and not be the only first world nation on the planet with an epidemic of bankruptcies due to medical bills.

Affordable healthcare will put more money into the consumer market and will benefit us all.

And what kills me is opponents KNOW this, which is why they are so afraid of letting it take shape.

They are doing this for political reasons, period!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 3, 2013 at 11:24 a.m. ― 11 months ago

Duck,

Your partisan attacks on Republicans ignore reality. BOTH parties AND Obama are at fault. The US government with out of control spending is the problem, not one party.

If you STILL wish to attack Republicans, let me remind you that Democrats have shut down the government 15 times and Republicans just 3.

Regardless of which incompetent, bloated, and corrupt party does it, I'm happy. We all should be happy. For a government that is $17 trillion in debt cannot last without drastic cuts in spending and a long shutdown is a small step in the right direction.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD "So if the people want certain entitlements politicians should ignore that?"

Mostly, yes. The federal government is not the appropriate forum for providing most of the things people desire as entitlements. Had it been, those issues would have been enumerated at the founding or amended in subsequently.
More importantly though, 'want' does not equate to 'earn'. If everybody except Ben & Jerry wanted all ice cream to be free should the politicians heed the will of the majority?
They can certainly buy your vote by promising it, but it is very difficult to think anyone would consider it a good or moral or sustainable plan.

There is a method available to receive medical care, namely be productive enough to earn the costs that care charges. Failing that, borrow against future earnings expected from your productivity. Either forcing doctors to treat you for free, or your neighbor to pay for your bills is a sustainable plan and mandating that this happens endangers both the doctor and the neighbor, neither of whom are in the wrong.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 12:54 p.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD “Benz, your last statement seems to imply the people are stupid and politicians know better.”
Sorry to give the wrong impression. Many of the people are indeed stupid but that isn’t what I was saying. I believe our system is set up in such a way that encourages politicians to do what the people want. That is good until ‘the people’ want something that is ‘bad for them’. You and I likely have differing ideas of what is bad and for whom, but we can likely each think of situations where we have seen someone take an action that led to self-harm. As an individual that is still OK, but to then posit that it is OK to harm others, and to do so with the force of law, simply because you want something is an untenable argument.

Politicians ARE people. It is probably not wise to bet against them acting in their own self-interests as they perceive them. Ideally they would act for the good of the country, but I am seeing little evidence of that. Are you?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 1 p.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD “And that doesn't simply benefit those receiving te benefit, it actually makes our entire nation stronger by having a healthy population at all levels, and not be the only first world nation on the planet with an epidemic of bankruptcies due to medical bills.”

I hear this and similar ideas presented often and have not seen any data to validate it. Are you making a prestige argument? Are you claiming that medical bankruptcy is somehow more prevalent or damaging to the nation than some other type of bankruptcy? What comparison did you make to reach that conclusion?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 1:09 p.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD “Maybe this is a philosophical difference. Maybe you feel American soviet would be better off if opponents prevented social security and Medicare from ever coming Ito existence, is that the case?”

We undoubtedly have philosophical differences, though they really may not be as irreconcilable as we assume. What do you suppose we can agree on?

I’m not sure who you are identifying as the American soviet. There certainly are people who would have been better off had SS & MC not passed, and there are people who would have been worse off. Would the nation be better off had it been defeated? Probably, but neither of us can say for certain.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 3, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. ― 11 months ago

Soviet was my iPhone mistakenly auto-correcting "society"

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 3, 2013 at 1:37 p.m. ― 11 months ago

Benz, who is worse off with SS and Medicare??

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 3, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ― 11 months ago

CADefender, I know there have been government shut downs in the past, and to be honest I don't know the details of those.

I do know, however, that this shutdown lies squarely at the feet if house republicans.

You know very well that, even though I support Obama and am a registered Democrat, I will call them out when they have fault with something.

I openly criticized Obama and Sen. Feinstein for their insufficient response to the NSA leaks and government spying and attempts to brush that under the rug.

But in this case I strongly feel this shutdown is 100% the fault of tea party republicans.

Health care reform was, as I keep repeating:
(1) passed through congress and signed into law
(2) litigated through the courts up to and including the highest court in the land who upheld it
(3) was a central part of a presidential election, debated in presidential debates, and the guy who repealed it lost whilst the guy who created it was re-elected by the American people

At what point do Republicans say, "we don't like this thing, but it's made it through all the checks and balances so we have to live with it".?

I'd like you, CAdef, to answer my question above.

If democrats were shutting down the government to force republicans to compromise on gun control, would you support that? Yes or no?

At this point, the only way healthcare reform can be repealed is by electing enough people in congress and as the president to legislate a repeal.

This holding the government hostage is the wrong way to do this.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | October 3, 2013 at 2:35 p.m. ― 11 months ago

PDSD "who is worse off with SS and Medicare??"

Everyone who was required to pay into it and did not draw out equal funds is worse off. Had they chosen to use the money differently or to avoid risk in another way they would have been better off. This is precisely why I want all of these programs to be recommended but optional.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 3, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ― 11 months ago

Duck,

"Soviet was my iPhone mistakenly auto-correcting "society"

LOL! Little iPhone Freudian slip there. Let us know if your iPhone suddenly changes your ringtone to The Internationale as it may have become self-aware.

Anyway, I already answered your question. If we ignore reality and pretend that just one party is shutting down the government, I would be happy no matter which one. Regardless of the cause, the result is exactly what we need: LESS GOVERNMENT.

Obamacare is just a distraction. Nothing is more important than the $17 TRILLION DEBT and stopping Republicans and Democrats from sinking us all.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'wouldneye'

wouldneye | October 8, 2013 at 9:56 a.m. ― 10 months, 3 weeks ago

when the Dems had controll of both houses , they ramed Obama care thru not even knowing what was in the bill. Nancy polisi said it quite clearly " we don't know whats in it until we pass it"...WTH kind of mind set was that? It was the "We are incontroll" mind set. So now we have this law that until they get it going we won't know, and they keep telling us it's good. This is like buying a house sight unseen, give me a break. Do you actully believe that this bill would have been passed had both parties had been involved? I am of neither party, they are both the same. You can bet come 5 o'clock they are all at the same bar, slapping each other on the back and laughing with each other. The american people deserve better then this.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | October 9, 2013 at 8:50 a.m. ― 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Wouldneye, your comment is basically saying you don't agree with our current political process.

We are a representative democracy and if one party wins enough seats in congress as well as the presidency, then then they people have given that party mandate to enact their campaign promises.

Your characterization of the affordable care act as some sort of last-minute shoved through thing is incorrect.

Then candidate Obama made is starkly clear that, if elected, one of his biggest priorities would be to expand healthcare coverage in this manner.

He was elected by a healthy majority of American citizens, as were congressional Democrats, with full an transparent knowledge healthcare reform was on the agenda.

Your anger towards Democrats is misguided, blame our political system if you don't believe in a party being elected by the people doing what they promised voters they would do.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'thompsonrichard'

thompsonrichard | October 9, 2013 at 11:13 a.m. ― 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Big Nurse won an academy award for smothering an Indian in a loony bin. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest, as I recall.
I'm being chased hither and yon by the federal government. After sleeping on the dirt for a week in a tent at Yosemite Valley, they chased me out. I came by train but just outside San Francisco we were told to take the Bay Area Rapid Transit because a "matter of security" would keep the Amtrak Oakland station closed indefinitely. I checked into the Fort Mason Civil War Barracks (doing business as a youth hostel) but after one day the barracks reverted to the Federales and we "youths" were kicked out. I asked my younger brother Rogan if I could stay with him and his wife because he has 130 acres (an entire, high hill, with a well), and they said yes. He doesn't lock his doors in his Paso Robles hillside retreat and the note in the entryway said: "your dinner is in the refrigerator; please use the blue room with the loft for sleeping." When they came back after a few days the two of us continued by Amtrak to Oceanside together, so my brother could surf. I bought a swimsuit with an aquarium fishes design on it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Alex_Grebenshchikov'

Alex_Grebenshchikov | October 9, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ― 10 months, 3 weeks ago

thompsonrichard WTFudge my friend, ha ha. I read all the way to the end, so I guess you got me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | October 9, 2013 at 3:06 p.m. ― 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Duck,

In theory you are correct. But in reality you are not. If our political system worked as it was designed to with candidates on a level playing field engaging an informed populace, then you could say the majority party/president has a mandate.

But the reality is that ALL of our politicians are elected by special interests that pump billions and billions into the electoral process.

The people don't want a massive national debt, but special interests do.

So who do you think gave a mandate to Obama who increased that debt by a staggering $6 TRILLION (with a T) in just 4 short years? Far more than any president in history...and he's got another term to go. You should be scared. Very scared.

( | suggest removal )