EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2013 -> 09:07 PM) So the House Republicans were planning a vote on their plan that the senate won't pass this noting and that was delayed. They were then planning another vote this evening on their bill that won't pass the Senate, and once again there has been no vote and I'm about to go to bed. As of now the House Republicans clearly do not have the votes to pass any package and are still unwilling to pass a bill mostly with Democrats. Perhaps it is time that the Senate go on record as not passing these bills that the House sends them, instead of Harry sitting on them. Why is it that the House has to bend to the Senate's wishes? It is time for the Senate to get in line with the house. At least vote on something. Let's see the Senate say no, they won't vote to keep parts of the government open.

My wife works for a major insurer, and as i was b****ing about Ocare at dinner, she informs me that her company was doing testing of the site for the Feds. Or at least they were supposed to. Apparently about 4 months ago they started missing deadlines of making parts of the site available for testing. Then 2 months ago they (the company in charge of the website) terminated the testing contract, having missed 4 other deadlines for submitting pieces to be tested. I laughed a bit, then shook my head in sorrow.

Haven't managed to meet anyone from here yet, but I did sell a Zune to Lostfan, and have conversations with him outside of Soxtalk on occasion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) Most people aren't supportive of a minimalist libertarian-style government or a government that is so small that it has a negligible impact on the national economy. You can look to numerous polls on the support for various large-scale government programs (medicare/medicaid, social security, military). I could point you to the NSF's summary of public opinion on science funding, but, shutdown. You can also just look at the political platforms people run on and are elected for. While plenty of conservatives run on a platform of "smaller government," few run on a platform of "virtually no government" and even less (if any) win. Also, many people respond generically in favor of "smaller government," but are much less likely to agree on cutting a specific program. Part of that may be from not knowing or understanding what government actually spends on what, e.g. huge public overestimation of how much we spend on foreign aid. I'm not saying an overwhelming majority of people support the policies I believe in or want a government that's even as big as it currently is, just that few want a government as small as ss2k5 is arguing for. Nobody ever said virtually no government, so nice way to try and change the topic. You said an 'overwhelming' majority of people favored a big government and offered no proof other than your opinion. Still haven't offered any proof to back up your claim. Now you claim you didn't say that? make up your mind.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 11:13 AM) I don't think I'd be demanding a link from you or jenks if you made a substantial post (which did include a reference to your data source if not a direct link) that undermined your own arguments. Well you made a pretty bold claim, back it up please.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 10:19 AM) I'm sorry that an overwhelming majority of people in our democratic society don't share your vision for a minimalist government, instead preferring a government that provides many essential services like national parks and funding for basic scientific research. Can you back that up with a link? Just wondering what your definition of 'overwhelming' is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) Let's be clear about the "dependency" on federal government here... 1. As stated earlier, having a stable and effective federal government being necessary to a stable economy is not new, nor unique to the United States. 2. The federal government is NOT, in terms of people employed, larger now than it has been. In fact it is quite the opposite. Per OPM data, starting from the early 60's (there doesn't appear to be reliable data before then)... the number of federal employees peaked in the late 60's at approximately 6.6 million, then dropped pretty consistenly (except for a brief spike during the socialist Reagan years in the mid-late 80's) down to a low of about 4.1 million in the mid-2000's. It has now gone up slightly from there to about 4.3 million. In other words, even leaving out the rise in population, the number of people employed by the federal government has dropped some 30% or more since the 60's, and as a percentage of population would have dropped closer to 40-50%. 3. In terms of federal SPENDING, it is useful to look at the number as a percentage of GDP, over time, to gauge total economic impact. According to usgovernmentspending.com, the total federal spending vs GDP has been remarkably stable during that same period since around 1960: ranges 17% to 25%, currently in the low 20's. In fact a general trend line since the 80's shows nearly level. It CAN be noted the levels were much lower prior to WWI - it is the period from the late 1910's to the mid-1940's that saw by far the biggest increases. In any case, federal spending as a part of the economy has changed very little in the past 50 years. 4. In terms of revenue, the total federal income tax revenue taken in has also been pretty stable over time in the past 50 years, but with a slight downward trend (as a percentage of GDP). Individual income tax revenues are identical to 50 years ago, but business taxes are lower, again as a percentage of GDP. So really, if there is some much larger dependence on federal government than previously, it sure as heck hasn't been in the past 50 years. The federal government employees substantially fewer people, spends about as much and takes in slightly less as a percentage of the economy. One could even argue the problem is that taxes are too low, from this data. If there is a feeling of there being more federal government control now than previously, it does not appear to be financial in nature. Just wanted to set the baseline data here. If it would have been written by myself of Jenks, SS would be screaming for links right about now.

Could always take the money spend closing open air national monuments and fund a few science projects.............. (in half green font, if we had one)

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) Supposedly there are enough votes to pass a clean CR in the house, yet the vote isn't happening. That, more than anything else, sums up why American politics sucks so bad. There could easily be enough votes in the Senate to pass any of the temp funding bills the House has passed, but we'll never know since Reid won't let them come for a vote. Why do you not see that also?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) Why the hell should a tasting room need a permit from the federal gov't? How about republicans pass CR in exchange for making less stupid alcohol regulations on books (like wine across state lines). How about just less stupid regulations in general? Why stop with alcohol.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 08:37 AM) It's not just salary. There is the massive research costs. Salary is less than 25% of the cost for a professor's work at a research institution. Unless you don't want much of the advancement in medicine that we currently see (again just my field) the money needs to be there. I completely agree with the administration cost. Not to discount research, but why is that the responsibility of the tuition paying student? If I was paying tuition, I am paying it to be taught, not so he can go publish papers, research things and add a little to his prestige.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 07:31 PM) This could not be further from the truth. Believe me with the way the state is not paying the institutions the excess has been cut from most state institu.tions. there are always exceptions but there are few state schools that are running up those tabs. The exceptions are the big research institutions. The privates are a whole different game. So 3 students ponying up $120k between them doesn't cover the cost of one professor? Then he is over paid. Read what I wrote there a little bit more. As mentioned a few posts ago by someone it is more the admin bloat I am referring to. http://www.ibhe.org/PA96266/search.aspx Just check out the many admin positions. Assist. provost to this, assistant to that, all 6 figure jobs. And this doesn't count THEIR support staff, because you know they each have an assistant, a secretary, a few peons and so on.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 03:26 PM) The reason the cost is going up is that the taxpayers are no longer paying for education. The saying is that we used to be a state school, then we were a state supported school and now we are a state associated school. When I started working at the school the state supported 80% of our budget. Now it is down to under 20%. The state is giving almost as much support to private institutions that it does to "state" schools now. The schools have been forced to find other ways to get money. They can't raise tuition much each year because the state put a cap on that. So they raise "mandatory fees" and enroll many out of state students because the tuition limits don't apply to them. There is simply n o reason that it should cost $40,000+ a year for a person to go to college, where they see an actual person for maybe 4 hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week. 2-3 students per year should be able to cover a teacher's costs. What do the other 30-50 students cover? Time for higher educational facilities to cut the fat.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 05:09 PM) The guy who died because the doctor performed while drunk cant get a full recovery because we have a law that arbitrarily states a death is worth $200k? But is the person who spills hot coffee in their lap worthy of a 7 figure settlement because they are idiots?

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 01:13 PM) Try what again? He was born in Canada, period. He is American, regardless of where he was born. So try again.

Would be nice if every skit didn't have to try and poke fun towards Republicans, tea Party, etc. That said, Miley should grow her hair out. She looked pretty hot trying to be Michelle Bachman.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 12:49 PM) He's also Canadian. Birthirism. Gotta love it. try again.

Damn assault cars.................

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 07:30 PM) Dude I forgot you were old. Yeah, too bad I can't forget that. They had cut his hours down to 28 a while back when they had him at 40. They kept saying they would get him into the full time slot that someone left, but kept losing the paperwork, forgetting a signature and so on. Finally he just got another job at Grainger with a 30% increase. next day they told him they got the paperwork done. Too bad he quit. LOL. Just wait, you will get all those stories with Ritchie in time.....

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) Same question I asked bmags... what are you talking about? That's the twitter from the NYT, trying to link the shooting to the shutdown. They didn't come out and say republicans, but we all know that every headline and story they have blames Republicans, so what better way to connect the two.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 03:59 PM) Just wait until the media is able to tie her to one political party or the other. The New York Times ✔ @nytimes Fiscal Crisis: Reports of Shooter Outside Capitol http://nyti.ms/173yku3 1:48 PM - 3 Oct 2013 Already happened, my friend. They were able to just read her mind and know what caused it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 12:07 PM) LINK probably the same 35,000 they moved to part time status back in May. My son included.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 07:09 PM) Why won't Boehner allow a vote on a clean cr and a clean debt ceiling in the house? Why won't Reid allow a vote on any of the CR's that the House sent them?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) Alpha that is projecting my friend. People just don't like Ted Cruz's politics. That Jindal character I heard would have been a good choice. My beef is, I don't think Republicans would allow a minority to represent their party. Allen West, Clarance Thomas and others would disagree with you. Jindal is OK but I think is a little too close on the evangelical side to get mainstream GOP to come over.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) Seriously Alpha are you trolling? Seriously, just pass the damn cr with a delay on Obamacare and then your shutdown is over. Then get your asses back into session and decide this thing NOW, but COMPROMISING, not saying you will do it my way only, clean, or i won't pass it. reid has had multiple chances to do it, and failed to do so. Both sides are playing politcs here, you choose to only vilify one.