Unnecessary shutdowns

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The federal government is shutting down a lot of things that are either don't need to be shut down (because they cost no money to operate) or actually cost more to shut down than they do to keep operating. These include both national parks and government agency websites.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/84362-13-national-parks-impacted-government-shutdown/
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/02/government-will-shut-down-websites-even

We're at the point where the government is just being petty and working on zooming well past that point.

For those who think it's justified because the Republicans won't budge on Obamacare, that just doesn't fit the facts.



As a libertarian, I'm fine with permanently cutting 800,000 federal workers and I think it's nice that they've identified the agencies we can do without, but I'd rather it happen with at least the standard 2-week warning for people. Pretty much all politicians in office right now are acting like children, but that's what happens when the electorate is also.

Comments

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Excuse me? All I'm asking is why we/anyone should pretend that these things are not happening. Are you sure the long and strained discussion hasn't worn you out to the point where you'd begin to overreact to simple statements after reading too much into them? ;-)

If that were the case, I would recommend having a short break. I often do that too. Maybe we could continue having a reasonable conversation after that.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Maybe we could continue having a reasonable conversation after that."

lol... that was a great joke!

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Ok, well I had no idea who Grovcer Norquist was, but he's apparently "head of Americans for Tax Reform and one of the most influential Republican strategists in Washington". Not a representative in Congress. And getting rid of teachers unions isn't the same as getting rid of public schools.

From the second link: " Teri Adams, the president of the Idependence Hall Tea Party Association,"
Not a representative in Congress.

And the third link doesn't seem to have any representatives in Congress either.

So I'll ask again: Which representatives in Congress are espousing the view that we should do away with public schools?

[paft.livejournal.com]

nmg: Ok, well I had no idea who Grovcer Norquist was, but he's apparently "head of Americans for Tax Reform and one of the most influential Republican strategists in Washington".

Yeah. One of the most influential Republican strategists. Which makes it a bit surprising that you have no idea who he is.

Ever heard of a guy named "Karl Rove?"

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Yes. So what exactly is your point here?

She said there were representatives in Congress, I asked who, that was the first name in her reply, so I had assumed he was a Congressman.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Those representatives in congress are taking their cues from major Republican strategists like Grover Norquist.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

No. Besides not being your point, he isn't a representative in Congress. People don't vote for him at the ballot box. And he wasn't calling for the end of public schools in the first place. This is like making a passenger plane out of balsa wood and sticky tape.

[paft.livejournal.com]

nmg: No.

Uh, yes, actually, as you would understand if you were informed enough to know who Grover Norquist is.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Because obviously they act accordingly when standing in the ballot room. Some of the representatives in the highest legislature of your country quite openly espouse such views.

He's not a representative, people don't vote for him on election day, and he isn't (in the link at least) calling for the end of public schools.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I was expecting the nitpick regarding the use of the term "representative", in fact. Meanwhile, in reality this is one of the most influential guys among the Tea Party think-tanks. You know, the ones that set the policies which are then pursued by the representatives (http://theadvocate.com/news/7050480-123/local-tea-party-opposition-to) of that wing of the conservative party within Congress.

As for getting rid of teachers' unions and ultimately getting rid of public education, I'm sorry if you are so insistent on creating the false dichotomy of "it either removes public education outright, or it does not", whereas such a policy would in most cases include a myriad of steps in the same direction, including getting rid of teachers' unions, and opposing the so-called ObamaCores as linked above. And here I thought for a moment that you were genuinely striving for a "reasonable debate".

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

It's not a nitpick given that you said "Because obviously they act accordingly when standing in the ballot room", which was how you were justifying the "large number of people who do genuinely believe in these things".

And then "these things" goes from getting rid of public schools to getting rid of teachers unions.

This is why it's good to ask questions instead of believing what other people say. Here I would be thinking there were members of Congress openly espousing the view that we should get rid of public schools, which again, I think would be political suicide.