Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: From an #ows Organizer abt the #shutdown

Posted 11 months ago on Sept. 30, 2013, 11:40 a.m. EST by grimwomyn (35) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm not sure if I should be lamenting or celebrating this "so-called government shutdown" since the only things I see the state accomplishing are more wars and genocide overseas and the rich getting richer while we all suffer.

On the other side, health care would be nice where most of us don't freak out about going to a doctor or hospital cause we can not afford it.

Thoughts?

35 Comments

35 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

the government should provide public healthcare sans insurance

those ads that tell me I may lose my doctor

mock me for not having a doctor to lose

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

You don't have a doctor. You don't make enough to file taxes. Oh, that's just Matt lying his fucking ass off again.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

You are now.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20798) 11 months ago

"US shutdown has other nations confused and concerned"

"For most of the world, a government shutdown is very bad news - the result of revolution, invasion or disaster. Even in the middle of its ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has continued to pay its bills and workers' wages."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24342521

Insanity.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago

That's libe(R)topia.............insanity.

I've been sayin', all along.

In spite of those that refuse to understand that it actually exists.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 11 months ago

The People can create the basis for their own health care.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-cooperative-union/

Nothing is stopping them but a lack of will. People can complain about what the corporate bought people they continually elect aren't doing for them or people can get together and do something for themselves in spite of the government. But if people aren't willing to cease electing corporaticians who have no concerns for their interests, they're certainly not going to be willing to put forth any actual efforts towards doing anything mutually beneficial for themselves.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

the government should be the people's will

that sounds terribly pessimistic

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 11 months ago

Pessimistic or not, it's reality. A government cannot be the will of a people who refuse to exert any will upon the government. For a people to complain about a problem and have the ability to act independently in their own collective self interests to solve the problem but not do so because of what an unconcerned government is supposed to be doing for them yet isn't, is a self-impossed victimization, especially when the people are continually and directly responsible for electing the unconcerned government into power every two years. If the People aren't concerned enough to collectively take a stand by refusing to vote for corporaticians and create national independent institutions for themselves, why would anyone else be?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

1) Zen, what's the deal with you and Palin?

2) I still wanna kiss the baby seal.

3) Are there any untended gov't offices? Dress in business attire, go in, and make government work like it should.

Or maybe do that via remote? (Bwa ha ha ha !)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

Never saw Machete or heard about the map. Just didn't pay that kind of attention to Palin. Interesting coincidence, but when Gifford was shot, didn't the bullet enter horizontally, as in from someone on the ground? There are a lot of situations where foul play is implied but isn't investigated because of the ramifications for the select few and whatever connections are involved. Why would she, specifically, get away with anything though?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

HHmmm. Or hanging with the wrong conspiracy theorists? In your take who was backing her up?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

Most crimes are precipitated by opportunity. The question is, was there a copter or airborne device in the vicinity at the time to support that? Or a drone? Was there a history of animosity between the two, Palin and Gifford, other than say, a party divide? Anyone?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

Rather like the Brady shooting, which seemed conveniently contrived to demonstrate the inability of the masses to control themselves without government interventions and mandates?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

You were referring to Palin as a tool, right? in how many situations are there persons who seem to know something, or an action which seemed a little too well timed? Look up Jim Brady, I just had to refresh my memory myself. He was shot when there was an attempt on Reagan and thus began the first whack at a gun grab. Don't remember all details but there was something in the air at the time then too. Why / how did she have a target there?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

the seal can be picky about who she kisses

[-] 1 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

It's a GIRL??! My bad.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

who can tell ?

[-] 1 points by pigeonlady (173) from Brooklyn, NY 11 months ago

In cartoons the girls always have lipstick and long eyelashes. It's not my fault I didn't know better!

[-] 1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 11 months ago

If not receiving a mandated tax or fine meant the government could not attack third world nations for a while, would that be a sacrifice that Americans could handle?

Similar to cases of individuals not being able to find work- with a three decade low labor particiapation rate- not being covered in the press, the people who will still be out of healthcare will not be covered. Nor will the high premiums or the cost sharing, or the out of pocket minimums and maximums, all of the usual stuff with healthcare insurance.

The press will focus on the success of a few who are now getting it because of the slight raise in the medicaid level, and not question why it wasnt higher.

The problems here get as much coverage as the wars and genocide overseas.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Uh.........ok, grant renewals for head start ended. The money won't be forthcoming for many domestic violence shelters. There are about 10 more days for the federal courts to run. Or 8 now. People trying to secure loans for housing are now going to run into delays. And you have a shit load of workers that are not at work. They don't know when they are going back and they don't know how long they can keep their rent, utilities etc. running. Then there is CDC.

But, fuck ya.........I bet this showed 'em not to engage in wars....................

Kinda like rioting in your own neighborhood and burning the shit to the ground.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Well, Matt, you would probably have to go out to get a real job to start fixing your issues.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Not good enough, Matt. Bring something to the table.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 11 months ago

Yeah, you are working for the RepubliCon Cult!!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 11 months ago

Rebels Without a Clue [ AHEM... ]

By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: September 29, 2013

This may be the way the world ends — not with a bang but with a temper tantrum. [ Like the 2010 Voter tantrum which enabled this and a succession of other GOP extortion crises! ]

O.K., a temporary government shutdown — which became almost inevitable after Sunday’s House vote to provide government funding only on unacceptable conditions — wouldn’t be the end of the world. But a U.S. government default, which will happen unless Congress raises the debt ceiling soon, might cause financial catastrophe. Unfortunately, many Republicans either don’t understand this or don’t care.

Let’s talk first about the economics.

After the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 many observers concluded that such events, while clearly bad, aren’t catastrophes: essential services continue, and the result is a major nuisance but no lasting harm. That’s still partly true, but it’s important to note that the Clinton-era shutdowns took place against the background of a booming economy. Today we have a weak economy, with falling government spending one main cause of that weakness. A shutdown would amount to a further economic hit, which could become a big deal if the shutdown went on for a long time.

Still, a government shutdown looks benign compared with the possibility that Congress might refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

First of all, hitting the ceiling would force a huge, immediate spending cut, almost surely pushing America back into recession. Beyond that, failure to raise the ceiling would mean missed payments on existing U.S. government debt. And that might have terrifying consequences.

Why? Financial markets have long treated U.S. bonds as the ultimate safe asset; the assumption that America will always honor its debts is the bedrock on which the world financial system rests. In particular, Treasury bills — short-term U.S. bonds — are what investors demand when they want absolutely solid collateral against loans. Treasury bills are so essential for this role that in times of severe stress they sometimes pay slightly negative interest rates — that is, they’re treated as being better than cash.

Now suppose it became clear that U.S. bonds weren’t safe, that America couldn’t be counted on to honor its debts after all. Suddenly, the whole system would be disrupted. Maybe, if we were lucky, financial institutions would quickly cobble together alternative arrangements. But it looks quite possible that default would create a huge financial crisis, dwarfing the crisis set off by the failure of Lehman Brothers five years ago.

No sane political system would run this kind of risk. But we don’t have a sane political system; we have a system in which a substantial number of Republicans believe that they can force President Obama to cancel health reform by threatening a government shutdown, a debt default, or both, and in which Republican leaders who know better are afraid to level with the party’s delusional wing. For they are delusional, about both the economics and the politics.

On the economics: Republican radicals generally reject the scientific consensus on climate change; many of them reject the theory of evolution, too. So why expect them to believe expert warnings about the dangers of default? Sure enough, they don’t: the G.O.P. caucus contains a significant number of “default deniers,” who simply dismiss warnings about the dangers of failing to honor our debts.

Meanwhile, on the politics, reasonable people know that Mr. Obama can’t and won’t let himself be blackmailed in this way, and not just because health reform is his key policy legacy. After all, once he starts making concessions to people who threaten to blow up the world economy unless they get what they want, he might as well tear up the Constitution. But Republican radicals — and even some leaders — still insist that Mr. Obama will cave in to their demands.

So how does this end? The votes to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling are there, and always have been: every Democrat in the House would vote for the necessary measures, and so would enough Republicans. The problem is that G.O.P. leaders, fearing the wrath of the radicals, haven’t been willing to allow such votes. What would change their minds?

Ironically, considering who got us into our economic mess, the most plausible answer is that Wall Street will come to the rescue — that the big money will tell Republican leaders that they have to put an end to the nonsense.

But what if even the plutocrats lack the power to rein in the radicals? In that case, Mr. Obama will either let default happen or find some way of defying the blackmailers, trading a financial crisis for a constitutional crisis.

This all sounds crazy, because it is. But the craziness, ultimately, resides not in the situation but in the minds of our politicians and the people who vote for them. Default is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago

We'll have to see what they actually shut down. The sequester didn't go so well and this has the potential to be worse.

Even co-pays can get scary if you are sick, let alone you and your spouse.

[-] -2 points by MyBrothersKeeper (-36) 11 months ago

I would love a shutdown. Give a man enough rope.... Give Washington and WallSt all the rope they ask for.