Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lockheed To Furlough 3,000 On Monday, Layoffs Also Kicking In

timothy posted 1 year,20 days | from the can-lassie-save-the-military-industrial-complex? dept.

The Military 341

Dawn Kawamoto writes "Lockheed employees are the latest casualty in the government shutdown, with the defense contractor announcing Friday it plans to furlough 3,000 workers on Monday. But what they didn't mention is they are laying off workers too, says a Lockheed source on the hush-hush. Lockheed, of course, isn't the only defense contractor taking it on the chin. Other contractors include United Technologies, which has furloughed 2,000, and BAE Systems which cut 1,000."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The government wants you to hurt. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041503)

They want to make you think that if you don't give them what they want then you'll suffer for it. Legal extortion from the ring masters.

Re:The government wants you to hurt. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041527)

Lockheed Martin is a welfare queen sucking heartily on the tax payer titty for decades...boo fucking hoo.

Re:The government wants you to hurt. (0, Troll)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041945)

They want to make you think that if you don't give them what they want then you'll suffer for it. Legal extortion from the ring masters.

Most of what I have heard about is crap the government should have never been funding in the first place. So what if some beltway bandits get furloughed? So instead of spending as much on weapons as the next thirty countries, we may slip to only the next twenty countries. Even the closing of the national parks has an obvious solution: raise the entrance fees to cover the operating expenses, so no funding is needed.

Re:The government wants you to hurt. (1)

MobSwatter (2884921) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042017)

Ya'll sure 'bout that? Maybe cutting corners before Obamacare hits the books?

Re:The government wants you to hurt. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042089)

A couple of problems with your scenario. First, the purpose of many of the park closings (and other closings) is to inflict pain for political purposes, not because it costs the government money to leave them open or accessible. They are actually spending money to erect barricades and to close parks and monuments that have been left open or accessible in previous shutdowns. Call it the "Chicago way." Just look at the fact that a growing number of government web servers are still up and running, but the web page says "we're closed." A few will let you get past the to see data or forms you need, but not many that I've seen today. Did the data change? No. So they are just being jerks - paying money to not only put up the warnings, but to also make the servers refuse to provide useful information despite the fact that they are still running. Like I wrote - the "Chicago way."

Obama Forcing Shut Down of Parks the Feds Don't Even Fund [breitbart.com]

Second, a lot of US defense spending is for personnel and readiness. The US has an all volunteer military that pays wages competitive to the civilian sector. Most other countries have mainly relied on conscription. US soldiers make a lot more than soldiers in other nations that are drafted. There are also disparities since the US is a first world nation and many others either aren't, or are much poorer. An American corporal makes as much per month as a Chinese or Iraqi general. The same goes for weapons purchases. Big cuts in the defense budget will eat into capacity. Some people may be OK with that, but eventually it will bite the US.

Weaponized keynesianism (-1)

rsilvergun (571051) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042111)

for what it's worth, a large part of what our defense industry does is pry money out of the hands of the super wealthy and spread it around the economy. Eisenhower basically created the Military Industrial Complex for purpose of keeping the US economy out of recession post WWII, and he talked about regretting it in his Memoirs. Wealth concentrates, and left to their own devices the rich will take it all for themselves. The economy becomes a zero sum game when power comes into play and the joy of using your wealth to control and manipulate others. Fear of the communists kept the rich in check (somewhat) and allowed for protectionism and pork projects that took money from the wealthy and redistributed it without anyone's feathers being ruffled. Now that that's gone we haven't got anything to replace it with. That's why wealth inequality is the worst since the 1920s...

Re:The government wants you to hurt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042139)

not hurting me one god damed bit, course I dont work for a givernment leech that makes shit just to make shit for the giverment

quit being takers and do something for yourself, boo hoo I cant go camping at the local dam, In the nearly 30 years living here I never knew they had campgrounds down there. so if nothing else, this shutdown has helped me.

Damn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041507)

We won't be able to kill as many people. Shucks.

Re:Damn (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041663)

the two main exports of the USA are death and maiming. these companies provide that

Re:Damn (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041929)

Looks like you're wrong. (I'm not shocked.)

62-year milestone: Fuel tops list of U.S. exports [seattletimes.com]

2011 (through October)

1. Fuel: $73.4 billion.
2. Aircraft: $70.8 billion.
3. Motor vehicles: $39.6 billion.
4. Vacuum tubes: $37.1 billion.
5. Telecommunications equipment: $33.2 billion.

Re:Damn (0)

rubycodez (864176) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041939)

human life is worth more than those banking cartel fiat wonderbuck units you're using.

Re:Damn (2, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042099)

95 Americans have won Nobel Prizes in Medicine. That's about half of all such prizes awarded over the entire planet.

It seems to me that the chief US export is life.

Re: Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042065)

You completely missed the point.

Re:Damn (1)

Ziest (143204) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042151)

Vacuum Tubes ? Really ? Aside from guitar / bass amplifiers and hi end stereo equipment who uses vacuum tubes ? And $37.1 billion ? Who knew

Punitive, intentionally vindictive - Democrats (0, Flamebait)

approachingZero (1365381) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041535)

The Democrats are just getting started. This is from the top down, like the IRS voter suppression to make sure President Obama won re-election.

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/04/park-ranger-angry-admits-they-were-told-to-make-life-as-difficult-for-people-as-we-can/ [weaselzippers.us]

Re:Punitive, intentionally vindictive - Democrats (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041641)

You linked to a site called weaselzippers.us? Try again buddy, this time using something a little more substantial.

Re:Punitive, intentionally vindictive - Democrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041871)

Here you go:
CS Monitor, "Government shutdown: Offers that would reopen national parks rebuffed by Feds" [csmonitor.com]
Washington Times (op-ed), "The cheap tricks of the game" [washingtontimes.com]

The CS Monitor's article has more meat: interestingly, the state of Arizona and local businesses near the Grand Canyon offered fund a reopening, but the Park Service refused. Local coverage at Grand Canyon News, "Tusayan businesses fight to reopen Grand Canyon National Park" [grandcanyonnews.com]

One message that may come of this shutdown is that some functions of the government currently ruled "non-essential" are of sufficient demand to states and private entities that they could well be administered without federal help, and that the states, municipalities, and private entities that value those functions would be better served by taking on responsibility for them rather than delegating them to the federal government, especially as the federal government has, through the vicissitudes of politics, become increasingly unreliable. It may be in the best economic interests for the Arizonans to push for control over their parks, which became federal properties back when the local population was lower and less able to administer that land and had less incentive to do so. Devolving the "non-essential" onto other bodies (as in the case of the Grand Canyon) or privatizing them (as the space program has been moving to do anyway) may prove a common-sense solution to meeting citizens' needs and reducing federal expenditure. The power federal politicians gain from being able to close down such functions, however, stands in the way of that.

Defense (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041543)

Defense spending needs to be reduced, but this bullshit isn't the way to do it. If anything these shenanigans are going to end up costing the American taxpayer more.

Your (dipshit) Congress in action.

Re:Defense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041613)

Our dipshit congress......

Re:Defense (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041619)

Generally most of the people intent on shrinking the US budget as much as possible do not want to shrink defense spending. They consider an overwhelming defense/offense force with pie-in-the-sky projects to be vital, but health care and social programs are unnecessary (or should be handled by the states/counties, at which point they'll gripe that the states/counties spend too much).

Re: Defense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041713)

That's a bit of an oversimplification. There are three major camps now in the red team: the neoconservatives who favor imperialism and value military spending for the sake of American power, the vested-interest establishment that wants to feed its defense contractors for little reason except to reap kickbacks and support local porkbarrel spending, and the libertarian wing (with some of the Tea Party) that earnestly and without cynicism believes in reducing military expenditure for constitutional reasons and a sense of historical obligation to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The blue team finds it hardest to work with the lattermost faction, which uncompromisingly also wants to cut social spending; the establishment cores of each team, blue and red, work together to increase spending on arms and useless foreign conflicts. The leftmost blue team factions (i.e. Kucinich) might like to reduce military expenditures, but no one listens to them. There's really no mainstream political will on either side of the aisle to reduce the military to sane levels, because that will cost campaign dollars and district jobs. Everyone has to Support Our Troops to get reelected, after all. Eisenhower was right: the Military-Industrial Complex has changed the way we think about the economic and political status of the Union.

Re: Defense (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041911)

the libertarian wing (with some of the Tea Party) that earnestly and without cynicism believes in reducing military expenditure for constitutional reasons and a sense of historical obligation to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

That and the fact that it costs a lot of money. Not that that's a bad reason (I believe it's the best reason), but it's an important one you left out.

The blue team finds it hardest to work with the lattermost faction, which uncompromisingly also wants to cut social spending

If the libertarian wing is that uncompromising, then they're either politically naive or just poseurs. It's better to get some of what you want than none of what you want. If you can make common cause with someone, even though you completely disagree with them otherwise, the do it. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were working together on a push to investigate the Fed.

The leftmost blue team factions (i.e. Kucinich) might like to reduce military expenditures, but no one listens to them.

Who listens to the libertarian faction? Nobody listens to the left wing, because there aren't that many of them. Kucinich, Sanders, uh, help me, I'm running out of names. The genuinely libertarian faction? Ron Paul, and, uh, I don't know. I know less about them so add names if appropriate.

Re: Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042035)

You could add Maxine Waters to the left-most fringe, but it might be best not to listen to her; even she is amazed at the unintended negative consequences of her own flood insurance legislation. To the libertarian right, there's Paul's son in the Senate, as well as most of the names on the Wikipedia page for the faction [wikipedia.org] , although Ted Cruz is probably the most prominent name at the moment, for better or worse. He's for reducing defense spending and ending the occupation of Afghanistan, but he's the ringleader of the "uncompromising" when it comes to social spending. He seems to be both naive and a poseur, if that's possible, and most of the mainstream GOP Senators have told him that over the past two days.

But, if you want to know who listens to the libertarian faction, consider that it was Cruz' tirade against the Affordable Care Act that sparked the current budget/ACA crisis. Rand Paul made much more decorous headlines for his filibuster against drones and the expansion of the police state, and he's found a voice that people hear.

The elder Paul and Sanders could work together on the Fed, because the Fed doesn't do much with social spending -- after all the QE that's been pumped into the financial system, there's been remarkably little inflation precisely because that money is tied up in shadow banking, financial activity, and overseas reserve-currency demand rather than getting pushed through to main street. You won't see the younger Paul working with any Democrats on welfare reform any time soon, however; it's just not going to happen.

Re: Defense (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042061)

Who listens to the libertarian faction? Nobody listens to the left wing, because there aren't that many of them. Kucinich, Sanders, uh, help me, I'm running out of names. The genuinely libertarian faction? Ron Paul, and, uh, I don't know. I know less about them so add names if appropriate.

I had the impression that a large percentage of the IT community listened to the libertarians and agreed with them, though it's not half as common here as it used to be.

You're dead-on right about the left wing, though. It's incredibly frustrating when people point to the NSA-loving pro-military centrist politicians like Feinstein, Boxer, or Pelosi as examples of liberals... Lynn Woolsey was/is a real liberal, but she wasn't into creating a media circus (so nobody outside her/our district really noticed her) and decided to retire from politics rather than run again in '12.

Re:Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042051)

Actually I want it in the hand of the state because it forces state to use there money wisely because if they don't it give citizens a option to leave for a better maintained state. So no I wouldn't gripe I would leave.

Re:Defense (5, Insightful)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041629)

Defense spending needs to be reduced, but this bullshit isn't the way to do it. If anything these shenanigans are going to end up costing the American taxpayer more.

Your (dipshit) Congress in action.

This is not going to reduce spending one bit. When the Congress gets done with 'shutdown' theater, everything that was put on hold will be restarted. The delays will cost more and some of the people who were intimately knowledgeable of the projects will move on, to be replaced by people who do not know as much of what is going on. None of these projects will stop, which is the only way that they would cost any less, they will continue and the interruption will make them cost more. And the Congress will continue appropriating while citing the interruption as a "need" for more money.

Re:Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042067)

NO but if congress passes a law forcing Washington to keep and maintain a budget it will help in future years.

Re:Defense (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041649)

Well, America is acting as if it was bankrupt.
Is it bankrupt? it walks like a duck*..

(* a duck walks it's ass swinging all over the place.

btw a system where a party holding power in any of the houses(in a multi house system) can decide to block everything in the country is fucked up. that's like 100 guys going on a strike and whole country stopping still. if they were REALLY for the average american, if the average american was really so much against obamacare they could have just done a _real_ strike.

Re:Defense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041751)

a system where a party holding power in any of the houses(in a multi house system) can decide to block everything in the country is fucked up. ... if they were REALLY for the average american, if the average american was really so much against obamacare they could have just done a _real_ strike.

Exactly which party are you referring to?

The Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a spending bill funding the entire federal government - except Obamacare. The Democrat controlled Senate rejected ALL OF IT.

So which party is holding us hostage? The Democrats in the Senate. Yes, I am completely against Obamacare but I have a family to feed and I just got fired over this.

Re:Defense (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041821)

So in the next election you get a republican president and a democrat house and the democrats decide to block every single budget that the republicans propose with the condition that they alter it to suit the democrats.

I used to think that constitution and two-party system of yours was a little weird but now I'm convinced that it's plain stupid.

Re:Defense (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041859)

It is not the constitution that is stupid it is the 2 party system that we evolved into.

Re:Defense (1, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041903)

Uh huh. Sure. At some point, you're going to gave to realize that the founders' political theories were flawed. The whole point of a constitution is to anticipate tyranny and then dissipate it.

Re:Defense (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041873)

The Democrat controlled Senate rejected ALL OF IT.

Yes that is how it works. They can accept it or reject it. There is no cherry picking. Bringing healthcare reductions into a vital bill after votes on repealing obamacare has failed over forty times is nothing more than a hostage tactic.

You cannot be fired over a government shutdown. You can be furloughed or laid off, but not fired.

That combined with your clear lack of understanding of civics, I am not surprised you do not have a job, but rest assured your children can still get healtchare.

Re:Defense (5, Informative)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041959)

The Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a spending bill funding the entire federal government - except Obamacare.

Whatever you think of Obamacare, it was passed into law by a majority of both houses and the president's signature, just like the Constitution requires. Now the house R's, instead of trying to repeal the law, are instituting a tyranny of the minority. Don't do what we want, and we'll screw up everything. Much as it sucks to have the federal government largely shut down, the D's are right not to give into this extortion. Let this kind of crap get started, and we'll have a situation where an overall minority that controls one house, or the presidency, gets a chance every year to effectively veto any law they don't like.

Re:Defense (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042047)

Whatever you think of Obamacare, it was passed into law by a majority of both houses and the president's signature, just like the Constitution requires.

I see you're good at parroting Democrat talking points.

The law was passed by a previous Congress, and the current Congress doesn't want to fund it. Since funding bills have to come from Congress, they have every right to refuse to fund a law.

I presume you just as outraged when Obama told the Justice Department not to enforce laws he didn't like, right?

Re:Defense (1)

CQDX (2720013) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042053)

1) How is it a tyranny of the MINORITY when the R's hold the majority in the House and many ran on an anti-Obamacare platform? 2) How can we expect the R's to want to adhere to the LAW when the Executive Branch has been granting waivers to a large number of deep pocket corporations and unions just to keep supporters from revolting?

Re:Defense (1)

ShoulderOfOrion (646118) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042135)

Uh, last time I checked, that's actually how it works. If both the House and Senate were Republican-controlled, an 'overall minority(?)' Democratic President could veto every bill they sent him. Likewise, the Congress doesn't have to fund squat.

There's no new conspiracy here, just the same age-old one. You youngsters think every new drama you see you just invented. Nothing new about that either.

Re:Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041785)

it's means it is, you illiterate buffoon.

Re:Defense (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042071)

Polls conducted on the question give the following results:

1. Obamacare : Against
2. Affordable Care Act: For
3. Coverage for Pre-existing conditions: For
4. Coverage for young adult children: For
5. Health Care Subsidies: For
6. Universal coverage: For
7. Medicare: For
8. Medicare Prescription Coverage: For
9. Small Business Coverage Subsidy: For
10. Individual Mandate: Against

Now the same polling found most American thought the ACA includes coverage for non-citizens, death panels and cuts to Medicare. It doesn't.

Most Americans just don't know very much about it, and opinions are very inconsistent.

Oh, anyone that has 60T in assets and 2.4T* in debt that is denominated in a fiat currency that it issues is not bankrupt.

*2.4T is the US net international investment position, that is the difference between the US debt and the assets it owns internationally.

Quack.

Hey Silicon Valley! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041553)

Looking for those "qualified Americans"that you can't find?!

Well, heeerrrre they are!

And they have have been working on much more advanced technology than your dipshit advertising/push/ïnterests/ or whatever the buzz word is for basically saying "we're advertizing shit"; which is what everything I have seen in the Valley is selling.

These guys can do everything you want.

But here is the catch - they have been paid well, they are Americans, and they know their worth.

So what's it gonna be?!

Didn't think so. You are all a bunch of lying hypocrites. Fuck You!

I hope we get Eisenhower era level of income taxes - you sacks of shit.

Re:Hey Silicon Valley! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041611)

Would mod up if I could.

Re:Hey Silicon Valley! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041969)

Think about what's going to happen to YOUR job when a couple hundred thousand highly skilled and educated software engineers hit the job market, all U.S. Citizens with references and squeaky clean records. And we don't need those cushy Silicon Valley perks to get the job done.

(Captcha: "compete".. Lol.)

kiss your... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041557)

campaign "contributions" good bye....

i can totally see defense industry cutting back on bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributions in upcoming elections, or turning their back on previously-"sponsored" candidates currently in office.... AND a corresponding increase in defense appropriations bills over the next 2-5 years, being congress' effort to win them back.

Who shut down the government? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041563)

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/10/04/who-shut-down-the-government-n1716292

(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)

Re:Who shut down the government? (2)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041653)

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

Actually, the Supreme Court noted that two sections, the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion that burdened states were unconstitutional. They upheld the former only. The latter was severed from the law despite the Supreme Court having no constitutional authority to do so (they've done this before, the precedent is some time ago).

(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)

Shortly for me. But I was close to end of season anyway. I'm dubious that the government shut down will fix anything, but if it does curb the harm of Obamacare, it will be worth losing my job.

Re:Who shut down the government? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041949)

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

Actually, the Supreme Court noted that two sections, the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion that burdened states were unconstitutional. They upheld the former only. The latter was severed from the law despite the Supreme Court having no constitutional authority to do so (they've done this before, the precedent is some time ago).

(I got layed off today. There my Hope and Change right up my ass.)

Shortly for me. But I was close to end of season anyway. I'm dubious that the government shut down will fix anything, but if it does curb the harm of Obamacare, it will be worth losing my job.

Youre losing your job because you're stupid, not because of the government shut-down.
Obamacare isn't going anywhere. The republicans are just poor losers. Nothing new here.

Re:Who shut down the government? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041673)

Prepare to have your comments modded into oblivion. You can not come on slashdot and say that the shutdown is anything but the evil Republicans fault and that Democrats are gods among men and can walk on water.

Re: Who shut down the government? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041765)

Bravo for laying this all out so clearly, and my heartfelt condolences for being laid off. I would add one thing: that Congress, like any parliament or legislature, is designed to be inefficient. A king or dictator is much faster at implementing new policies; a bicameral legislature is supposed to fight itself and the magistrates who execute the law. Putting the power of the purse into the hands of the lower, larger, rabble-aligned and both frequently and directly elected (remember, the Senate was not originally) chamber was the Founder's way of ensuring that fights like this would happen and keep the government from running efficiently. The House especially was intended to check the administration; that's why they control the money. Now, if only the Senate would do its job and check the military...

Re:Who shut down the government? (5, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041803)

You are correct but you're still an idiot. Now that you are unemployed and have no healthcare and potentially have pre-existing conditions, you better hope and pray for a change in attitude from the remainder of the House majority. A few days of slow business didn't get you layed off - it was going to happen anyways, this just happened to be a convenient time to do so.

So where does that leave you? COBRA for a few months if you're lucky under existing law and then you get to be a single person (or family) negotiating with a multinational insurance corporation. Have you done that before? If not I'll tell you a trick, lube up real good before you go begging, cause you're going to need it.

OTOH come Jan 1st, you'll get to join up with millions of others just like you and with your combined negotiating power you will be able to get a much much better deal, better in fact than any Corporate plan. Better because you will be paying less than what you plus the Corp would pay (yes they pay for some percentage of the policy, the individual typically pays less than 50%, depending on the size of the group).

Don't be an idiot. Realize that economies of scale are real and that group plans are better than individual plans, regardless of who manages the group enrollment policy.

Re:Who shut down the government? (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041807)

That was an awful lot of words built up on one fundamental, crippling flaw.

The House has the right to initiate budgets, as you say. But those budgets must be agreed to by the Senate and (barring a 2/3rd majority) the President.

If your stance is that the Senate and President must accept whatever the House gives them, then why do we even have a Senate or Executive?

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

wile_e8 (958263) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041941)

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution....

Except when I disagree with how they are exercising their powers, then they are shutting down the government.

Not only that (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042129)

But the budget isn't the time to fight things. The way to get a law changed isn't to say "Let's stop paying for the law!" but rather to change the law. The ACA can be repealed, just as it was introduced. That is the right way. However there isn't the votes for that.

What's worse is that there IS the votes to pass the budget in a straight up and down vote but the leadership won't let it happen. That's why people are, rightly, calling "taking hostage". The unmodified budget could and should pass a vote, but they won't let it go to vote because they are mad. A minority trying to force things on a majority.

I also can 100% support the president in saying "No we won't make concessions," because it is in the same vein as "Never negotiate with terrorists." If they can get away with whatever they want just by threatening a shutdown, then that'll happen every single time.They continue to force more and more radical agendas saying "Do this or we shut things down!" No, no negotiation when you play hostage with the budget. Do it right or fuck off.

You partisans crack me up (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041833)

The US political system is deliberately designed to create gridlock. The philosophy is that the less government can do, the better. Obviously nothing is idiot proof. Yelling about how one side is evil and the other good, while the other side takes the same tone is just part of the plan. Eventually though someone involved is supposed to be mature enough to ensure the essential stuff happens.

Re:Who shut down the government? (4, Insightful)

iamhigh (1252742) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041855)

I am sure there are some excellent rebuttals that will be coming your way... many on a technical/procedural level that I will not attempt. I will however, give you an example that shows the absurdity of this line of thinking.

When/if Democrats/Libertarians get in power of the House, you have basically stated that they are allowed to "defund" any part of the government they wish. Don't like drone strikes, just defund it. Don't like the whole damn military, just defund it. Don't like national parks, just defund it. Don't like border patrol, just defund it. Don't like the FBI/CIA/NASA/etc., just defund it. Don't like a single program within any of those agencies, just defund it.

You have basically created an end-around to the entire democratic process and made the House the most powerful group of people in the country. Screw the Senate, the Executive branch, the Judicial branch and the People... it's all up to the House to decide what is law; after all if they don't like, just defund it.

Where is the check of power on the House?

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041921)

Yes, this is essentially a coup attempt but most Americans like OP are too fucking retarded to understand.

Re:Who shut down the government? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041951)

The Senate and the veto power of the President are the checks on the House's ability to defund programs. They can refuse to pass or can veto budgets that the House passes. That's exactly what's happening. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. The Constitution is not a blueprint for efficiency; it's a set of rules for political warfare designed to keep the politicians at each others' throats so that they're less able to choke the people instead. The government works as intended when the House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court are all trying to undermine each other and build their own power, because the people who designed the government didn't trust human nature to provide in perpetuity the kind of leaders who would observe moderation and remain within the bounds set upon them. The Founders knew that power attracts the ambitious, and that the only way to check ambition was to pit the ambitious against one another.

The Democrats (except for the fringe left) aren't going to try to defund the NSA or drones (Obama arguably makes too much use of both to give up either willingly), but one could imagine the libertarians (the fringe more-or-less right) doing so if they ever went mainstream, and that would be in accord with the system of checks and balances. The Senate and the President could try to stop them, and eventually the administration shuts down unless a compromise is reached. This weakens all parties involved and shows the people that their leaders are more interested in ambition than service, and that large swaths of the government are truly nonessential. The people, outraged at their leaders' incompetence and the waste of money that goes into nonessential functions, should then rabidly demand more efficient service for less tax money; that's the cue to kick out the incumbents. Once upon a time that happened, but the people have lost their ambition.

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041991)

Yeah, lets get rid of non-essential services like the FDA so we can have mass poisoning of baby food like in China! Let freedom ring, brother!

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042105)

And there's the outrage.

The current system regards FDA inspectors as non-essential, but DEA enforcement as essential. It's less important to the republic, as it now stands, that consumers be able to make informed decisions about the products that they buy and eat, than it is to maintain the apparatus of a police state. You should be angry about that.

That said, no one on either side has proposed eliminating the FDA. The parties have, however, done a poor job at classifying what is necessary and what is not. While we may have guessed at this before, the shutdown has made this crystal clear: crisis shows the truth in a stark light. Now it's up to the people to call, mail, and fax their representatives to change that classification or to kick their representatives out of office. This is where the people should demand better service for less money: make the FDA essential and cut something else during a shutdown.

Re:Who shut down the government? (2)

smaddox (928261) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042093)

You should read up on game theory. It might change your perspective. Particularly Nash equilibrium.

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041905)

you have a right to fight for your passions

but if your passion is to defund badly needed healthcare reform, you're wrong

and you will lose

Re:Who shut down the government? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041913)

You just lost your job thanks to a bunch of tea party freaks and you still support them! How much of a fucking retard can you be? You support the tea party but work for the government in a non-essential capacity! You fucking idiot! Tell me who is in favor of "reduced government"? Looks like you just got reduced, bitch. Have fun being unemployed you fucking loser.

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041917)

Hell of a post. Hope everything turns out okay for you and yours.

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041977)

If the house gets to choose which government programs it wants to fund, I want to be able to choose which districts get my tax dollars.

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042009)

Your furloughed too. Maybe you can use the time wisely and get some news from other sources that right wing or libertarian sites.

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042025)

Biggest pile of BS I've read all week.

Re:Who shut down the government? (2)

rahvin112 (446269) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042033)

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

It's funny you put that at the top because you just fucking demonstrated it. Everyone's at fault, but there is one group holding government hostage to defund something that's not even part of the spending bill. ACA is already funded, and the house is trying to undo that funding at the threat of shutting down the government.

Your post was nothing but a bunch of horseshit partisan politics and I hope you enjoy your layoff. You have been clearly sucking on the government tit. You are exactly the kind of government spending we need to cut.

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042041)

OP is a republican operative cut and pasting GOP talking points, just google a few lines of his post...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/04/who_shut_down_the_government_120206.html

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042043)

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government."

Only if you believe the only way you can know something is to observe it directly. Sure people can lie and deceive, but I think we can take their words as indicating they do want it. In fact, they even want to push the narrative that they didn't shut down government, that they're on the side of righteousness, and that they're innocent angels, not hostage-taking terrorists.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/66021/government-shutdown-8-people-who-are-actually-happy-about-it

But sorry dude, those little political stunts letting veterans into memorials? Telling a park worker that she should be ashamed of herself? Fucking shows it's just a game to them, publicity hunting like that isn't genuine, it's as dishonest as the Penguin kissing a baby while running for Mayor of Gotham.

Of course, they're complaining about a Democrat acting as if it's a game, which just shows their hypocrisy. They could at least be honest and admit why they're doing their own stunts. No wait, they'd have us believe they'd never do such a thing, as they're nothing but honest saints or some other such crap.

But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

Which they voted to delay (along with their numerous votes to repeal it, so let's not pretend that isn't what the Republicans claim to want.)

And the Senate said "No, we vote for the bill that covers paying for government, and not for shutting down or delaying Obamacare any further"

The Speaker of the House refused to even put that up for a straight vote. And continued to claim that they have an absolute majority of support for not continuing the healthcare reform. Apparently they forgot to check for any elections, or any polling. It's nowhere close to the majority they claim.

What does that tell you, when they rely on support they don't actually have? I know what it tells me, that they want to appear as if they were doing the popular thing, which is not always the right thing.

But hey, keep pushing the right-wing Narrative, they sure need more people to buy it.

Re:Who shut down the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042045)

the republicans said that the prospect eliminating the health care changes was worth you losing your job,
because even though they've tried some 40 times using the legitimate congressional process, they
are unable to undo the actions of a previous congress.

the democrats said that keeping the health care changes was more important you losing your job...
more importantly they said that maintaining the spirit of compromise and the balance of powers
was more important than your job

no one in the room really had to conflate the prospect of you losing your job with the debate on national
health care

and so you blame obama

Re:Who shut down the government? (2)

lexman098 (1983842) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042063)

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

That's not even close to the point of division of powers. The point is to keep a check on one branch's overall power. The president can't execute a law that was found unconstitutional by the supreme court even though he's the "executor", and really he shouldn't be able to just "ignore" implementations of a law either. Likewise, the legislature, after passing a law, can't (or shouldn't) be able to sabotage a law surreptitiously. The right thing to do would be to pass a new law repealing obamacare (oh how they've tried) in accordance with the *spirit* of the constitution. What you're implying is that they can just say "well we have to approve the funding so we're going to exploit that to compensate for our true lack of power in this case".

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

smaddox (928261) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042077)

It's a shame you posted anonymously, because this is one of the clearest posts on the article. You are absolutely correct that the republican controlled house is operating fully within the extent of the law. Nonetheless, the republicans are still using ethically and morally questionable tactics to get what they want. They are no better than the Democrats who are unwilling to play ball.

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

Minupla (62455) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042107)

An interesting tidbit - Obamacare is apparently going forward (check Google news if you don't believe me.)

How could this be since the money is still being held up, as the house has refused to fund it?

Well the answer is that the stuff in the budget that the House approves isn't all the money that the government is authorized to spend. Some things are funded in multiyear chunks for example and can therefore continue to utilize the money allocated to them while the House/Senate/Pres discuss this year's budget.

Obama care is one of these. The ask from the House was not to remove funding for Obama care from the budget they were voting on. That would have been one thing. The House was/is holding the budget hostage against the president/senate agreeing to delay implementation of Obama care by 12 months.

That to me is a whole different thing then if the money for Obama care was in the stack that the house was approving, and they said, "we don't approve this piece over here". Obamacare got funded when the original vote passed the House. What the house is doing is the legislative equivalent of saying "Dat's a nice goverment you have over there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.... mehaps if you delay Obamacare we could provide some protection to ensure nothing unfortunate happens to it."

And I'm very sorry you got laid off today. That sucks rocks.

Min

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042123)

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives

It says no such thing. You're confusing it with raising revenue. From Article I, Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

As does the senate, and least in a negative sense, the president via his veto power. What's your point?

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want.

So the House cannot blame other people for passing Obamacare. I agree.

we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to

No, we know that two factions are controlling the situation. All the House has to do is pass a budget that funds Obamacare.

unless the Republicans get their side of the story out

Cry me a river. Those poor Republicans and their victim complex - they're so misunderstood! What's the most popular news channel in America? Oh, that's right, Fox News. What a shame that they won't present the Republican side of the story.

Re:Who shut down the government? (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042143)

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

A bill won't get to a House vote if Speaker Boehner doesn't allow it. Despite majority support for such a measure, Boehner unilaterally refuses to put a clean CR to an up-or-down vote.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

Where does "right of the House" end and "prerogative of the Speaker" begin?

Not the only ones either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041565)

Oakridge National Laboratory is also laying off some of their employees as well. By laying off I don't mean temporarily kicking them to the curb until the shutdown is done and over with but actually telling them to find another job. I've heard that NASA is doing the same thing but I can't confirm that one.

Re:Not the only ones either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041667)

Good, their work is best done by private contractors anyway. This shutdown of nonessential stuff is the best news the US has had since Reagan got President in 1981. Maybe we can see some actual debts paid off.

Cruz control is a good thing.

Re:Not the only ones either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041891)

Good, their work is best done by private contractors anyway.

Private contractors are gone, too.

Re:Not the only ones either (1)

docmordin (2654319) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041943)

Good, their work is best done by private contractors anyway.

Private entities rarely, if at all, focus a majority of their efforts into pure research, unlike the national labs. Funding pure research, which is one of the few actions that the US Government at least does halfway correctly, is ultimately essential if we are to progress the state of the art and thus create new fields and products that are ripe for commercialization.

Re:Not the only ones either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041947)

Just because something is private doesn't make it free you god damn fool.

Re:Not the only ones either (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042003)

Oakridge National Laboratory is also laying off some of their employees as well. By laying off I don't mean temporarily kicking them to the curb until the shutdown is done and over with but actually telling them to find another job. I've heard that NASA is doing the same thing but I can't confirm that one.

the conspiracy nuts are going to go nuts over that the shutdown is looking more and more like a bankruptcy than just squibbling over some political issues.

credit rating should suffer.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041567)

Taking it on the chin?

Mr. Zorg, we need to lay off some workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041571)

Fire one million.

Re:Mr. Zorg, we need to lay off some workers (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041769)

Uh, I was thinking 500 thousand would be enough. Uh. We can cut 500 thousand taxi drivers. It won't be so bad.

The predictable result (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041601)

The predictable result will be schedule slips, increased costs, and more waste. Of course the system is conflicted.

DoD to award contracts throughout shutdown, but won't announce them [federaltimes.com]

Defense Giant Warns Shutdown Could Force 5,000 Layoffs [americanmachinist.com]
Jupiter aircraft company furloughs 2,000 employees because of gov't shutdown [cbs12.com]
Shutdown prompts furloughs for 1,800 in Ohio National Guard [dispatch.com]

Slashdot Politics? (1)

stephenmac7 (2700151) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041699)

News for nerds? I don't think so. What's happened to slashdot lately? All kinds of political (and biased) posts.

Re:Slashdot Politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041801)

This is going to directly affect a lot of us. This time it IS news for nerds.

Re:Slashdot Politics? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041813)

"Lately"?

Brilliant PR (5, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041719)

Lockheed gets to lay off a bunch of employees while blaming the government even though the government shutdown doesn't actually affect them. That's brilliant PR. Now the employees will be angry at the government for shutting down instead of Lockheed executives laying off thousands of people in order to pad their own back pockets.

Re:Brilliant PR (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041755)

And to top that off they ask their laid off employees to lobby the government for them for free.

Lockheed has always been a special kind of corrupt long before the financial industry raised the bar.

Re:Brilliant PR (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041933)

Maybe you should read the articles. Lockheed is a government defense contractor. They work closely with the government. When their government contacts aren't working and they need approval to move a project from one phase to the next, what do you expect them to do? When their classified rooms are closed, how are they going to do classified work?

Furlough != layoffs. The amount of people being laid off hasn't been released yet. It's supposed to be minimal and related to projects that have just finished and the workers have no new projects to start on. Sure, I believe Lockheed will take advantage of the situation to fire some people, but I think almost all of it is due to the government shutdown.

Re:Brilliant PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042049)

The shutdown affects _ALL_ government contractors and subcontractors. It's a new fiscal year for their customer. Lots of contracts go year to year and must be renewed. With the shutdown, there is a delay in renewal (assuming they will renewed at all). Delays cause furloughs. Long delays cause Lay-Offs. The reasons are right there in the first paragraph.

"This includes employees who are unable to work because the government facility where they perform their work is closed, or their work requires a government inspection that cannot be completed, or we’ve received a stop work order."

Last one is a killer. People lose jobs all the time because of a Stop Work Order. (where your customer tells you to stop working on a project because they are cutting off the funding) There have been _LOTS_ of those issued in this past week. If your company is large enough, it can weather the storm. Small ones die. Right now, subcontractors are living in fear for their jobs.

Lockheed Working Gloves (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041727)

I knew a guy who had worked at Lockheed. He gave me a sample of Lockheed humor. He said, "Lockheed working gloves" and put his hands in his pockets. Then he said "Lockheed salute" and shrugged his shoulders. I think he had a few other examples but those are the only ones I remember. I think I read somewhere that Michael Milken, the junk bond guy, liked Lockheed because no matter what they did, the Gov't was sure to bail them out.

So?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041747)

Lockheed has a company with 1.6 billion prostitutes giving world-wide service.

Send the 3000 over there and do not ask me about this again.

An amazing chance for good. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041815)

Every cloud has its silver lining. This is an opportunity, not that anyone's brave or smart enough to take it. The last time the British government had this sort of shut down was 1975. The Queen fired parliament. It never happened again. Take your chance now to send a message that doing their job of keeping the government running is more important than the partisan ideological bullshit. Fire congress. Sure, you'll just get some other batch of corrupt ass-hats, but you won't regret having the new batch at least knowing there will be some accountability if they fuck shit up again.

Re:An amazing chance for good. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041837)

My bad, it was the Austrailians that shut down. [washingtonpost.com] My first holy cup of java is yet not imbibed. The sentiment stands, such self correction is the way of cybernetics.

Mod VortexCortex up (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45041893)

He's PROBABLY right as it gets when it comes to lunacy like this.

* Democrats or Republicans, most of the USA general public understand by now, that they're more-or-less the SAME (run by lobbyist big money)... that's all I have to say about it.

(Sometimes, we as "the people" have to set examples with what little power we have available, & that's really ONLY votes - IF you can trust that, that is).

APK

P.S.=> He even corrected his mistake, but the point's still there... apk

Re:An amazing chance for good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45042121)

Take your chance now to send a message that doing their job of keeping the government running is more important than the partisan ideological bullshit. Fire congress.

I made sure to tell my congressional representatives -- members of both parties -- that I would never consider voting for any of them in the future unless they at least attempted to bring forward or support a compromise proposal that had a possibility of being accepted.

So I will be voting to fire all of Congress next election.

If the majority would start holding their representatives responsible for their actions -- instead of blindly supporting "their" party and attacking the "other" party -- we wouldn't have all these problems.

We can't (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | 1 year,20 days | (#45042141)

At least not easily. Unlike a parliamentary system, there's no dissolution option. The vote happens once every 2 years for 1/3rd of the house. There is no clause to speed that up. Some individual states could execute a recall or other sort of ousting on their representatives but it depends on the state law and would require the voters to organize it.

So part of congress can get fired in 2014, and very well may, but not before then, at least not easily. The executive can't dissolve congress.

Aww Man (1)

Greyfox (87712) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041897)

And I was just about to start testing my control system for my democrat-seeking missile system! Oh well, guess I'll just have to go be a male stripper now. If the money's good enough, I might just keep doing that once the government gets rolling again. I guess no one really wanted this democrat-seeking missile system anyway!

Lucky (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | 1 year,20 days | (#45041963)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is keeping track and can report to congress about the damage they are doing. Oh.. Wait... http://www.bls.gov/ [bls.gov]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?