US government Shutdown

[Welf]

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

As far as I know it is a myth that US government employees are overpaid. They have higher education than the average worker and thus earn more. Some study says they actually have a 4% penalty on what they earn compared to private sector workers. Although there is the counter-argument that the benefits are not calculated in.

The poster said he could forgo luxuries but chooses not to because he prefers to spend his entire income on consumption ("not live like a poor person").

I'm afraid you lack quite a bit of life experience. You maybe need to broaden your social circle. I know where you are coming from, I life in similar circumstances. We have low fixed costs, no dependents. Most of the money we spend is for consumption. But there are people who can't choose. I live in a socialist utopia compared with the US, but even here people have concerns. My co.worker has two children, one has a medical condition. Both work, and yet every month they need their wage payment in time to not pay interest to the bank. Not because they spend, but because monthly rent and the money they need for their children eats up everything. They don't spend money for vacations or a second car. But they have to spend every month on cloths for their children, kindergarten, physical therapy. Their children won't stop growing, they can't stop sending them to kindergarten unless they quit their jobs, they can't stop sending them to therapy or risk life long damage. From her I learned that every cent left over at the end of month counts to keep you out of debt.
Seriously: talk regularly with a mother with a job, preferably a single mom. That brings you down to earth pretty quickly.

[Eleas]

And one point from someone who has more life experience than you ever will. You propose to bike to work instead of using car? Ok, let's ignore the fact that most cities are very bike-unfriendly as they were set up in car cult; Do you know what it fucking takes to drive bike to work on mid distance, every day, including middle of winter? I happened to do just that due to lack of funds a few years back, and unlike your fantasies of 'just bike' you need to waste time and food maintaining peak physical condition (because unless you have perfect command of the bike you can easily slip and gather thousands of $ in medical bills - I like to think I do have very good one, yet I had my share of accidents). Then, you need to keep the bike virtually replaced in terms of parts (chain after winter? guess what snow + salt mixture does to it after one heavy season, you also need expensive gearboxes or keep replacing worn out ones, brakes, etc). You'd know that if you ever heavily used it without your mom paying for it. Hell, I even broke one bike frame (luckily it was still on guarantee) despite mild driving style - it had to have been badly welded or have structural failures. Let me guess, in your world I made a choice of purchasing bad bike that nearly set me back several hundred $ by lacking prescience?

Irbis, energiewende plainly lives in one of the European cities where biking to work is feasible, and because of his peculiar limitations he's therefore convinced this is "normal". If he can bike to work the year around, why, then it's feasible, and if it's feasible, then anyone should do it. If they don't do it, it's because they decide not to.

In energiewende world, there are no different circumstances, or if they exist, they're not "normal" so they don't matter. To those concerns, facts come a very distant second.

[Broomstick]

Even Broomstick, for instance, seems to own two cars, at least one of which is a large, fuel inefficient model.

Broomstick and her husband own two cars because due to their location, both adults need the car to reach their places of work. This is common in the US, as should be obvious to anyone not locked in his own myopia. Broomstick also works in a business where she needs to shift large amounts of material. The car is not a luxury. You want it to be, but it's not.

Incorrect. I own a car – which despite having an ordinary gas engine gets fuel efficiency normally seen only in hybrids – and I own a pickup truck, a utilitarian vehicle used as a back up to the car (which is what we normally use) and to generate income as a working vehicle. As my pickup gets 23 mpg, which is comparable to many sedans, it's actually pretty fucking fuel efficient for what it is (of course, loaded to maximum capacity it gets less, but anyone with an understanding of physics understands that). Having the two is a net gain for us, not a loss and not a luxury.

But, again, you don't see how that could possibly work, all you want to do is repeat your mantra “bike to work”, which is not practical where I live, arguably unsafe, and at some times of the year physically impossible (although cross country skiing might be feasible).

Actually, to further clarify, my spouse's workplace at this time is actually the rental unit above us, meaning he doesn't need a vehicle to commute to work. He does, however, require a pickup to get needed material to his location (and at one point we needed to borrow not only a larger truck, but also a few additional warm bodies to help move some particularly bulky/heavy items). As I said, the truck is a utilitarian vehicle that helps to generate income, not consume it. Over the years, adding up what it has been used to earn vs. the cost of purchasing and maintaining it, it's contributed more than it has taken.

Nearly everybody makes efforts to mitigate risk, and only the patently stupid would think otherwise.

No. Anyone who possesses a credit card (for any reason other than building rating, exploiting cashback, etc., and paying every bill immediately and in full) does not.

Uh... no. Credit cards should not be used to purchase “toys”, but utilizing them as an emergency loan to cover emergency expenses is a valid and highly useful use of them. They are, in fact, the quickest way to obtain a loan.

Of course, this gets back to managing risk, and taking thoughtful risks.

Many small businesses also utilize a credit card as a means of tracking business costs and expenses, which can provide backup documentation to primary receipts as well as being a useful tool for tracking finances. Also, for the small business (which in the US may be a sole proprietorship) it is, again, a source of a short term loan.

Anyone who borrows money to purchase a car does not.

Spending all your savings on a vehicle can be quite foolish if it depletes your cash funds. The problem isn't borrowing money to purchase a car, it's borrowing money to purchase more car than you actually need. I had zero problems paying off my vehicles on time, which, incidentally, improved my credit rating which makes future borrowing easier and less expensive interest-wise.

Anyone who borrows money to buy a house that is too large for them does not (you might recall a certain financial crisis that happened recently).

On that we are agreed.

But that's a problem with living beyond your means. What you fail to comprehend is that there are many people, even in “developed countries”, whose means are so small that all their funds go to existing with little if anything left over for savings.

The fact that the US has a much lower savings rate than China (which is a much poorer country) is powerful evidence in favour of this proposition.

The US also has a much higher cost of living than China. It costs more for just about everything.

Broomstick seems to have also done exactly what I recommended, benefited somewhat, but still ended up in a poor situation because of sustained bad luck. I agree that is possible. I just don't agree it is typical.

It's a hell of a lot more common than you believe it to be.

And one point from someone who has more life experience than you ever will. You propose to bike to work instead of using car? Ok, let's ignore the fact that most cities are very bike-unfriendly as they were set up in car cult; Do you know what it fucking takes to drive bike to work on mid distance, every day, including middle of winter? I happened to do just that due to lack of funds a few years back, and unlike your fantasies of 'just bike' you need to waste time and food maintaining peak physical condition (because unless you have perfect command of the bike you can easily slip and gather thousands of $ in medical bills - I like to think I do have very good one, yet I had my share of accidents). Then, you need to keep the bike virtually replaced in terms of parts (chain after winter? guess what snow + salt mixture does to it after one heavy season, you also need expensive gearboxes or keep replacing worn out ones, brakes, etc). You'd know that if you ever heavily used it without your mom paying for it. Hell, I even broke one bike frame (luckily it was still on guarantee) despite mild driving style - it had to have been badly welded or have structural failures. Let me guess, in your world I made a choice of purchasing bad bike that nearly set me back several hundred $ by lacking prescience?

I've actually broken not one but two bike frames in my lifetime, and one of them was basically me sacrificing the bike to save my own skin.

Again, I don't know where energiewende lives, but here in the US Midwest it's not unusual for winter temperatures to plunge below -20C. I wonder if he has ever attempted to walk a significant distance in such conditions, or ride a bike in them, even without snow, which around here may lie half a meter or more thick for weeks at a time. Add in my circumstances – pushing 50 and asthmatic – and doing that is asking for trouble. Yes, I'm in good shape for a woman my age and that asthma is under control, but exercising in cold weather risks what the medical folks call an “adverse reaction”. But, you know, owning reliable transportation is somehow a “luxury”.

Around these parts there's actually a program that enables the elderly to utilize cabs at a sharply reduced rate so they can get around. It's because some of us, even in the hyper-individualistic US, recognize that as you get older you are less able to get around under your own power.

People in the US in worse poverty are so due to disability, mental illness, or drug dependence, which are not ordinary circumstances.

Your articles of faith do not interest me. Evidence does. Plus, speaking from personal experience, disability is fairly ordinary. Again, you'd be surprised at what happens in reality.

Also, what happens with age.

In the US there are further complications due to a lack of solid social safety net. In many countries even the chronically unemployed can obtain decent housing, food allowance, and healthcare. None of that exists for the very poor in the US (unless you a very disabled – despite multiple health issues and a serious birth defect my spouse does not qualify as “disabled” for such programs), and hasn't since 1996. This makes poverty of any sort vastly more stressful and dangerous.

Neither have people who do not choose to expend money to gain that freedom of action and/or property. You dismiss such expenses -- Internet, Smartphones (which I use as a handicap aid), proper food, transportation -- as frivolous luxury, because you are that stupid.

This is an important point – even in the big, bad US the poor can obtain free internet (usually at local libraries as well as other local institutions), you can get second hand phones, subsidized food for those who qualify, and so one because even in the hypercapitalistic US these are seen not so much as luxuries as assets: not absolutely essential to life, but so useful that society is willing to subsidize these things for those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale.

No. Anyone who possesses a credit card (for any reason other than building rating, exploiting cashback, etc., and paying every bill immediately and in full) does not. Anyone who borrows money to purchase a car does not.

ITT, we see that energiewende cannot comprehend the need for investing in transportation. After all, he needs no car = nobody needs a car.

One can only hope that karma never slaps him upside the head with circumstances that prevent him from utilizing a bicycle.

Anyone who borrows money to buy a house that is too large for them does not (you might recall a certain financial crisis that happened recently).

Anyone who did that may have been shortsighted, but was also misled by the banks into believing such a house would be an investment for the future, so that is hardly a compelling argument (albeit the first you've actually made so far).

It may be useful at this point to bring up the concept of a “reverse mortgage”, which is a means of providing both reliable housing and some income to maintain it in old age... but which is only possible if you have equity in a home. Which requires buying.

ITT we see energiewende is shortsighted and does not really understand the limitations imposed by age, or that having alternate means of securing one's existence (not just savings but investments and such) provides additional security over the long term.

[Broomstick]

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

As far as I know it is a myth that US government employees are overpaid. They have higher education than the average worker and thus earn more. Some study says they actually have a 4% penalty on what they earn compared to private sector workers. Although there is the counter-argument that the benefits are not calculated in.

Until recently, when the Tea Party madness began, the perception was that government jobs paid less but had two significant compensations:

1) job security: government employees are not immune to being fired or laid off but it's much less likely than in the private sector
2) benefits: especially healthcare, but also pensions

This actually makes such employment ideal for the "play it safe" crowd, but that just makes a disruption like a shutdown or furlough that much more stressful for that sort of person.

[Knife]

To boil it down for you energiewende, since you are having problems understanding it, is you propose that if you do X then you will be OK. Multiple people in the tread have told you that if you do X, as you suggest, it is very likely that if tragedy strikes, you will NOT be OK.

You double down and say doing X will make it OK, because it has worked for you, but with no evidence that any tragedy has befallen you. They say they did X and tragedy happened to them and it was NOT OK. You have a theory, they tried to replicate it, it doesn't work, your theory is wrong. Not to mention your other various condescending attitudes that don't help you.

[Eleas]

Incorrect. I own a car – which despite having an ordinary gas engine gets fuel efficiency normally seen only in hybrids – and I own a pickup truck, a utilitarian vehicle used as a back up to the car (which is what we normally use) and to generate income as a working vehicle. As my pickup gets 23 mpg, which is comparable to many sedans, it's actually pretty fucking fuel efficient for what it is (of course, loaded to maximum capacity it gets less, but anyone with an understanding of physics understands that). Having the two is a net gain for us, not a loss and not a luxury.

Apologies. I seem to recall some things about your situation that were actually never said, and I'm sorry for the presumption.

Of course, this gets back to managing risk, and taking thoughtful risks.

Agreed. If all one does is to sit on one's money, then it's not going to generate very much income. A lump of money in one place is an asset in itself; that's why people who already have a shitload of money can so easily make more.

Around these parts there's actually a program that enables the elderly to utilize cabs at a sharply reduced rate so they can get around. It's because some of us, even in the hyper-individualistic US, recognize that as you get older you are less able to get around under your own power.

Honestly, that gives me a warm feeling. It's good to hear of a situation where people in need aren't screwed over.

This is an important point – even in the big, bad US the poor can obtain free internet (usually at local libraries as well as other local institutions), you can get second hand phones, subsidized food for those who qualify, and so one because even in the hypercapitalistic US these are seen not so much as luxuries as assets: not absolutely essential to life, but so useful that society is willing to subsidize these things for those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale.

And it's true, too: computers and the Internet are among the most powerful leveraging tools humans have ever developed. Today, with the Internet and a cheap laptop, you could actually do work that ten years ago would have required you to travel to the other end of the country (this is due to the magic of a technology called VPN). Phones, too, are amazingly useful things that allow a person to coordinate things in ways that simply couldn't otherwise be feasible. They are not luxuries.

But do we really need so much of it? Well, the average person still does, and that's the important thing. Yes, today I know how to do seriously cool things with a (comparatively) simple computer from the early nineties, but that shit takes time and effort to master, which meant I couldn't expend those on learning other necessary skills. I certainly wouldn't judge the common user by those standards, anymore than I'd expect scorn from a plumber for not fixing the pipes myself.

[Connor MacLeod]

And one point from someone who has more life experience than you ever will. You propose to bike to work instead of using car? Ok, let's ignore the fact that most cities are very bike-unfriendly as they were set up in car cult; Do you know what it fucking takes to drive bike to work on mid distance, every day, including middle of winter? I happened to do just that due to lack of funds a few years back, and unlike your fantasies of 'just bike' you need to waste time and food maintaining peak physical condition (because unless you have perfect command of the bike you can easily slip and gather thousands of $ in medical bills - I like to think I do have very good one, yet I had my share of accidents). Then, you need to keep the bike virtually replaced in terms of parts (chain after winter? guess what snow + salt mixture does to it after one heavy season, you also need expensive gearboxes or keep replacing worn out ones, brakes, etc). You'd know that if you ever heavily used it without your mom paying for it. Hell, I even broke one bike frame (luckily it was still on guarantee) despite mild driving style - it had to have been badly welded or have structural failures. Let me guess, in your world I made a choice of purchasing bad bike that nearly set me back several hundred $ by lacking prescience?

Irbis, energiewende plainly lives in one of the European cities where biking to work is feasible, and because of his peculiar limitations he's therefore convinced this is "normal". If he can bike to work the year around, why, then it's feasible, and if it's feasible, then anyone should do it. If they don't do it, it's because they decide not to.

In energiewende world, there are no different circumstances, or if they exist, they're not "normal" so they don't matter. To those concerns, facts come a very distant second.

Wait, he's not even an American?

[Eleas]

Wait, he's not even an American?

He claims not to be, despite having utter faith in his own insight into American household economics.

[Raw Shark]

Around these parts there's actually a program that enables the elderly to utilize cabs at a sharply reduced rate so they can get around. It's because some of us, even in the hyper-individualistic US, recognize that as you get older you are less able to get around under your own power.

Honestly, that gives me a warm feeling. It's good to hear of a situation where people in need aren't screwed over.

Around these parts, this sort of program would be a lot more effective if they actually paid cab drivers what they are owed instead of a discounted, "Fuck you; we're the government and you'll take what you get," rate that virtually ensures that people using such measures will wait (a very long time) until a driver is done with his shift in the pickup neighborhood while heading home in the destination neighborhood, feels bad for them of his own accord, or is otherwise outside of usual circumstances before he is willing to go out of his way to accept the total fuck-job of a trip.

[Broomstick]

I honestly don't know how the system works in my neck of the woods, whether there is a subsidy or if the cabbies just eat the difference. Since it's a local program it likely does vary from what you have in your area.

[Raw Shark]

I honestly don't know how the system works in my neck of the woods, whether there is a subsidy or if the cabbies just eat the difference. Since it's a local program it likely does vary from what you have in your area.

To be clear, I do think that disabled people should receive discounted cab rides, but that the difference should come out of general taxes (which I also pay) rather than a significant percentage of my actual individual salary (before taxes), which would not only avoid totally fucking me right up the ass when I accept such a ride, but also get disabled people their rides faster.

[Broomstick]

Oh, I understand - you need to make a living, and someone has to pay for those cab rides. I'm all for taking it out of general taxes, myself.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wait, he's not even an American?

He claims not to be, despite having utter faith in his own insight into American household economics.

Oh just what Americans love - to be told how we should live by you filthy outsiders.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!

(and yes you're right. it IS hilarious he's telling Americans how they should live in their own country. That only makes the reek of 'entitlement' that much stronger, since its easier for him to pass judgement on such a broad way because he doesn't have to fucking live here.)

Now ragging on him aside, I have noticed - especially with the shutdown stuff on SB - alot of people outside of America were frankly bewildered about how pants-on-head stupid we were about doing things and letting the shutdown actually come about - its actually kind of hilarious people were actually understimating how crazy Americans seem to be, in a perverse and morbid sort of way.

On SDN of course, you're all used to this by now so its business as usual.

[Connor MacLeod]

To be clear, I do think that disabled people should receive discounted cab rides, but that the difference should come out of general taxes (which I also pay) rather than a significant percentage of my actual individual salary (before taxes), which would not only avoid totally fucking me right up the ass when I accept such a ride, but also get disabled people their rides faster.

Was that a locally implemented program? I don't think we have anything like that where I am (Minnesota - or at least the part of it I'm in.) If so I wonder what the proportion of voting was like age wise. Given the way things in the US go, it wouldn't surprise me if you had a bunch of old white folks vote for that so they could benefit from reduced rates AND avoid paying taxes.

But that is the cynical side of me and I may be letting my imagination runa way with me

[Tiriol]

Wait, he's not even an American?

He claims not to be, despite having utter faith in his own insight into American household economics.

Oh just what Americans love - to be told how we should live by you filthy outsiders.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!

(and yes you're right. it IS hilarious he's telling Americans how they should live in their own country. That only makes the reek of 'entitlement' that much stronger, since its easier for him to pass judgement on such a broad way because he doesn't have to fucking live here.)

Now ragging on him aside, I have noticed - especially with the shutdown stuff on SB - alot of people outside of America were frankly bewildered about how pants-on-head stupid we were about doing things and letting the shutdown actually come about - its actually kind of hilarious people were actually understimating how crazy Americans seem to be, in a perverse and morbid sort of way.

On SDN of course, you're all used to this by now so its business as usual.

For some reason I have this image of energiewende being a Swede, although I'm not sure, I might have simply misread his name.

For energiewende: I pick up transportation as one point to educate you on. Youseem to consider car a luxury. It is a luxury item for some people - for others, it isn't. That holds true even in Europe - not in the smallest and most centralized countries, but bigger ones, at least (big as in land area). Take Finland, for example: there are HUGE areas of land where people live and are very distant from one another and public transportation is a joke, if even that. A car is a necessity there. Why not a bicycle, you may ask, it just takes longer than car? Well, some of my relatives live in a muncipality in Central Finland where the nearest grocery store is 20 km away. They had one right next to them about 15 years ago, but it was closed down for not being profitable enough. So whenever they would have to buy food or anything else it would be a 20 km long ride and that's just one way. They are elderly to boot, so without a car they would not be able to do that.

What about younger folks, then? Well, when they're healthy they can manage it - maybe. 20 km on a bicycle might take a long time, especially in winter or in an otherwise hazardous weather. And if they get sick? Are they supposed to use a bicycle to go to a doctor, who is even further away than 20 km (I think it was like 30 km)? What if they have kids who go to school - and the nearest school is, again, tens of kilometers away. Things get even more ridiculous in Lapland where they would laugh at mere 20-30 km distances. And remember, this is in Finland, where supposedly public transportation works more or less well. And USA is a hell lot bigger place than Finland, even though the big cities skew the population density figures.

Even with that all said, when you're honest-to-good poor, a bicycle might be insanely expensive, if you want a good one which won't break down immediately after you've bought it. That's why people are so careful (or should be) when buying a used vehicle of any kind. It's still an investment of (huge) amount of money and it should work properly at least for some time. And every time it doesn't, it means another investment of resources to fix it. A person who already has a car and suddenly loses his or her job and gets poor as a result most likely won't be buying a new bicycle any time soon, unless he or she can expect some good to come out of it (or if there's a good reason to sell the car and buy a bicycle with that money). And even then it actually might be wiser to buy an actual car than a bicycle, since it opens a lot more room for maneuvering in the job market: you can go further away looking for jobs and many jobs even think it's a very useful bonus, sometimes even a requirement, for a job applicant to own a car. I had the misfortune of encountering a job interviewer who really hoped that I would have a car and when I didn't, he said that I should probably get one for the job so that the company wouldn't have to get it and I could be compensated in my salary somewhat (and this was a fixed term job with no guarantee of renewing the contract after the term was over). And I live in Helsinki in the Greater Helsinki area, one place in Finland where you can go everywhere with public transportation. Think about what that means when looking for a job somewhere else with less developed public transportation.

[Simon_Jester]

No. These are high cost, low probability events, against which I am insured (maybe not the really absurd ones like meteor strikes etc.).

And in America, with its less regulated insurance market and less emphasis on government control of risk, many people are NOT, which is why we have a federal health insurance clearinghouse being set up in the first place. Which is what made the Tea Party throw a tantrum over it, because they want to expose the average American to MORE risk, assuming as you do that if Americans are exposed to risk it's because they're either too lazy to save enough money, or too lazy to get a good job that will provide enough money.

So clearly we'd have a much better country if all Americans saved responsibly... except that in many cases it's completely impractical to save up the kind of money that would protect us from a truly serious disaster, and there are good, legitimate uses for virtually every penny of our income- say, putting children through college, or buying medicine to moderate a long term medical condition.

Things we could theoretically forgo, but if we did forgo them the long-term consequences would be a disaster for ourselves and our posterity.

As a result, unemployment in America is a massive game of Russian roulette. Because the longer it goes on the more dangerous it becomes for your having any hope of a long-term positive future, as opposed to just having to scrabble around for opportunities to work like a slave until you die. And this is a terrifying prospect for many Americans who know just how little time and security they have protecting them from that reality.

So naturally, these Americans are very sensitive about the prospect of, y'know, not getting paid their weekly salary, or the prospect of a shutdown that might potentially last a month or more forcing them back out into the job market.

And that includes federal employees.

I agree, the US health system is indefensible. In my country I have private insurance and no copayment. So, this is more like different experience (though you've made clear in the past you think the US is the whole world).

The catch is that you are commenting on what you think Americans should do, specifically criticizing Americans, based on a set of experiences of yours in an entirely different country where financial realities are very different.

You're like a desert nomad criticizing someone who lives in a tropical jungle, claiming they must be stupid because their house isn't designed to survive sandstorms.

Nor can those people in China - you are poorer than them, and less free.

By that token, the dead are wealthily free beyond measure, being totally self-sufficient and with no obligation to any fellow citizens.

The dead have no freedom of action or property.

A desperately poor man who lives on a couch to help put his nephew through college doesn't have much freedom of property either. And while theoretically he has freedom of action (he could stop putting his nephew through college), in reality he does not, because that choice would be so irresponsible that it might as well not exist.

So he is little more free than a dead man would be.

The point here is that you cannot simply measure "freedom" in terms of your lack of obligations. You have to measure it in terms of viable choices, in terms of whether you actually can make choices that lead to places you'd want to go.

Circumstances may leave you with your ability to make choices, while depriving you of freedom by making it impossible to choose anything you actually want.

[NoXion]

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

Why not advocate for better conditions in the private sector, instead of demanding the public sector be dragged down to the cut-throat level? There are plenty of rich bastards who can pay for it, who could live with the pain and anguish of only having one yacht instead of two.

[Connor MacLeod]

I forgot this tidbit:

Two people have tried to take issue with my claim, based on their personal anecdotes. Connor MacLeod shot your case in the foot - he did exactly what I recommended and benefitted substantially from it. He nonetheless believes this is a powerful counter-example for reasons that are unclear to me. Broomstick seems to have also done exactly what I recommended, benefited somewhat, but still ended up in a poor situation because of sustained bad luck. I agree that is possible. I just don't agree it is typical.

HAHAHA no. How does having a huge pile of money I can't use for ANYTHING for fear of screwing myself over at a future date a 'good position' and thus evidence of your claims? That money only exists because of some extreme (by modern standards) frugality, and generally curtailing what people call 'living' even by modest degrees. I don't 'live', I fucking 'survive.' And as I and others have outlined amply, this does not guarantee that I still won't get fucked over (and this is not neccesarily a 'rare' possibility like you say, even if we isolate it to purely medical considerations.) I am still gambling with my life and my future, and I've only marginally hedged against that chance. If anything changes (loss of job, loss of insurance, serious injury) I am at best severely hampered and at worst fucked over. This by no means justfies your claim or invalidates anything Eleas said.

Wherever the fuck you live and whatever 'benefits' you have protecting oyu, well good for you and I'm glad you're better off overall. I'm sure that makes your situation far more tenable for you. But don't make the assumption because it works for you in whatever advantageous position you're in that its going to work in America, unless you're willing to actually move over here and PROVE it to me by living here under the conditions I and other Americans have to endure. If not, then stop boasting like you've delivered some sort of crushing victory to the rest of us poor, clueless Americans.

[Simon_Jester]

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

Why not advocate for better conditions in the private sector, instead of demanding the public sector be dragged down to the cut-throat level? There are plenty of rich bastards who can pay for it, who could live with the pain and anguish of only having one yacht instead of two.

What's happened is that conditions have gotten a lot tighter in the private sector, while the public sector is still operating on employment conditions that were negotiated in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s before the great tightening. The big difference, I think, is the shift from a corporate culture of "all our employees are a collective enterprise" to having management go "hey, what's in it for us in this decision?" Not surprisingly that comes along with a great increase in employee turnover, overall decline of employment benefits, and so on.

[AniThyng]

It should probably be pointed out that unless you actually invest your savings in some form that has returns above inflation (and yet is also somehow low risk!) you are also gradually losing money as the actual value of your savings erodes over time. nevermind that all that can become so much worthless numbers if some sort of currency collapse occurs...

For what it's worth, I grew up with my Dad going through a string of unsuccessful business ventures and had the bank seize the house at one point, and while he always managed to earn enough to keep us middle class, the sheer terror i felt at the bank calling has lead me to obsessively ensure I never have less than 6 months of my pre-promotion gross salary in my current account. But that is as many pointed out, easy when I'm still single and can do so without compromising my disposable 'plastic crap' and basic necessities funding.

I do have some sympathy for his original point - it *is* not uncommon to observe that living beyond ones means is a affliction of all classes of society - as ones income grows ones ability to overspend simply goes correspondingly higher. It is only the very highest of the upper middle class that are free of such burdens, and EVEN then, it only takes one bad economic cycle or bad business choice to have to sell the ferrari and dump the mansion...I would know, when I was very young we had luxuries that even today I would be reluctant to spend on with my disposable income.

[Hillary]

I find it funny that energiewende is advocating a "safety at all costs" policy here, when the extreme capitalist model that he champions is all about risk and reward. Speculate to accumulate and all that - those free marketeers that the guy has wet dreams over often bet the farm on a business venture or trying to make their fortune in some way. Does he think they are being idiots?

The scrapheap is littered with entrepreneurs who lost that bet (so are 'foolish and irresponsible'), but without them the capitalist model wouldn't work at all. What do you advocate?

Another point here. The vast majority of people who have managed to gain significant money behind them in the UK, did so because they hocked themselves up with large mortgages to climb the housing ladder.

Those who instead put their money into savings and pensions - took the safe route that energiewende promotes - got fucked over with below-inflation interest rates and poor pension fund performance.

[Raw Shark]

To be clear, I do think that disabled people should receive discounted cab rides, but that the difference should come out of general taxes (which I also pay) rather than a significant percentage of my actual individual salary (before taxes), which would not only avoid totally fucking me right up the ass when I accept such a ride, but also get disabled people their rides faster.

Was that a locally implemented program? I don't think we have anything like that where I am (Minnesota - or at least the part of it I'm in.) If so I wonder what the proportion of voting was like age wise. Given the way things in the US go, it wouldn't surprise me if you had a bunch of old white folks vote for that so they could benefit from reduced rates AND avoid paying taxes.

But that is the cynical side of me and I may be letting my imagination runa way with me

Ha, no, though I wouldn'tve been surprised if it had come about that way, either. Anybody who wants to can start a tab with the company, and Medicare, like some other health services that deal with moving disabled people around, has one. Between the discount they give themselves, the 10% the company takes off the top for processing any form of voucher (guess who encourages people to pay this way), and the fact that people who aren't paying for the ride almost invariably don't tip, I wind up getting about half of what I should every time I do a ride for them. Pretty much every night, dispatch ends up just flat-out begging us to do at least one voucher trip that's been sitting for an hour or two, which (they don't realize) is counterproductive to their goals, because the only thing I want to do less than a half-price ride is a half-price ride with a passenger who's going to be pissed off at me before I even get there.

[fgalkin]

[q

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

Man, when you're echoing the Onion, you know your trolling is successful



Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kuja]

I think this goes here.

huffpo

Majority Of Americans Think It's 'Bad For The Country' That Republicans Control The House

A majority of Americans think it is bad for the country that Republicans control the House of Representatives, and even more want House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to be replaced by another Republican, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Monday.

Fifty-four percent think it's bad that Republicans control the House, the poll found. That's up from 43 percent in December 2012, during the last fiscal standoff. The figure is the first time a majority thought Republican control was bad for the country since CNN started asking in December 2010. Sixty-three percent of respondents want Boehner replaced, but by another Republican, which would not change GOP control of the House.

The poll is yet another sign that the government shutdown has hurt the Republican party. An NBC/WSJ poll taken during the shutdown showed that 24 percent of people approved of the party, a record low. Gallup measured another record low for the GOP, with 28 percent approving. A poll released Sunday funded by Moveon.org and conducted by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed that incumbent Republicans trailed generic Democrats in 15 of 25 competitive House districts.

Congress as a whole has a measly 12 percent approval rating, while 86 percent disapprove, according to the CNN/ORC International poll. President Barack Obama received a 44 percent approval rating, while 52 percent said they disapprove -- a number virtually unchanged since June. Forty-four percent are more confident that Obama can handle problems facing the U.S., versus 31 percent who said they think Republicans can. Twenty-one percent said they were confident in neither.

[Broomstick]

Hope they remember that sentiment at the next round of elections.