It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The US government really isn't going to shutdown even if it ``shutdowns``

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
This is fear propaganda by the government to continue with their deficits.

Psst. No shutdown during a 'government shutdown'

WASHINGTON – Social Security checks would still go out. Troops would remain at their posts. Furloughed federal workers probably would get paid, though not until later. And virtually every essential government agency, like the FBI, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, would remain open.

That's the little-known truth about a government shutdown. The government doesn't shut down.

And it won't on March 5, even if the combatants on Capitol Hill can't resolve enough differences to pass a stopgap spending bill to fund the government while they hash out legislation to cover the last seven months of the budget year.

Fewer than half of the 2.1 million federal workers subject to a shutdown would be forced off the job if the Obama administration followed the path taken by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And that's not counting 600,000 Postal Service employees or 1.6 million uniformed military personnel exempt from a shutdown.

So we're talking fewer than one in four federal workers staying at home. Many federal workers get paid on March 4, so it would take a two-week shutdown for them to see a delay in their paychecks.


Of course the food stamps will continue, the medicare payments and all that. Because if they didn't do it, it would means tens of millions of starved and pissed people who would march on Washington DC... and that scares the hell out of the crooks in power.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Maybe I'm mis-understanding but, am I the only one that thinks it would be great if they shut down?
Yes... more fearmongering.

edit on 24-2-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SnakeShot
Am I the only one that thinks it would be great if they shut down?

It would sure be great as congress wouldn't pass anymore laws... which is great.

But it would suck for all the people on food stamps... and soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq... maybe then, they could take an initiative and come back on their own to kick some butts in Washington DC instead of dying for corporations in the middle-east?

A real shutdown would bring REAL CHANGE... people would revolt Libyan style and take over.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by SnakeShot
Am I the only one that thinks it would be great if they shut down?

It would sure be great as congress wouldn't pass anymore laws... which is great.

But it would suck for all the people on food stamps... and soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq... maybe then, they could take an initiative and coming back on their own to come back and kick some butts in Washington DC instead of dying for corporations in the middle-east?

A real shutdown would bring REAL CHANGE... people would revolt Libyan style and take over.


Yes, exactly. No more paychecks would definitely wake alot more people up!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Too bad.

This shutdown of the government was the best news I've had in my life.

And I had my hopes up.

After all, if they're not operating, they can't create anymore chaos.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
Too bad.

This shutdown of the government was the best news I've had in my life.

And I had my hopes up.

After all, if they're not operating, they can't create anymore chaos.


I suspect you are either very young or very naive or perhaps very both.
There would be NOTHING BUT CHAOS.

Without "Evil" Government:

No safe food to eat - USDA
No safe air to breath or water to drink - EPA
No safe working conditions - OSHA
No protection from deadly diseases - CDC
No safe air travel - FAA
No warning of violent weather - NOAA
No warning of natural disasters - USGS
No protection from hostile nations - DOD
Etc.

A day without government is like........night.

Think before you post.


edit on 24-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


You're kidding right?


No safe food to eat - USDA
No safe air to breath or water to drink - EPA
No protection from deadly diseases - CDC
No safe air travel - FAA
No warning of natural disasters - USGS

The USDA is a JOKE, sold to big business long ago, Monsanto and the like...

The EPA is a joke, sold to oil corporations a long time ago.

The CDC is a joke, vaccinating people with non-tested vaccines, ect...

The FAA is a joke, helping screw the constitution.

USGS really doesn't warn of anything. Earthquake? Flooding? So what if people are warned? It's gonna happen anyway.

A corrupt government like the US government or no government makes almost no difference.

For the DOD, it's written in the constitution, this is a legitimate duty of the federal government. They should bring troops home and cut the budget... and actually protect the borders.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The FAA is a joke, helping screw the constitution.


Of all your preposterous assertions, this is perhaps the most asinine. Pray tell how the Federal Aviation Agency "screws the Constitution."

My father was an Air Traffic controller for 30 years and stayed on during the PATCO strike when Reagan fired them all. He worked two shifts for a year until replacements were found. I grew up in that environment. All the controllers were concerned with passenger safety and took their roles quite seriously. Most were, like my Dad, former military aviators or navigators and all loved serving their country in a civilian environment. (Safest civilian air travel in the world.) So I refuse to stand idly by when some internet chump disparages a proud and important part of our nations commercial air transportation sector.

FAA = anti- constitution? What an absurd claim.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I will not claim that the FAA is not needed or that their jobs are ill-performed, however what I will claim is that there is nothing within the United States Constitution which appropriates such an agency to the control of the Federal government.

Sorry, it is just not there. Now if you have any snippet of the Constitution to disprove this claim I would love to see it.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Stupid naive children demand for government shutdown, followed by more suffering.

Adults ask for reform.

Oh yes, let's shut everything down so people "wake up", erupt into chaos, die, suffer, etc. so near the end they crawl on their hands and knees to what's left of authority demanding salvation. Then the government does WHATEVER IT WANTS.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Hmmmmmmm. Nothing in the constitution about regulating Civilian Air Travel before travel by air was a reality? And to think they were so bright when they failed to anticipate technological achievements not yet invented.

Is duh a word?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Am I the only one here who remembers that the government was shut down during the Clinton Administration by Newt Gingritch's Contract-for-America-wavin' Congress Cadets?

Wasn't that in 1996 or so? There was a lot of hand-wringing but nothing really out of the ordinary ever happened.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Granted I'm no Constitutional lawyer but pursuant to your request if you would allow me to assume that aircraft equates to the technological equivalent as Navy I believe it would not require much of a stretch to argue:
__________________________________________________

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 (key applicable verbage)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.....

To provide and maintain a Navy....

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces....

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
____________________________________________________________________

Ambiguity can be as much of a blessing as a curse with respect to our beloved Constitution, no? Ergo: open to interpretation.


edit on 24-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
But it would suck for all the people on food stamps... and soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq... maybe then, they could take an initiative and come back on their own to kick some butts in Washington DC instead of dying for corporations in the middle-east?


Excuse me, but WTF?

Troops come home from Iraq and A-stan to fight for some fourth generation welfare family so they can get their food stamps? Screw that noise! Let them sell their precious 17" flat screen or PS3, or maybe go out and get a job. I'd rather see them riot than one Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman go without a paycheck.

Too many E3-E4 instafamily troopies out there are living paycheck to paycheck and barely making it. One interrupted paycycle can actually take food out of the mouths of kids of troopies who are actually trying to contribute to society and are NOT 3-4th generation welfare "can't remember last family member who had a fulltime job" waste-oids.....

Let 'em riot and burn down their ghettos and trailer parks. Saves on napalm and gives them less rubble to fight in.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


For a little information on what happened last time,1995, the Clinton administration provided the following information:
The Costs of a Shutdown


It cost just under a billion dollars to shut down the government and was generally an inconvenience to a few million people.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
I will not claim that the FAA is not needed or that their jobs are ill-performed, however what I will claim is that there is nothing within the United States Constitution which appropriates such an agency to the control of the Federal government. Sorry, it is just not there.
The Air Force is not in the Constitution either, does that mean it’s unconstitutional and you want to get rid of it?

To answer your question, the FAA is clearly constitutional pursuant to Congress’ power under the commerce and general welfare clauses, as it is regulating interstate commerce and ensuring the safety of the airspace of the United States.

The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States” and to “regulate commerce ... among the several states.”

The Constitution is a framework, it incorporates the larger principles, the core values of government. It’s not a rigid document. And a good example of that understanding is reflected in the necessary and proper clause.

Now let’s hear you explanation of why the FAA should be abolished. I sure hope your argument is more substantive than “the FAA is not in the Constitution.”



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join