Message from the President to US Government Employees

ownbestenemy

AlienScience
But the Republicans are the guilty ones.

They are demanding something before they fund the government...Dems just want to fund the government. Republicans are saying "Give me something before I do my job". It's as simple as that.

But ground was offered, in funding areas separately while they negotiate the non-negotiable. The Senate rejected it flat out. How does that make the Republicans the guilty ones?

Yes, because funding Republicans little pet projects that cause them the most PR damage is all the republicans were trying to do. They were taking heat about the shutdown and wanted to selectively pass things to take the heat off...even though it doesn't help.

And that isn't Republicans "giving ground"...that is Republicans trying to relieve the heat they are feeling from the public.

They should fund the government in full...period.

AlienScience
Explain how they are reducing any spending?

This is the problem with voters who don't understand economics, they believe the republicans when they tell them that not increasing the "debt limit" will actually "limit our debt". Or that shutting down the government actually stops spending.

Ah, thank you for asking this! I was hoping for the question.

Allow me to use your own words from a different thread to open my response...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

AlienScience
You feed your family by budgeting and being smart with the money you have available. Priorities...health insurance should be up towards the top.

and, from the same thread:

AlienScience
If someone is struggling and living paycheck to paycheck, they shouldn't be carrying a 2,500 mortgage...that is their first problem. Someone who is "middle class" really shouldn't be carrying a 2,500 mortgage if they can't handle buying health insurance.

Again priorities...and like I said...some people are too dumb to prioritize

You see, AlienScience, right now the government, especially the Democrats, are struggling and living paycheck to paycheck. They've amassed way too many programs that bleed tax dollars away from issues that should be priorities. They're also too dumb to prioritize the debt (which should be up towards the top.) They shouldn't be spending on so many non-priorities if they can't handle paying the debt without adding even more debt.

You run a nation by being smart with the money you have available and if this administration is too irresponsible to manage that, then they need to be governed by the GOP to force them to actually work within their budget.

It's all very simple, but sadly a lot of people just don't seem to be able to get it.

'Guilty' of proudly exercising their rights as elected officials that represent the majority of the population instead of acting like wusses.

AlienScience

You keep saying they represent the majority of the population, but the math you have used is flawed. You can't take an average and multiply it by the number of elected representatives and say that is who voted for them.

If you want to make that claim, you will have to find exactly how many people voted for each Republican in the House and how many voted for every Democrat in the House.

Until then, you have no backing to say that the majority of the population supports them.

The Constitution.

Population, not registered voters or vote results.

As much as Obama and Democrats like to disregard the Constitution, they can't get away with it all the time.

The massive attempts to make the Constitution *irrelevant* are failing.

Congressional Districts divide almost every state in the United States into two or more chunks; each district should be roughly equal in population throughout the state and indeed, the entire country. Each district elects one Representative to the House of Representatives. The number of districts in each state is determined by the decennial census, as mandated by the Constitution. But districts are not mentioned in the Constitution. The United States Code acknowledges districting, but leaves the "how's" to the states (gerrymandering, however, is unconstitutional [as seen in Davis v Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), though, the intent of gerrymandering is difficult to prove]).

source

Balancing District Populations

When districts have unequal populations, this is known as malapportionment. For example, persons living in a district with 1,000 persons would have ten times more representation than a district with 10,000 persons.

In the 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court made two landmark rulings, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, requiring congressional and state legislative districts to be redrawn in a timely manner following the census so that their populations would be roughly equal. Some states had failed to draw new districts for as many as sixty years, which had provided slow growing rural areas with more representation than fast growing urban areas. At the time of the so-called reapportionment revolution, balancing district populations was predicted to shift government policies towards those favored by urban interests and even to limit gerrymandering.

These rulings and many others effectively nullified state practices of apportioning their state legislative seats among their counties or towns; for example, providing every county one seat and apportioning the remainder among the larger population counties (ironically, a process similar to the apportionment of congressional seats to the states). Many states amended their constitutions to revise their redistricting processes, so that the federal courts would not nullify this section of their state constitution.

How Often Can a State Redistrict?

In 2003, the nation was captivated by a group of Democratic Texas state legislators who fled the state to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering the state's congressional districts. At stake was Democratic-favored redistricting plan adopted by a court for the 2002 congressional elections, adopted after the state legislature failed to enact a redistricting plan. Eventually, Democrats relented and returned to Texas and Republicans were able to put their map in place. Democrats later challenged the legality of drawing districts mid-decade, without a new census prompting the necessity of drawing new districts.

The Supreme Court ruled in LULAC v Perry that there is no federal prohibition on mid-decade redistricting. Some states have prohibitions on mid-decade redistricting written into their constitutions, statutes, or their state courts have ruled the practice is illegal. Texas is not one of these states, so the U.S. Supreme Court let the Texas districts stand, at least on these grounds (a Voting Rights challenge to the Texas congressional plan was successful). Presumably, this means a state without a mid-decade prohibition can redistrict before each election if they so desired.

Public Mapping Project

How Do We Do Redistricting?

Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators."

Effectively, this means that state legislatures are granted primary authority to regulate federal elections, including how their congressional district lines are to be drawn. However, Congress is the ultimate authority, and may supersede state laws. Congress has exercised this authority, for example, to require single-member districts and to enhance racial and ethnic minority groups' representation. The federal courts have interpreted the federal constitution to require equal population districts. Congress has not mandated a congressional redistricting procedure, despite many bills that have been introduced. States thus retain their authority to draw districts -- congressional, state legislative, and others -- within these federal guidelines.

States decide how they will redistrict. The state constitution and statutory requirements may be found here.

Equal Population

Short Definition: All districts must have equal population.

Congressional Districts - Exactly Equal.

State Legislative Districts - Up to a ten percentage point deviation, under certain circumstances.

How to Determine Compliance in DistrictBuilder: DistrictBuilder's default view shades districts by how close they are to the ideal population (the state's population/number of districts). Blue shaded districts are under the ideal population; gold shaded districts are above.

In the 1960s the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a series of cases that congressional and state legislative districts must be of equal population. The watershed case was Baker v Carr, where the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting was justicable, meaning that they could apply impose constitutional and statutory requirements upon redistricting. Prior to this ruling, the Supreme Court was reluctant to become involved in what they considered to be a political question best resolved by the political process, not the courts.

Sour Grapes

reply to post by burdman30ott6

You see, AlienScience, right now the government, especially the Democrats, are struggling and living paycheck to paycheck. They've amassed way too many programs that bleed tax dollars away from issues that should be priorities. They're also too dumb to prioritize the debt (which should be up towards the top.) They shouldn't be spending on so many non-priorities if they can't handle paying the debt without adding even more debt.

You run a nation by being smart with the money you have available and if this administration is too irresponsible to manage that, then they need to be governed by the GOP to force them to actually work within their budget.

But the United States is not struggling...their debt to GDP is pretty damn good...and their debt to wealth ratio is fantastic.

Again, this is simply a problem of people not understanding economics. A household budget is not the same thing as a government or corporation budget. When you try to compare the two, it shows your ignorance of how economies work.

The debt is not an issue except to people who are frightened by large numbers and can't comprehend how a number that large can't be a negative thing. Holding debt is a GOOD thing when you have good credit and good debt to "income" ratio...I put "income" in quotes...do you know why? If you don't, then you simply just don't comprehend the differences between a household budget and an entire economy.

If we ran the country solely with the money we have without every accumulating debt, we would be a third world country and eventually be buried in debt because of a collapsed economy.

The Tea Party republicans are probably some of the most unintelligent politicians this country has ever elected, they are ignorant and do not comprehend the economy or the consequences of a default. And the problem is that they have a bunch of zombie supporters that seem to believe every ignorant word they say. Please remember, these people were voted into office because people thought they were "just like me"..."an everyday joe"...and "not an experienced politician"....in short, they were elected by idiots because they are idiots.

And this is where they have gotten us. They are about to destroy our country from within...the worlds strongest military means jack when you have a group of idiots about to destroy it with inaction.

AlienScience
Again, this is simply a problem of people not understanding economics.

Yes, I'm well aware of that fact after reading your post.

Allow me to tear down a wall for you.

AlienScience
Yes, because funding Republicans little pet projects that cause them the most PR damage is all the republicans were trying to do. They were taking heat about the shutdown and wanted to selectively pass things to take the heat off...even though it doesn't help.

Pet projects like the VA? Like the FDA? FAA? etc, etc?

You obviously have never had to negotiate as it seems your tactics are lacking.

And that isn't Republicans "giving ground"...that is Republicans trying to relieve the heat they are feeling from the public.

They should fund the government in full...period.

I never said they shouldn't. They are at an impasse. By agreeing to the things that they agree on, they can move forward the discussion to the issue in which they hold an obvious disagreement. Since the PPACA is funded by taxes, and taxes have not halted, what exactly are the Democrats holding out on?

To continue the selective shutdown of services? Amber Alert Site -- nah we can shut that! Lets Move (PSA site) -- yeah we need that.

Shutdown the WWII memorial and make it a circus -- sure! Claim First Amendment rights for the Immigration protest? Yep! Even though one could easily argue that those visiting any of these memorials are in fact, exercising their First Amendment Rights...but the Government has selectively decided to choose who can and who cannot use Federal land; I mean the Kings land.

Keep with your parroting though. Some of it is quite valid but you are so entrenched that you won't allow any idea that is opposite yours to be considered.

AlienScience
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

Found this on the VA's website www.va.gov and I love how this dirtbag tries to blow smoke up everyones backside and cant resist throwing in a last zing blaming the Republicans, yet the Dems are JUST AS GUILTY for all this crap going on today

But the Republicans are the guilty ones.

They are demanding something before they fund the government...Dems just want to fund the government. Republicans are saying "Give me something before I do my job". It's as simple as that.

If only there were a third party...hmmm...perhaps, something other than two hands belonging to the same body up the rear ends of the Democrat and Republican puppets...



Nahhh, it'd never work.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Burd...remember many of these people are beholden to Keynesian Economics in which the path is indeed to "spend their way out of debt". The macro-economics of Keynesian is convoluted and twisted to fit the ideals of a political ideology and have nothing really to connect to what real world macro-economics actually entail. It has been this way since WWII and they are still devout to the belief that central planning is the way to go.

burdman30ott6

AlienScience
Again, this is simply a problem of people not understanding economics.

Yes, I'm well aware of that fact after reading your post.

Allow me to tear down a wall for you.