Government shut down - Arsenal affected? (Huntsville: insurance, wages, living)

[raj kapoor]

Every American is not covered when the government exempts itself. Congress persons would never submit themselves to this bill, why should anyone?

No president has ever had full cooperation with congress, state and local governments. Effective presidents have learned how to negotiate. This president has had an ineffective presidency simply because he is too proud or biased to actually interact with those he wishes to rule.

He went into office facing an economic disaster; and yet he spent more than a year focused on a health care reform that is supported by a questionable number of people. If he had actually done something meaningful and fruitful with the economy in the first two years he would probably find a lot more trust now.

His economic inaction caused more people to lose their health care (and jobs).

raj

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

We want the BEST for our country. We are intelligent, educated, PATRIOTTC AMERICANS who will defendthis country as we do it every day. But we are not sheeps that just say "yeeeessss" to what the administration says (outside of our regular jobs).

Doesn't matter. The claim is that government spending is too high. Except that when it comes to "my" government spending.

[LCTMadison]

Originally Posted by raj kapoor

every american is not covered when the government exempts itself. Congress persons would never submit themselves to this bill, why should anyone?

No president has ever had full cooperation with congress, state and local governments. Effective presidents have learned how to negotiate. This president has had an ineffective presidency simply because he is too proud or biased to actually interact with those he wishes to rule.

He went into office facing an economic disaster; and yet he spent more than a year focused on a health care reform that is supported by a questionable number of people. If he had actually done something meaningful and fruitful with the economy in the first two years he would probably find a lot more trust now.

His economic inaction caused more people to lose their health care (and jobs).

Raj

^^^this^^^

Democrats could have avoided the shutdown.....House sent the bill stating that ALL Americans would get the same one year exemption that Obama gave big businesses and unions, repeal the medical device tax (which a good majority of Democrats would have supported), and to repeal Congress's "special" treatment under Obamacare. Because the "law of the land" should apply equally to everyone.

Democrats REFUSED. REFUSED THIS. Because they don't WANT to be under this law. And all Americans are NOT treated equal....only if you fund their campaigns. Unions absolutely raised cain and threats, and you can't have your voter base unhappy heading into midterms if you are Obama, so he hooked his friends up.

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

You obviously did not read the link....

Do you give complete and total credit to Obama for Obamacare? Really think before you answer.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by Tourian

Do you give complete and total credit to Obama for Obamacare? Really think before you answer.

Well you should educate yourself before you relpy...

No, I did not give obama credit, nor romney...if anyone it was hillary...remember hillary care...

[Tourian]

Part of the negotiations could be that Congress is exempt.

The whole system could use an overhaul but it is what we got.

I wish the economy was fixed too but I also think more then one agenda can be ongoing and a government like ours has to be dynamic enough to multi task on several fronts. To me, this is the perfect time to introduce this now that we've realized we cant keep going the way we have been

[bluebeard]

My point is that you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim to be "against government spending", "debt", and "taxes" as a whole, yet for the spending that occurs in Huntsville. You are against welfare programs and regulation. Thats it. Don't cloak it in some concern about financial fiscal viability. If you were truly concerned about government spending first and foremost you'd be calling for reduced spending on all fronts.

[Seth Parker]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

My point is that you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim to be "against government spending", "debt", and "taxes" as a whole, yet for the spending that occurs in Huntsville. You are against welfare programs and regulation. Thats it. Don't cloak it in some concern about financial fiscal viability. If you were truly concerned about government spending first and foremost you'd be calling for reduced spending on all fronts.

Do you know for a fact that those are that person's beliefs about welfare and regulation? Or, are you just using a generalized, stereotypical statement to loop a group of people together?

People can disagree with what their government officials do. Support of a party and belief in every tenet said party chooses to support don't always go hand-in-hand. There are a LOT of Republicans out there that believe in the fiscal principles that the party supports, but also support some of the social issues that the Democratic party believes in. Everyone on both sides are so divided along party lines and want to play the blame-game that no one wants to consider that there is common ground between the groups if people will just look for it.

ETA: To add to that. I don't think you'd get any disagreement from any true Republican to reduce spending across all fronts if it meant turning this thing around.....that's called negotiation. Democrats want to cherry-pick issues as untouchable and are unwilling to negotiate on them, then blame the Republicans when it doesn't work.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

Doesn't matter. The claim is that government spending is too high. Except that when it comes to "my" government spending.

Originally Posted by bluebeard

My point is that you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim to be "against government spending", "debt", and "taxes" as a whole, yet for the spending that occurs in Huntsville. You are against welfare programs and regulation. Thats it. Don't cloak it in some concern about financial fiscal viability. If you were truly concerned about government spending first and foremost you'd be calling for reduced spending on all fronts.

This is where you are wrong.

We ARE calling for reduced government spending on ALL front. Personally if I do not think I am providing a value-added service, I will go find something else to do. I hate to break this to you but most of us have SKILLS that the private sectors will be happy to have in a heart beat. We not not LOW-SKILL LABOR on welfare. This area has the highest MS & Ph.D. degrees per capita in the nation for good reasons.

Our military is a VOLUNTEER military. Those who serve are doing so with a higher purpose than just get paid. What about you? What do you do?

You can cast dispersion based on your bias all you want but it soes not change the facts. You need to get to know us better.

[TG3jonesvalley]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

My point is that you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim to be "against government spending", "debt", and "taxes" as a whole, yet for the spending that occurs in Huntsville. You are against welfare programs and regulation. Thats it. Don't cloak it in some concern about financial fiscal viability. If you were truly concerned about government spending first and foremost you'd be calling for reduced spending on all fronts.

So true Bluebeard! I worked with arsenal and in my experience it was 75% white collar welfare. So many of these "highly educated" workers are paid well beyond their productivity. I have no simpathy for the 6 figure systems analysts who need help with excel. The system is brutally broken and the govies need "some" pain like the rest of us. This is all one big JOKE!!