Hacker News Reader

Comment by orsenthil | Hacker News Reader

I can't understand this. What is meant by Government Shuts Down? No law and order will be enforced?

The US government is on partial shutdown. So many hundreds of thousands of US government workers will either 1. not be paid to work, or 2. be furloughed (not go in to work). This applies to non-essential workers (found a list here - http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/government-s... ).

Retroactive pay will apply once things are worked out.

One important thing not to forget, Partisan issues aside, is that both Congress and the President still get paid without any hiccups.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/us/who-goes-to...

Broad strokes seems to be that anything a normal citizen would enjoy or a program of social uplift etc gets shut down. National parks, NASA, various food inspectors (how is that not "essential"??) and some sporadic regulators.

Meanwhile, the DEA, military recruiters, and yes congress / the president keep getting paid. Is there a single elected official that will be affected by the shutdown? That would seem like mis-aligned incentives.

Who else is ready for some debt ceiling!?

Congress and the President are both required to be paid by the Constitution (20th amendment and Art 2, Sec 1, respectively).

Ah, so they like that part of the constitution.

Working without being paid during the furlough ("volunteering") is outlawed[1] to prevent employees from suing for back pay... which is also not guaranteed by any law. CNN simply made that assumption because it was granted during the last major shutdown.

http://www.bsnlawfirm.com/newsletter/OP0413_Natter.pdf

An acquaintance stated that he won't be able to enter campus to check on his live specimens. So they're going to die. I didn't get any details from him, but I'm sort of hoping he's talking about bacteria...

When would a full shutdown occur?

I'm not aware of any official provisions for a "full shutdown", but if the debt ceiling isn't raised in roughly two weeks the government would technically default on it's obligations. This could certainly be viewed as a type of full shutdown.

The debt ceiling issue is a lot more complicated than that and even if it weren't raised the federal government would continue to be able to spend the money it receives from tax revenue. That would be a more severe shutdown (and likely catastrophic to world financial markets). But it would not be a "full" shutdown in the sense that the entire government stops functioning.

A "full shutdown" would take everyone in uniform marching to the District of Criminals and throwing all the politicians in jail.

> A "full shutdown" would take everyone in uniform marching to the District of Criminals and throwing all the politicians in jail.

You can go live in some kleptocracy in Africa if that kind of thing inspires you.

This is exhibit 2736372 of "why political articles on HN are bad". We now have individuals advocating a military coup d'état against the elected government in the US.

No, this:

"You can go live in some kleptocracy in Africa if that kind of thing inspires you."

"exhibit 2736372 of "why political articles on HN are bad"."

What you have done is say some one must leave the country and cannot argue for some sort of change because you don't like it. That is the behavior of the quoted Africa remark. Which is a questionable remark in it's self.

He's not 'advocating change', he's saying a military dictatorship is better than a democracy. Do we really need to argue that kind of point?

On HN, it's an item of debate. HN is the only place I've ever had to explain that a quasi-military benevolent dictatorship is an incredibly wonderful idea and would be great for installing if only we could trust anyone who was actually part of it.

Which is why HN is a really bad place for political articles. HN attracts people who believe in momentous change, rather than incremental change: no matter how many times it's pounded in that startups aren't a get-rich-quick scheme, you still have people who think that their big idea is going to make them the CEO of the next Internet giant.

My initial comment was in no way intended to to imply that "a military dictatorship is better than a democracy." That was a construct of your imagination. Many of those whom I referred to as being in uniform are civilians, such as police officers, and I hope that any subsequent government imposed by such action would be a Constitutional Republic in nature since I favor the precepts set forth by the aforementioned Constitution.

As for your failed interpretations of my intent and arguing such points, by your continued comments on this matter you are displaying your own willingness to argue this point.

Fuck the elected government in the US!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com