The approaching federal government shutdown

[Dinner]

Amen, brother.

[Asher]

You know, if we're going to have a so-called "government shutdown," let's have an honest-to-goodness mother****ing government shutdown. No mail. No air-traffic controllers. No Medicare. No border guards. No TSA. No FBI. No CIA. No armed forces. Shut the whole thing mother****ing down. Then we'll see how long this *****ing and moaning about OH NOES SOCIALISMS! lasts.

[MrFun]

You know, if we're going to have a so-called "government shutdown," let's have an honest-to-goodness mother****ing government shutdown. No mail. No air-traffic controllers. No Medicare. No border guards. No TSA. No FBI. No CIA. No armed forces. Shut the whole thing mother****ing down. Then we'll see how long this *****ing and moaning about OH NOES SOCIALISMS! lasts.

what Oerdin said

[The Mad Monk]

I like how Republicans are whining about how the Democrats didn't take the opportunity to pass a budget that the Republicans would have hated anyway.

Not whining.

Mocking.

[The Mad Monk]

what Oerdin said

So you would rather see the country destroyed (as opposed to merely inconvenienced) if you don't get your way?

Interesting.

[Asher]

It would certainly make for some much-needed changes after.

[The Mad Monk]

You mean like several confedations of former states?

[Asher]

That would help.

[Asher]

I don't see why Texas should subsidize California. Or why California should have to put up with Texans. Or why Vermont doesn't get destroyed in a civil war.

[The Mad Monk]

What do you have against Ben&Jerry?

[Asher]

Socialists.

[The Mad Monk]

Even socialists can make tasty ice cream.

[Dinner]

So you would rather see the country destroyed (as opposed to merely inconvenienced) if you don't get your way?

Interesting.

It wouldn't be destroyed but the effects would be very harmful. Then, maybe, the Republicans wouldn't feel so free to damage the country as a whole with their partisan nonsense. If that happened then I'd say it was worth it (not to mention they'd be truly punished by voters which is always a good thing).

[Dinner]

I don't see why Texas should subsidize California. Or why California should have to put up with Texans. Or why Vermont doesn't get destroyed in a civil war.

Excuse me but California isn't subsidized by anyone. Sadly, we do the subsidizing though fortunately Texas is not one of the states we normally subsidize as they tend to pay ever so slightly more then they receive from the fed (by $0.01 out of every $1 but still they're better then the worthless blood sucker states). New York and California are the Germanies of America meaning we pay for all the ****tardery occurring in flyover country even if we don't want to.

[Hauldren Collider]

Excuse me but California isn't subsidized by anyone. Sadly, we do the subsidizing though fortunately Texas is not one of the states we normally subsidize as they tend to pay ever so slightly more then they receive from the fed (by $0.01 out of every $1 but still they're better then the worthless blood sucker states). New York and California are the Germanies of America meaning we pay for all the ****tardery occurring in flyover country even if we don't want to.

Actually, New York and California are more like the Irelands and Portugals...you had to have your ass bailed out, not the other way around.

As for the amount of money a state gets relative to the taxes it puts in, it's not really fair to compare states that way because military facilities and government offices would have to get paid for no matter which state you put them in. So while for instance Virginia gets tons of federal money, most of it is for things like the CIA headquarters and Norfolk shipyard, the Pentagon and other really huge military installations that we'd have to have regardless.

(Pre-empting Asher's comment on downsizing the military: Whether you think the military should be smaller or not, Norfolk shipyard and the Pentagon aren't particularly extraneous.)