Balance furlough weeks' (Last time, under PRes. Clinton, 3 weeks & Monica came in, no pun intended) non-payment of federal wages and salaries against:

The Federal Reserve and other entities and agencies might be separate from the Treasury pay-outs which cease.
Federal tax refunds stop.
The mayor of New York, Bloomberg, pointed out that visa approvals will shut down, so those countries requiring non-reciprocity of Passport Visas are shut out, and NYCity loses much tourist income. The Statue of Liberty closed; 16K visitors a day in the Eastern Seaboard chilly springtime.
THe District of Columbia Cherry Blossom parade would be cancelled.
Actually, the D.C. cops who patrol the nation's Capitol are probably "essential services." [ANY federal employee who shows up when and if USA govt. shutdown, is Legally FIRED].
The US House of Representatives, due to stop work April 7, will continue in indefinite session, probably. A cushy job, running for re-election again every day after Veterans Day holiday.
There are peripheral issues in the Representative's measure. White House threatens veto. Big game of "Chicken." AIN'T gonna happen?

@ Jack_Klein

I have not formulated an opinion on gay rights, but, like with Putin, let me be devil's advocate for a minute.

One possible argument is that Prop 8 is indeed constitutional because gay people are not denied any rights. I am straight, and I have a right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Likewise, a gay person may marry someone of the opposite gender. How are they being denied any rights? Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

I'm not a homophobe or anything, but that is a possible arguments could (but haven't, for some stupid reason) use. You might want to come up with a rebuttal to that if you want to get into a serious argument with an intelligent conservative.

I'm pretty frustrated with the Republicans. The argument above is much more substantial in a court of law than a Bible verse.

Correction: *that is a possible argument that conservatives could (...) use*

@Gunfighter, I think the problem with this argument is the same problem with this argument: If I make a law saying criticizing the president is illegal, I'm not abridging free speech because everyone is still free to make any speech except criticize the president.

It may be logically sound, but if different people have different definitions of what makes free speech (or marriage) important and desirable, I think it fails.

Equal Protection falls under several different categories for jurisprudence.

The State IS legally allowed to make distinctions (discriminate, but that is a rather loaded term). The State does have to satisfy one of several tests, depending on the case.

Prop 8 was struck down because the defendants (State of California) couldn't demonstrate a compelling state interest in making this distinction that people can only enter a legal marriage contract with members of the opposite sex.

Its being appealed, of course, and eventually we'll get a SC ruling on the matter. But I challenge somebody to demonstrate how life in California (or Iowa, where we had a court case that struck down a similar law) has gotten any worse as a result of two women or two men being able to enter a civil marriage contract.

Also, Krellin, you may be busy, but I'm still waiting for your apology.

@ gramilaj

That's not really a fair analogy. A law banning criticism of the president would be unconstitutional in the first place. A law banning gay marriage is not unconstitutional for the reason I said above.

@ Jack_Klein (and gramilaj)

I agree. What goes on in a private bedroom between two consenting adults is not the government's business. I'm just playing devil's advocate to simulate what an intelligent conservative would say.

@Gunfighter, it only fails as an analogy because there is something like a Constitutional definition of free speech that we must defer to. There is not a Constitutional definition of marriage, there is only a cultural one, and some people asserting loudly that their constrictive definition is correct.

How about: If I make a law saying riding a bicycle is illegal, I'm not abridging some (hypothetical) right to free transportation because my definition of transportation doesn't include riding your bike somewhere. Everyone is still free to all the transportation options that are included in my definition of transportation, so I'm not abridging anyone's right to free transportation.

If you don't like that, I'll directly respond to your original question: "How are they being denied any rights?" Duh, they're clearly denied the right to marry someone of their own gender. You're assuming that's not a right before the argument even takes place, which doesn't make for good argument.

"This is a tea partier talking point. How much would be enough for you? 100 billion? The Democrats give in and give in and give in. The Republicans want all or nothing. But yet again the usual suspects come out with their false equivalence song and dance."

and @thatwasakward

i fear you misunderstood my post back there.

what i mean is its ridiculous and incompetent of both sides to argue over like $10 billion or whatever it is now. when I said its a pittance, i meant that that's so little they should be able to just fucking.. you know... do it.

the bill gates thing was not to suggest he should just pay it lol... that would be weird. it was just to illustrate how little money a few billion is for the USA.

that said i do think we need to tax the rich quite a lot more. we need many many more tax brackets above the top one now.

the idea that a guy who owns a good restaurant pays the same as like lebron james or something is crazy. lebron should have a higher percentage, and bill gates higher still.

Flat tax with only deductions for dependents in household. That's my vote. 20% plus cap states at 4% and local districts at a combined 1%.

flat tax???? what? really?

so if some guy makes 30k a year... he should pay the same proportion of tax as a shortstop for the yankees?

@ Draugnar

I would favor a flat tax for private citizens, but I think we should raise taxes on corporations that ship jobs overseas. Likewise, we should lower taxes on corporations that stay here.

Gunfighter... You think someone who makes $20k a year should pay the same percentage as someone who makes $200k?

Correction: D.C. cherry blossom parade going on as usual Saturday, only nowhere near a National Park.
At this hour, UMT, "talks" down to the wire; phone calls going on.
No-one seems to talk about the EPA, the GOP environment cutback so I guess -- a guess - the House GOP let that slip out. Only the Planned Parenthood issue came up. Switzerland solved this to a degree by making each Canton hold its own abortion referenda when and if they voted to have a referendum or got enuf petition sigs. Abortion is a federal payout no-no, so why pick out the birth control issue?
The nuclear fallout from this is Boehner going the way of Gingrich and the Republicans feeling the backlash. Not that the Dems are a whit better.
The Speaker and others are foregoing their salary checks for the Duration.
Time to hunker down at an undisclosed location and avoid playing it out in the prurient, pillorying press. The general tenor of Eastern seaboard reaction is that IF WE ALL ACTED LIKE THE US CONGRESS, we'd be out of a job.

"You think someone who makes $20k a year should pay the same percentage as someone who makes $200k?"

or $20 million? or 200 million? just saying.. we need more brackets.

At 20K a year, a much higher percentage of your income goes toward satisfying basic living requirements. So a flat tax cuts into that money at a higher rate, which to me, seems wrong.

gramilaj: Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. Any flat tax puts a larger burden on the poor than the rich.

Thucy: I'm in complete agreement with that sentiment.

I should clarify. I am in favor of a flat tax for private citizens once a sustainable budget surplus is attained. I would only be in favor of a flat tax if taxes are very low. Flat taxes aren't really practical when taxes are high.

I think that would only work if you could significantly cut defense spending, would you be in favor of that?

I do not think cutting defense spending during a war is a good idea.

well we aren't technically in 3 wars, so maybe it is a good thing, because americans can't be the defenders of the world, that's the UN's job.

And where is the UN located? That's right... New York City.

re: Flat tax

I have no problem with my usual 80-100K being taxed the same as a percentage as a fat cat CEO's 800K. We would tax all income equally including capital gains with no extra deductions. If you wanted to balance the cost of living as a cut of salary, add two fixed deductions: per person in household and per household. But don't make the mortgage

"'You think someone who makes $20k a year should pay the same percentage as someone who makes $200k?'

or $20 million? or 200 million? just saying.. we need more brackets."


Brackets won't help, because that tax is on income. If it were a percentage on actual wealth then it would be more fair. You may have two people bringing in $600K a year. THey'd both pay the same income rate (34% federal, I'm guessing). If one has no savings and is spending everything on keeping up an ostentatious lifestyle he's probably paying out 50% or more of his wealth in taxes (federal, state, and local) each year. Another who invests and has accrued wealth may be paying as little a one percent or less. They're still paying the same amount but the significance of that amount is much different for one than the other.

@Draug, the question is about people making 20K. Or let's talk about a single person making 10K a year. Is 20% still the ethical thing to take out of them? I agree a fixed tax rate is a good way of avoiding tax loopholes, and you might get more out of the super rich than you do now, but at the cost of taking more out of the super poor as well.

Stupid phone.

Anyhow, fix the household deduction at sonething reasonable, not based on mortgage so renters get it to and the rich or even upper middle don't get an extra write off for large interest payments due to big homes and resulting mortgages.

Right now, the rich invest so much in tax shelters they pay a lower percentage than middle or upper middle incomes like myself. This would see to it they paid their full share by eliminating the shelters.

@CA - punishing people for saving is morally wrong. Period. I will never agree with that. But tax interest income and capital gains at the exact same rate and in the year it is made even if the investment isn't liquidated eliminates that tax shelter too.

@gram - That is why I say an upfront per household and per person deduction. Make it big like 5K per house and 1500 per person so a 20K income for a single person would only be taxed on 13500 and a couple with 2 kids would get a break on the first 11K.

The "flat tax" proposal is not totally insane--it's a proposal for replacing every tax with a 23% sales tax. The tax is made progressive by paying back the tax on the poverty level for your family--so if you're officially poor, you'll get money back from the government.

The idea isn't terrible at all--my problem with it is that it eliminates all corporate taxes. You could set up a very simple corporate tax that assesses 35% of profits over the first million, free up small businesses from all taxes, and lower the tax rate to 21%.

Well, its issues like this that make me happy that I live in Australia. I'm loving my free healthcare (well, taxes cover it) and slightly left-wing government. I also love the fact that our constitution can change over time unlike yours. Another thing I love is that we have barely any military to fund so all our taxpayer money goes to domestic services. But what I love the most is that we are overlooked so often in global politics. (which is why we have almost no military)

I agree dD that Australia is pretty good, but I disagree that our government is left wing. It looks bad for the 'left wing' party when the conservatives propose taxing trust funds (a damn good idea IMO).

And frankly, our navy is one of the worst among developed nations.