Literally, not one person said federal workers should "suck it up."
They should whine to Democrats and Nancy. After all she is the one who refuses to negotiate, and the party who most of them voted for.
(01-24-2019, 05:59 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]They should whine to Democrats and Nancy. After all she is the one who refuses to negotiate, and the party who most of them voted for.
If it's all the Democrats' fault, why are Republicans in the Senate signing on to the Democrats' spending bill?
(01-24-2019, 05:07 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Literally, not one person said federal workers should "suck it up."
It's CNN, so...
(01-24-2019, 06:02 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 05:59 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]They should whine to Democrats and Nancy. After all she is the one who refuses to negotiate, and the party who most of them voted for.
If it's all the Democrats' fault, why are Republicans in the Senate signing on to the Democrats' spending bill?
I think there's going to have to be a coup, of sorts, amongst the rank and file to get this done. Neither Donald nor Nancy are budging.
(01-24-2019, 06:02 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 05:59 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]They should whine to Democrats and Nancy. After all she is the one who refuses to negotiate, and the party who most of them voted for.
If it's all the Democrats' fault, why are Republicans in the Senate signing on to the Democrats' spending bill?
Only Trump has tried to negotiate at all. What has Nancy offered? Besides, they need to goto
their representatives, which most of them have made clear that Trump isn't their president.
The sad thing is that the vast majority of households probably don't follow the most basic financial advice given. Always have at least 3 months salary saved for emergencies. The other sad thing is that things that some people think are "necessities" really aren't. I wonder how many people affected by the partial government shutdown supposedly turning to food banks still have their cable television and family smart phone plans going?
Though I do work for the government as a contractor, this shutdown didn't affect me because the part of the government that I work for is fully funded. However, there have been past shutdowns that did affect me where we didn't go to work for around a week or more. I personally have 6 months worth of salary set aside in a money market account just for this kind of emergency. I don't spend beyond my means and stick to a budget that includes savings first.
Regarding the misleading headline from CNN, nobody has said to "suck it up". It was pointed out that there are avenues to get through this period that people can take.
(01-24-2019, 06:27 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 06:02 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]If it's all the Democrats' fault, why are Republicans in the Senate signing on to the Democrats' spending bill?
Only Trump has tried to negotiate at all. What has Nancy offered? Besides, they need to goto their representatives, which most of them have made clear that Trump isn't their president.
The House had a bill in front of Trump and the Senate on January 3rd.
(01-24-2019, 07:11 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]The sad thing is that the vast majority of households probably don't follow the most basic financial advice given. Always have at least 3 months salary saved for emergencies. The other sad thing is that things that some people think are "necessities" really aren't. I wonder how many people affected by the partial government shutdown supposedly turning to food banks still have their cable television and family smart phone plans going?
Though I do work for the government as a contractor, this shutdown didn't affect me because the part of the government that I work for is fully funded. However, there have been past shutdowns that did affect me where we didn't go to work for around a week or more. I personally have 6 months worth of salary set aside in a money market account just for this kind of emergency. I don't spend beyond my means and stick to a budget that includes savings first.
Regarding the misleading headline from CNN, nobody has said to "suck it up". It was pointed out that there are avenues to get through this period that people can take.
I agree with you in principle, but consider the audience. The average TSA screener is making roughly $35k per year. Meteorologists I know at a couple of NWS locations are making $40k, and they have student loans on top of their entry-level government salary. It's easy for someone like you or I to stash large chunks of money away, but to expect someone making $35k to put $17,500 in savings is unreasonable. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts.
(01-24-2019, 08:13 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 06:27 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]Only Trump has tried to negotiate at all. What has Nancy offered? Besides, they need to goto their representatives, which most of them have made clear that Trump isn't their president.
The House had a bill in front of Trump and the Senate on January 3rd.
(01-24-2019, 07:11 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]The sad thing is that the vast majority of households probably don't follow the most basic financial advice given. Always have at least 3 months salary saved for emergencies. The other sad thing is that things that some people think are "necessities" really aren't. I wonder how many people affected by the partial government shutdown supposedly turning to food banks still have their cable television and family smart phone plans going?
Though I do work for the government as a contractor, this shutdown didn't affect me because the part of the government that I work for is fully funded. However, there have been past shutdowns that did affect me where we didn't go to work for around a week or more. I personally have 6 months worth of salary set aside in a money market account just for this kind of emergency. I don't spend beyond my means and stick to a budget that includes savings first.
Regarding the misleading headline from CNN, nobody has said to "suck it up". It was pointed out that there are avenues to get through this period that people can take.
I agree with you in principle, but consider the audience. The average TSA screener is making roughly $35k per year. Meteorologists I know at a couple of NWS locations are making $40k, and they have student loans on top of their entry-level government salary. It's easy for someone like you or I to stash large chunks of money away, but to expect someone making $35k to put $17,500 in savings is unreasonable. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts.
Exactly. Just because a person is living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean they are fiscally irresponsible.
(01-24-2019, 08:38 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 08:13 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]The House had a bill in front of Trump and the Senate on January 3rd.
I agree with you in principle, but consider the audience. The average TSA screener is making roughly $35k per year. Meteorologists I know at a couple of NWS locations are making $40k, and they have student loans on top of their entry-level government salary. It's easy for someone like you or I to stash large chunks of money away, but to expect someone making $35k to put $17,500 in savings is unreasonable. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts.
Exactly. Just because a person is living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean they are fiscally irresponsible.
Agree, everyone's situation is different. Some people do take advantage of others less fortunate situation to defend their own failure to fend for themselves. You suffer more than I do from their ruse. I apologize for that. I do enjoy helping those in "real" need ... it is very hard to tell the difference when the practice of illusion has been perfected.
So, I have decided I will move in with you ... Because you need someone like me, and I need someone like you. Clear me a room.
(01-24-2019, 09:13 PM)Sammy Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 08:38 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly. Just because a person is living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean they are fiscally irresponsible.
Agree, everyone's situation is different. Some people do take advantage of others less fortunate situation to defend their own failure to fend for themselves. You suffer more than I do from their ruse. I apologize for that. I do enjoy helping those in "real" need ... it is very hard to tell the difference when the practice of illusion has been perfected.
So, I have decided I will move in with you ... Because you need someone like me, and I need someone like you. Clear me a room.
Just understand that already called dibs on the couch when the time comes.
(01-24-2019, 08:13 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 06:27 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]Only Trump has tried to negotiate at all. What has Nancy offered? Besides, they need to goto their representatives, which most of them have made clear that Trump isn't their president.
The House had a bill in front of Trump and the Senate on January 3rd.
(01-24-2019, 07:11 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]The sad thing is that the vast majority of households probably don't follow the most basic financial advice given. Always have at least 3 months salary saved for emergencies. The other sad thing is that things that some people think are "necessities" really aren't. I wonder how many people affected by the partial government shutdown supposedly turning to food banks still have their cable television and family smart phone plans going?
Though I do work for the government as a contractor, this shutdown didn't affect me because the part of the government that I work for is fully funded. However, there have been past shutdowns that did affect me where we didn't go to work for around a week or more. I personally have 6 months worth of salary set aside in a money market account just for this kind of emergency. I don't spend beyond my means and stick to a budget that includes savings first.
Regarding the misleading headline from CNN, nobody has said to "suck it up". It was pointed out that there are avenues to get through this period that people can take.
I agree with you in principle, but consider the audience. The average TSA screener is making roughly $35k per year. Meteorologists I know at a couple of NWS locations are making $40k, and they have student loans on top of their entry-level government salary. It's easy for someone like you or I to stash large chunks of money away, but to expect someone making $35k to put $17,500 in savings is unreasonable. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts.
Were not @ 6 months were @ 2 pay periods
(01-25-2019, 09:55 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2019, 08:13 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]The House had a bill in front of Trump and the Senate on January 3rd.
I agree with you in principle, but consider the audience. The average TSA screener is making roughly $35k per year. Meteorologists I know at a couple of NWS locations are making $40k, and they have student loans on top of their entry-level government salary. It's easy for someone like you or I to stash large chunks of money away, but to expect someone making $35k to put $17,500 in savings is unreasonable. People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts.
Were not @ 6 months were @ 2 pay periods
"People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts."
(01-25-2019, 01:35 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 09:55 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Were not @ 6 months were @ 2 pay periods
"People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts."
But people living paycheck to paycheck have a mobile device to post in online forums. Always find it amazing how that bill tends to always get paid.
(01-25-2019, 01:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 01:35 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]"People living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of savings accounts."
But people living paycheck to paycheck have a mobile device to post in online forums. Always find it amazing how that bill tends to always get paid.
It's 2019, not 1989. The cell phone has replaced the landline, and I strongly doubt that you'd have made the argument that a landline was unnecessary in 1989.
(01-25-2019, 02:31 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 01:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]But people living paycheck to paycheck have a mobile device to post in online forums. Always find it amazing how that bill tends to always get paid.
It's 2019, not 1989. The cell phone has replaced the landline, and I strongly doubt that you'd have made the argument that a landline was unnecessary in 1989.
If you really want to get technical, there is a data aspect to a cell phone plan too.
they shouldve all just collectively walked out a month ago when they knew they were going to get furloughed. The fact that they can be given the okey-doke and work for "free" with no backlash is the exact reason why the two parties dont care to actually end it.
(01-25-2019, 03:36 PM)My Desired Display Name Wrote: [ -> ]they shouldve all just collectively walked out a month ago when they knew they were going to get furloughed. The fact that they can be given the okey-doke and work for "free" with no backlash is the exact reason why the two parties dont care to actually end it.
They don't actually work for free. The get back pay plus. Also by contract they are not allowed to strike (walk out).
(01-25-2019, 03:32 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 02:31 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]It's 2019, not 1989. The cell phone has replaced the landline, and I strongly doubt that you'd have made the argument that a landline was unnecessary in 1989.
If you really want to get technical, there is a data aspect to a cell phone plan too.
I'll give you that. A smartphone with internet access is a necessity, but unlimited data is not.
Off subject because I don't want to start a new thread, but I tuned into CNN to get the latest slant on the latest political happenings and I was absolutely shocked by the lack of even the slightest hint of objectivity on that network. It's like watching a telecast of People magazine. They speak in accusatory tones that don't' even approach a journalistic philosophy. Astounding.