The Government Is Going to Shut Down Again (and That's Bad) 

$10 for the stick $399,990 for someone’s new home

@@blakedavis2447 It’s actually a $250,000 Shamanic Featherstick of the Whatsinyourpockethomie Tribe...Basically priceless, and we give them a measly $250,000 for Featherstick Rights each year.

Well you weren't expecting the government to ignore the lumberjack, delivery services, woodworking and paint maker union's regulations were you?

There are emergency funds allocated just for this reason. If the government kept going until it ran out of those funds as well, then people would definitely notice.

Clever.

Stewart Smith last I checked, there isn't any "money" left, and then some. Not sure what emergency funds you speak of?

derekisthematrix Debt. All our money comes from borrowing. Taxes don’t pay for government services; they pay for debts on money already borrowed.

Gallifreyan Buccaneer I'm confident we're never coming back from the debt. It's all just fake, printed money at this point. We're running on fumes. I like your name though!

The mental functions can though.

@@raspiankiado4658 Well, that would assume they were on to begin with.

Holy cow, it's no different than every other day in government employment!

Is that sleepy guy Brian Sack?

@@richmondrk2 no he's joe biden

The real question is: does he keep the money?

You can thank twitter.com/srsiskind for that.

Remy, and the [Insert Famous Franchise Name Here] Libertarian Edition videos

Exodarion word 😈🤑🤘 fuck it, I made my own out of a twist 🌲 it's five foot two in legnth (sexy as hell thought)

Exodarion me too that way if someone trys to interrupt you have a stick to wack them with🤣🤣🤣🤣

Exodarion umm... Excuse me? Did I pass you the talking Stick?

What about a stop talking stick...

I love that whoever is in charge of the budget for this show said "just wrap some colored tape around a table leg; boom, talking stick... and make sure you put it back on the table when you're done." #partisquabetency

They always have and always will. We end up paying twice for the work missed.

Well if they didn't get paid, they probably could sue and win every time their is a shutdown

Life is not anime. People need their pay.

Yep we still get full pay every time there is a government shutdown. Worse, not everyone gets furloughed at the same time. Not being able to contact anyone to actually do your job means that those who aren't furloughed can't do anything as long as there are those that are.

They aren’t useless. Their jobs should just be (ideally) taken by the private sector

undersanction should’ve used XP though

That was actually windows 10... There isn't a windows 98 yet moron.

As a libertarian I actually want the government to blow more money. There's workarounds for all the supposed personal consequences.

Because the national bank has control over the IRS which is not a part of the government and as long as there is a debt, somebody is gonna be taxed.

No, they're appropriating native american customs.

But still, It's a matter of time till Piggy gets his brains brains splattered on the rocks.

The Invisible Hand What happens if we give the talking stick to a dog?

Only when you are the majority and you are right.

I beg to differ it is bad all the time,the Democrats have the "deep state",the administrative state,and the permanent bureaucracy, so even when they are in the minority ,they are in the majority.

/good

Yep. They really used a talking stick. www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/politics/susan-collins-bipartisan-talks-congress-shutdown-talking-stick/index.html

hot potato grenade stick if you hold it longer than 2 min it explodes, and it doesn't beep when it gets close

slash it! slash it!

Charmain LaReau please don't vote

Connor Kenway hold your breath.

Connor Kenway yes voting. That thing that has a 0% chance of changing the outcome of elections. That mechanism by which you get a 1/100,000,000 to decide which one of the two people will rob from you, and your neighboor. You can waste your time on voting if you want. It grants no moral authority. Don't worry not robbing is so unpopular you will get to keep the roaming mob in power even if I do vote. If a mob takes my property without my consent that is theft. Getting 50.00001% of people to agree to steal my property and divide it amongst themselves is just as much theft. I'm perfectly fine with using voting as a way (although feeble) to reduce the theft. However it is sickening to think you would vote to AFFIRM the right for mobs to steal. But like I said your vote has practically no chance of modifying an outcome. I'll do my best to control what I actually can change and minimize the role the bandits have in my life. That will accomplish far more than even 100 votes

419fish your a moron. There is more to the general election then who wins the current election. If you bothered to look into reality you would know that many times over your vote carries other powers, and if you cant grasp that why do you think the two party hydra formed the FEC?!

EgadsNo The FEC was put in place to maintain incumbent power. This is an inevitable power creep under democracy You confuse totals and marginal effects. My vote has a 0% chance of changing the outcome. When politicians are concerned about an election they are looking at large agglomeration of people. The total effect is large but the marginal is tiny. You may object that the total is the sum of the marginal but this is misguided. Millions of people have irrationally voted. As a result my marginal benefit of voting is far less than my marginal cost. Here is a parrell. Water is useful to me if I have no water I should buy water. If I have so much water already that my house is flooded I should not buy more water. People irrationally bought into the democratic systems because of the politicians propaganda. Therefore people voted until the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost of voting (the cost to politicians is zero so they tell everyone to vote). Therefore my vote does nothing However, if less people voted at some point my MB>MC and I would vote. Further by voting for a losing candidate I have increased the likely hood that other votes will change the outcome. That increases other peoples MB of voting and they vote. But I know this fact so my full MB includes the chances of driving others to vote for my least hated candidate. This eliminates the concern that if every libertarian thinks as I do we will lose, despite outnumbering the two main parties. Yes no one would vote, until the election would be close then MB>MC and we would all vote. As soon as my vote matters I will vote, but it is extremely unlikely to matter in the US system in my entire lifetime My particular vote has zero chance of changing the current elections. In other scenarios it would make a difference. I should emphasize however votes don't grant consent or authority. If less people voted, and I did decide to vote I am doing so in defense, not as a way to affirm my consent to be robbed. If 99% of people voted to murder someone they don't have the right to do so. Similarly if I vote to not be murdered I'm not saying elections legitimize murder only that ill do whatever possible to minimize human rights violations