I expect that they took the contract because they've examined he environment and the problems. They know how to fix the existing problems, and they can do it in a short time.
If they are correct, this would be a huge marketing win for HPQ. HPQ can then easily and believably tell potential customers that they can fix any hosting and networking problem that they have, and have the best example around. They don't even need the feds to pay them anything in order to win on this one, if they do fix it as they plan to.
youreallyarestupid: Which courts were you or your paper talking about? The caseload statistics for the 12 US district courts are available online, and they generally show a slow, and gradual annual increase in caseloads for all the 12 US district courts, at least as far back as 2008, which is where I stopped looking.
I had though that there might have been a recession caused decrease in cases in 2009 and 2010, but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not by their caseload statistics.
Perhaps a short history lesson is needed here. For most of our history a simply majority was all that was necessary for the Senate to confirm a the appointment of a judge. It was only in the past few decades that a super majority has been needed.
The filibuster went away after conservative southern democrats used it many times in the 50's and 60's to slow the passage of various civil rights legislation. Until yesterday, no real filibuster was needed. Now, just the threat of a filibuster could stop Senate legislation in it's tracks. And even now the change is just for presidential appointments.
Now the 50+ names that the president has proposed to fill many of the current 93 openings in the 12 US circuit courts and court of appeals can be voted up or down. That's the way it should be. At least for anyone who actually wants our government to do the job given it in the Constitution.
"who we consider" --- Which "we" are you talking about? You & Heinlein?
There are now 3 openings on the 11 seat DC circuit court. 4 of the current 8 DC court judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and 4 by Democrats. There are also 6 "senior" judges on the DC curcuit court, who handle some DC curcuit court cases. Of those 6 "senior" judges, 5 were appointed by Republican presidents, while one of then was appointed by a Democrat. But, I doubt that you can find what party, if any, those judges are registered with.
The DC court is one of 12 US Circuit Courts. There is also the US Court of Appeals. The president appoints judges of all of these courts, and the Senate confirms their appointments. So far, the senate has confirmed 9 judges to these courts, leaving a total of 93 open seats on these 13 US courts. The president has nominated people to fill 51 of these positions.
Speeding up these confirmations will begin to help get these courts working again. The Constitution allows the Senate to make these confirmations with a simple majority. It should never have been changed to anything else.
Yes, Cap, it's funny the way history works,but I don't think that FDR is considered by any as being responsible for the depression and huge national debt that he created. (FDR increased the debt 3 times more than what all the presidents before him created, combined.)
Look at the numbers. The national debt took a very steep turn upwards in GWB's last 2 years. In fact, GW Bush increased the debt by $1.1 trillion in just 100 days, from July 30, 2008 to November 9th. That's an all time record that no president (including Obama) has ever beat. Between September 2007 and October 2008, the debt ceiling was increased 3 times by a total of more than 25%, because of the need to react to the initial effects is the recession.
That steep climb of the debt in Bush's last 2 years has continued into Obama's presidency, although the rate of increase is now less than it was in Bush's last 2 years. If the recession and that steep climb in the debt had not happened, the national debt would almost certainly be somewhere near $8 trillion now, about half of what it actually is. That doubling of the debt is due entirely to the recession.
But, most important, that steep increase in the national debt was not due to anything that Obama or Bush did directly. It was, and is, entirely due to the fact that millions of Americans lost their jobs in the recession and stopped paying income taxes; millions of Americans lost their investments in the stock and investment markets and paid no cap gains taxes; millions of Americans lost money on their houses and paid no cap gains taxes on the sale of their homes.
Now, in retrospect, might Bush or Congress have seen the approaching housing and economic bubble approaching in 2003 and done something about it then? Certainly. but they didn't, so we got the recession, and we are still paying for it.
Ben, we agree on this one. These voter ID laws do nothing about 99% of all voter fraud, which comes from people working in voting places, and from absentee ballots. If they are not there to combat actual voter fraud, then one does need to wonder why those laws were created. Most of the time Republicans worry about government laws getting in people's way when they are doing what they need to do. Evidently not in this case.
So tell us all. how has your health care changed over the past year? Do you have different insurance now? different doctors? Do you now need to drive 100 miles to the nearest hospital now?
And those are interesting statistics. Can you actually trust them, given the source? . How do they compare to the statistics that show that both Canadians and Brits live an average of 2 or 3 years longer than
Americans? Might it have something to do with the fact that thousands, if not millions of Americans die from cancer and diabetes, without ever receiving a diagnosis? Note that those statistics are only talking about Americans with enough health insurance and health care to receive a diagnosis, not all Americans.
Statistics never lie, but liars do use statistics!
So things change! College kids are going to want an insurance police now (due to other ACA rules) that lasts longer than a semester - or even a school year. And college kids can now get insurance, often at little additional cost, on their parent's family policies (again because of new ACA rules). Those cheap college policies were only useful when college kids could not get insurance on their parent's family policies, or their parents had no policies to begin with. Under the new ACA rules, neither of those conditions exist anymore, so those cheap polices are of little use now.
Things may be changing.
Did you notice the just completed election for a replacement Congressional Representative from Louisiana's 5th district?
Neil Riser and Vance McAllister were running for the seat. Both are conservative Republicans. Riser had the support of all the Republican leadership, including Louisiana governor Jindal, and House majority leader Eric Cantor. But the newcomer, Vance McAllister won, by nearly 20 points, 59% to 40%.
The difference? Although both agreed on other conservative issues, McAllister supports Obamacare, and he thinks that Louisiana and every state should accept the Medicare support for the poor and middle class who can't buy insurance on their own.
The Tea Party may be singing a different tune now!
Noe of those 100K are still i"in their cart". All are signed, sealed, and done. The other number that billy used here of more than a million include those that are still in the cart, and that people are still thinking about before they make a final choice.
At present, the only people buying insurance now are those who are sick and who can't buy health insurance any rho way. The website problems have certainly reduced their numbers even more. It's going to take another couple of months before many of the health people who are simply required, by law, to have insurance begin to use the system.
Like any other enrollment process (or simply paying income taxes), the use of the system and the purchase of insurance will grow exponentially until the deadline next year.
Springer: "Leave in place all that was done prior to October 1 2013, "
Springer, that is the perfect recipe for failure. It would leave in place the ability of many to get insurance in spite of pre-existing conditions, but it would not require anyone to have insurance. Many would simply wait until they are diagnosed with an expensive pre-existing conditions before they bought insurance. Insurance companies would be bankrupt.
First, I must say that I agree with much of what Lan and w.h. have said. I've repeated here a few times over the past year or two that the ACA needed to include more competition, and the penalties for non compliance needed to be higher. That's still the case, and so far no bills have been proposed in Congress to make those changes. It certainly would be one of the best ways for the Republicans to show that they are really here to make our government work for the people, rather that just being here to destroy.
One point that no one seems to have yet realized here is that the 5 million people who had their inadequate health insurance policies cancelled represent less than 2% of the American population. That means that 98% of Americans have been able to keep their current insurance, or they have been able to buy insurance that they needed and wanted. As long as the web site problems are fixed, these numbers mean that Americans will have forgotten all about this by next summer. And there is a good chance that they will also think that the ACA is not nearly as bad as some tried to lead them to believe Again, there still exist problems that could be fixed to improve Obamacare, but as long as the web problems are fixed, the political fallout may still turn out to be nothing.
But in the meantime, who is going to propose the fixes and improvement that some would like to see?
I'm not sure where your imaginary shire is, but we just got our insurance renewal notice. Same doctors, same coverage, and the price is just a small fraction of a percent higher, less than the inflation rate this year - far, far different from the double digit increases that we saw each and every year 5 or 10 years ago.
Sure existing contracts were paid, but when yo are hiring new people, it's not for existing contracts, but the new ones that you plan to get. If just 80% of government was operating, that's a 20% cut - a huge cut in spending and employment. If any business said they weer planning to cut business, employment, and output by 20% next year, their stock would plummet.
Yes, it's a little surprising, but that, too, might be explained by the fact that many employers just stopped hiring in September and the beginning of Oct, as they waited to see what the impact of the shutdown would be. That's especially true for governments, and government suppliers. Then when it was over a couple of weeks ago, all those open positions on their books, were suddenly open again, and ready to be filled.
It may take a month or 2 for the impact of the shutdown to level off. I expect that next month, we will see some lower numbers, but maybe not real low. Then in January, we will have another shutdown to deal with and to affect the employment rate, again.
And why would hotel workers be needed?
This year it's probably because hotel construction is up by more than 30% and more than 300,000 new hotel rooms are being constructed this year. Some are old hotel projects that were put on hold 5 years ago when the recession began, and others are completely new hotel projects. That's a lot of construction work; new furniture, and other jobs, as well.
Could ask the same question about retail and other jobs, as well.
The explanation that I heard is that the data for the unemployment rate was collected at the beginning or middle of the month when the government was shut down, leaving some government employees (temporarily) unemployed, while the jobs count was taken at the end of the month, after the shutdown was over, and the economy could again move ahead, and the nation was no longer holding it's breath and waiting to see what happened.
SS, if it's not the prime contributor, than what is the prime contributor?
Productivity increases are not just the prime contributor, but, essentially the only contributor.
In the 19th century, about 75% of americans worked on farms producing the food and fiber we needed to live. During the 19th century, and the early part of the 20th century, farm productivity increased so much that only about 5% of Americans now need to work on farms to produce all the food and fiber that we need.
Exactly the same sort of productivity increases are now happening in our factories. In the 1950's or so, about 2/3 of Americans worked in factories making stuff that we needed. We can now manufacture everything that we need, with less than 25% of us doing the work now. With technologies like those that w.h. listed, we will soon be able to produce everything that we need with no more than 5% working on factories.
So, if 5% of us grow all the food that we need, and another 5% of us manufacture everything that we need, then the real question is what will the other 90% of us do?
That's an old one ;)
That sort of paranoia has been with us for - well -, forever. It doesn't matter whether it's the Tea Party, or those preppers who store 10 years worth of food and water, just in case, or those anti-GMO and extreme vegan types who want everyone to eat just what they eat. Or those "they are coming to get me" folks who store an arsenal of hundreds of guns, and a million rounds of ammunition. Or the government is evil and must be abolished people.
Now I'm sure there are some here who will now try to tell me that I think the government is always right, and that it's dumb not to protect myself, or that I'll starve to death in the coming apocalypse. It's perfectly fine to can, dry, freeze, and bake food for the winter. It's fine to keep a hunting rifle, and to carefully chose the food you eat. And our Constitution still tells how we can change our government, when we wish to do so, and when it is doing the wrong thing, as sometimes happens..
When you carry anything to a huge extreme, you end up hurting both yourself, and often, many others. And, those extremes are almost always related to some form of paranoia.