I'm doubting the accuracy of your MSNBC report. MSNBC is just as bad as Fox when it comes to selling bullshit, so I'm going to do more digging. On the first Tuesday of the shutdown it was reported that the FDA would still be inspecting everything that needed inspection because the establishment was already using that as a "we're all doomed" vehicle. I do know that CA had FDA inspectors on site at the company selling bad chicken before any changes were made to the shut down, which backs my initial statement.

I just used your own evidence to show you were wrong, I won't claim that MSNBC presented facts.

Who's playing the straw man card now?

One other quick point: If Obama made sure enough park rangers got paid to harass WW II vets and barricade open air monuments, he could have made sure that the FDA was fully staffed.

From your source, not mine. Fox my ass, I don't get news from Fox either.

The date is also the 8th, and was changed the following Monday due to issues in CA for which the FDA didn't even matter as the manufacturer in essence said "we don't care what the Government say's, we are not shutting down" which has nothing to do with the FDA but a legal matter.

Perhaps you were just giving partial facts to make your point and didn't mean For instance, the FDA was considered non-essential because the country could still function for a while without food inspection which indicates all of the FDA not at work? Giving partial facts to back your point instead of real facts is still dishonest isn't it?

Food inspectors were not on furlough. Those people were considered essential.

Repeat much propaganda? Food inspectors were not on furlough. Those people were considered essential. Most DOD workers were not on furlough. Most contractors were not on furlough either, because contracts are all paid up front in Government work.

Go back and read what I stated, then go do some fact checking. Nothing I said is wrong, everything you claimed is wrong.

Strawman much? First, that is a complete load of bullshit because I worked in DOD for probably longer than you have had a career. I was also Military, so save your fallacy. More importantly, it does not change anything I stated or that you lied about.

Or perhaps had they been smart enough to not spend their hard earned(I use that term loosely with the feds) money on iduds and new cars every few years they would have had enough cash on hand to pay ALL of their bills for at least 3 months rather than go belly up from not working for only 2 weeks.

We ALL always have a choice. The idea that someone only has the choice between getting a paycheck from the federal government and going and getting another loan to pay for the first loan that they can't pay because they were piss poor planners is not only disingenuous, but morally bankrupt. In this country we all have not only the choice, but the opportunity to better ourselves and then some.

Another good question is WHY IN THE FLYING MONKEY POO do we need 800,000 Federal workers? And before anyone goes there, yes, I've lost my job before and was at one time out of work for more than 3 months. In the end, it all comes down to responsibility. Responsibility of both idiot political stooge parties for creating this mess and responsibility of the individual collecting a paycheck to care and provide for their families.

Lost productivity? Those are non essential people, there was no productivity lost in reality. Are you going to make up something about how they were spinning gold or some such to claim that "no really they are very productive people"? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every one of those people do the best they can at their jobs, so I don't mean that as a personal insult to them. My claim is that those people are non essential people. They are not required for defending our borders from a massive invasion, they are not required to judge legal matters, they are not required to mitigate our laughable trade imbalance, and they are not required for other members of society to perform their daily activities.

There is of course a red herring where you could claim that a service industry that relies on that many Government workers suffered. It's a false argument of course, because if we took away those non-essential jobs and returned the tax money to those of us that pay, that service industry would make the same amount of money.

Now to the other point you made in "Considering that we have to pay 800,000 people for time they didn't (couldn't) work", this is another line of crap from politicians. We don't "have" to pay them! This was a politician's decision to GIVE them money. Many of them are going to get Unemployment in addition to getting PTO. We didn't have to give them anything, but a politician chose to give them YOUR TAX MONEY! Makes you feel good don't it?

This should read, 100's of thousands of federal workers, got an extra 16 day paid vacation this year.

Hardly what I would call "bearing the economic brunt" of anything.

It cost 24 billion dollars? Based on.. any number of imaginary things they want to show it cost them right? We must keep spending money we don't have, and we must keep increasing the amount of debt we have or we are all going to die right?

I mean to say, we have to spend this for the Children, and the children just lost 24Billion dollars! If you deny their right to spend, you are a "conspiracy theorist" to boot, so shaddup!

While you and I may not want to live in such a society there are those who would like nothing better. Many of them fancy themselves as the enforcers in such a regime, a chance to be a master instead of one of the many slaves. For people who live to control others every unjust law that makes life unbearable for the rest is yet another opportunity for them to exert their authority and feel that blissful, euphoric sense of power that is for them the ultimate drug.

I beg to differ, obesity is a much bigger risk than cancer.