While much of official Washington on Saturday somberly faced the likelihood of a government shutdown, the most conservative members of the House sported a different expression.
They were smiling.
“We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”
On Saturday, conservatives rallied House Republicans around a plan to fund the government but delay the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature health-care law, for a year. It was rejected within hours by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), making it unlikely that Congress has the time to find common ground before a midnight Monday deadline.
So, for a day at least, conservatives had forestalled the expected outcome: GOP leaders giving in on the health-care law to avoid a shutdown. Conservatives said the imminent death of the bill and the possibility of a shutdown were overshadowed by angry constituents who demanded that the law, commonly known as Obamacare, be stopped.
“It’s wonderful,” said Rep. John Abney Culberson (R-Tex.), clapping his hands to emphasize the point. “We’re 100 percent united!”
.......
On Saturday, Huelskamp said the latest spending fight “is a culmination of doing what we said we were going to do.”
“Mark Twain once said, do the right thing and it will gratify some people and astonish the rest,” he said. “America’s been a little astonished by us doing the right thing in the last few days here in the House.”
Huelskamp said Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) had talked to his GOP colleagues about the political damage Republicans suffered during similar shutdowns in the mid-1990s.
“He has an opinion,” he said. “It’s an opinion based on experience in the last century.”
Bachmann insisted that the GOP would ultimately be rewarded for standing firm. “People will be very grateful,” she said.
We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”
Didn't know she spoke for all the Republicans.......
There's a rather large swathe of Republicans who've been itching for this to happen, of course, but I can change it to Tea Partiers if you like. I suppose the other republicans are just following them, rather than being gleeful about the shut-down.
SickSix wrote: I found it hilarious people are calling house Republicans obstructionists when they are the only ones passing plans and trying to compromise.
Maybe because that is what they are. This is not something that you play political games with. Plus, they are not compromising. They are offering absolutely nothing that the other side is looking for. They are just throwing a temper tantrum until they get their way.
SickSix wrote: I am actually a little surprised that Boehner didn't capitulate at the last second.
I found it hilarious people are calling house Republicans obstructionists when they are the only ones passing plans and trying to compromise.
Taking hostages and making demands is "compromising" now?
I'm a dirty foreigner, and so I don't have a horse on this race one way or the other, but how can Americans really believe this spiel that the Republicans are stating?
They won't pass the budget unless a completely unrelated law that has already been passed is changed / taken down? And people are really believing that this is the Republicans trying to compromise?
What is next? The Democrats won't raise the debt ceiling unless the 2nd amendment is stricken from the constitution? This is a completely irresponsible way to make politics, not to mention of running a country!
Its hard to fully blame the GOP for the shut down, the clowns in the house ran on the platform that they will remove obamacare by any means, and they got elected for that. I blame all the people that re-elected / elected the anti-obamacare sect of the GOP
ironicsilence wrote: Its hard to fully blame the GOP for the shut down, the clowns in the house ran on the platform that they will remove obamacare by any means, and they got elected for that. I blame all the people that re-elected / elected the anti-obamacare sect of the GOP
Ta-da. And there it is. When you elect based on ability to "give those Dems/Republicans hell," you get representatives who don't govern.
ironicsilence wrote: Its hard to fully blame the GOP for the shut down, the clowns in the house ran on the platform that they will remove obamacare by any means, and they got elected for that. I blame all the people that re-elected / elected the anti-obamacare sect of the GOP
Stop talking sense man! Back to the front!
Everyone else...
What was so bad about that last CR the House passed?
1) Individual Mandate delayed for one year... exactly the same as what Obama did for Big Business.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
ironicsilence wrote: Its hard to fully blame the GOP for the shut down, the clowns in the house ran on the platform that they will remove obamacare by any means, and they got elected for that. I blame all the people that re-elected / elected the anti-obamacare sect of the GOP
Stop talking sense man! Back to the front!
Everyone else...
What was so bad about that last CR the House passed?
1) Individual Mandate delayed for one year... exactly the same as what Obama did for Big Business.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this?
None of those things had anything to do with the actual budget?
SickSix wrote: All you people do understand why this is even a problem right?
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE HASNT PASSED A BUDGET IN 5 YEARS!
Well... to be technical, the Senate did pass "a budget" in March of '13. It was a crock of gak... sure and would've never made it to the House because the Senate had no desire to negotiate. *shrug* Give credit when due...
SickSix wrote: All you people do understand why this is even a problem right?
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE HASNT PASSED A BUDGET IN 5 YEARS!
i would point to the fact that congress in general hasnt done anything other then finger point and cry like children since obama got into office. Not to mention the fact that the President wants nothing to do with the speaker of the house. john boehner is the defacto leader of the GOP and as the speaker of the house needs to have a better relationship with the President, they have always hated each other and as a result we get a worthless congress
ironicsilence wrote: Its hard to fully blame the GOP for the shut down, the clowns in the house ran on the platform that they will remove obamacare by any means, and they got elected for that. I blame all the people that re-elected / elected the anti-obamacare sect of the GOP
Stop talking sense man! Back to the front!
Everyone else...
What was so bad about that last CR the House passed?
1) Individual Mandate delayed for one year... exactly the same as what Obama did for Big Business.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this?
None of those things had anything to do with the actual budget?
That's not what I'm asking...
The house PASSED numerous budgets... Reid/Senate refused to take it up for vote.
All that's left is to pass Continuing Resolutions... which is essentially, fund the government based on last year's spending levels + adj increase. The kicker is that both parties, since the dawn of time, will introduce policy changes... and here we are.
SickSix wrote: All you people do understand why this is even a problem right?
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE HASNT PASSED A BUDGET IN 5 YEARS!
i would point to the fact that congress in general hasnt done anything other then finger point and cry like children since obama got into office. Not to mention the fact that the President wants nothing to do with the speaker of the house. john boehner is the defacto leader of the GOP and as the speaker of the house needs to have a better relationship with the President, they have always hated each other and as a result we get a worthless congress
Fafnir wrote: Why is it that whenever I hear a Tea Partier talk, I can't help but imagine them masturbating?
This went to a weird place.
Yeah.
Personally, I picture someone socially awkward with a facial tic or some other odd personal habit. Something not unlike the classic game store gamer, albeit with better hygiene.
I know plenty of normal, well-adjusted Republicans...but not any bonafide Tea Partiers. The only place I see them is when I spy an extremely odd, yet racially homogeneous bunch of people waving flags and anti-Obama signs at the corner of some random intersection.
The house PASSED numerous budgets... Reid/Senate refused to take it up for vote.
All that's left is to pass Continuing Resolutions... which is essentially, fund the government based on last year's spending levels + adj increase. The kicker is that both parties, since the dawn of time, will introduce policy changes... and here we are.
So... again... what's wrong with it?
To my foreigner eyes, that is exactly what is wrong with it. They are risking damage to the country and certainly causing duress to several hundred thousand American families because they wan't changes to something that isn't actually related to this CR...
ironicsilence wrote: Its hard to fully blame the GOP for the shut down, the clowns in the house ran on the platform that they will remove obamacare by any means, and they got elected for that. I blame all the people that re-elected / elected the anti-obamacare sect of the GOP
See Paul Krugman's blog.
I know he is a filthy liberal but please look at the last line.
A brief shutdown (according to what I've read, they're usually only a couple of days long, the longest to date was 3 weeks) is unlikely to be the end of the world.
But if the GOP keeps playing chicken with the debt ceiling...
the bush clinton congresses were about a 1000% more productive then this congress. Pretty sure if you look at congress for the last 20 years you wont see any that have passed fewer bills then have been passed in the last 5 years
Forar wrote: A brief shutdown (according to what I've read, they're usually only a couple of days long, the longest to date was 3 weeks) is unlikely to be the end of the world.
But if the GOP keeps playing chicken with the debt ceiling...
if by playing chicken you mean refusing to increase the debt ceiling without a reduction in spending or something that looks like a balanced budget
The house PASSED numerous budgets... Reid/Senate refused to take it up for vote.
All that's left is to pass Continuing Resolutions... which is essentially, fund the government based on last year's spending levels + adj increase. The kicker is that both parties, since the dawn of time, will introduce policy changes... and here we are.
So... again... what's wrong with it?
To my foreigner eyes, that is exactly what is wrong with it. They are risking damage to the country and certainly causing duress to several hundred thousand American families because they wan't changes to something that isn't actually related to this CR...
You're right about that... both parties weren't very serious about working together to formulate/pass actual budgets. The whole budgeting cycle has broken down.
Kilkrazy wrote: How does the government get opened up again?
Does the Tea Party or the Democratic Party have to cave in?
one or the other, basically the house has to pass a bill and the senate has to approve it. Last update I saw, the house was passing a measure to appoint a conference of people to meet with a group from the senate to start negotiating over what should be in the bill
Forar wrote: A brief shutdown (according to what I've read, they're usually only a couple of days long, the longest to date was 3 weeks) is unlikely to be the end of the world.
But if the GOP keeps playing chicken with the debt ceiling...
if by playing chicken you mean refusing to increase the debt ceiling without a reduction in spending or something that looks like a balanced budget
Nah, I meant what I said.
You guys can worry about the deficit when you aren't recovering from a recession and the global economy stops being willing to effectively pay you to take on your debt.
Dick Cheney wrote:You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.
Forar wrote: A brief shutdown (according to what I've read, they're usually only a couple of days long, the longest to date was 3 weeks) is unlikely to be the end of the world.
But if the GOP keeps playing chicken with the debt ceiling...
if by playing chicken you mean refusing to increase the debt ceiling without a reduction in spending or something that looks like a balanced budget
I'm a liberal dirty foreigner and even I know that the debt ceiling is used to pay the debt that you've already taken in, not as a means to create new debt...
ironicsilence wrote: the large majority of the people that live in the US dont have the first clue what the debt ceiling is for
I thought it was the roof of the Capitol buildings and they're raising it so their inflated egos can all fit in the rooms as they sit in a circle and play a giant political (and probably literal) game of dutch rudder while not actually accomplishing anything beyond that game.
The fact that the US has two separate mechanisms, one to pass a budget, the other to approve to fund that budget, is 'pants on head' crazy.
If this garbage is going to continue to be an issue, the next budget passed should have an equivalent debt ceiling extension included as well (assuming such legislation could be entwined).
Of course, that assumes a budget gets passed again. I'm curious to see how many years the US can live effectively 'paycheque to paycheque' a quarter at a time with CRs... It's a perverse curiosity, and kind of sad at the same time.
Republicans like shooting themselves in the foot time and time again. Of course, the Democrats do this often enough as it is, but the GOP has been really, really trying to leave a bloody stump behind and call it progress.
Tying Obamacare to legislation to fund the government is bad. If I was a Republican, I would of waited for Obamacare to be fully enacted and then watch to see if it train wrecks.
Perhaps the GOP is too scared of the alternative, that it does succeed and thus validates other policies of Democrats (like *gasp*, spend money).
Forar wrote: The fact that the US has two separate mechanisms, one to pass a budget, the other to approve to fund that budget, is 'pants on head' crazy.
If this garbage is going to continue to be an issue, the next budget passed should have an equivalent debt ceiling extension included as well (assuming such legislation could be entwined).
Of course, that assumes a budget gets passed again. I'm curious to see how many years the US can live effectively 'paycheque to paycheque' a quarter at a time with CRs... It's a perverse curiosity, and kind of sad at the same time.
Actually... all of this is compounded because an actual budget hasn't been passed.
Here’s a simple question: Why are we currently funding the federal government through a series of short-term measures known as “continuing resolutions”?
...
...
...
...
keeping thinking...
...
...
..
Answer: The current budgeting process has completely broken down in recent years. The two most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
For three consecutive years, 2010, 2011, and 2012... the Democrat-controlled Senate did not pass a budget bill because Reid knew that it would be a political liability to do so. Passing a budget that detailed the Democrats’ plans for spending and revenue as official policy would have exposed Reid and his colleagues.
In 2013, the Senate finally passed a budget in which called for even more tax increases. Remember this is a couple of months after various tax cuts expired, so the political reality at the time was that this was DoA and both sides knew it.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
I love how 'Congress should be more like business' people complain when Congress acts like business and provides health insurance for their employees. The 'normal' citizen gets their health insurance through their job and if your job offers health insurance, there is no subsidy.
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this?
That is because they already got their reduced spending. The ridiculousness is giving the Republican demands any sort of equivalence. They keep on throwing temper tantrums and kick and scream until they get their way, especially when they already got their way a bit before.
..
Answer: The current budgeting process has completely broken down in recent years. The two most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
No, the people responsible for the breakdown are the Tea Party and Republicans that are determined to ruin the economy. They are basically throwing a temper tantrum that they lost the election.
so the political reality at the time was that this was DoA and both sides knew it.
And this is WHY the Republicans are responsible. The Republicans keep on sending stuff that is DOA to the Senate without any attempt to compromise.
umm the tea party folks are doing exactly what they got elected to do. I'm not supporting it or saying its right...its just an elected official going through with what he campaigned for
In general, since the temper tantrum of the first obama election, republicans have been keeping everything they can from happening. We didn't have these problems under republican presidents because the democrats aren't dicks.
juraigamer wrote: In general, since the temper tantrum of the first obama election, republicans have been keeping everything they can from happening. We didn't have these problems under republican presidents because the democrats aren't dicks.
To be fair, there were also unicorns making us pancakes every morning.
Over in the base dimension, however, things were a little different.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
I love how 'Congress should be more like business' people complain when Congress acts like business and provides health insurance for their employees. The 'normal' citizen gets their health insurance through their job and if your job offers health insurance, there is no subsidy.
That doesn't compute man. All of this is occuring is because Democrats refused to have Congress treated like ordinary citizens with Obamacare exchange subsidies, and ordinary citizens like businesses on delay of the Obamacare mandate.
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this?
That is because they already got their reduced spending. The ridiculousness is giving the Republican demands any sort of equivalence. They keep on throwing temper tantrums and kick and scream until they get their way, especially when they already got their way a bit before.
Huh? The offered to keep the same rate as last year+adjustment to fund the rest of the government. This is what the D's wanted... in the past, the R's would be trying to cut spending.
..
Answer: The current budgeting process has completely broken down in recent years. The two most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
No, the people responsible for the breakdown are the Tea Party and Republicans that are determined to ruin the economy. They are basically throwing a temper tantrum that they lost the election.
Right... that's a plan. Republicans WANT to RUIN the economy. Good chatting with ya. At least you didn't call us "terrorist" and "wanting to paint your house in pepto-pink".
so the political reality at the time was that this was DoA and both sides knew it.
And this is WHY the Republicans are responsible. The Republicans keep on sending stuff that is DOA to the Senate without any attempt to compromise.
No... Senate did the same fething thing. They're BOTH accountable. Laying this all on the Republican's feet is disingenuous at best and crazypants at the worst.
Forar wrote: The fact that the US has two separate mechanisms, one to pass a budget, the other to approve to fund that budget, is 'pants on head' crazy.
If this garbage is going to continue to be an issue, the next budget passed should have an equivalent debt ceiling extension included as well (assuming such legislation could be entwined).
Of course, that assumes a budget gets passed again. I'm curious to see how many years the US can live effectively 'paycheque to paycheque' a quarter at a time with CRs... It's a perverse curiosity, and kind of sad at the same time.
Yoyu're misreading. Thats not how it works. They pass a budget. There is not vote to approve to fund the budget.
Unfortunately there hasn't been a budget in years. The Democratic Senate is scared to death of passing a budget.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
I love how 'Congress should be more like business' people complain when Congress acts like business and provides health insurance for their employees. The 'normal' citizen gets their health insurance through their job and if your job offers health insurance, there is no subsidy.
That doesn't compute man. All of this is occuring is because Democrats refused to have Congress treated like ordinary citizens with Obamacare exchange subsidies, and ordinary citizens like businesses on delay of the Obamacare mandate.
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this?
That is because they already got their reduced spending. The ridiculousness is giving the Republican demands any sort of equivalence. They keep on throwing temper tantrums and kick and scream until they get their way, especially when they already got their way a bit before.
Huh? The offered to keep the same rate as last year+adjustment to fund the rest of the government. This is what the D's wanted... in the past, the R's would be trying to cut spending.
..
Answer: The current budgeting process has completely broken down in recent years. The two most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
No, the people responsible for the breakdown are the Tea Party and Republicans that are determined to ruin the economy. They are basically throwing a temper tantrum that they lost the election.
Right... that's a plan. Republicans WANT to RUIN the economy. Good chatting with ya. At least you didn't call us "terrorist" and "wanting to paint your house in pepto-pink".
so the political reality at the time was that this was DoA and both sides knew it.
And this is WHY the Republicans are responsible. The Republicans keep on sending stuff that is DOA to the Senate without any attempt to compromise.
No... Senate did the same fething thing. They're BOTH accountable. Laying this all on the Republican's feet is disingenuous at best and crazypants at the worst.
No Whembly, all of this is happening because the R's will do anything to stop Obamacare. Why? Because they saw that in Massachussetts once people got a taste of Romneycare; they liked it a lot. Once that happens the R's will be pushed into the wilderness just like the New Deal Democrats did to the R's of the time. This is about survival, and the R's know the clock is ticking.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
I love how 'Congress should be more like business' people complain when Congress acts like business and provides health insurance for their employees. The 'normal' citizen gets their health insurance through their job and if your job offers health insurance, there is no subsidy.
That doesn't compute man. All of this is occuring is because Democrats refused to have Congress treated like ordinary citizens with Obamacare exchange subsidies, and ordinary citizens like businesses on delay of the Obamacare mandate.
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this?
That is because they already got their reduced spending. The ridiculousness is giving the Republican demands any sort of equivalence. They keep on throwing temper tantrums and kick and scream until they get their way, especially when they already got their way a bit before.
Huh? The offered to keep the same rate as last year+adjustment to fund the rest of the government. This is what the D's wanted... in the past, the R's would be trying to cut spending.
..
Answer: The current budgeting process has completely broken down in recent years. The two most responsible for that breakdown are President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
No, the people responsible for the breakdown are the Tea Party and Republicans that are determined to ruin the economy. They are basically throwing a temper tantrum that they lost the election.
Right... that's a plan. Republicans WANT to RUIN the economy. Good chatting with ya. At least you didn't call us "terrorist" and "wanting to paint your house in pepto-pink".
so the political reality at the time was that this was DoA and both sides knew it.
And this is WHY the Republicans are responsible. The Republicans keep on sending stuff that is DOA to the Senate without any attempt to compromise.
No... Senate did the same fething thing. They're BOTH accountable. Laying this all on the Republican's feet is disingenuous at best and crazypants at the worst.
No Whembly, all of this is happening because the R's will do anything to stop Obamacare. Why? Because they saw that in Massachussetts once people got a taste of Romneycare; they liked it a lot. Once that happens the R's will be pushed into the wilderness just like the New Deal Democrats did to the R's of the time. This is about survival, and the R's know the clock is ticking.
Survival?
Nah... it's just differences in opinions.
The majority ALWAYS keeps saying that the other party is dying. It's all cyclical.
Manchu wrote: but also "destroy the federal government."
What. The. feth?
That's crazy pants man... that's like calling them terrorist.
While I appreciate your constant attempts to play the victim on behalf of Republicans -- it's the current GOP party line after all and I know you want to loyally tow it -- my comment isn't at all like calling Tea Partiers terrorists. The libertarian view of government is not compatible with reality. I'm sure you will disagree BUT just keep in mind what is going on this very moment -- the Tea Party has taken the federal government hostage over politics. The functioning of the federal government is not a proportionate bargaining chip in this debate -- EXCEPT that it is for the Tea Party. There are people, centrists mostly but also a fair few spin doctors, saying that no one wants a government shut down, that for the GOP this is a necessary evil. That is absolutely false. As noted in the OP, the Tea Party is glad to shut down the federal government.
Manchu has rather...esoteric views on libertarians. It appears to be a fundamental misapprehension of the ideology that's remarkably impermeable to fact.
Seaward wrote: Manchu has rather...esoteric views on libertarians. It appears to be a fundamental misapprehension of the ideology that's remarkably impermeable to fact.
I didn't want to comment on it, but his viewpoint of what a libertarian is, and my viewpoint of what a libertarian is are vastly different... I
Seaward -- you're hardly one to evoke facts given your justification of the Tea Tantrum is that Democrats hypothetically could do the same thing one day.
Manchu wrote: Seaward -- you're hardly one to evoke facts given your justification of the Tea Tantrum is that Democrats hypothetically could do the same thing one day.
You may want to start reading posts more carefully.
My justification of the "Tea Tantrum" is that it's the only shot in the locker. I've also called it stupid.
My comments regarding Democrats hypothetically pulling the same thing some day are all related to getting our lovable left-of-center folks to promise to remember what they said now then.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism has little to do with either.
juraigamer wrote: In general, since the temper tantrum of the first obama election, republicans have been keeping everything they can from happening. We didn't have these problems under republican presidents because the democrats aren't GIANT dicks.
To be fair, there were also unicorns making us pancakes every morning.
Over in the base dimension, however, things were a little different.
Actually, I forgot to add a single word... has been added and bolded.
Now where are these unicorns that serve pancakes, I like pancakes.
Manchu wrote: but also "destroy the federal government."
What. The. feth?
That's crazy pants man... that's like calling them terrorist.
While I appreciate your constant attempts to play the victim on behalf of Republicans -- it's the current GOP party line after all and I know you want to loyally tow it -- my comment isn't at all like calling Tea Partiers terrorists. The libertarian view of government is not compatible with reality. I'm sure you will disagree BUT just keep in mind what is going on this very moment -- the Tea Party has taken the federal government hostage over politics. The functioning of the federal government is not a proportionate bargaining chip in this debate -- EXCEPT that it is for the Tea Party. There are people, centrists mostly but also a fair few spin doctors, saying that no one wants a government shut down, that for the GOP this is a necessary evil. That is absolutely false. As noted in the OP, the Tea Party is glad to shut down the federal government.
Play victim? How about having an honest debate instead of playing the blame game. (I'm guilty of that too).
Can you answer what I posted earlier:
What was so bad about that last CR the House passed?
1) Individual Mandate delayed for one year... exactly the same as what Obama did for Big Business.
2) Forced the Congress Critters and appointed officials into the SAME exchange with the same subsidies calculus as normal citizen (the Vitter Amendment).
3) Finally, fully fund the rest of government w/o the usual Republican cry to reduce spending.
What was so bad and ridiculous about this? To me... this was a face-saving proposal for all sides.
Seaward wrote: My justification of the "Tea Tantrum" is that it's the only shot in the locker.
The Tea Tantrum is not the only shot in the locker ... the fact that you think it evinces that my understanding of the libertarian mindset is actually pretty accurate.
The Libertarian party has fairly liberal social views (no discrimination of based on sex, sexuality, etc.), but conservative views on the function of government.
In the present circumstance, the Libertarian view is that the individual mandate is overreaching by the government, and should be eliminated (along with much of the rest of the bill).
In general, there are many things the government does that the Libertarian party opposes.
The Libertarian party may not be for the total shutdown of government, but they are for shrinking it. The shutdown isn't the end goal, but I don't doubt that many Libertarians do take some measure of satisfaction in the government being halted to a certain extent.
Basically, the goal is to kill the healthcare bill, the temporary shutdown is just political icing.
juraigamer wrote: In general, since the temper tantrum of the first obama election, republicans have been keeping everything they can from happening. We didn't have these problems under republican presidents because the democrats aren't GIANT dicks.
To be fair, there were also unicorns making us pancakes every morning.
Over in the base dimension, however, things were a little different.
Actually, I forgot to add a single word... has been added and bolded.
Now where are these unicorns that serve pancakes, I like pancakes.
Let's put it this way, under what I view a libertarian as, this government wouldn't have been shut down because government health care would have been done/relegated to the state level where each state can provide for their residents better than the government can, and the Dems and Reps would have agreed on a budget because this whole healthcare issue wouldn't have been at the federal level.
Under what you seem to view as a libertarian, they just want to watch the Fed burn.
There are plenty of reasons why I think there should be a Federal Government, but when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job on a variety of reasons they make a pretty solid example of why there shouldn't be a federal government. Running a Government should be a burden to the people you represent, not a lifelong career opportunity.
Manchu wrote: The Tea Tantrum is not the only shot in the locker ... the fact that you think it evinces that my understanding of the libertarian mindset is actually pretty accurate.
Not if you conflate the Tea Party with libertarianism, as you so often do.
Libertarians do not have a conservative view of government. The libertarian view of government is that it should be extremely minimal. The conservative view has more to do with subsidiarity than simply opposing government per se.
News channels are all a twitter about this. Internet forums are all fired up with the hating and the raging. Talk radio is having the 'gasims. I look outside my window onto the city below and what I see is, aside from those mentioned above, not a care is being given.
Oh, I just saw this "breaking news" story; apparently even with the government being shut down, the Earth is still rotating on it's axis. More at 11.
DogofWar1 wrote: The Libertarian party may not be for the total shutdown of government, but they are for shrinking it. The shutdown isn't the end goal, but I don't doubt that many Libertarians do take some measure of satisfaction in the government being halted to a certain extent.
I'm sure I'm opening a can of worms with this, but as someone that identifies more with the libertarians than the other two major parties, I don't want to see the Fed shut down, and I think if our representatives stopped being petulant children, we might actually get something accomplished that shrinks the amount of money we spend in a year.
whembly wrote: What was so bad and ridiculous about this? To me... this was a face-saving proposal for all sides.
I and others have already explained to you that this one year delay was just a one year delay until the next hostage situation for another one year delay. You keep acting like the House Republicans offered a compromise. They didn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: but when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job
I wish I could understand politics like a lot of people.
I don't get the situation - I read the entire Wiki page and maybe it's simpler than I think. The American government is literally 'shutting down'? As in, stopping a lot of its services and drastically reducing them? Shouldn't this be causing like, mass hysteria? Or is this some kind of euphemism for minor and temporary political squabbling/peen-wagging?
I'm not particularly bright when it comes to these things - well actually, with most things, so can someone simplify it for me? Thanks.
Alfndrate wrote: I'm sure I'm opening a can of worms with this, but as someone that identifies more with the libertarians than the other two major parties, I don't want to see the Fed shut down, and I think if our representatives stopped being petulant children, we might actually get something accomplished that shrinks the amount of money we spend in a year.
That's because you're not an anarchist and you appear to be capable of defining libertarianism beyond "anyone who doesn't want even more government."
whembly, I answered your question concerning the CR in the other thread, but I'll repeat the answer here briefly.
The individual mandate is integral to the bill functioning properly. Ensuring that all individuals who could potentially draw upon the healthcare system are paying into the system helps reduce/offset costs.
1. New rules, such as making it illegal to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, drive up costs. In the absence of the mandate, you'd be adding high cost people to the pool without lower cost people, which would raise rates for everyone.
2. As it currently stands, a number of "low cost" people end up with expensive medical costs every year (accidents, sudden illnesses), which increase healthcare costs by billions across the industry. The current system pushes those costs to the government. Under the individual mandate, those costs would be pushed to the insurers (who would have an increased customer base to offset the new costs), or if they stayed with the government they would be paid for through the tax/fine.
In addition, the individual mandate is a political issue, not one relating to the basic functions of government. The Republicans have tied two issues together that shouldn't necessarily be tied.
Republicans want the individual mandate removed because it is an integral part of what makes the Healthcare bill work. It's not some small removal, it's a major change with huge implications.
Alfndrate wrote: when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job on a variety of reasons they make a pretty solid example of why there shouldn't be a federal government
You say that the way politicians currently behave ("petulantly") means there should be no federal government.
Then you say that you don't want to see the federal government shut down?
I get it, I get it. You want the federal government working -- but only when it does what you want. Anything else is "petulant" and deserves to be shut down.
Yeah, this is what the Tea Party is currently saying, too.
I don't get the situation - I read the entire Wiki page and maybe it's simpler than I think. The American government is literally 'shutting down'? As in, stopping a lot of its services and drastically reducing them? Shouldn't this be causing like, mass hysteria? Or is this some kind of euphemism for minor and temporary political squabbling/peen-wagging?
I'm not particularly bright when it comes to these things - well actually, with most things, so can someone simplify it for me? Thanks.
It won't cause mass hysteria unless it goes for weeks, but people will start getting unruly in a few days.
Essential services - military, meat inspection, air traffic control, etc. - stay open for business.
DogofWar1 wrote: whembly, I answered your question concerning the CR in the other thread, but I'll repeat the answer here briefly.
The individual mandate is integral to the bill functioning properly. Ensuring that all individuals who could potentially draw upon the healthcare system are paying into the system helps reduce/offset costs.
1. New rules, such as making it illegal to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, drive up costs. In the absence of the mandate, you'd be adding high cost people to the pool without lower cost people, which would raise rates for everyone.
2. As it currently stands, a number of "low cost" people end up with expensive medical costs every year (accidents, sudden illnesses), which increase healthcare costs by billions across the industry. The current system pushes those costs to the government. Under the individual mandate, those costs would be pushed to the insurers (who would have an increased customer base to offset the new costs), or if they stayed with the government they would be paid for through the tax/fine.
In addition, the individual mandate is a political issue, not one relating to the basic functions of government. The Republicans have tied two issues together that shouldn't necessarily be tied.
Republicans want the individual mandate removed because it is an integral part of what makes the Healthcare bill work. It's not some small removal, it's a major change with huge implications.
whembly wrote: What was so bad and ridiculous about this? To me... this was a face-saving proposal for all sides.
I and others have already explained to you that this one year delay was just a one year delay until the next hostage situation for another one year delay. You keep acting like the House Republicans offered a compromise. They didn't.
So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?
You ALL are ignoring this.
The compromise here was that the R's did CUT anymore spending (that they're chomping at the bit to do).
whembly wrote: So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?
Here's what Peter King, R-NY, said about it:
King said he's tired of being "a facilitator for a disastrous process" and ready to move on. He noted that while nobody echoed his call for a clean funding bill in Monday's meeting, some complained about adding the provision into the bill to make health care more expensive for congressional aides -- a move they said was purely political, to show that Republicans are taking a stand against Obamacare.
"They thought it was wrong to make a sacrifice of their staff," King said. "It's throwing red meat to the public, using our staff to get us out of the trouble we got ourselves into."
I don't get the situation - I read the entire Wiki page and maybe it's simpler than I think. The American government is literally 'shutting down'? As in, stopping a lot of its services and drastically reducing them? Shouldn't this be causing like, mass hysteria? Or is this some kind of euphemism for minor and temporary political squabbling/peen-wagging?
I'm not particularly bright when it comes to these things - well actually, with most things, so can someone simplify it for me? Thanks.
It won't cause mass hysteria unless it goes for weeks, but people will start getting unruly in a few days.
Essential services - military, meat inspection, air traffic control, etc. - stay open for business.
If this is the case I'm really surprised a situation with this kind of gravity isn't the talk of the town everywhere, even here in Canada. What happens to your country usually affects mine, yet no one here has spoken of it even once yet - I found out through my daily Wikipedia perusal. Also, if this kind of shutdown should only last a few days at most to prevent unruliness in the populace, what is the point of it? Surely just a couple of days can't save that much money?
Well I hope everything goes well, I'll be following this situation closely.
Alfndrate wrote: when it's shown that both sides are incapable of doing their job on a variety of reasons they make a pretty solid example of why there shouldn't be a federal government
You say that the way politicians currently behave ("petulantly") means there should be no federal government.
Then you say that you don't want to see the federal government shut down?
I get it, I get it. You want the federal government working -- but only when it does what you want. Anything else is "petulant" and deserves to be shut down.
Yeah, this is what the Tea Party is currently saying, too.
Both sides are acting like idiots Manchu, the Republicans are stuck in hyper-conservative ways and are seemingly traveling farther back in regards to social politics, and allowing their interpretation of their religion to seep into the policies that they wish to pass because anything other than this is tantamount to the country burning to the ground and God reducing us to pillars of salt. The Democrats are over-extending their power as the dominant party in Washington to create useful but poorly implemented laws. I have been for healthcare for everyone in this country, but I feel that the 906 page document known as "Obamacare" is going about it in the wrong way. There are too many loopholes for people to prevent having to provide for their employees, and that people that should be the first out there to adopt it (the lawmakers that signed this fether into law) are going out and saying, "Hell no, we don't want to be covered under this." (not direct quote). Someone mentioned that the people of Mass. like "Romneycare" maybe it's because the state has a better pulse on the needs of their people than the Federal Government.
In my eyes, both sides of the federal government have failed in their jobs of representing the best needs of the American people, so in that light yes, I think everyone up on Capitol Hill should be shut down at least until they can pull their heads out of their asses. With that being said, the Federal Government shutting down isn't a good thing, and BOTH SIDES should have come to a reasonable conclusion to resolve this issue. I asked earlier why no one answered Whembly's question, and someone answered. That's fine, they should have been up all night coming up with ways to fix this issue, pass a budget, and keep this country running.
There are a handful of Dakkanauts that I've met in person and would consider them friends, if not close acquaintances, that are in strange holding patterns because of this shutdown. These aren't well off politicians, these are the people politicians are representing. If I was affected by this as immediately as they were, you bet your ass I'd be on the phone with Sherrod Brown telling him to fething fix this because I'm unable to provide for my family.
whembly wrote: The compromise here was that the R's did CUT anymore spending (that they're chomping at the bit to do).
Just think about that for a minute -- the issue is defunding the ACA and the compromise is supposed to be passing up cuts right now? How long until the GOP take the government hostage YET AGAIN to get the cuts they're supposedly compromising on now? This isn't the first hostage situation the House Republicans have staged under this administration (or even this year) -- and every other one has been about those cuts.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: If this is the case I'm really surprised a situation with this kind of gravity isn't the talk of the town everywhere, even here in Canada. What happens to your country usually affects mine, yet no one here has spoken of it even once yet - I found out through my daily Wikipedia perusal. Also, if this kind of shutdown should only last a few days at most to prevent unruliness in the populace, what is the point of it? Surely just a couple of days can't save that much money?
Well I hope everything goes well, I'll be following this situation closely.
Well, the point isn't to save money, it's to get the other side to blink. "Do what we want, or we keep the government shut down."
I know you think that makes you seem even-handed and therefore wise. But it's simply not true. The attempted revolt by moderate House Republicans should give you pause on this score.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: If this is the case I'm really surprised a situation with this kind of gravity isn't the talk of the town everywhere, even here in Canada. What happens to your country usually affects mine, yet no one here has spoken of it even once yet - I found out through my daily Wikipedia perusal. Also, if this kind of shutdown should only last a few days at most to prevent unruliness in the populace, what is the point of it? Surely just a couple of days can't save that much money?
Well I hope everything goes well, I'll be following this situation closely.
Well, the point isn't to save money, it's to get the other side to blink. "Do what we want, or we keep the government shut down."
It's probably not going to work.
Oooh, I get it now! Wow, that's quite a bold move, and very inconsiderate to the general population. Sheesh.
whembly wrote: So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?
Here's what Peter King, R-NY, said about it:
King said he's tired of being "a facilitator for a disastrous process" and ready to move on. He noted that while nobody echoed his call for a clean funding bill in Monday's meeting, some complained about adding the provision into the bill to make health care more expensive for congressional aides -- a move they said was purely political, to show that Republicans are taking a stand against Obamacare.
"They thought it was wrong to make a sacrifice of their staff," King said. "It's throwing red meat to the public, using our staff to get us out of the trouble we got ourselves into."
No sympathy what so ever about "using their staff". None. They do NOT warrant/deserve any special treatment.
Here's what James Madison said in Federalist 58:
"Admitting however, that they should all be insufficient to subdue the unjust policy of the smaller states, or their predominant influence in the councils of the senate; a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger states, by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The house of representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the purse; that powerful instrument by which we behold in the history of the British constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people, gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most compleat and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
The House of Representatives was given the primary power of the purse to do exactly what they are doing, nothing more and nothing less. It was intended for the House to refuse to pay for things in the government the people didn't want. Well, as Obama has said, "Elections have consequences" and the GOP can say rightly "We won."
I can play along to Manchu...
To be honest, I still think it's the wrong tactic for the GOP... but, what I object is you constant labeling that it's the GOP faults all the time... because you guys... the GOP are icky.
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has no constitutional or other obligation to pass a funding bill that includes funding for Obamacare or any other particular government program. That's the true power of the purse.
So labeling Tea Parties and Republicans who refuse to pass a bill funding the federal government are acting like “terrorists” or “hostage takers" is just as absurd as Republicans who claim that Obama is a “communist” .
I know you think that makes you seem even-handed and therefore wise. But it's simply not true. The attempted revolt by moderate House Republicans should give you pause on this score.
So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?
Mentioned in the other thread, but the employer mandate is not as integral to keeping costs down, as compared to the individual mandate. The employer mandate may help, but it isn't guaranteed to put more people into the system, while the individual mandate is specifically designed to ensure that.
Also, while Congress has good healthcare, it's not the "free super duper healthcare for Congress only NO PEASANTS ALLOWED" version many think it is. It can be changed, and I wouldn't be opposed to some changes, but I think the whole Congressional Healthcare issue is overblown, and used more because it looks good politically to bang the table about than anything else. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/
whembly wrote: No sympathy what so ever about "using their staff". None. They do NOT warrant/deserve any special treatment.
I agree. Congressional staffers should not get special treatment. Under the ACA, no employer is required to drop their employees into the exchange. Why should Congressional staffers be forced on unlike all other employees?
I know you think that makes you seem even-handed and therefore wise. But it's simply not true. The attempted revolt by moderate House Republicans should give you pause on this score.
I'm far from wise Manchu, my posting history on here should be enough to alert the average reader that I'm no guru on the mountaintop, having 25 republicans voting against the spending bill with the added provisions does give House Democrats the simple majority needed to shoot down anything from House Republicans with this, that's fine. But isn't that simply so the government can stop being shut down? Or does it actually solve anything?
whembly wrote: To be honest, I still think it's the wrong tactic for the GOP... but, what I object is you constant labeling that it's the GOP faults all the time... because you guys... the GOP are icky.
This shut down is 100% the GOP's fault. Or, looking at it from a Tea Party perspective, the shut down is 100% a GOP success.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: having 25 republicans voting against the spending bill with the added provisions does give House Democrats the simple majority needed to shoot down anything from House Republicans with this, that's fine. But isn't that simply so the government can stop being shut down? Or does it actually solve anything?
Doesn't solve anything? It solves the problem of the GOP's brinksmanship politics deadlocking Congress. Yes, the point is to keep the government from shutting down. It's not like King and Dent support the ACA -- they just understand that their party can't keep running to the nuclear option.
ironicsilence wrote: umm the tea party folks are doing exactly what they got elected to do.
Absolutely correct. Just want to add that "what they got elected to do" is not just "stop Obamacare" but also "destroy the federal government."
Only in the fairie dust unicorn dreamland where lefties and the NY Times hangs out.
As opposed to reality -- where we stock up on ammunition and decades' worth of canned goods, learn to make water purifiers to get rid of that fluoride threatening our precious bodily fluids, deny our children vaccinations on the advice of chiropractors, protect them from the lies of climate change and evolution, and always always always make sure our tinfoil hats are pulled down securely over our eyes and ears.
So... what about the Employer Mandate delay. What about putting the Congress Critters on the same exchange calculus as us Plebs?
Mentioned in the other thread, but the employer mandate is not as integral to keeping costs down, as compared to the individual mandate. The employer mandate may help, but it isn't guaranteed to put more people into the system, while the individual mandate is specifically designed to ensure that.
That's where you're incredibly wrong. Those with 50 or more employers would be REQUIRED to office plans that fit the ACA regulations or face the TAX. As in... either revenue come's in that is earmarked for the public exchange, or the Big Business offers the plans themselves.
Also, while Congress has good healthcare, it's not the "free super duper healthcare for Congress only NO PEASANTS ALLOWED" version many think it is. It can be changed, and I wouldn't be opposed to some changes, but I think the whole Congressional Healthcare issue is overblown, and used more because it looks good politically to bang the table about than anything else. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/
Update the date search dude.
The point is... the ACA was the law of the land...eh? Well the OMB "changed the rules" arbitrarily. Just like Obama did for the Employer Mandate.
Frazzled wrote: You're thinking preppers, not a political party.
Yep, just like the Tea Party isn't a political party.
Its agroup of people that go to a party and like tea. works for me. Please define political party then, or should I use your dictum to the New Black Panther Party into the Democrat Party, or maybe the KKK into the Democratic Party.
After all, the Democrats wwere the only one to have a KKK Wizard in Congress...
Have you ever heard of a Venn diagram? Or a history book, while we're at it?
EDIT: Also, I don't want to hear any whining in response from you, Frazz. At this point, I'm taking the exchange exactly as seriously as you are. Womp womp.
People were asking about congress being a part of the exchanges and whatnot? I found this interesting.
With the federal government nearing shutdown, House Speaker John Boehner stood on the House floor Monday and called on his colleagues to vote for a bill banning a “so-called exemption” that lawmakers and staffers receive for their health insurance.
“Why don’t we make sure that every American is treated just like we are?” Boehner asked, seeking to prohibit members of Congress and Capitol Hill aides from getting thousands of dollars in subsidies for their health insurance as they join Obamacare-mandated insurance exchanges.
Yet behind-the-scenes, Boehner and his aides worked for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and others, to save these very same, long-standing subsidies, according to documents and e-mails provided to POLITICO. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was also aware of these discussions, the documents show.
During a five-month period stretching from February to July, Boehner and his aides sought along with Reid’s office to solve what had become a big headache for both of them. They drafted and reviewed a possible legislative fix, as well as continued to push for an administrative one from the Office of Personnel Management.
Boehner and Reid, in fact, went so far as to ask to meet with President Barack Obama to lobby him personally for help — using a cover story in order to protect the secrecy of the discussions, according to these documents.
Keep at it Boehner, doing a great job there! *jazz hands*
That's where you're incredibly wrong. Those with 50 or more employers would be REQUIRED to office plans that fit the ACA regulations or face the TAX. As in... either revenue come's in that is earmarked for the public exchange, or the Big Business offers the plans themselves.
The employer mandate has a blind spot, namely everyone working for companies smaller than 50 people. That's a lot of people.
In addition, large companies are required to offer coverage, but there is no requirement that people take it. The company provides the opportunity to enroll, it does not actually enroll them or require people to take it. With purely the employer mandate, a 25 year old who doesn't want healthcare coverage who works for a large company does not have to take the offer the company provides.
The result is that people not currently enrolled in healthcare plans by choice may choose to remain off said rolls. The employer mandate would likely increase the people covered, but it provides no guarantee of it, as I said.
And that is why the individual mandate is necessary. Joe 25 year old Schmoe may still choose to not have insurance under the employer mandate (keeping the pool small enough that prices increase when you take other ACA changes like pre-existing conditions into account, while he is simultaneously still liable to increase costs for the system if he suddenly requires major medical attention). Under the individual mandate, he must have insurance.
Manchu wrote: Have you ever heard of a Venn diagram? Or a history book, while we're at it?
EDIT: Also, I don't want to hear any whining in response from you, Frazz. At this point, I'm taking the exchange exactly as seriously as you are. Womp womp.
1. Are these both directed at me?
2. Not only have I read one history book, I've read almost a history book and a half. I'll have you know I've also watched not only The Patriot, but also almost all of the Simpson Episode with the Declaration of Independence. So take that YankeeDog!
Both sides are not acting like idiots this time. The Dems acted like idiots LAST time and let the R's think they could extort them THIS time.
This time around, the Dem's are just saying no. We will not negotiate with extortionists. This is what they should have done last time, but the pres wanted some Grand Bargain and got snubbed.... again.
Easy E wrote: Both sides are not acting like idiots this time. The Dems acted like idiots LAST time and let the R's think they could extort them THIS time.
This time around, the Dem's are just saying no. We will not negotiate with extortionists. This is what they should have done last time, but the pres wanted some Grand Bargain and got snubbed.... again.
Dude you're north of me, and therefor a Yankee. Dog is a compliment (see the avatar derp).
But now that I recollect I read Killer Angels too. As thats historical fiction, I'm going to count it. So thats two and half history books. nananana YankeeDog!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Both sides are not acting like idiots this time. The Dems acted like idiots LAST time and let the R's think they could extort them THIS time.
This time around, the Dem's are just saying no. We will not negotiate with extortionists. This is what they should have done last time, but the pres wanted some Grand Bargain and got snubbed.... again.
There is a difference between "We will not support a single thing the other side offers up for consideration unless they give us EVERYTHING we want, and I mean everything, happy ending and all" and "What you are suggesting would be to throw away the notion of compromise and simply let you run the show".
There is a difference between "We will not support a single thing the other side offers up for consideration unless they give us EVERYTHING we want, and I mean everything, happy ending and all" and "What you are suggesting would be to throw away the notion of compromise and simply let you run the show".
This isn't exactly subtle nuance here.
Read up on the House's Power of the Purse. It isn't a new precedent here...
Easy E wrote: Both sides are not acting like idiots this time. The Dems acted like idiots LAST time and let the R's think they could extort them THIS time.
This time around, the Dem's are just saying no. We will not negotiate with extortionists. This is what they should have done last time, but the pres wanted some Grand Bargain and got snubbed.... again.
So who's the party of "no" again?
Good line.
However, it doesn;t change the truth of the matter. Compromise is not giving the other guy everything they want or else bad things happen. Their is another word for that.
Easy E wrote: Both sides are not acting like idiots this time. The Dems acted like idiots LAST time and let the R's think they could extort them THIS time.
This time around, the Dem's are just saying no. We will not negotiate with extortionists. This is what they should have done last time, but the pres wanted some Grand Bargain and got snubbed.... again.
So who's the party of "no" again?
Good line.
However, it doesn;t change the truth of the matter. Compromise is not giving the other guy everything they want or else bad things happen. Their is another word for that.
Sure... reading on my twittah feed... looks like the R's are blinking. Go figure...
Look... E... What the Republicans are doing is dumb... I agree. What I'm objecting to this whole crazy pants thing that it's ALL REPUBLCIAN'S FAULT ALL THE TIME defence. Both parties are absolutely refusing to compromise.... so both are culpable.
I don't know if I'd call Obama our worst president, but I definitely think the complete inability of our Congress to agree on almost anything is definitely affecting his run.
Of course, I'm one of those evil "Libertarians" that is allied with the Tea Party and want the federal government to collapse into the depths of hell, so what do I know?
MrMoustaffa wrote: I don't know if I'd call Obama our worst president, but I definitely think the complete inability of our Congress to agree on almost anything is definitely affecting his run.
Of course, I'm one of those evil "Libertarians" that is allied with the Tea Party and want the federal government to collapse into the depths of hell, so what do I know?
Clearly you are a Republican In Name Only, and the faithful must see that a primary challenge is mounted for you, infidel.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I don't know if I'd call Obama our worst president, but I definitely think the complete inability of our Congress to agree on almost anything is definitely affecting his run.
Of course, I'm one of those evil "Libertarians" that is allied with the Tea Party and want the federal government to collapse into the depths of hell, so what do I know?
Clearly you are a Republican In Name Only, and the faithful must see that a primary challenge is mounted for you, infidel.
Yeah... that ugly purity strain will rear it's ugly head... one of the major problems with the GOP.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I don't know if I'd call Obama our worst president, but I definitely think the complete inability of our Congress to agree on almost anything is definitely affecting his run.
Of course, I'm one of those evil "Libertarians" that is allied with the Tea Party and want the federal government to collapse into the depths of hell, so what do I know?
Clearly you are a Republican In Name Only, and the faithful must see that a primary challenge is mounted for you, infidel.
whembly wrote: Seriously... what is it you're not getting that the House has the power over the purse? The House and Senate are co-equal to one another.
I understand it fine.
However trying to paint both parties and both the house and the senate as equally culpable for this shutdown is unrealistic. Asking for the same thing a half dozen times (or 40+ times) and getting told "no" is not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is an inability to take that original "No" and do something constructive with it.
An old cliche is that doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is one sign of insanity.
Now apply that to a group of people continually asking another to just do what they want because reasons. They've already said no. Asking again (and again and again and again and again) isn't cooperating in good faith, it's running out the clock.
whembly wrote: Seriously... what is it you're not getting that the House has the power over the purse? The House and Senate are co-equal to one another.
I understand it fine.
However trying to paint both parties and both the house and the senate as equally culpable for this shutdown is unrealistic. Asking for the same thing a half dozen times (or 40+ times) and getting told "no" is not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is an inability to take that original "No" and do something constructive with it.
A cliche is that doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is one sign of insanity.
Now apply that to a group of people continually asking another to just do what they want because reasons. They've already said no. Asking again (and again and again and again and again) isn't cooperating in good faith, it's running out the clock.
And the big hammer is that PURSE. It's not different than if the President vetoes a hypothetical law, Congress can still pass it by overriding it because they feel it's necessary. The House feels strongly about doing something about the ACA (as its one of the things they campaigned on)... they sent numerous proposals, in many variations to no avail. The PURSE is their hammer.
Wait, The Tea Party exists? I thought they whre some bedtime story liberals told their kids "Know you behave or the tea party will make you pay full price for your hospital visit when you break your arm"
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, The Tea Party exists? I thought they whre some bedtime story liberals told their kids "Know you behave or the tea party will make you pay full price for your hospital visit when you break your arm"
They do, they hang out corralled into a little corner set aside for the republican crazies.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, The Tea Party exists? I thought they whre some bedtime story liberals told their kids "Know you behave or the tea party will make you pay full price for your hospital visit when you break your arm"
Sometimes I think the Tea Party is an effort by high ranking Republicans to contain the craziest of their lot to prevent them from influencing things that are actually important.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, The Tea Party exists? I thought they whre some bedtime story liberals told their kids "Know you behave or the tea party will make you pay full price for your hospital visit when you break your arm"
They do, they hang out corralled into a little corner set aside for the republican crazies.
Members of both chambers from both parties have publicly announced they will either refuse their salary or donate their salary to charity during the shutdown.
This is all part of the life and art that is James Franco. It is forcing us to question the artificial barrier between us and government while questioning the conflation of art, media, and the news. How he got all of congress to go along with this bit of performance art I am not quite sure, but that is part of the mystique that is...Franco.
whembly wrote: Look... E... What the Republicans are doing is dumb... I agree. What I'm objecting to this whole crazy pants thing that it's ALL REPUBLCIAN'S FAULT ALL THE TIME defence. Both parties are absolutely refusing to compromise.... so both are culpable.
This sounds like typical Dakka "blame the victim" talk.
Let's say you pre-pay your local gas station for fuel at the pump. You then go out to pump your fuel, but he attendant come son the loudspeaker and says, "I won't let you fuel your SUV until you sign a contract saying you won;t go to another gas station."
You don't want to only go to this one gas station so you refuse.
The attendant then says, "Fine, then you don;t get the gas you already paid for until you are willing to negotiate a new contract."
So, who is the one at fault here? Same essential thing is going on in Congress.
Everything is going the Republican's way right now.
They forced the standoff. They've backed the Democrats into a corner.
Republicans strike up big PR victories by sliding up next to veterans and those affected by the impasse.
For Democrats to compromise means that they lose key legislation pieces they finally set in place to stopgap measures or defunding of their legislation.
if the White House chooses to act and try to fund the government outside Congressional jurisdiction, the Republicans accuse the President of doing illegal things (which could set up an impeachment vote).
The longer it drags on, the more unfavorable everyone becomes, but the Democrats have more to lose. The Republicans, wounded from the previous presidential election and the very last election cycle, don't really have much more they can sacrifice as a national party. Eventually the ball has to move to the corner of the Democrats to solve this as they control most mechanisms of the government. Failure hurts them more than success at this point.
Voters, by a resounding 3-1 margin, oppose shutting down the government to block the health care law, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday. And by a 74-17 percent margin, they disapprove of how congressional Republicans have been doing their jobs — the GOP's worst marks ever.
Perhaps they aren't "winning" as much s you think WarOne.
So many Republican members have spoken out against the strategy that the Tea Party Express sent out a fundraising appeal asking, "With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?"
Easy E wrote: From an article in The Week that Ahtman posted in another thread.
Voters, by a resounding 3-1 margin, oppose shutting down the government to block the health care law, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday. And by a 74-17 percent margin, they disapprove of how congressional Republicans have been doing their jobs — the GOP's worst marks ever.
Perhaps they aren't "winning" as much s you think WarOne.
Oh, I hate them too.
But as crazy as this sounds (now we're getting into Glenn Beck and Matt Ward territory), the Republicans already knew this going into this fight.
Those Banana Republicans
By JOE NOCERA
Published: September 30, 2013 714 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Save
E-mail
Share
Print
Reprints
They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why is it that the Republicans in Congress seem so determined to prove this maxim?
Let’s start with the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. The exchanges that are at the heart of Obamacare — making it possible for people who are currently uninsured to buy health care — open for business on Tuesday. Ever since the Republicans took control of the House, they have held vote after vote to roll back the law, even while ignoring important business like, say, fixing the Postal Service. I think it’s been 43 times in all — votes that have been utterly pointless, in that the Senate is still run by Democrats, and the law is President Obama’s signature achievement, and there’s no way on God’s green earth it will be repealed.
But never mind. As Oct. 1 has neared — the date both Obamacare kicks in and the government needs to be funded — Republicans moved to another tactic, which was every bit as hopeless. They began demanding that Obamacare be reversed — or at least delayed — as part of any deal to keep the government running. (At one point they had a lengthy wish list that was so implausible it was almost laugh-out-loud funny.)
But to the surprise of absolutely no one, when Republicans added the anti-Obamacare language to the “continuing resolution” designed to finance the government (for all of six weeks!), the Senate quickly rejected the House bill and insisted instead on a continuing resolution that did nothing but what it was supposed to do: fund the government. Republicans, meanwhile, would not back away from their demand that the “C.R.” had to be linked to a delay in Obamacare.
“I see almost no hope of avoiding a government shutdown,” Representative Jim Cooper, a conservative Democrat from Nashville, told me Monday afternoon. It’s possible, of course, that House Republicans will pass a continuing resolution in the wee small hours, after this column has gone to bed. But it’s very unlikely.
And that’s the second way in which Republican strategy seems to have run off the rails. This constant brinkmanship, which Republicans bring on with their unrealistic demands and deadlines, consistently redounds against them. It makes you wonder what they are trying to accomplish.
But, of course, we know what they are trying to accomplish. They are trying to mollify the extremist element of their party, the Tea Party Republicans who vote in primaries and who have succeeded in electing lots of House members and a handful of senators, such as Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida.
The House speaker, John Boehner, won’t bring “a clean C.R.” — that is, a continuing resolution without any of the anti-Obamacare language — not because it won’t pass, but because it probably would, which would infuriate the Tea Party wing of his party and jeopardize his leadership post. Indeed, as Boehner well knows, many House Republicans do not want the government to shut down and would probably vote for the Senate’s clean bill if given half a chance. Their unwillingness to speak out against the extreme faction in their party is shameful. And it’s tragic that, at a time when the House desperately needs a strong speaker, it has John Boehner instead.
What was clear on Monday was that if the government does shut down, the Republicans are going to be blamed. All day long, we watched the Democrats, starting with President Obama, make the case that Republican demands were unreasonable, and, indeed, dangerous, given what was at stake. Republicans spent the day on the defensive. Senator Elizabeth Warren, the liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, described Republican tactics to me as “hostage taking.” Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, told reporters that if “we can’t pass this” — meaning a clean C.R. — “we’re only truly entering a banana republican mind-set.”
I hate the fact that I now know what a “clean C.R.” means. It’s the kind of inside-the-Beltway term that the country only learns about when there is some big crisis in Washington, as there is now. A government that functioned would fight over the budget but would ultimately pass a budget. This government can barely hobble from one C.R. to the next.
A party controlled by its most extreme faction will ultimately be forced back to the center. The Democrats learned that when Walter Mondale was losing to Ronald Reagan, and Michael Dukakis to George H.W. Bush. Now it is the Republicans who don’t seem to understand that their extreme tactics are pleasing a small percentage of their countrymen but alienating everyone else.
Can’t wait for the debt-ceiling crisis. It’s just weeks away.
What stands out for me is what is their endgame? The Op-Ed piece highlights an interesting point:
A party controlled by its most extreme faction will ultimately be forced back to the center. The Democrats learned that when Walter Mondale was losing to Ronald Reagan, and Michael Dukakis to George H.W. Bush. Now it is the Republicans who don’t seem to understand that their extreme tactics are pleasing a small percentage of their countrymen but alienating everyone else.
What is the long term strategy of the Republicans here? What do they really want? Remember that the Tea Partyist members are not the top ranking Republicans leading the party.
WarOne wrote: What is the long term strategy of the Republicans here? What do they really want? Remember that the Tea Partyist members are not the top ranking Republicans leading the party.
You don't need to be in charge to hold the party hostage, you just need to be in the right place at the right time, nor do you need to be more numerous.
Obama and company just have to stick to the Clinton playbook from 1995, and this will all backfire horribly on the GOP. The President has the biggest, most powerful bully pulpit in the world and he'll use it. I'm sure Hilary is giving them pointers.
And in fact the coverage I saw yesterday mostly seemed to be about the GOP shutting down the government, and that will continue IMO. The mainstream Republicans must know this and be anguished about it, but then this is what you get for cozying up to people they shouldn't have.
Obama hammered them and in their desperation they turned to people they didn't fully understand...
WarOne wrote: What is the long term strategy of the Republicans here? What do they really want? Remember that the Tea Partyist members are not the top ranking Republicans leading the party.
You don't need to be in charge to hold the party hostage, you just need to be in the right place at the right time, nor do you need to be more numerous.
And I wouldn't doubt the Republicans leading the party are looking for a longer term strategy than what Tea Partyists are inciting the party to do.
I'm trying to think what the Republicans have planned one step out from now. They know this kind of political brinksmanship is not popular, but they went along with it anyway. That cannot be their only strategy.
Funny, because if someone in the Obama administration had just let them in, R congresspeople would have been lined up around the block to talk to Fox News correspondents for weeks about how Obama wasn't following the rules, and how little he respected the impact that the 'shutdown' was to have etc etc etc.
Also, who needs more than Fox? They seem to do enough damage on their own, and are quick to tout how big their audience is.
I'm trying to think what the Republicans have planned one step out from now. They know this kind of political brinksmanship is not popular, but they went along with it anyway. That cannot be their only strategy.
There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honourable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whitehouse, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror...
cincydooley wrote: The media coverage is mostly Pro-Democrat? No way! That just can't be!
Well that's just it, isn't it? If the GOP believes their liberal media mantra, then clearly they know this won't go well for them.
So does this mean that they don't actually believe it and think they're going to get a fair shake and be able to pin it to Obama and the Dems? Good luck with that.
Or is this about more prudent GOP Congressmen being held hostage by the aforementioned men who just want to watch the world burn? The short-term outlook there isn't so good either, but it's possible the party learns its lesson about extremism and finally moves forward a stronger party.
cincydooley wrote: The media coverage is mostly Pro-Democrat? No way! That just can't be!
Well that's just it, isn't it? If the GOP believes their liberal media mantra, then clearly they know this won't go well for them.
So does this mean that they don't actually believe it and think they're going to get a fair shake and be able to pin it to Obama and the Dems? Good luck with that.
Or is this about more prudent GOP Congressmen being held hostage by the aforementioned men who just want to watch the world burn? The short-term outlook there isn't so good either, but it's possible the party learns its lesson about extremism and finally moves forward a stronger party.
gorgon... riddle me this will ya?
This is the World War I memorial:
Now... this, is the World War II memorial: What's the difference?
Simple, really: There are Honor Flights of vets scheduled to see the latter but not the former.
This is about the fact that a lot of people are coming to see the WWII Memorial, and the Administration is playing politics with them.
Whembly, you're kinda proving my point while apparently not understanding where I'm coming from. Let me be clearer.
I'm giving you my opinion about which side will end up ahead overall in the battle for public opinion. Past history and Obama's bully pulpit are strong points for the Dems. If you believe in the liberal media, that's another. Together, these would in fact suggest that the loudest voice in the land both has a proven script and the aid of a megaphone (and other gear, as your example shows) with which to project his message.
And while the Dems are building their case -- warranted or not -- for this being the fault of extremist Republicans, the GOP has already shown to have an issue with rogue members saying things they shouldn't.
"This is what we wanted!"
I don't work in political communication, but I have a career in marketing communications. I work every day with messages and mediums, sometimes for good products or services, sometimes for bad ones. I don't get to pick -- it's my job, so I have to market it regardless. And I'm telling you now that when I flip into dispassionate work mode and look at the communications landscape surrounding the shutdown, I think it's going to be a very hard road for the GOP if the shutdown drags on. That's not an assessment of who's right or wrong, but an assessment of who's going to come out ahead politically.
The 2014 midterms add some extra heat to the situation. While the Tea Party members might feel secure in their districts -- or simply don't care -- there have to be other Republicans who don't want the shutdown hung around their necks. For all these reasons, I tend to think that the shutdown won't drag on.
I think some of the pettiness designed to try and make the shutdown 'hit harder' is going to backfire.
This one's my favorite, just because it's so awesomely transparent:
The Department of Defense did not issue an official statement about the suspension of service academy sports and did not respond to telephone and email requests for comment.
However, the Naval Academy Superintendent’s Office received the order on Tuesday morning and Scott Strasemeier, associate athletic director for sports information, announced Tuesday night’s men’s soccer game between Navy and Howard had been postponed indefinitely.
“We are also hopeful for a last-minute reprieve,” Gladchuk said. “Right now, we are taking things a half day at a time and holding our breath that the government can bring this thing (the shutdown) to a resolution.”
The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a private organization not funded by the government. Gladchuk said the Air Force-Navy game could be held without any “appropriated funding.” Air Force recently created a similar athletic association that operates using private funds, donations and revenue from intercollegiate contests.
“We could run our entire athletics program and conduct events as we always do without any government funds,” Gladchuk said. “In talking to the Air Force athletic director, their football team could execute the trip without government funding.”
Asked why the Department of Defense was suspending intercollegiate athletic contests if government funds are not required, Gladchuk said he was told it was about “optics.”
“It’s a perception thing. Apparently it doesn’t resonate with all the other government agencies that have been shut down,” Gladchuk said.
gorgon wrote: Whembly, you're kinda proving my point while apparently not understanding where I'm coming from. Let me be clearer.
Hey... thanks for keeping this civil. Call my gak out if I'm out of line... cool?
I'm giving you my opinion about which side will end up ahead overall in the battle for public opinion. Past history and Obama's bully pulpit are strong points for the Dems. If you believe in the liberal media, that's another. Together, these would in fact suggest that the loudest voice in the land both has a proven script and the aid of a megaphone (and other gear, as your example shows) with which to project his message.
Okay... maybe that in this day and age of social media, et. el. that may be true. But the past, neither party suffered much from the various shutdown.
And while the Dems are building their case -- warranted or not -- for this being the fault of extremist Republicans, the GOP has already shown to have an issue with rogue members saying things they shouldn't.
"This is what we wanted!"
Yeah... I've been on record in this thread that this is a poor strategy for the GOP.
I don't work in political communication, but I have a career in marketing communications. I work every day with messages and mediums, sometimes for good products or services, sometimes for bad ones. I don't get to pick -- it's my job, so I have to market it regardless. And I'm telling you now that when I flip into dispassionate work mode and look at the communications landscape surrounding the shutdown, I think it's going to be a very hard road for the GOP if the shutdown drags on. That's not an assessment of who's right or wrong, but an assessment of who's going to come out ahead politically.
I'm interesting in more of this "dispassionate" analysis... add more if you can.
Because right now... the Dems, imo are losing the messaging battle (for the life of me, I just don't understand it). This whole silly ordeal about the closed parks/monuments and Reid's latest statement on Why Would We Want to Help Just One Child with Cancer? seems to be taking a toll...
Eh... we'll see after that even WH summit meeting.
The 2014 midterms add some extra heat to the situation. While the Tea Party members might feel secure in their districts -- or simply don't care -- there have to be other Republicans who don't want the shutdown hung around their necks. For all these reasons, I tend to think that the shutdown won't drag on.
Because of the gerrymandering crap and usual strong incumbent position... I doubt that anyone is going to pay the "political price". Just my honest opinion.
I think some of the pettiness designed to try and make the shutdown 'hit harder' is going to backfire.
This one's my favorite, just because it's so awesomely transparent:
The Department of Defense did not issue an official statement about the suspension of service academy sports and did not respond to telephone and email requests for comment.
However, the Naval Academy Superintendent’s Office received the order on Tuesday morning and Scott Strasemeier, associate athletic director for sports information, announced Tuesday night’s men’s soccer game between Navy and Howard had been postponed indefinitely.
“We are also hopeful for a last-minute reprieve,” Gladchuk said. “Right now, we are taking things a half day at a time and holding our breath that the government can bring this thing (the shutdown) to a resolution.”
The Naval Academy Athletic Association is a private organization not funded by the government. Gladchuk said the Air Force-Navy game could be held without any “appropriated funding.” Air Force recently created a similar athletic association that operates using private funds, donations and revenue from intercollegiate contests.
“We could run our entire athletics program and conduct events as we always do without any government funds,” Gladchuk said. “In talking to the Air Force athletic director, their football team could execute the trip without government funding.”
Asked why the Department of Defense was suspending intercollegiate athletic contests if government funds are not required, Gladchuk said he was told it was about “optics.”
“It’s a perception thing. Apparently it doesn’t resonate with all the other government agencies that have been shut down,” Gladchuk said.
I would agree. It's in the mold of the White House deciding to shut down the WWII memorial. We're not going to get the, "Actually, they're shutting down more stuff than they need to just to make it suck more," story from the major outlets, unfortunately, but if they thought that gak was going to work on Navy/Air Force alumni, this administration's either dumber or more indifferent than I thought.
There's no pettiness or grand conspiracy required. Just think about how it looks to someone who isn't well informed about the issue: people aren't getting their paychecks, expensive vacations to national parks are ruined, important research is disrupted, but there's still somehow enough money to play football? It's not really that difficult to see how someone could make the decision that annoying a few football fans is a small price to pay to avoid having that public image disaster.
Peregrine wrote: There's no pettiness or grand conspiracy required. Just think about how it looks to someone who isn't well informed about the issue: people aren't getting their paychecks, expensive vacations to national parks are ruined, important research is disrupted, but there's still somehow enough money to play football? It's not really that difficult to see how someone could make the decision that annoying a few football fans is a small price to pay to avoid having that public image disaster.
That requires admitting that Americans are too stupid to understand the simple eight word statement of, "Service academy football games are not federally funded."
Seaward wrote: That requires admitting that Americans are too stupid to understand the simple eight word statement of, "Service academy football games are not federally funded."
It's not about stupidity, it's about communication. Do you honestly think that everyone is going to get the whole message about the precise details of football funding, instead of just hearing someone talking about the game last night? Or hearing a campaign ad next election about how "Obama delayed paychecks to hard-working families while college football was just too important to give up"? It happens over and over again in politics, the fact that an issue might be simple to understand if someone ever hears the unbiased facts doesn't matter when they never do.
And really, it's just a game. Losing a football game, whether it was necessary or not, is probably the least relevant consequence of the shutdown.
Peregrine wrote: It's not about stupidity, it's about communication. Do you honestly think that everyone is going to get the whole message about the precise details of football funding, instead of just hearing someone talking about the game last night? Or hearing a campaign ad next election about how "Obama delayed paychecks to hard-working families while college football was just too important to give up"? It happens over and over again in politics, the fact that an issue might be simple to understand if someone ever hears the unbiased facts doesn't matter when they never do.
And really, it's just a game. Losing a football game, whether it was necessary or not, is probably the least relevant consequence of the shutdown.
It probably is the least relevant. It's also one of the many completely unnecessary consequences of trying to make the shutdown hit harder.
whembly wrote: So... what about the Employer Mandate delay.
I've explained this several times now, and so have many other posters. The employer mandate is peripheral to the ACA structure, it could be delayed indefinitely, and even cut, and the rest of the system would carry on just fine. That is not true of the individual mandate - because with insurers no longer able to reject people with a pre-existing condition, people are free to simply not purchase insurance until they get sick... unless you have a mandate that people get insurance.
Can you please read this, and either challenge it or stop asking that question over and over again?
Seaward wrote: It probably is the least relevant. It's also one of the many completely unnecessary consequences of trying to make the shutdown hit harder.
How did you manage to quote a post providing an explanation other than "let's make the shutdown hit harder" for why someone might cancel a football game and reply to it with "it's just to make the shutdown hit harder"?
Peregrine wrote: How did you manage to quote a post providing an explanation other than "let's make the shutdown hit harder" for why someone might cancel a football game and reply to it with "it's just to make the shutdown hit harder"?
By not granting the premise that, despite plenty of electoral evidence to the contrary, Americans in general aren't stupid enough to buy your explanation.
Peregrine wrote: How did you manage to quote a post providing an explanation other than "let's make the shutdown hit harder" for why someone might cancel a football game and reply to it with "it's just to make the shutdown hit harder"?
By not granting the premise that, despite plenty of electoral evidence to the contrary, Americans in general aren't stupid enough to buy your explanation.
Like "let's shut down the government to stop ObamaCare even though the shut-down doesn't do anything to stop ObamaCare"?
d-usa wrote: Like "let's shut down the government to stop ObamaCare even though the shut-down doesn't do anything to stop ObamaCare"?
I think most Americans recognize that the shutdown occurred because Republicans don't like Obamacare, yeah.
Was that your question?
There were people out there who thought that shutting down the government would stop ObamaCare, but they wouldn't exist because you don't think that there are stupid Americans who would fall for political lies like that.
Just like there wouldn't be ads talking about how Obama has signed more Executive Orders than anybody else, because Americans wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that.
Just like there wouldn't be ads talking about how Obama has taken more vacation than any president, because Americans wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that.
Just like there wouldn't be ads talking about "how we don't really know where he was born", because Americans would't be stupid enough to believe that.
But yes, there would be ads talking about how "Obama let kids go without food, but wouldn't even cancel a football game (probably watched it on vacation while signing executive orders)" because there are stupid Americans who would believe it.
d-usa wrote: But yes, there would be ads talking about how "Obama let kids go without food, but wouldn't even cancel a football game (probably watched it on vacation while signing executive orders)" because there are stupid Americans who would believe it.
Interesting. So you're agreeing that the game doesn't actually need to be shut down, but because shutting it down looks better for Obama and the Democrats politically, they're going to go ahead and do it.
d-usa wrote: If your reading comprehension is so bad that you really think that is what I said, then it really explains the majority of your posts.
This is what you said.
d-usa wrote: But yes, there would be ads talking about how "Obama let kids go without food, but wouldn't even cancel a football game (probably watched it on vacation while signing executive orders)" because there are stupid Americans who would believe it.
We've covered that the game doesn't actually need to be shut down under the shutdown rules, because it doesn't use federally appropriated funds. So it doesn't need to be shut down for that reason; if you're saying it doesn't need to be shut down because it might be used against Obama in the future - you know, exactly what you said above and are now trying to deny having said - then why does it need to be shut down?
Edit: Outstanding news (and moot point) now, though. The games are on.
Because 800,000 people without a job see a "federal college football game" while they are without a job and they will think it's BS.
People without WIC will see a "federal college football game" while they are not buying groceries and they will think it's BS.
People who had to cancel their vacations because of the shutdown will see a "federal college football game" and think it's BS.
Shutting it down is a lot easier than trying to explain over and over again about how exactly these games are funded and how travel is covered, etc etc etc.
But instead you think that Obama is sitting in his Oval Office going "hahahaha, try to take away my ObamaCare? I take away your ball! HAHAHAHAHHA"
Obama is screwed either way. If he shuts the game down, he looks bad for shutting it down. If he doesn't shut the game down, people will spin it later and he still looks bad. There is no way for Obama to look good here.
Holding the game will piss people off now (people who are furloughed as well as people who are affected by the shutdown, even though they shouldn't be pissed off by this game) and it might piss people off later when "he played the game but let kids go hungry" attack ads hit the air.
Canceling the game will piss people off now (people who know that it is funded privately) and it will piss people off later when "the Democrats played politics with the shutdown" attack ads hit the air.
Neither option makes him look good now. Neither option looks better for Obama or the Democrats later.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and congressional leaders struggled Wednesday to find a path to ending the shutdown that closed much of the federal government for a second day and threatened to last far longer.
The Republican-run House has rejected an effort by Democrats to force a quick end to the partial government shutdown. By a 227-197 vote Wednesday, the House rejected a move by Democrats aimed at forcing the House to vote on immediately reopening the government without clamping any restrictions on President Barack Obama's health care law.
Obama and the four leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate met at the White House for nearly 90 minutes, their first meeting since before the government shutdown. Little progress was apparent and both sides emerged offering the pointed, partisan complaints they had been making through days of the standoff.
“The president reiterated one more time tonight that he will not negotiate,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in terse remarks to reporters after the session.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the meeting “unproductive” and said he was “disappointed” that Obama did not encourage Democrats to appoint a small group of negotiators to hash out a compromise with Republicans, as they have requested.
Democrats were just as somber but more expansive. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted Boehner only wants to negotiate keeping the government open for a few weeks, rather than talk about a longer term budget. “We’re through playing these little games. It’s all focused on Obamacare, that’s all it’s about,” said Reid, speaking about Republicans’ insistence the Affordable Care Act be diluted or delayed.
The White House meeting also included Vice President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and featured a presentation about the dangers of default – the nation is expected to exhaust its borrowing authority in two weeks. “We should take the debt ceiling debate off the table,” insisted House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
Some Republicans are expected to craft a budget package that could reopen the government while increasing the debt limit.
Even before the leaders arrived at the White House, Obama’s aides made clear that the president would not negotiate until after Republicans agreed to reopen the government at current spending levels.
“He’s not going to engage in that kind of negotiation because he does not want to hold – or have held the openness of the government, the functioning of the government, or the world and American economy hostage to a series of demands,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
The impasse has caused the first government shutdown in 17 years, with no end in sight. With the debt limit needing an increase by Oct. 17, Capitol lawmakers have suggested the budget and debt limit talks be merged. But Obama has said repeatedly Congress should raise the debt ceiling, and that he will not negotiate on the issue.
Reid offered one way forward, saying he was willing to engage in negotiations over a long-term budget plan if Boehner allowed the House of Representatives to vote on a government funding plan with no strings.
Reid and Boehner spoke earlier Wednesday, and Reid described the conversation as “cordial.” Boehner, though, was unenthusiastic about Reid’s idea, and hours later, House Republicans gathered on the Capitol steps to protest the closing of the World War II Memorial on the National Mall.
House Republicans, who control that chamber, also continued their futile effort to open parts of the government.
They spent the day debating bills to fund the National Park Service, the National Guard, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the District of Columbia, knowing they’d go nowhere in the Democratic-led Senate.
Obama remained opposed to the House’s piecemeal approach to funding the government, even though the president signed a bill into law earlier this week that would pay U.S. troops around the globe during the shutdown.
While the rhetoric sizzled, leaders were making behind-the-scenes bids to find common ground. Reid sent Boehner a one-page letter recalling how he backed President George W. Bush 11 years ago when Bush sought authority to invade Iraq.
“I could have taken the steps that you are taking now to block government funding in order to gain leverage to end the war,” Reid told Boehner. “But I did not do that. I felt it would have been devastating to America.”
Put the “clean” budget, funding the federal government temporarily, to a House vote, Reid said, and “I commit to name conferees to a budget conference as soon as the government reopens.”
Such a conference, or negotiation, would include top congressional budget-writers, who would try to work out a longer-term spending and tax plan.
Boehner’s camp had an icy response. “Offering to negotiate only after Democrats get everything they want is not much of an offer,” said spokesman Michael Steel.
Carney said Obama remains willing to negotiate on the budget and the health care law but not until Republicans agree to reopen the government and pay its bills with the higher debt ceiling.
“Today’s meeting is about the need to open the government, and the need to ensure that we do not default,” he said.
“And the president’s made clear that he will – that he is happy and willing, as he has been all year round, all year long, to engage in serious conversations and negotiations with Republican lawmakers who want to find common ground on our budget challenges – absolutely willing to,” Carney said. “What he is not willing to do is negotiate under the threat of default or under the threat of continuing to shut down the government.”
Obama met with more than a dozen Wall Street bankers, who warned of the consequences of the shutdown and the potential failure to raise the debt ceiling next month.
“There’s a consensus that we shouldn’t do anything that hurts this recovery that’s a little bit shallow, not very well established and is quite vulnerable,” Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, said after the meeting. “The shutdown of the government and particularly a failure to raise the debt ceiling would accomplish that.”
Earlier in the day, Obama canceled two of four stops on an upcoming trip to Asia to return to Washington because of the government shutdown.
The White House announced that Obama called Malaysia Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Philippines President Benigno Aquino on Tuesday night to deliver the news.
The White House hasn’t yet canceled the rest of the trip, with Obama scheduled to leave Washington Saturday night for Asia summits in Indonesia and Brunei.
Because right now... the Dems, imo are losing the messaging battle (for the life of me, I just don't understand it). This whole silly ordeal about the closed parks/monuments and Reid's latest statement on Why Would We Want to Help Just One Child with Cancer? seems to be taking a toll...
...
...
Since you are a right winger, you disapprove of the Democrats. Do you think it is possible that your perception that they are losing the PR battle is caused by your personal bias? AFAIK, the opinion poll show a 3:1 advantage for the Democrats on the issue. If that starts to change, there is independent evidence to support your opinion.
I think some of the pettiness designed to try and make the shutdown 'hit harder' is going to backfire.
This one's my favorite, just because it's so awesomely transparent:
...
...
Asked why the Department of Defense was suspending intercollegiate athletic contests if government funds are not required, Gladchuk said he was told it was about “optics.”
“It’s a perception thing. Apparently it doesn’t resonate with all the other government agencies that have been shut down,” Gladchuk said.
No football game?
What the hell? That seems awfully petty.
That’s one view. Another one is that the government would look stupid to run amateur athletic competitions when there is a crisis in public services. Lack of proper attention to priorities.
Kilkrazy wrote: That’s one view. Another one is that the government would look stupid to run amateur athletic competitions when there is a crisis in public services. Lack of proper attention to priorities.
I suppose it's a good thing the government doesn't fund them, then, since they're going forward.
Someone, News Media, jumped the gun on cancelation of Army-Navy game being canceled due to shutdown. Someone, News Media, didn't know they were not federally funded. Someone, Naval Academy, pointed out that the games were indeed not effected by the shutdown due to them not receiving federal funds for the games. Someone, mainly you all, are now caught up with that piece of info. Its like someone, Fox News, mention that the military was only getting paid in Afghanistan. Someone, News Media, neglected to say that some military posts went into DONZA's and pretty much furlough the civilian workforce being JBLM current status as now.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point of your earlier post was that they weren't going forward.
Has the situation changed?
The athletic directors were told to stop plans for the games when the shutdown occurred, with a final decision on Thursday. Looks like they decided they didn't need to shut down the non-federally funded games after all.
Because right now... the Dems, imo are losing the messaging battle (for the life of me, I just don't understand it). This whole silly ordeal about the closed parks/monuments and Reid's latest statement on Why Would We Want to Help Just One Child with Cancer? seems to be taking a toll...
...
...
Since you are a right winger, you disapprove of the Democrats..
So, my dispproval of the current democrats makes me a right winger? o.O
Do you think it is possible that your perception that they are losing the PR battle is caused by your personal bias? .
Sure... it's possible.
AFAIK, the opinion poll show a 3:1 advantage for the Democrats on the issue. If that starts to change, there is independent evidence to support your opinion.
Source on that please? the most I've found was that there's 10% gap between the two... not, 3:1.
Since you are a right winger, you disapprove of the Democrats..
So, my dispproval of the current democrats makes me a right winger? o.O
Do you think it is possible that your perception that they are losing the PR battle is caused by your personal bias? .
Sure... it's possible.
AFAIK, the opinion poll show a 3:1 advantage for the Democrats on the issue. If that starts to change, there is independent evidence to support your opinion.
Source on that please? the most I've found was that there's 10% gap between the two... not, 3:1.
No, the meaning of my sentence is the opposite. It is being a right winger that makes you disapprove of the Democrats.
I love the shutdown. I think it really highlights the horrible partisanship that has been rotting away at our country the past 10ish years. I mean, it's getting ridiculous on the news. They're name calling and blaming like a bunch of 3rd graders at recess.
I guess as an American, I should be embarrassed, and I am a little, sorta, but the absurdity of it all on TV is really something.
*I do feel bad for all the families of gov't workers that have been furloughed. It really sucks for you, and it's unfair, so I hope it gets resolved sooner rather than later so that you aren't too adversely affected.
Interestingly Obama popularity is dropping strongly. I'm surprised about that one. Congress is too but I figured that would be the case (can something have a negative popularity? Even serial killers have a following).
There is an interesting line in that CNN story, there have been plenty of people in these threads arguing who is and is not holding the 'country hostage'. The Republicans are saying, give us these things and we'll pass the CR and we can open this bad boy back up for business (the government), we just want you to do these things related to Obamacare. The Democrats say, "lol, nope" The Republicans also would like to see spending cuts in compromise for raising the debt ceiling, and the interesting line is this:
Obama and Democratic leaders have since said they are open to talks on any and all budgetary matters, but only after the government is reopened.
So the Republicans want to 1) cut spending on the budget and 2) reopen the government and hopefully 3) defund or delay Obamacare
The Democrats want 1) a higher debt ceiling and 2) reopen the government
Both parties want point 2, the Democrats point 1 is linked the Republicans point 1, the only part that these two cannot meet on is the Repubs point 3.
From what I can tell is that both have that one sticking point, Dems don't want to talk bugetary matters until the CR is passed, and the CR won't be passed until the Dems talk budgetary matters and defund/delay Obamacare.
So if the Dems would talk budget concerns, do you think the moderate republicans and Boehner would stand up to the more conservative members of the party?
This is not a, "the dems are really holding the country hostage" thing, just attempting to show that both parties are being stubborn in this situation.
The Dems already agreed to a $70 Billion cut in the actual CR itself, so they already made budget concessions prior to the House Republicans sticking ObamaCare to the thing.
And the majority of the house is willing to pass the CR clean right now, there is only one person preventing a vote on that bill.
If the re-opening the government was important for Republicans they would not have played chicken in the first place. Now that they lost, THIS IS NOT SOME DAMN GAME.
If the re-opening the government was important for Republicans they would not have played chicken in the first place. Now that they lost, THIS IS NOT SOME DAMN GAME.
I would assume that reopening the government is important to 156 Republicans. There exist 79 Republican Representatives in the house that wanted to defund Obamacare and shutdown the government if it came to that, 79 out of 235, or about a third of the Republicans in the House. While most if not all of the Republicans want to see Obamacare go bye-bye in some fashion, those 79 Representatives are willing to shutdown the government to get what they want. The Republicans are backed into a corner on this one because of all of their issues that have led them to this point. They have 79 members that are strong, united, and fething insane. What has happened with the redrawing of the districts, the Republicans have basically ensured that Republicans will ensure their position in Congress by taking areas that are predominantly old and white without major cities. What will happen in the next Congressional election (because of how this can turn out) could see many of our more moderate republicans get voted out of office. So the remaining 2/3rds of the Republican House have to play this carefully. Either they play ball with the democrats and get ousted as the 79 'tea-partiers' and the republican media machine paint them as spineless people and their redrawn districts will vote for the more conservative option that will undoubtedly pop up. If they play nice with those 79 members then they might make it past the next election and hope that they can actually do something to start to fix this mess..
Manchu wrote: Oh I agree with your post, Alf. But I'm not willing to absolve the establishment GOP just because they want to hop off the crazy train now.
Holy feth we agree on something besides X-Wing and Judge Dredd?
I'm sure that the Republicans are doing the political backtrack. Though I always thought that Boehner was a bit of a moderate when it came to the Republican party.
The Republican Party Cannot Stand By And Let Obamacare Destroy This Country By John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives
My fellow Americans, as I write this, the United States government is experiencing its first shutdown in 17 years. Democrats are quick to place blame on the Republican Party, and have accused us of taking this country hostage. President Obama has said our attempt to fund the government by defunding Obamacare is an attempt to extract a ransom solely for doing our jobs. He’s likened some members of our party to right-wing fanatics.
But let’s talk about Obamacare.
Three years ago, President Barack Obama passed a disastrous piece of legislation called the Affordable Care Act. He jammed this jobs-killing, deficit-increasing monstrosity through Congress, purely along party lines. And in 2010 the American people spoke loud and clear and elected a new wave of young Republicans to the House, which rejuvenated our party and allowed us to once again become the majority. This fresh crop of eager Republicans was elected to stop this president’s reckless spending and repeal Obamacare.
The American people sent us a clear message: Keep the government out of our health care and save this country.
And that’s what myself and my Republican colleagues are determined to do. Let me be clear: This is President Barack Obama’s government shutdown. This president consistently refuses to negotiate with Republicans about a piece of legislation that is confusing, drastically unpopular with the American people, and poisonous to our way of life.
Instead of coming to the table with Republicans, the president would rather talk to Vladimir Putin or the new president of Iran. Instead of improving the livelihoods of the American people, he would rather resort to name-calling. Instead of having a dialogue, he would rather call members of my party extremists and children and say they are on an ideological crusade. Instead of respecting my viewpoint, he would rather question my leadership and say the tail is wagging the dog.
Is this what people want from their president?
In the past two days, the Republicans in the House have passed numerous bills that would fund the government and get America’s health care system back on the right track. But each bill we pass has been rejected by the president and the Senate without so much as a debate. It seems like the Republican Party and our “team of extremists” are the only ones in Washington actually working to help the American people and get us out of this mess. If the president wishes to end this government shutdown that he created, then he must come to his senses and recognize that the public has spoken and Obamacare must go.
Counterpoint Help Me By John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Help me. Please, God, help me. I’ve lost control and I need help.
The far right members of my party are insane. I don’t know what they’re thinking, and I don’t want to know because it would be too horrifying. I’ve tried to explain it to them over and over and they don’t listen to me. They don’t listen to anybody. I say to them, nobody wants a government shutdown, Obamacare is the law of the land, the president was reelected and elections have consequences, and we are only in charge of one branch of government.
I say all of that and they just look at me with these cold, dead eyes. Christ, It’s chilling.
Look, these people scare me. They scare all of us. Have you heard them talk? They’re animals, these people. There are only 30 or 40 of them and we outnumber them, but they have so much power, you see? They could end me like that. And they wouldn’t feel a thing because these people do not feel. They are out for blood: my blood, the president’s blood, the blood of any American who doesn’t agree with them.
I hate them. I hate all of them. And yet I also fear them.
I want to admit something: I’ve cried in my office every day for the last month. During this shutdown I’ve sat there, panicked and alone, scared to death about the next thing they’ll make me do. When they knock on my door, my heart stops. What are they going to make me say next? How are they going to force me to embarrass myself next? Did you know I was once known as a relatively moderate, shrewd politician? That was before 2010. Before the horror began.
They haunt my dreams at night. I have this one nightmare where I’m about to ask for a vote on a clean continuing resolution and then one of them—I think it’s Steve King from Iowa—looks at me with this eerie smile and says, “No, John. No you won’t.” And then the rest of them are suddenly standing behind him and they all chant in a chilling monotone, “No, John. No you won’t.” And then I wake up screaming, “No, John!!! No you won’t!!!” and I’m crying, and my wife is crying, and I’ve sweat through my sheets.
Help me. Help me make this end. Don’t reelect these people. Reelect good, normal people and I promise I’ll be a good speaker from now on. I won’t lie down for the president by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ll work with him if it makes sense and I’ll fight him when it makes sense. That’s how it should be. That’s how it will be if you help me destroy this menace.
I know I helped create this monster, and I apologize. I am so, so sorry. I thought I could control it, but I was wrong. I just need your help to defeat it. Will somebody please help me? Please? Please? Anyone?
Frazzled wrote: You know the most terrifying thing about a Tea Party Congress man? The eyes. Cold black eyes, like a doll, until they go all white when they bite you.
I thought it was the frothing spittle that flew from their mouth that worked as sort of a conservative narcotic. If it landed on your skin a warm fuzzy feeling came over you and you believed they weren't bat-gak insane.
d-usa wrote: The Dems already agreed to a $70 Billion cut in the actual CR itself, so they already made budget concessions prior to the House Republicans sticking ObamaCare to the thing.
And the majority of the house is willing to pass the CR clean right now, there is only one person preventing a vote on that bill.
d-usa wrote: The Dems already agreed to a $70 Billion cut in the actual CR itself, so they already made budget concessions prior to the House Republicans sticking ObamaCare to the thing.
And the majority of the house is willing to pass the CR clean right now, there is only one person preventing a vote on that bill.
Are you referring to the sequester?
Yup, which the Senate Democrats were hoping to fight against and replace the savings with tax increases and health and retirement reforms.
But they agreed to the lower spending that cuts $70 billion from the budget they wanted:
Maintaining the sequester and lowered spending is a compromise, they could be trying to fight for the spending limits they want. But they agreed to the budget the Republicans wanted to remain in place. Hence: compromise and negotiation.
There is agreement, just announced by Tom Cole, to provide back pay for furloughed employees. The White House is signaling they'll sign the bill.
The House also is debating a special Rule to allow votes on 10 other spending bills covering a wide variety of the issues about which Democrats and the media have been complaining, including Nutrition for Low Income Women and Children, the FDA and Intelligence Agencies, National Weather service, Head Start, FEMA, and guaranteeing that furloughed employees get back pay:
H.J. Res. 75—Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act
H.J. Res. 76—Nuclear Weapon Security & Non-Proliferation Act
H.J. Res. 77—Food and Drug Safety Act
H.J. Res. 78—Preserving Our Intelligence Capabilities Act
H.J. Res. 79—Border Safety & Security Act
H.J. Res. 80—American Indian and Alaska Native, Health, Education, and Safety Act
H.J. Res. 82—National Weather Monitoring Act
H.J. Res. 83—Impact Aid for Local Schools Act
H.J. Res. 84—Head Start for Low-Income Children Act
H.J. Res. 85—National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Act
H.R. 3223—Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act
d-usa wrote: The Dems already agreed to a $70 Billion cut in the actual CR itself, so they already made budget concessions prior to the House Republicans sticking ObamaCare to the thing.
And the majority of the house is willing to pass the CR clean right now, there is only one person preventing a vote on that bill.
Are you referring to the sequester?
Yup, which the Senate Democrats were hoping to fight against and replace the savings with tax increases and health and retirement reforms.
But they agreed to the lower spending that cuts $70 billion from the budget they wanted:
Maintaining the sequester and lowered spending is a compromise, they could be trying to fight for the spending limits they want. But they agreed to the budget the Republicans wanted to remain in place. Hence: compromise and negotiation.
Huh?
CR are year-by-year. Everything is on the table. (always has).
If the re-opening the government was important for Republicans they would not have played chicken in the first place. Now that they lost, THIS IS NOT SOME DAMN GAME.
They lost? When? o.O
Hey...at least the ‘White House disavows the White House...’ according to Jay Carney.
If the re-opening the government was important for Republicans they would not have played chicken in the first place. Now that they lost, THIS IS NOT SOME DAMN GAME.
@whembly: I know it's year to year, I know everything is on the table. That's not the point. The point is they wanted $70 billion more, but agreed to less. They already gave something up to Boehmer, but they are still accused of "offering nothing".
d-usa wrote: @whembly: I know it's year to year, I know everything is on the table. That's not the point. The point is they wanted $70 billion more, but agreed to less. They already gave something up to Boehmer, but they are still accused of "offering nothing".
When was that negotiated? The last CR? Or, the debt ceiling?
Tried looking from that same source where you posted that image.
Whoa now. We're in Sequester now because the "Super Committee" screwed the freaking pooch. Forget that one from Obama? The people that both sides picked? Forgot that thread? The one I asked what were the idiots educational background?
Jihadin wrote: Whoa now. We're in Sequester now because the "Super Committee" screwed the freaking pooch. Forget that one from Obama? The people that both sides picked? Forgot that thread? The one I asked what were the idiots educational background?
It's a continuation of the Sequester program...
Just not too clear on what d-usa was referencing to that the Senate did negotiate on something...
The chart seems to reference the last CR.
Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:
whembly wrote: Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:
For a real hoot post the one for congress.
Oh yeah... it's pretty stark. 80-ish disapproval. Interestingly... it hasn't budged much since the shutdown. o.O That ought to change by end of next week.
1. The president has signed 14 laws to amend the ACA, and taken five independant steps to delay the law on his own. Sounds ready for prime time to me.
2. The U.S. Congress, the President and large numbers of their campaign donors including large corporations have had their mandatory participation in the ACA waived. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
3. Based on my own research as a healthy individual in my mid20s, the exchanges are actually more expensive for me, even for coverage that is the lesser of my current insurance.
4. Not that it matters, it's raising the costs for the health insurance my company provides, as well as making it nearly impossible for me to seek health insurance on my own outside of the exchanges.(Which you've always been able to do)
5. If I fail to enter into a contract with a private insurance company (giving them large sums of my money) I will be fined by the United States government. So in a situation where I don't have health insurance through work, and can't afford it on the exchanges, I will have MORE of my money taken from me for not choosing to make a purchase. It's nauseating that the Supreme Court decided that /wasn't/ coercion.
6. There have been 17 government shut downs, this one really isn't that surprising, Obama hasn't managed to get a budget passed during his entire presidency, even when both chambers of the U.S. Congress were controlled by the Democratic party.
7. Maybe a lot of these "non-essential government services" should be eliminated on a more permanent basis, they can take things like the NSA with them on the way out.
8. Back to the mandatory thing, wouldn't it make more sense to fine insurance companies for unreasonable rates instead of fining citizens for making a choice to not carry health insurance? (I'm considering it depending on how the fines shake out. Urgent care's cheap around here and I'm healthy enough I don't really need to worry.) It would if you /weren't/ in bed with the insurance companies.
Conclusion: While the ACA has some /very/ good provisions... (Making it easier for high risk individuals and individuals with pre-exisitng conditions to get insurance, etc) however most of it's crap and we should light it on fire, rub Obama and Congress's collective noses in the ashes and tell them to try again till we get either a full socialist system or a full capitalist system. One or the other kids. This half ass crap is not going to cut it.
Thoughts on the shut down.
Good. Let it continue. I hope we default on the debt too. Only 15% of the government is shut down. I wish it was 50% if not more. We don't need this massive, invasive monster that picks your pocket and attempts to threaten you constantly with it's monopoly on force. It's time to lean this big pig up with a chainsaw. To take these morally, mentally bankrupt incompetents that have run social security, medicare/caid and even our own economy into the ground with their disastrous policies down a notch. Everyone blames the banks for the latest recession and the burst of the housing market bubble, instead of blaming the American government for using legislation to force the banks issue all those gakky sub-prime mortgages in the first place.
Another thought, interesting how we had /plenty/ of time and money to start a war with Syria not a month ago but when it came down to budget talks "the cupboard is bare" and it was impossible to cut more. I have a list. It's not hard to do. We can start with Congress taking a massive pay cut. Not like it's stopping the crooked scum from taking bribes any way.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the State should have any right to tell you how to live, who you can sleep with or marry, what drugs you do or don't put into your body as a legal, consenting adult, how you spend your free time, how you spend your work time or how you spend your money.
And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.
Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either.
You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.
Just to get a step ahead of the mild gak storm this post will probably cause. You're wrong, I like contributing to society, but society and government are not the same, and we have more then enough of the latter right now. Yes, I am part of a vast conspiracy. Just not a right wing one.
1. The president has signed 14 laws to amend the ACA, and taken five independant steps to delay the law on his own. Sounds ready for prime time to me.
2. The U.S. Congress, the President and large numbers of their campaign donors including large corporations have had their mandatory participation in the ACA waived. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
3. Based on my own research as a healthy individual in my mid20s, the exchanges are actually more expensive for me, even for coverage that is the lesser of my current insurance.
4. Not that it matters, it's raising the costs for the health insurance my company provides, as well as making it nearly impossible for me to seek health insurance on my own outside of the exchanges.(Which you've always been able to do)
5. If I fail to enter into a contract with a private insurance company (giving them large sums of my money) I will be fined by the United States government. So in a situation where I don't have health insurance through work, and can't afford it on the exchanges, I will have MORE of my money taken from me for not choosing to make a purchase. It's nauseating that the Supreme Court decided that /wasn't/ coercion.
6. There have been 17 government shut downs, this one really isn't that surprising, Obama hasn't managed to get a budget passed during his entire presidency, even when both chambers of the U.S. Congress were controlled by the Democratic party.
7. Maybe a lot of these "non-essential government services" should be eliminated on a more permanent basis, they can take things like the NSA with them on the way out.
8. Back to the mandatory thing, wouldn't it make more sense to fine insurance companies for unreasonable rates instead of fining citizens for making a choice to not carry health insurance? (I'm considering it depending on how the fines shake out. Urgent care's cheap around here and I'm healthy enough I don't really need to worry.) It would if you /weren't/ in bed with the insurance companies.
Conclusion: While the ACA has some /very/ good provisions... (Making it easier for high risk individuals and individuals with pre-exisitng conditions to get insurance, etc) however most of it's crap and we should light it on fire, rub Obama and Congress's collective noses in the ashes and tell them to try again till we get either a full socialist system or a full capitalist system. One or the other kids. This half ass crap is not going to cut it.
Thoughts on the shut down.
Good. Let it continue. I hope we default on the debt too. Only 15% of the government is shut down. I wish it was 50% if not more. We don't need this massive, invasive monster that picks your pocket and attempts to threaten you constantly with it's monopoly on force. It's time to lean this big pig up with a chainsaw. To take these morally, mentally bankrupt incompetents that have run social security, medicare/caid and even our own economy into the ground with their disastrous policies down a notch. Everyone blames the banks for the latest recession and the burst of the housing market bubble, instead of blaming the American government for using legislation to force the banks issue all those gakky sub-prime mortgages in the first place.
Another thought, interesting how we had /plenty/ of time and money to start a war with Syria not a month ago but when it came down to budget talks "the cupboard is bare" and it was impossible to cut more. I have a list. It's not hard to do. We can start with Congress taking a massive pay cut. Not like it's stopping the crooked scum from taking bribes any way.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the State should have any right to tell you how to live, who you can sleep with or marry, what drugs you do or don't put into your body as a legal, consenting adult, how you spend your free time, how you spend your work time or how you spend your money.
And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.
Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either.
You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.
Just to get a step ahead of the mild gak storm this post will probably cause. You're wrong, I like contributing to society, but society and government are not the same, and we have more then enough of the latter right now. Yes, I am part of a vast conspiracy. Just not a right wing one.
Good post KK...
Just one thing... we ain't going to default on anything... there's plenty of cashola in the Treasury. At the worst, the administration my have to prioritize payments. But defaulting? Nah.
While Americans were opposed to the shutdown by, indeed, a 3:1 margin, who they blame for the shutdown isn't nearly as clear cut.
True enough. The best numbers that I have access to, and I have access to some pretty damn good numbers, demonstrate that the public blames everyone involved (save itself, but that's another issue). There are other polls, primarily conducted at the behest of news agencies, which show a preference for laying blame at the feet of conservative, House Republicans; but they all have small sample sizes (often under 1000) and dodgy question construction.
If I had to guess, based on available information, I would say that the Republican Party will come out of this slightly worse but that neither side will come out well. Of Course, the individual Republican Congressmen that have involved in this matter may well see a significant boost to their standing at home, as many of them ran on platform built on opposing Obamacare.
While Americans were opposed to the shutdown by, indeed, a 3:1 margin, who they blame for the shutdown isn't nearly as clear cut.
True enough. The best numbers that I have access to, and I have access to some pretty damn good numbers, demonstrate that the public blames everyone involved (save itself, but that's another issue). There are other polls, primarily conducted at the behest of news agencies, which show a preference for laying blame at the feet of conservative, House Republicans; but they all have small sample sizes (often under 1000) and dodgy question construction.
If I had to guess, based on available information, I would say that the Republican Party will come out of this slightly worse but that neither side will come out well. Of Course, the individual Republican Congressmen that have involved in this matter may well see a significant boost to their standing at home, as many of them ran on platform built on opposing Obamacare.
Have you ever seen a study where the participant blames themselves? o.O
I think at the end of the day, it'll be a push. However, with this subject matter, I'd bet the incumbant would be ding'ed more since all of this is ripe for the usual campaign shenanigan.
And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.
Thomas Sowell makes me sad. He is a very bright man who wastes his intelligence on partisan diatribes.
Thomas Sowell wrote:
You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Sowell is a smart man, so I'm going to assume the above is deliberately misleading.
Any bill submitted to the Senate can be amended and returned to the House, including appropriations bills. Simply because a bill originates in a particular chamber does not indicate that said chamber bears no responsibility for subsequent legislative actions pertinent to it.
And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.
Thomas Sowell makes me sad. He is a very bright man who wastes his intelligence on partisan diatribes.
Thomas Sowell wrote:
You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Sowell is a smart man, so I'm going to assume the above is deliberately misleading.
Any bill submitted to the Senate can be amended and returned to the House, including appropriations bills. Simply because a bill originates in a particular chamber does not indicate that said chamber bears no responsibility for subsequent legislative actions pertinent to it.
I think it's to combat the idea whether or not the House could pass individual appropriate bills rather than CRs...
Have you ever seen a study where the participant blames themselves? o.O
Yeah, actually. I've read several articles pertaining to the mutual disposition of people that cohabitate (romantically and otherwise) for extended periods of time, and many of them indicate that such people are more likely to blame themselves than their partner(s).
Granted, this is almost certainly indicative of why they were able to cohabitate for long periods of time, so selection bias is a clear concern.
I think at the end of the day, it'll be a push. However, with this subject matter, I'd bet the incumbant would be ding'ed more since all of this is ripe for the usual campaign shenanigan.
As I said above, it depends on who the incumbent is, and where the incumbent is from. My suspicion is that moderates are likely to take the biggest hits, at least given what we've seen so far.
Alfndrate wrote: So the Republicans want to 1) cut spending on the budget and 2) reopen the government and hopefully 3) defund or delay Obamacare
The Democrats want 1) a higher debt ceiling and 2) reopen the government
Both parties want point 2, the Democrats point 1 is linked the Republicans point 1, the only part that these two cannot meet on is the Repubs point 3.
Both parties want the higher debt ceiling as well. You can't not have a higher debt ceiling, because you aren't going to hit it, and do so fairly soon. Not raising the ceiling means you could, theoretically, avoid defaulting on t-bills but only by basically missing payments to various suppliers like medical practices and infrastructure suppliers. No-one wants government to become like that.
So that leaves us with the equation of things everyone wants;
1) Raise debt ceiling
2) Re-open government
Then we have the list of things Republicans demand (hope to get) in order to agree to the above;
1) Cut budget spending
2) Defund or delay ACA
The Democrats just want the status quo. Republicans are trying to extort some concession out of them to allow the status quo to continue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:
Nah, we won't. Obama isn't up for re-election. That's a major reason this effort is playing out so differently compared to the 2011 debt ceiling extortion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Just one thing... we ain't going to default on anything... there's plenty of cashola in the Treasury. At the worst, the administration my have to prioritize payments. But defaulting? Nah.
"Prioritising payments" is political speak for not paying some creditors. Government would become a bad debt to various medical and service providers, and probably have to cut around total spending to the tune of around 4% of GDP... so hello catastrophic recession. At least, that's what Goldman Sachs thinks is the most likely outcome (the less likely outcome being a default on t-bills, and basically global financial meltdown).
So fething seriously please, just this one time believe me over the Republican noise machine - hitting the debt ceiling is not okay. It's a total fething disaster. Don't let your political party feth around with this, it's serious.
Bill passed by a margin of 407 to zero. That's as bipartisan is it's going to get... ball is in your court Reid.
But, did I understand that correctly... that if passed, those that have been furloughed (not working) would get paid as if they did worked once gov re-opened?
whembly wrote: Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:
Nah, we won't. Obama isn't up for re-election. That's a major reason this effort is playing out so differently compared to the 2011 debt ceiling extortion.
Well, I'm not sure I'd want to be a House incumbent on either side if this stretches on for a while. But the Dems may gain seats if they can define the battle as Obama vs. House Republicans. And I think they stand a good chance of accomplishing that, as long as Obama's okay playing the punching bag role. Figure:
1) Dem communications edge just by having the office of the POTUS
whembly wrote: Just one thing... we ain't going to default on anything... there's plenty of cashola in the Treasury. At the worst, the administration my have to prioritize payments. But defaulting? Nah.
"Prioritising payments" is political speak for not paying some creditors. Government would become a bad debt to various medical and service providers, and probably have to cut around total spending to the tune of around 4% of GDP... so hello catastrophic recession. At least, that's what Goldman Sachs thinks is the most likely outcome (the less likely outcome being a default on t-bills, and basically global financial meltdown).
So fething seriously please, just this one time believe me over the Republican noise machine - hitting the debt ceiling is not okay. It's a total fething disaster. Don't let your political party feth around with this, it's serious.
he CEO of credit rating agency Moody’s ruled out the chance of a U.S. government default, even if an agreement over raising the debt ceiling is not achieved by mid-October. …
“It is extremely unlikely that the Treasury is not going to continue to pay on those securities,” Moody’s CEO Raymond McDaniel said in an interview with CNBC.
“Hopefully it is unlikely that we go past October 17 and fail to raise the debt ceiling, but even if that does happen, then we think that the U.S. Treasury is still going to pay on those Treasury securities,” he added.
Another take... Wallstreet is still up by a percent-ish since the showdown... guess we don't know when we should be concerned till it's too late. *shrugs*
All-in-all, I can see at the very minimum... the debt-ceiling will be raised soon.
Kilkrazy wrote: If your employer chooses to send you home during your contracted hours, he presumably is still obliged to pay you according to contract.
I thought non-government positions were "different" that way. Hence how they sequestration affected many non-government positions were forced to take days off.
gorgon wrote: Well, I'm not sure I'd want to be a House incumbent on either side if this stretches on for a while. But the Dems may gain seats if they can define the battle as Obama vs. House Republicans. And I think they stand a good chance of accomplishing that, as long as Obama's okay playing the punching bag role.
Yeah, interesting point, and it may play out that way. Though Obama is a key part of the Democrat brand so I'm not sure how far you could take it. Better to play the whole thing as what it is - the GOP using government process to extort something out of the Democrats.
he CEO of credit rating agency Moody’s ruled out the chance of a U.S. government default, even if an agreement over raising the debt ceiling is not achieved by mid-October. …
“It is extremely unlikely that the Treasury is not going to continue to pay on those securities,” Moody’s CEO Raymond McDaniel said in an interview with CNBC.
“Hopefully it is unlikely that we go past October 17 and fail to raise the debt ceiling, but even if that does happen, then we think that the U.S. Treasury is still going to pay on those Treasury securities,” he added.
The Moody's guy doesn't disagree with me. The t-bills will be paid, probably. But to do that you'll see other bill payments get delayed/missed, so medical providers, infrastructure providers and all those kind of people, suddenly their most reliable client just became their least reliable. And in fairly short order you'll see cuts to overall spending of about 4% of GDP... that's 4% of total spending just pulled out of the economy at a time when you really need whatever demand you can get.
And that is the best case scenario. And right now there's Republican pundits out there trying to sell a debt default as not that bad a thing... it's fething frightening.
Michelle Bachman wrote:“This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history," Bachmann told Jan Markell, radio host of "Understanding the Times," on Saturday.
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann added later. “And so when we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; that these days would be as the days of Noah. We are seeing that in our time. Yes it gives us fear in some respects because we want the retirement that our parents enjoyed. Well they will, if they know Jesus Christ.”
*blink*
You guys are pretty fraked if this keeps up. I mean, sure, she's always been a nutbar, but declaring this the end of days is going a bit beyond anti-vaxxer bullgak.
Kilkrazy wrote: If your employer chooses to send you home during your contracted hours, he presumably is still obliged to pay you according to contract.
They can force you to use your leave, and if you don't use your leave, welcome to "leave without pay" or "fired". Depends what "contract you assume you have. Every government contractor had stuff pretty much saying "if the client ain't paying us, you ain't got no job." And if your contract ends, you are literally on the street tomorrow.
All the government contractors who are "furlowed" are pissed because they are burning vacation. I have already burned my 2 floating holidays for the partial furlow I got this week since my employer cut back our department to match the % of employees who have no work, which is around 48% of our contracts. So my department of 8 is round-robin days off between the employees so we can keep "work" happening for those who are unaffected but we are not pointlessly overstaffed.
If it goes until next week, besides the meltdown of the world economy, many people may run out of leave and will not only need to start LWOPing, but basically ruin thanksgiving and Christmas leave plans.
djones520 wrote: Next year Bachmann will retire and be quickly forgotten. No thought needs to be given to the drivel that pours from her mouth.
Are you kidding?
It'll be non-stop hilarity from the Bachman Turner Overdrive Power Hour on Fox.
No, it won't. She's going to want to lay low because she is under investigation, and it's in her best interests to be quiet and hope it blows over. The Ethics Committe/FEC one will die when she leaves office if it bears no fruit by then, but the FBI one will almost certainly continue regardless if she's in office or not.
So, does that mean if it passed, they'd get paid for work not done? Essentially a forced paid vacation?
As far as I can tell, no one has clarified, but it is assumed they will be paid for lost time. Not sure if this will be full pay or not, just they will be paid.
So, does that mean if it passed, they'd get paid for work not done? Essentially a forced paid vacation?
As far as I can tell, no one has clarified, but it is assumed they will be paid for lost time. Not sure if this will be full pay or not, just they will be paid.
Okay... cool.
I think they should be paid... it isn't their fault that they're shutdown.
he CEO of credit rating agency Moody’s ruled out the chance of a U.S. government default, even if an agreement over raising the debt ceiling is not achieved by mid-October. …
“It is extremely unlikely that the Treasury is not going to continue to pay on those securities,” Moody’s CEO Raymond McDaniel said in an interview with CNBC.
“Hopefully it is unlikely that we go past October 17 and fail to raise the debt ceiling, but even if that does happen, then we think that the U.S. Treasury is still going to pay on those Treasury securities,” he added.
The Moody's guy doesn't disagree with me. The t-bills will be paid, probably. But to do that you'll see other bill payments get delayed/missed, so medical providers, infrastructure providers and all those kind of people, suddenly their most reliable client just became their least reliable. And in fairly short order you'll see cuts to overall spending of about 4% of GDP... that's 4% of total spending just pulled out of the economy at a time when you really need whatever demand you can get.
And that is the best case scenario. And right now there's Republican pundits out there trying to sell a debt default as not that bad a thing... it's fething frightening.
Uh... Seb... let's entertain this scenario...
The only way we default on the debt is if we fail to pay the interest on the public debt. According to the CBO the interest on the debt will approximately be $237 billion for '14.
The expected revenue for '14 is approximated $3.042 trillion...which is a record if I'm not mistaken (yeah for tax hikes!)
So, given if that's true, that'll leave about $2.805 trillion to spend elsewhere. So, as long as the Treasury pays the shareholders first, hence prioritize, $237 billion to the shareholder of our debt... there's no possibility of default.
Right? Tell me where I'm wrong at this point...
Then, you'd start funding the essential parts that government provides: Social Security & Disability – $848 billion Medicare – $505 billion Medicaid – $298 billion Defense – $582 billion Veterans – $83 billion
That accounts for about $2.3 trillion in expenditures... which leaves approx $500 billion for other government functions.
Granted, this is an overly simplistic view, but I would posit that $500 billion-ish for the remain current department may be insufficient. Those that are harping for passing "clean CR" are doing so, because they don't want to face a situation where they'd feel they need to raise taxes to keep existing programs/services nor push for cuts on existing programs. Passing CR, year to year is a fething horrible method to fund the government.
whembly wrote: So, given if that's true, that'll leave about $2.805 trillion to spend elsewhere. So, as long as the Treasury pays the first, hence prioritize, $237 billion to the shareholder of our debt... there's no possibility of default.
Right? Tell me where I'm wrong at this point...
Here, read this. It's short. There are several articles to this effect but I think this one is the clearest.
whembly wrote: So, given if that's true, that'll leave about $2.805 trillion to spend elsewhere. So, as long as the Treasury pays the first, hence prioritize, $237 billion to the shareholder of our debt... there's no possibility of default.
Right? Tell me where I'm wrong at this point...
Here, read this. It's short. There are several articles to this effect but I think this one is the clearest.
And this is probably the only reason why it's a bad idea:
...that on a technical level, the systems "are designed to make each payment in the order it comes due." Of course systems could always be changed. But look at all the problems Health and Human Services is having in getting the Affordable Care Act computer systems to work. They can't just whip up an entirely new computer system in the next two weeks. (And, of course, given the government shutdown, it would be illegal for them to hire someone to try.)
I don't understand the entire mechanic of how payment is truly disbursed... and if this is true, then it's definitely a compelling argument to raise the debt ceiling and fix this mechanic in the future.
All in all... I think if it comes down to this... no one is sure that it'll be bureaucratically/technically possible to prioritize if desired. And THAT'S what is spookingfolks.
The effect of an executive that can, at their discretion, direct the Treasury to pay, or not pay, the appropriations voted into law by congress would be substantially more dangerous than even the debt ceiling default, IMO. It would essentially destroy the whole teepee of checks and balances that our government rides on.
That idea is like killing a fly with a hand grenade.
Besides, "the systems can be reprogrammed to allow this in time"? I guess I just don't have as much faith in the competence of our government as you do; but my feeling is if they couldn't get the exchanges working with what, 2 years? of lead time, they're not going to be able to flawless reprogram all of our Treasury systems in less than 2 weeks.
This whole discussion isn't even one we should be having, frankly. There is no "mechanic to fix" because there is no reason to assume that we aren't paying our bills on time, and need to rejigger the whole thing to allow us to hold off paying the cable bill while we rummage in the couch to see what we can come up with.
The Debt Ceiling is probably one of the best examples of how our system of government is just completely stupid.
Congress passes bills that basically result in them handing the Administration a bunch of bills and saying "you have to pay this now, it's the law" and then has to pass another bill that lets the Administration either raise money to pay the bills mandated by congress or to borrow the money needed to pay the bills that Congress forces the administration to pay.
It's stupid. There is not a single valid reasonable excuse for a debt ceiling to even exist.
d-usa wrote: It's stupid. There is not a single valid reasonable excuse for a debt ceiling to even exist.
I agree totally. It's very much akin to you and your roommates deciding to order a pizza, and then when the pizza arrives, arguing about if you should pay for the fething pizza.
d-usa wrote: It's stupid. There is not a single valid reasonable excuse for a debt ceiling to even exist.
I agree totally. It's very much akin to you and your roommates deciding to order a pizza, and then when the pizza arrives, arguing about if you should pay for the fething pizza.
Well... it's supposed to inherently force congress to pass balanced-budgets.
But, since we've been passing CR for last 5 years or so without passing formal budgets, really exacerbates the debt-ceiling limits.
Ouze wrote: So are you also saying we should simply remove the debt ceiling?
If Congress get their asses together pass a budget via normal appropriations... sure, it's not needed. Especially since the '74 Budget and Impounment Control Act. Since then, it was easier for congress to deliberate spending/taxing.
But, since we've been passing CR for last 5 years or so without passing formal budgets, really exacerbates the debt-ceiling limits.
Passing CRs vs Budgets doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the debt-ceiling.
It doesn't matter by which process or under what discussions Congress decides to spend money. It doesn't matter if every single person in that entire building agrees to the most wonderful budget ever written in the history of this country, or if a bitter ugly partisan CR passed by a single vote in both houses.
With the debt ceiling Congress spends money without actually giving any money to spend.
But, since we've been passing CR for last 5 years or so without passing formal budgets, really exacerbates the debt-ceiling limits.
Passing CRs vs Budgets doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the debt-ceiling.
It doesn't matter by which process or under what discussions Congress decides to spend money. It doesn't matter if every single person in that entire building agrees to the most wonderful budget ever written in the history of this country, or if a bitter ugly partisan CR passed by a single vote in both houses.
With the debt ceiling Congress spends money without actually giving any money to spend.
So why is this guy against it while he was Senator?
Edit: Further more, you need to know the difference between CR and actual budgets.
Edit: Further more, you need to know the difference between CR and actual budgets.
I know the difference, and neither of them make the debt ceiling any less stupid because both authorize spending without any authorization to actually get any money to spend.
Edit: Further more, you need to know the difference between CR and actual budgets.
I know the difference, and neither of them make the debt ceiling any less stupid because both authorize spending without any authorization to actually get any money to spend.
What I'm saying is that during the deliberation on crafting budget, if the debt ceiling is close, should prompt the congress critters to adjust accordingly... that is, cut spending or raise the debt ceiling... and, voted on so that everyone is on record.
Remember budgets just set spending priorities for the next year. CR is really a appropriation bill based on the previous year, that sets spending levels on "discretionary spending". (mandatory spending are immune to this...)
What's dumb here is that Congress raised the Debt Ceiling SEVEN times in pass six years and we're going through this again. (and something like 15 times under Bush... yeah, those years GOP were spending like drunken sailors). BOTH parties are using it as a major political issue.
whembly wrote: "Thanks to this hypocrite, the debt has DOUBLED in his 1st term"
Blaming Obama for the debt levels in his first term is not fundamentally different from me farting in an elevator just as the doors open, and as you walk in and we ride it downstairs, remarking that ever since you came in here, it smells awful.
(yes, I know you didn't make that argument, I just really wanted to use that analogy).
You gotta remember tho... people are mad at repubs... but when it goes local politics I already see commercials from repubs and democrats in the SAME COMMERCIAL holding hands saying "Hey! Don't blame us, we both wanna open the government! Vote for us! We push to get Virginians working!"
Also, the problem is the people causing this won't lose their seats. So while repubs are in danger, incumbent dems are in just as much danger as pretty much any 'outsider' can beat any incumbent over the head with this.
President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:
"I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."
President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:
"I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."
So what you're saying that it's political. Gotcha (we can agree on that...right?)
whembly wrote: So what you're saying that it's political. Gotcha (we can agree on that...right?)
I'm saying that as of two years ago the president stated that he made a poor choice as a senator. A purely political statement through his vote, which at a cursory glance did not impact the US's financial standing or situation.
The current situation is a whole other ballgame entirely, and thus the two are not directly equal, not to mention that he recognizes a previous mistake. Learning from mistakes is pretty important.
Ideally best done when the standard of living for millions and millions of people isn't in jeopardy.
whembly wrote: So what you're saying that it's political. Gotcha (we can agree on that...right?)
I'm saying that as of two years ago the president stated that he made a poor choice as a senator. A purely political statement through his vote, which at a cursory glance did not impact the US's financial standing or situation.
The current situation is a whole other ballgame entirely, and thus the two are not directly equal, not to mention that he recognizes a previous mistake. Learning from mistakes is pretty important.
Ideally best done when the standard of living for millions and millions of people isn't in jeopardy.
I can certainly empathize with that... give Obama kudos for "evolving" here.
Still... that puts the Congressional-critters (all of them) in a much more severe light.
I'd still say that a more compelling argument to RAISE the debt ceiling is simply that A) The Treasury probably can't technically prioritize payments and B) Even if they could, that optics/precedence would be horrible.
President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:
"I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."
"I think its important to understand that you're a lying hypocrite"
-Frazzled
President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:
"I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."
"I think its important to understand that you're a lying hypocrite"
-Frazzled
Changing your mind and acknowledging that you've changed your mind isn't being a hypocrite.
Frazzled wrote: It is when you're calling the other side terrorists for doing exactly what you did.
No, it really isn't. He's changed his mind and has publicly said that he did. If he just pretended he had his new opinion all along he still wouldn't be a hypocrite, he'd be a cloak-turner, but still not a hypocrite. If he'd said he hasn't changed his mind since then but continued with his current policies he'd be a hypocrite assuming he isn't doing what he can to change his policies to be more in line with his old opinion (which he obviously wouldn't be doing).
Frazzled wrote: It is when you're calling the other side terrorists for doing exactly what you did.
No, it really isn't. He's changed his mind and has publicly said that he did. If he just pretended he had his new opinion all along he still wouldn't be a hypocrite, he'd be a cloak-turner, but still not a hypocrite. If he'd said he hasn't changed his mind since then but continued with his current policies he'd be a hypocrite assuming he isn't doing what he can to change his policies to be more in line with his old opinion (which he obviously wouldn't be doing).
I don't buy it.
I also don't buy it when he villifies the other side for doing the exact same thing he did.
Frazzled wrote: It is when you're calling the other side terrorists for doing exactly what you did.
No, it really isn't. He's changed his mind and has publicly said that he did. If he just pretended he had his new opinion all along he still wouldn't be a hypocrite, he'd be a cloak-turner, but still not a hypocrite. If he'd said he hasn't changed his mind since then but continued with his current policies he'd be a hypocrite assuming he isn't doing what he can to change his policies to be more in line with his old opinion (which he obviously wouldn't be doing).
I don't buy it.
I also don't buy it when he villifies the other side for doing the exact same thing he did.
"I did this, it was bad, you guys really ought to stop doing it." What's so bad about it?
Frazzled wrote: It is when you're calling the other side terrorists for doing exactly what you did.
No, it really isn't. He's changed his mind and has publicly said that he did. If he just pretended he had his new opinion all along he still wouldn't be a hypocrite, he'd be a cloak-turner, but still not a hypocrite. If he'd said he hasn't changed his mind since then but continued with his current policies he'd be a hypocrite assuming he isn't doing what he can to change his policies to be more in line with his old opinion (which he obviously wouldn't be doing).
I don't buy it.
I also don't buy it when he villifies the other side for doing the exact same thing he did.
"I did this, it was bad, you guys really ought to stop doing it." What's so bad about it?
Nothing. What he's actrually saying is:
"People who are doing what I did are terrorists holding the American people hostage. Woops I'm late for my golf game - good thing thats still open."
Are we talking about the golf game he played the evening before the shut down? Because every Facebook post I have seen complaining about him keeping his course open so he can play actually talked about a game played when it was still open anyway.
d-usa wrote: Are we talking about the golf game he played the evening before the shut down? Because every Facebook post I have seen complaining about him keeping his course open so he can play actually talked about a game played when it was still open anyway.
This complaint is dumb... sure, if he played during the shutdown the optics would be bad...
But, this is the same gak that folks complain about Bush when he went to Camp David just about every weekend.
What do you want your president to do? Sit in the Oval office all day? (no one can do that.)
whembly wrote: What do you want your president to do? Sit in the Oval office all day? (no one can do that.)
I sit in a tiny little cubicle every day... I'm sure the President can stomach such a thing But if the golf course was open when things were open, it's not an issue, if it was open after the shutdown, I wanna know why I wasn't invited
whembly wrote: What do you want your president to do? Sit in the Oval office all day? (no one can do that.)
I sit in a tiny little cubicle every day... I'm sure the President can stomach such a thing But if the golf course was open when things were open, it's not an issue, if it was open after the shutdown, I wanna know why I wasn't invited
Heh... my point was that there's ample other stuff to ding Obama... him playing golf is simply dumb IMO.
d-usa wrote: Are we talking about the golf game he played the evening before the shut down? Because every Facebook post I have seen complaining about him keeping his course open so he can play actually talked about a game played when it was still open anyway.
This complaint is dumb... sure, if he played during the shutdown the optics would be bad...
But, this is the same gak that folks complain about Bush when he went to Camp David just about every weekend.
What do you want your president to do? Sit in the Oval office all day? (no one can do that.)
Here's an idea. Stay off the campaign bus/Air Force One to go to another speech for more than two days.
The POTUS -- regardless of party -- should spend all day every day sitting in the Oval Office solving the world's problems through the sheer force of his will and great mental powers.
gorgon wrote: The POTUS -- regardless of party -- should spend all day every day sitting in the Oval Office solving the world's problems through the sheer force of his will and great mental powers.
And thus was born the God-Emperor of Mankind, may his name be forever hallowed.
When the Government reopened Congress suddenly decided to actually work and they became the most productive Congress in history, sending bill after bill to Obama.
The volume of bills caused his auto-pens to fail, requiring him to be plugged into a neuro-connector to keep them going since otherwise he could only sign one bill at a time.
But the machine was designed by the same people that designed the health exchanges, and a glitch meant that once he was connected his body turned into a lifeless shell. But his will kept the auto-pens going and the bills signed. Without him Government as we know it would stop. They were also able to wire him into his PAC, so his guiding light would shine throughout the Internet and allow his followers to find their way to the White House.
The auto-pens kept on writing and signing, but eventually the technology to maintain them was lost. People still try to read the writings of the God-Emperor Obama, and hence Obama's Tarot was born.
d-usa wrote: When the Government reopened Congress suddenly decided to actually work and they became the most productive Congress in history, sending bill after bill to Obama.
The volume of bills caused his auto-pens to fail, requiring him to be plugged into a neuro-connector to keep them going since otherwise he could only sign one bill at a time.
But the machine was designed by the same people that designed the health exchanges, and a glitch meant that once he was connected his body turned into a lifeless shell. But his will kept the auto-pens going and the bills signed. Without him Government as we know it would stop. They were also able to wire him into his PAC, so his guiding light would shine throughout the Internet and allow his followers to find their way to the White House.
The auto-pens kept on writing and signing, but eventually the technology to maintain them was lost. People still try to read the writings of the God-Emperor Obama, and hence Obama's Tarot was born.
I never believed in hell, but you have truly opened my eyes to the possibility of its existence.
Easy E wrote: I heard quotes on NPR this morning of House Republicans saying that a failure to raise the Debt Ceiling would have almost no impact on America.
I am genuinely scared about the consequences from that line of thinking from the same people who shut down the government over Obamacare.
Easy E wrote: I heard quotes on NPR this morning of House Republicans saying that a failure to raise the Debt Ceiling would have almost no impact on America.
I am genuinely scared about the consequences from that line of thinking from the same people who shut down the government over Obamacare.
Easy E wrote: I heard quotes on NPR this morning of House Republicans saying that a failure to raise the Debt Ceiling would have almost no impact on America.
I am genuinely scared about the consequences from that line of thinking from the same people who shut down the government over Obamacare.
I'm fairly certain that they don't read things...
We are talking about these people right?
I hope that quote isn't true...
It's a true quote...
Smokey Joe wrote:"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."
Smokey Joe wrote:"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."
Damn, the world economy is going to go in the tank again next week, isn't it?
At least you didn't call us "terrorist" and "wanting to paint your house in pepto-pink". 
