Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Nobody gets paid if there is nobody working to actually print the checks.

Essential just means that you earn money and are required to show up. You might work X hours for $Y an hour, but that doesn't mean you actually get a pay check unless the person that processes your pay is also essential.

Military pay is handled, processed, etc, by military personnel. We will still be getting paid. Twenty some odd shut downs in the last 40 years, we've been paid in every single one.

So the whole "the house passed a bill that guarantees military pay in case of a shutdown" was a giant waste of time and a Republican lie?

Military leadership saying "pay check will be delayed if the shutdown is long enough" are just lying out their teeth?

Edit: and what are these 20-something shutdowns in the last 40 years?

**Jihadin**

Hoping for a shutdown just for the general public to get pissed and then reelect new blood into the House and Senate

**agnosto**

The interesting thing about recent developments is that House republicans are losing votes. This last bill they sent to the Senate was minus 12 republicans (228-201). The senate republicans are voting along party lines because they know that the democrat majority will do the rejecting for them; a safe way to save face.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Nobody gets paid if there is nobody working to actually print the checks.

Essential just means that you earn money and are required to show up. You might work X hours for $Y an hour, but that doesn't mean you actually get a pay check unless the person that processes your pay is also essential.

Military pay is handled, processed, etc, by military personnel. We will still be getting paid. Twenty some odd shut downs in the last 40 years, we've been paid in every single one.

So the whole "the house passed a bill that guarantees military pay in case of a shutdown" was a giant waste of time and a Republican lie?

Military leadership saying "pay check will be delayed if the shutdown is long enough" are just lying out their teeth?

Edit: and what are these 20-something shutdowns in the last 40 years?

Well, there either has to be a bill that is passed, or the President simply has to sign an executive order making it happen.

The House has pushed that bill, I haven't checked to see if the Senate has gotten off their asses on that one yet. And the President was making a big stink about how we wouldn't get paid... wouldn't surprise me if his lame ass does hold us over the fire to score some political points. Clinton did the executive order in the shut down during his Presidency, no interruption to our pay then.

Edit: Senate has approved the bill for pay as well. Just up to the Pres to sign it now I guess. So our pay is entirely in his hands now, either way. Lets see whose really playing politics here.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:

Edit: and what are these 20-something shutdowns in the last 40 years?

Happened quite a bit under Tip O'neil's tenure...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/26/sorry-chris-matthews-tip-oneill-and-ronald-reagan-were-terrible-at-averting-shutdowns/
Today's "Playbook" e-mail from Politico starts with an excerpt from Chris Matthews's new book, "Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked," about the relationship between Matthews's former boss, House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.), and President Ronald Reagan.

Matthews argues that O'Neill and Reagan's relationship represented a now-gone era of bipartisan cooperation, where things got done. "During this period, government met its deadlines," Matthews writes. "Members of Congress listened and acted. Debates led to solutions. Shutdowns were averted."

The government shut down seven times when O'Neill was speaker and Reagan was president. And they were real shutdowns, too, given that they occurred after Jimmy Carter's attorney general, Benjamin Civiletti, issued opinions in 1980 and 1981 saying that funding gaps had to lead to at least partial shutdowns of government functions. Five quasi-shutdowns happened before those opinions under O'Neill's watch, with Carter as president. And one more shutdown happened under Reagan and O'Neill's successor as speaker, Jim Wright.

If your metric for quality governance is "ability to avoid shutdowns," then Reagan is absolutely the worst president of the modern era. The government shut down eight times under his watch, more than any other president, representing nearly half of all shutdowns that have occurred under the modern budget process. And O'Neill is an even worse speaker, if that's our criterion. He presided over 12 funding gaps or shutdowns, or almost 71 percent of all shutdowns to date.

Obviously, there are better governance metrics than that. But if Matthews wants to make the case that the Reagan/O'Neill era was some golden age of quality government, he really shouldn't bring up government shutdowns.

Related: All 17 government previous government shutdowns, why they happened and how they ended.

**d-usa**

I'm just lucky that politicians realized after the last shut down that kicking sick vets out of the hospital is bad PR no matter how hard you try to spin that. So we will still have funding for a while.

**whembly**

Dang... I thought they'd work something out...

There will be no Continuing Resolution tonight. There will be a partial shutdown of non-essential services.

All because Reid & Senate Democrats refused to have Congress treated like ordinary citizens as to Obamacare exchange subsidies, and refused the 1yr individual mandate like Big Businesses. Plus, every other aspect of the government would be fully funded w/o any additional "cuts" many conservatives were clamoring for... I thought that this was the BEST compromise here.

Democrats “shut the government” to protect privilege, because their pride could not let them compromise.

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:
Well, I'm fully putting the blame on the Democrats for this one.

The Republicans have sent several things to them. Remove Obamacare. Push it back a bit. Just pull this tax out of it. They keep giving ground, trying to find a middle ground. Hell, they are DOING something.

The Republican position is 'give us stuff or we'll blow up the economy'. Looking for a middle ground position 'give us some of our stuff and we won't blow up the economy' is fething madness.

You don't run a country letting one party hold the economy to ransom every year or so. What the Republicans are attempting to do is an absolute disaster for decent governance.

**BaronIveagh**

d-usa wrote:
I'm just lucky that politicians realized after the last shut down that kicking sick vets out of the hospital is bad PR no matter how hard you try to spin that. So we will still have funding for a while.

Given the conditions in some VA hospitals, they probably have better odds recovering on the street....

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Well, I'm fully putting the blame on the Democrats for this one.

The Republicans have sent several things to them. Remove Obamacare. Push it back a bit. Just pull this tax out of it. They keep giving ground, trying to find a middle ground. Hell, they are DOING something.

The Republican position is 'give us stuff or we'll blow up the economy'. Looking for a middle ground position 'give us some of our stuff and we won't blow up the economy' is fething madness.

You don't run a country letting one party hold the economy to ransom every year or so. What the Republicans are attempting to do is an absolute disaster for decent governance.

Disasterous? Nah...

Headaches? You betcha.

Oh... this is a really old tactic Seb... don't buy into the meme that this'll will be armageddon.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Is it because they're right?

It's because the Democrats are right. Well, not that the Democrats are right, but that the Republicans are really, really wrong about this.

You don't hold the economy to ransom to force the delay or repeal of legislation your side doesn't like. You get the numbers and you repeal that sucker... and if you can't get the numbers then you have to accept it.

I mean, think about what this means about any time in the future where there's a split between the two houses. Whichever party happens to be more insane at that point in time simply puts a gun against the head of the economy and says 'if you don't give us what we want then we're gonna pull the trigger'.

Stable government really fething matters.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Is it because they're right?

It's because the Democrats are right. Well, not that the Democrats are right, but that the Republicans are really, really wrong about this.

You don't hold the economy to ransom to force the delay or repeal of legislation your side doesn't like. You get the numbers and you repeal that sucker... and if you can't get the numbers then you have to accept it.

I mean, think about what this means about any time in the future where there's a split between the two houses. Whichever party happens to be more insane at that point in time simply puts a gun against the head of the economy and says 'if you don't give us what we want then we're gonna pull the trigger'.

Stable government really fething matters.

Nah... they're wrong here.

What's so wrong with the last CR? A) Funding the government fulling. B) Remove the Congress critter's exemption and place them on the same subsidy scale as everyone else, and finally C) Delay the individual mandate for 1 year, ala the way Obama unilaterally gave Big Business.

What's wrong with that?

EDIT: Catch up you slow poke! That was posted ages ago...

**sebster**

Durandal wrote:
Republicans were elected, in part, to repeal obamacare. It isn't there fault for doing what they were elected for.

There are proper ways to do things, and insane, economically crippling ways to do things. Voting for repeal, and getting that repeal through the house, senate and presidency is the proper way. And if you don't get the numbers, well keep campaigning and you'll get them... or you don't then maybe ACA isn't as unpopular and you'd hoped.

But just saying that unless the other side caves then you'll blow up the economy is something people shouldn't accept from any political group.

It wouldn't be an issue if the IRS hadn't suppressed any organization with "anti-obama rhetoric". The senate would likely be in republican hands as well, and the bill would have gone to obama.

Are you seriously claiming that if it wasn't for the IRS then O'Donnel would have beaten Reid? That's imaginative, I'll give you that.

**BaronIveagh**

Once upon a time, men ran for office because they actually gave a damn about the welfare of the common person.

Needless to say that didn't last long.

Personally, I think that Congressmen should be drafted. You sign up at 18 and if your number comes up, you get three tours in Washington DC, plus three weeks of basic. This way, power is kept away from anyone who wants it.

And that's a wrap, folks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24343698

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
Maybe the Republicans know that ObamaCare won't be the giant Freedom-and-Job Killing ObamaSatan that they painted it to be for the last 5 years?

Yeah, I've thought the same thing. If the other side puts in place crappy legislation then you tell everyone that policy really sucks, and you make sure the other side owns it completely, then you sit there and watch the voters come to your side as they suffer under that policy.

But if you suspect the policy isn't actually all that bad and a lot of people's lives will actually improve under... then you've got a real problem. The kind of problem that'll make you attempt anything you can think of to prevent that policy getting put in place.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Takes two to tango D.

But, I can play that game too!
House: "Pass the budget with a CR defunding the Affordable Care Act".
Reid: "No."
House: "Um... alright... will you change the senate rules that require you to get a few more votes to strike the defunding langange?"
Reid: "Nope."
House: "Fine. We worked all weekend to come up with a solution-will you at least delay the ACA for a year for individual like you did for big business":
Reid and Obama: "No."

Now who's the "Party of NO" now?

"Give me a million dollars or I'll burn your house down."
"No."
Okay, how about half a million dollars?"
"Nope."
"Well you're just being negative."

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Maybe the Republicans know that ObamaCare won't be the giant Freedom-and-Job Killing ObamaSatan that they painted it to be for the last 5 years?

Yeah, I've thought the same thing. If the other side puts in place crappy legislation then you tell everyone that policy really sucks, and you make sure the other side owns it completely, then you sit there and watch the voters come to your side as they suffer under that policy.

But if you suspect the policy isn't actually all that bad and a lot of people's lives will actually improve under... then you've got a real problem. The kind of problem that'll make you attempt anything you can think of to prevent that policy getting put in place.

I actually agree with that tactic moreso that what's going on now...

Know why? Because it's actually happening now. Easy decision.

However, the Republicans (and Democrats) are beholden to their constituents.

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:

However, the Republicans (and Democrats) are beholden to their constituents.

In theory. However, with all the redistricting and gerrymandering that has gone on, try and get anyone else on the ballot but the incumbents.

**d-usa**

BaronIveagh wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'm just lucky that politicians realized after the last shut down that kicking sick vets out of the hospital is bad PR no matter how hard you try to spin that. So we will still have funding for a while.

Given the conditions in some VA hospitals, they probably have better odds recovering on the street....

Good for them when the money runs out then.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
You and I have different views as who's the hostage.

Exactly who is holding the economy hostage isn't really up for debate.

To get the Democrats to agree to a repeal or delay of the ACA, the Republicans are threatening to blow up the economy. That's a pretty clear case of 'do what we want, or we'll do something terrible' ie hostage taking.

**Seaward**

Manchu wrote:
This is, I think, the least likely thing to happen. Failure clearly does not dissuade libertarians. We're talking about a group looking forward to the apocalypse.

You really love just making gak up, don't you?

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
You and I have different views as who's the hostage.

Exactly who is holding the economy hostage isn't really up for debate.

To get the Democrats to agree to a repeal or delay of the ACA, the Republicans are threatening to blow up the economy. That's a pretty clear case of 'do what we want, or we'll do something terrible' ie hostage taking.

"Blow up the economy"?

o.O

Are you saying that a Federal Bureaucracy is the sole reason that this economy is functioning? Even if that's true... what does that tell you?

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:

"Blow up the economy"?

o.O

Are you saying that a Federal Bureaucracy is the sole reason that this economy is functioning? Even if that's true... what does that tell you?

Well, sending almot a million people home without a paycheck sure isn't going to help it. I'll observe though that government spending is a sizable player in the US domestic manufacturing. The ripple effects for this could be large indeed, depending on how long it goes on.

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

"Blow up the economy"?

o.O

Are you saying that a Federal Bureaucracy is the sole reason that this economy is functioning? Even if that's true... what does that tell you?

Well, sending almot a million people home without a paycheck sure isn't going to help it. I'll observe though that government spending is a sizable player in the US domestic manufacturing. The ripple effects for this could be large indeed, depending on how long it goes on.

Well yeah... that's the point.

But, "blowing it up" as in, "tanking it"? eh... we'll see eh?

I'm sure the first "painful" thing that comes out of this, both sides will work together to get something done.

**Grey Templar**

Its still not going to sink the Economy. Realistically we are talking about prolonging this recovery, which is already pretty darn sluggish as it is. So really not a major impact.

And it won't be shut down for long. We'll have a spending bill fairly soon, one way or the other.

**Andrew1975**

Get thee glass eyes,
And like a scurvy politician seem
To see the things thou dost not.

I hate them all. Lets burn it down and start fresh!

**KalashnikovMarine**

It's after midnight... Are the roads still out there? Physics still seems to be working, as is gravity, but I'm afraid to really check anything... Has the rampant looting and the fall of the cities begun yet? Hold me! Oh government come back quickly!

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Uh... no... they gained Senate seats and had balanced budgets following that shutdown.

You're picking and choosing your facts there. The Republicans lost a couple of seats in the House of Representatives, and if you include the special election for the Senate in Oregon, then their overall gain was only one seat. Which is pretty much a breakeven result.

But the real point is to look at polling number for Democrats, Republicans and Clinton before and after the shut down. Before the shutdown Republicans were looking absolutely dominant, but lost all of that with the shutdown. They squandered what could have been a massive result in 1996.

Which is, of course, why no-one attempted a shutdown for more than a decade after that - it costs votes. They're attempting it again because the GOP has been overtaken by the crazies, ideas about good governance and even basic political calculus don't register anymore - all that matters is proving you're committed to the cause.

**BaronIveagh**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Has the rampant looting and the fall of the cities begun yet?

Oh, if only....

If it deos reach that point, you'll be able to address me as the Lord Baron von Pittsburgh. Under my Iron Rule of the Steel City, Steelers games will continue uninterrupted if I have to put a tank on every street corner. Wasteland mutants and refugees from south of the Mason-Dixon need not enter.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Uh... no... they gained Senate seats and had balanced budgets following that shutdown.

You're picking and choosing your facts there. The Republicans lost a couple of seats in the House of Representatives, and if you include the special election for the Senate in Oregon, then their overall gain was only one seat. Which is pretty much a breakeven result.

But the real point is to look at polling number for Democrats, Republicans and Clinton before and after the shut down. Before the shutdown Republicans were looking absolutely dominant, but lost all of that with the shutdown. They squandered what could have been a massive result in 1996.

Which is, of course, why no-one attempted a shutdown for more than a decade after that - it costs votes. They're attempting it again because the GOP has been overtaken by the crazies, ideas about good governance and even basic political calculus don't register anymore - all that matters is proving you're committed to the cause.

Uh no... that was the byproduct of the superior Clinton engine. Really... Bill Clinton is a fething awesome politician. Like Obama... only better.

However, if you didn't know any better, people thought that the shutdown in '95 was disasterous... it wasn't.

You also forgot about Welfare Reform that the Democrats SWORE would never, EVER be touched. Sounds familiar, eh?

**Andrew1975**

They ought to do this like the Vatican, Lock them in until they can get it done. I say take it a few steps further.
After one day, no pay
After 2 days no access to the outside world (tv, internet, phones)
Day three, no food or water including showers and toilets
Day four, start bringing them sharp sticks.

I was watching the whole "Green eggs and ham" filibuster the other day. Don't they see how stupid that makes us as a society look, that our politicians can and do play such childish games?

At least English parliament is entertaining.