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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Tell me what Reid/Obama has offered.

Who cares what they've offered? The republicans are not negotiating about the budget, they're just lowering their demands on an unrelated issue that they're holding the budget hostage over. Until the republican party drops their unrelated demands and participates in good-faith negotiation over the budget (and only the budget) there's no point in making counter-offers.

What we have now is the equivalent of a kidnapper who keeps sending different ransom notes: $1 million, then $500k, then $250k, etc. And you don't treat that as a legitimate negotiation and try to come to a fair agreement on a ransom demand somewhere in the middle.

Maybe I missed something, but how is the funding for the ACA (or any other law that requires appropriations to be enforced/implemented) or requires taxes to be collected an unrelated issue to the budget and not fair game for the budget axe? How is whether to move forward with the medical device tax or to repeal it (or put a moratorium on it) not fair game? How come only the Senate and the President get to say what can and cannot be included in the bill and therefore is up for discussion (negotiation) when the constitution makes it quite clear that the House has a say?

While some of you may not like it, this is part of the political process in this country. It has happened before, and will happen again.
So instead of wasting time arguing whether the question can even be discussed, how about putting some of this fantastic brain power into coming up with a solution.
As they say, if you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but how is the funding for the ACA (or any other law that requires appropriations to be enforced/implemented) or requires taxes to be collected an unrelated issue to the budget and not fair game for the budget axe?

Because the budget is merely a means to an end on that issue. The republican party has been doing everything they can to kill the ACA, and this is just one more attempt. The fact that some part of it might vaguely have to do with the budget is purely a coincidence.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Tell me what Reid/Obama has offered.

Who cares what they've offered? The republicans are not negotiating about the budget, they're just lowering their demands on an unrelated issue that they're holding the budget hostage over. Until the republican party drops their unrelated demands and participates in good-faith negotiation over the budget (and only the budget) there's no point in making counter-offers.

What we have now is the equivalent of a kidnapper who keeps sending different ransom notes: $1 million, then $500k, then $250k, etc. And you don't treat that as a legitimate negotiation and try to come to a fair agreement on a ransom demand somewhere in the middle.

Maybe I missed something, but how is the funding for the ACA (or any other law that requires appropriations to be enforced/implemented) or requires taxes to be collected an unrelated issue to the budget and not fair game for the budget axe? How is whether to move forward with the medical device tax or to repeal it (or put a moratorium on it) not fair game? How come only the Senate and the President get to say what can and cannot be included in the bill and therefore is up for discussion (negotiation) when the constitution makes it quite clear that the House has a say?

While some of you may not like it, this is part of the political process in this country. It has happened before, and will happen again.
So instead of wasting time arguing whether the question can even be discussed, how about putting some of this fantastic brain power into coming up with a solution.
As they say, if you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

The house did have its say, it voted for the Affordable health care act just like the senate did. It wasn't the same house, but too bad that is our democracy for you. This is republicans playing the only card they have and they know it. They don't have the votes to override President Obama's veto, let alone the votes to pass the repel of ACA in the Senate. So if they just try to repel ACA it will fail plan and simple, and has over 40 times. The example of the kidnapper is close. It is more like the kidnappers rather than taking the kid steal the valuables out the person's home and then try to ransom them for the persons kid. No parent would trade their kid for a toaster.

This situation reminds me Willy Wonka (played by Gene Wilder) speech "SO YOU GET NOTHING, YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQNl4V_R88

So sorry republicans, you lost. You lost when you failed to stop the bill from being passed, you lost in 2010 when you failed to win over of the senate to give a snowballs chance in hell of passing the repel bill without using extortion of a crisis, you failed to unseat Obama, and now the exchanges that you hate so much are open for business. Don't like it, TOO BAD. That is democracy, Democracy means you lose some times.

Also why would Obama give up the ACA anyway? Health care reform has been the white whale to the democrats for generations. Even going back to the early progressives in the early 20th century or FDR they have all tried and FAILED (FAILED is the important part of that last sentence). The last Democrat, Clinton tried health care reform and failed. Obama has finally killed that white whale, and you are asking him to spare it and let go. That ain't happening.

You know, it’s worth noting that until Reid became Majority Leader, individual spending bills were the norm...

Reid tabled individual stopgap funding for NIH, Veteran Pay and Parks today.

o.O

If there is a majority in the senate willing to open the government, and a majority in the house willing to open the government, and a vocal minority in the house is preventing the majority from passing these clear bills...then who is the group keeping the government closed?

 d-usa wrote:
If there is a majority in the senate willing to open the government, and a majority in the house willing to open the government, and a vocal minority in the house is preventing the majority from passing these clear bills...then who is the group keeping the government closed?

Duh, it's obviously the guys who are willing to pass the bills.

The guy refusing to put it to a vote is obviously trying to end the government shutdown as quickly as possible, otherwise he would do something like propose a vote, because everyone knows that allowing a budget bill to be voted upon that would be passed by a majority, and that would end the shutdown, is quite obviously attempting to prolong the shutdown. It's simple logic!

This is a cool info graphics:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/30/us/politics/the-back-and-forth-over-the-shutdown.html?_r=0



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If there is a majority in the senate willing to open the government, and a majority in the house willing to open the government, and a vocal minority in the house is preventing the majority from passing these clear bills...then who is the group keeping the government closed?

If that is truly accurate and not some spin, then the speaker would have no problem putting up the bill to do so...

The moderate republicans in the house are on record that they will vote for a clean CR, giving the Dems and Moderates the majority to pass it.

For somebody that it so up to date on everything and clearly not partisan it is kind of surprising that you didn't know that .

And no, Mr. Speaker has not put it to a vote because the majority of the caucus (aka: a minority of the entire house) are against it

 d-usa wrote:
The moderate republicans in the house are on record that they will vote for a clean CR, giving the Dems and Moderates the majority to pass it.

For somebody that it so up to date on everything and clearly not partisan it is kind of surprising that you didn't know that .

And no, Mr. Speaker has not put it to a vote because the majority of the caucus (aka: a minority of the entire house) are against it

*google-fu*

Apparently, you're right, albeit the statement mislead me.

So... party control doesn't matter huh? Or only when it's convenient for you?

 whembly wrote:

*google-fu*

Apparently, you're right, albeit the statement mislead me.

So... party control doesn't matter huh? Or only when it's convenient for you?

Yea the tally is at 17 Republicans ready to jump ship link

The tea party has a lot more power on this than you think but really the current speaker is really weak. Most of the moderates and Boehner are afraid of primary challenges next year if they budge, seriously they are

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The moderate republicans in the house are on record that they will vote for a clean CR, giving the Dems and Moderates the majority to pass it.

For somebody that it so up to date on everything and clearly not partisan it is kind of surprising that you didn't know that .

And no, Mr. Speaker has not put it to a vote because the majority of the caucus (aka: a minority of the entire house) are against it

*google-fu*

Apparently, you're right, albeit the statement mislead me.

So... party control doesn't matter huh? Or only when it's convenient for you?

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

 Blood Hawk wrote:

The tea party has a lot more power on this than you think but really the current speaker is really weak. Most of the moderates and Boehner are afraid of primary challenges next year if they budge, seriously they are

Which is really a shame, as at the National level, it seems that moderation is the key to a healthy/successfully ran country. Obviously the days of statesmen like Mark O. Hatfield are gone, but it'd be nice to see some politicians play along those lines, as opposed to the latest sound byte.

And having the Moderates vote with the democrats to open the government would really help the GOP brand with the general public. But the general public doesn't matter in a system that is gerrymandered to your party and relies on a primary system that caters to the extreme.

 d-usa wrote:
And having the Moderates vote with the democrats to open the government would really help the GOP brand with the general public. But the general public doesn't matter in a system that is gerrymandered to your party and relies on a primary system that caters to the extreme.

Sad but true.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The moderate republicans in the house are on record that they will vote for a clean CR, giving the Dems and Moderates the majority to pass it.

For somebody that it so up to date on everything and clearly not partisan it is kind of surprising that you didn't know that .

And no, Mr. Speaker has not put it to a vote because the majority of the caucus (aka: a minority of the entire house) are against it

*google-fu*

Apparently, you're right, albeit the statement mislead me.

So... party control doesn't matter huh? Or only when it's convenient for you?

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

The crab people obviously...

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

Why must it always be a CR?

Couldn't the House pass, ya know, budget bills in a normal fashion? You know, the way they used to do it before Reid became Senate Leader.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

Why must it always be a CR?

Couldn't the House pass, ya know, budget bills in a normal fashion? You know, the way they used to do it before Reid became Senate Leader.

Were budget bills always passed piecemeal with a focus on buzz topics?

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

Why must it always be a CR?

Couldn't the House pass, ya know, budget bills in a normal fashion? You know, the way they used to do it before Reid became Senate Leader.

Were budget bills always passed piecemeal with a focus on buzz topics?

Generally speaking... yeah.

Around a dozen separate appropriations bills, each covering one or two federal agencies would make their way through Congress. Some would pass through Congress easily. Others took much longer and witnessed more sustained, impassioned debate.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

Why must it always be a CR?

Couldn't the House pass, ya know, budget bills in a normal fashion? You know, the way they used to do it before Reid became Senate Leader.

Why can't 800,000 people go to work tomorrow instead of having a shutdown government because one man won't let the government open back up?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody is talking about party control.

There is a minority in one house, a republican minority, preventing a vote that would reopen the government tonight.

So who is keeping it closed right now?

Why must it always be a CR?

Couldn't the House pass, ya know, budget bills in a normal fashion? You know, the way they used to do it before Reid became Senate Leader.

Why can't 800,000 people go to work tomorrow instead of having a shutdown government because one man won't let the government open back up?

Because that one man, at the behest of his political power, wants actual budgets passed, as opposed to CR.

In the normal process there are 11-14ish appropriations bills, which start in the House, then go to the Senate... each one funding a different parts of Government.

Currently 4 have passed the House, and are sitting in the Senate.... while 7 or so have been voted out of committee but have yet to pass the House...

So Boehmer is keeping the country shut down.

Despite a majority in both chambers wanting to pass this bill and a president who wants to sign it.

A speaker who wants a budget suddenly and who is not willing to vote on a CR today despite sending how many CRs to the senate?

Who is keeping the government closed now?

 djones520 wrote:
Well, given that the GOP views the ACA has holding America hostage, i'd say maybe your onto something, but your walking the wrong path.

Yeah, and when we get to the point where a law expanding healthcare coverage is seen as 'holding America hostage', it becomes pretty simple to realise that the people holding such a belief are fairly insane, and basically the problem.

Remember, it's the most insidious law ever known to man.

Ever!

Meanwhile, a quarter of voters blame “Republican leaders such as John Boehner” (25 percent) for the shutdown and about the same number point the finger at President Obama (24 percent). Some 17 percent blame “Tea Party Republicans such as Ted Cruz.” Just 8 percent blame “Democratic leaders such as Harry Reid.” Another 20 percent think all of them are responsible for the shutdown.

From Fox.

I'm going with the 20%

Edit

How many Republicans voted for ACA?
RomneyCare was aimed at a certain percentage in what state?

 whembly wrote:
Reid/Obama want an ALL or NOTHING approach. Why? Because they don't want to fething NEGOTIATE anything.

They don't want to have to negotiate just to keep basic government running. Who the feth would?

I mean, consider if a year from now the Democrats decide they want to do the same. They say they're going to block any continuing funding resolution unless Republicans agree to give free puppies to all illegal immigrants. Are you going to sit there insisting that Republicans need to negotiate, that in order to just keep basic government running they have to concede things to the Democrats? No, it's ridiculous. Absolutely fething ridiculous.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Notice something here?

Both sides went back and forth.

Yeah, because there were actual things that both sides wanted to change the status quo. One side wanted an increase education, and the other an increase in defence. And so there was an actual negotiation in place, with both sides trying to get as much of their particular thing as they could. That such negotiation dragged on long enough to force a shut down is just part of that.

But here we've got one side asking for changes to the status quo, and saying while they're willing to reduce their demands, they aren't even considering the idea that the Democrats might also have demands of their own. It's just 'give us some of the stuff we want, or government shutdown.'

And so at the end of deal in all those cases above, both sides walk away with some but not all of the things they wanted. But in this case, the issue is purely one of how much the Republicans can get. There's no notion of the Democrats getting anything but a return to the status quo.

Unbelievable. I hate it when Veterans are used to paint which side with a black eye.

 whembly wrote:
Absolutely not. This has been a boon for Obama specifically.

Guess what we're not talking about:
-No more scandals
-Obamacare implementation
-Syria / Russia

Yep. Ideologues and true believers rarely make good politicians.

 Jihadin wrote:
Unbelievable. I hate it when Veterans are used to paint which side with a black eye.

What's this in reference to?

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but how is the funding for the ACA (or any other law that requires appropriations to be enforced/implemented) or requires taxes to be collected an unrelated issue to the budget and not fair game for the budget axe?

It is fair game, when it's part of a process of tit for tat - I agree to reduce/delay/repeal ACA, and you agree to raise taxes on the ultra-rich or something else like that.

But what we have hear is 'you agree to give me some of my demands, and I agree to let government continue operating'. Which is not a negotiation at all.

So instead of wasting time arguing whether the question can even be discussed, how about putting some of this fantastic brain power into coming up with a solution.

Any solution that gives up anything to the Republicans will only mean that this nonsense will happen again, and again, any time that one party or the other thinks it drive through reform simply by playing chicken on government shutdown/the debt ceiling, and so it is no solution at all.

Funding for VA. VA announce they had enough fund to run operations for three weeks at current rate a couple days before Obama said that Veterans are taking a hit due to lack of funding from Congress. VA is now tap dancing. Either someone can't do math in VA financial office, Shinseki boloed out his arse like the black beret, or someone playing games

edit

Some odd reason I like it when single budget bill per Department goes through. Cuts down on the pork barrel projects mayhem.