xole wrote:

I'm surprised no one's gotten shot over this mess.(Can I say that? I'm not sure if I can say that.)

 xole wrote:

Who will, of course, be completely different from the current batch.

 djones520 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-cantor-divided-government-requires-bipartisan-negotiation/2013/10/08/98f6b7e6-3062-11e3-bbed-a8a60c601153_print.html

House Majority Leader has some words to say.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2013

Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59): keeps the government running at current spending levels and strengthens our economy by defunding the president’ health care law. (Passed in the House 230-189)

SEPTEMBER 28, 2013

Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59): keeps the government running at current spending levels and strengthens our economy by delaying the president’s health care law by one year, and permanently repealing ObamaCare’s tax on pacemakers and children’s hearing aids. (Amendment #1 Passed 248-174 | Amendment #2 Passed 231-192)

Pay Our Military Act (H.R. 3210): ensures our troops would be paid in the event of a government shutdown. (Passed in the House 423-0)

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

Continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 59): keeps the government running at current spending levels; ensures there’s no special treatment for Congress under the president’s health care law; and delays ObamaCare’s individual mandate, providing all Americans with the same relief the president has given big businesses. (Passed in the House 228-201)

Continuing resolution (H. Res. 368): insists on plan to fund the government running at current spending levels; ensure there’s no special treatment for Congress under the president’s health care law; delays ObamaCare’s individual mandate, providing all Americans with the same relief the president has given big businesses; and requests a formal House-Senate conference to resolve differences. (Passed in the House 228-199)

OCTOBER 2, 2013

Provide Local Funding for the District of Columbia Act (H.J. Res. 71): allows our nation’s capital to continue operating using its own funding. (Passed in the House by voice vote).

Open Our Nation's Parks and Museums Act (H.J. Res. 70): opens all of our national parks and museums, including the WWII Memorial in Washington, DC that was initially closed to veterans by the administration. (Passed in the House 252-173)

Research for Lifesaving Cures Act (H.J. Res. 73): provides funding for the National Institute of Health, which is responsible for lifesaving medical innovations and cancer research. (Passed in the House 254-171)

OCTOBER 3, 2013

Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (H.R. 3230): ensures the government shutdown doesn’t affect pay for our National Guard and Reserve. (Passed in the House 265-160)
- See more at:

Honoring Our Promise to America’s Veterans Act (H.J. Res. 72): provides immediate funding for critical veterans benefits and services, including disability claims, education and training, and more. (Passed in the House 259-157)

OCTOBER 4, 2013

National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Act (H.J. Res 85): provides immediate funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (Passed in the House 247-164)

Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act (H.J. Res. 75): provides immediate funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, which “serves nearly 9 million mothers and young children,” and provides “vital nutrition that poor families might otherwise be unable to afford.” (Passed in the House 244-164)

OCTOBER 5, 2013

Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act (H.R. 3223): provides for compensation of federal employees furloughed due to the government shutdown. This is similar to bipartisan legislation enacted during previous shutdowns. (Passed in the House 407-0)

OCTOBER 7, 2013

Food and Drug Safety Act (H.J.Res. 77): provides immediate funding for the Food and Drug Administration. (Passed in the House 235-162)

OCTOBER 8, 2013

Head Start for Low-Income Children Act (H.J.Res. 84): provides critical education funding to support Head Start programs across the country. (Passed in the House 248-168)

Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act (H.R. 3273): creates a bipartisan, bicameral working group charged with beginning negotiations, resolving the differences between the House and Senate, and helping re-open the government and address our debt. (Passed in the House 224-197)

Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act (H.J. Res. 89): ensures that federal employees who are still on the job during Democrats' shutdown are paid on time. (Passed in the House 420-0)

 Jimsolo wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
For all the Jon Steward haters, this was a good interview yesterday:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/jon-stewart-accuses-kathleen-sebelius-of-lying-to-him-about-obamacare/

We probably take away different things from it (is business getting a year stupid or is it stupid that people don't), but I think both sides can agree that she did not look good or even honest.

Edit: Just realized I didn't actually post the link...

If you're going into an interview about a system with such a glaring flaw, you'd think you'd at least have a competent lie to cover it. She didn't. I was kind of surprised.

Side note, just found out over the weekend that many government employees, while 'back to work,' aren't actually being paid.

 djones520 wrote:
Everyone likes their congressman, they just hate everyone else.

 whembly wrote:


Snip.... a bunch of stuff about how "helpful" the House has been to get the Government running again.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Snip.... a bunch of stuff about how "helpful" the House has been to get the Government running again.

Yes, clearly it isn't the Houses fault. Afterall, aren't you the one who is fond of pointing out that the House is the ones with the power of the purse?

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Snip.... a bunch of stuff about how "helpful" the House has been to get the Government running again.

Yes, clearly it isn't the Houses fault. Afterall, aren't you the one who is fond of pointing out that the House is the ones with the power of the purse?

 djones520 wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-cantor-divided-government-requires-bipartisan-negotiation/2013/10/08/98f6b7e6-3062-11e3-bbed-a8a60c601153_print.html

House Majority Leader has some words to say.

 whembly wrote:

The only piece of legislation the Senate took up and that Obama signed is the Pay Our Military Act, everything else has been rejected.

But it's still the House's fault for not negotiating... eh?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The only piece of legislation the Senate took up and that Obama signed is the Pay Our Military Act, everything else has been rejected.

But it's still the House's fault for not negotiating... eh?

I'm going to try this one last time, although I doubt that this will be any different than the other times it has been explained to you over and over again. None of it seems to filter past your Obama-hate firewalll.

The Democrats negotiated. The Democrats gave up stuff they wanted, because that is what you do in a negotiation. The Senate Democrats said "We want $800something Billion dollars in this CR. The House Republicans said that is too much and that we need to spend less. In the end the Democrats and Republicans agreed to a clean CR that would fund the government, although at $70 billion less than the Democrats in the Senate wanted.

That was a negotiation. That was a sacrifice the Democrats made. Boehner admitted as much this weekend.

Since they finished negotiating and reached an agreement, the House Republicans changed their mind and decided to ignore that agreement and tie everything to the ACA and shut the government down over it. They continue to shut the government down over it because the minority in a single house of congress is refusing to allow the entire house to vote on a clean ACA.

The House can pass every fething bill they want, nothing changes the fact that they turned their back on an agreed upon CR and make it a political stunt.

The Republicans can continue their photo-op and continue to sit at the conference table and lament "oh why won't these evil Democrats negotiate with us" all they want. And some people will continue to eat that crap up.

But if you have already been to the conference table and already negotiated a deal and then shook hands over that deal, and then you watch the other party climb on the table and take a big huge dump on that CR you just agreed on and gave up $70 Billion for and have them rub your nose in it while going "thanks for the $70 billion suckers, but now nobody gets anything unless you agree to get rid of the ACA", then you would have to be flying rodent gak crazy to agree to come back to that table and you have to be even crazier to think that the person taking the gak is the victim here.

 djones520 wrote:

Can you provide reference for this please? It's the first I've heard of it, so would like to see more details.

WASHINGTON -- It’s become a common House Republican talking point that Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama could end the shutdown of the government if they simply chose to negotiate.

“What we are looking at here again is an administration and president that seems to be unwilling to sit down and talk to us,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) bemoaned at a press conference on Saturday morning.

While Cantor is right that Democrats aren't exactly in the talking mood, the suggestion that they aren’t willing to negotiate ignores that they’ve already given Republicans a major win. The continuing resolution that the White House and congressional Democrats have agreed to funds the government at sequestration levels. And even some members of Cantor's own caucus admit that they got the good end of that deal.

“It is a concession, I acknowledge that,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told The Huffington Post on Saturday. “I was glad to see that lower number. It didn’t take defense spending into account. We still have a big discrepancy between the House and Senate version. But there has been some compromise and I acknowledge that.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reneged on a deal they hashed out in private earlier this year to pass a “clean” stopgap bill funding the government.
Reid said Boehner never wanted to wage a protracted battle over ObamaCare as part of the negotiations to keep the government running.
“I know that that’s not the path he preferred,” Reid said. “I know that because we met the first week we came back in September and he told me that what he wanted was a clean CR and the $988 [billion] number.
“We didn’t like the 988 number. We didn’t like it but we negotiated. That was our compromise,” Reid added. “The exact bill that he now refuses to let the House vote on. That was our negotiation.”
Many Democrats wanted to set the funding level in the continuing resolution at $1.058 trillion, rather than at the sequester level of $988 billion.
Reid said he didn’t have to twist Boehner’s arm to get a preliminary deal on a clean stopgap.
“He twisted mine a little bit to get that number,” Reid said.
“Now he refused to let his own party vote because he’s afraid to stand up to something he originally agreed to,” he added.

Clearly agitated at the memory, Reid said the two met in early September and reached a compromise about the end-of-the month deadline to pass a spending bill. Reid said Boehner agreed to pass a $988 billion spending package, $70 billion less than what the senate leader wanted.

“That was really hard,” Reid said, referring his decision to drop $70 billion. “My caucus really didn't like that. We took a real hit.”

Asked if Boehner at the time promised to deliver a clean continuing resolution, Reid said: “That's why we did it. That's why we agreed to that lower number. So that's one of the largest compromises since I've been in Congress.”

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The only piece of legislation the Senate took up and that Obama signed is the Pay Our Military Act, everything else has been rejected.

But it's still the House's fault for not negotiating... eh?

Spoiler:

I'm going to try this one last time, although I doubt that this will be any different than the other times it has been explained to you over and over again. None of it seems to filter past your Obama-hate firewalll.

The Democrats negotiated. The Democrats gave up stuff they wanted, because that is what you do in a negotiation. The Senate Democrats said "We want $800something Billion dollars in this CR. The House Republicans said that is too much and that we need to spend less. In the end the Democrats and Republicans agreed to a clean CR that would fund the government, although at $70 billion less than the Democrats in the Senate wanted.

That was a negotiation. That was a sacrifice the Democrats made. Boehner admitted as much this weekend.

Since they finished negotiating and reached an agreement, the House Republicans changed their mind and decided to ignore that agreement and tie everything to the ACA and shut the government down over it. They continue to shut the government down over it because the minority in a single house of congress is refusing to allow the entire house to vote on a clean ACA.

The House can pass every fething bill they want, nothing changes the fact that they turned their back on an agreed upon CR and make it a political stunt.

The Republicans can continue their photo-op and continue to sit at the conference table and lament "oh why won't these evil Democrats negotiate with us" all they want. And some people will continue to eat that crap up.

But if you have already been to the conference table and already negotiated a deal and then shook hands over that deal, and then you watch the other party climb on the table and take a big huge dump on that CR you just agreed on and gave up $70 Billion for and have them rub your nose in it while going "thanks for the $70 billion suckers, but now nobody gets anything unless you agree to get rid of the ACA", then you would have to be flying rodent gak crazy to agree to come back to that table and you have to be even crazier to think that the person taking the gak is the victim here.

 whembly wrote:
Obviously, something changed...

Spoiler:

His reasoning was that because of this, the remains of US servicemen KIA could not be transported home unless the family paid for it, and the blow to moral from this was a comfort to the enemies of the US.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Obviously, something changed...

Or everything went just as planned.

 Jihadin wrote:

His reasoning was that because of this, the remains of US servicemen KIA could not be transported home unless the family paid for it, and the blow to moral from this was a comfort to the enemies of the US.

You seriously need to re-read an article about this. The bodies are/will arrive at Dover AFB and final destinations home. Its the funding for paying their immediate relatives way to Dover and back home again.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
[Hmm... a months long conspiracy to cripple the United States government? Issuing demands and blaming the other side for not negotiating? So when is one pf these traitors putting on a suicide vest and trying to enter the oval office?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Obviously, something changed...

Or everything went just as planned.

Hmm... a months long conspiracy to cripple the United States government? Issuing demands and blaming the other side for not negotiating? So when is one pf these traitors putting on a suicide vest and trying to enter the oval office?

 Ahtman wrote:

Being dickish isn't the same as being a traitor, and I don't think it is any surprise that the people who orchestrated the shutdown have been trying to do so for some time..

 Ouze wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
[Hmm... a months long conspiracy to cripple the United States government? Issuing demands and blaming the other side for not negotiating? So when is one pf these traitors putting on a suicide vest and trying to enter the oval office?

Don't worry, one marine, Navy seal, secret service agent, and/or chef will, against all odds, rescue the president.

 LordofHats wrote:
"A navy seal, a chef, and a secret service agent walk into the White House..."

 BaronIveagh wrote:
For real amusement, I was talking with my father about this.

His view on the House GoP:

They're traitors to the United States for aiding and abetting it's enemies in the interest of personal gain.

His reasoning was that because of this, the remains of US servicemen KIA could not be transported home unless the family paid for it, and the blow to moral from this was a comfort to the enemies of the US.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
For real amusement, I was talking with my father about this.

His view on the House GoP:

They're traitors to the United States for aiding and abetting it's enemies in the interest of personal gain.

His reasoning was that because of this, the remains of US servicemen KIA could not be transported home unless the family paid for it, and the blow to moral from this was a comfort to the enemies of the US.

Crazily we don't have that different a view, but for different reasons. Mine's more towards a "if this crap causes a potential default then..."

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The U.S. Federal government seems to have surrendered the monuments to the will of the people, but efforts continue nation wide to close parts of the ocean (seriously) and block private citizen's access to private property including homes/businesses. It is working poorly.


http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/06/nps-rangers-patrol-newest-%E2%80%98government-shutdown%E2%80%99-closure-ocean

 BaronIveagh wrote:
2) Fail to muster enough votes to repeal a law unpopular with your constituents but popular with the majority of the US.