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.

Heh... Ann Romney said we are assessing when people keep asking Mitt to jump into the race...
http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/09/29/ann-romney-on-mitt-running-for-president-again-we-are-assessing/

Mitt 3.0 anyone?

<--has always been partials to govenors for Presidents...

 whembly wrote:
Heh... Ann Romney said we are assessing when people keep asking Mitt to jump into the race...
http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/09/29/ann-romney-on-mitt-running-for-president-again-we-are-assessing/

Mitt 3.0 anyone?

<--has always been partials to govenors for Presidents...

2016: Romney v. Biden

That could actually be a race I look forward to. Both are serious. Both are humans. Both care about humans. Alas, Romney got ran out of town, and Biden is laughed at when you aren't sympathizing with his crappy luck.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Getting hundreds of representatives to agree on the budget is difficult enough without adding in misplaced priority on the hypothetical potential of a Presidential veto.

How is it a "misplaced priority" to acknowledge that a budget won't be signed into law by the President, and subsequently act in accordance with that fact?

Prestor Jon wrote:

He isn't.

Yes, he is. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit a budget request to Congress for each fiscal year.

It's a funding request. It's not actual legislation to get voted on. POTUS can't submit legislation. The budget request is just used to set the agenda and put a ballpark figure on the budget. Congress doesn't vote on the president's budget they vote on their own budget.

I tend to think that the people in Congress are primarily concerned with their own fiefdoms and pet programs more so than whether or no the president is going to cherry pick some budget items as an excuse to veto the budget. The majority of Congress is going to be focused on making sure the federal money flows into their respective states, districts, special interests etc. It's not as if passing the budget has historically routinely resulted in a game of chicken over a govt shutdown. What gets through Congress is usually close enough to what the POTUS wants to get signed into law.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Sorry, but I can't agree wth taking food from people because the Republicans want to throw a temper tantrum again.

Let them throw the tantrum, or whoever you want to place the blame on, within two hours you will have a bill that the pres will sign. The next time-there won't be a next time.

Right now, Cruz and his ilk have no repercussions. If that were to actually happen, no more Ted Cruzes.

We agree....so scared!

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1371905713

96% with Bernie (shocker, I know).
Then it's Hillary (84%), Biden(78%), O'Malley,(73%) and Bush (54%).


Apparently I'm centrist left wing. Makes sense, I'm nowhere knowledgeable enough on economics to come up with any sort of opinion, but tend to lean liberal on most things on the social side, with a strong belief in personal freedom and privacy.

So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.



Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.

My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.

 skyth wrote:
Thw ACA was unpopular because it was a compromise between two extremes. Plus all the lies told about it.

In other news, the Republicans are finally starting to admit the real reason for all the Bengazi panels...

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi

Uh... he said that the American people would not know now what they do about Clinton had it not been for the committee’s investigations.

Did he say it stupidly... as in, a gaffe?

You betcha.

So, beware of the Democrat punditries and Voxplaination that McCarthy “admitted” that the Benghazi committee is all about elections.

 CptJake wrote:
So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.



Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.

My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.

Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.



Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.

My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.

Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.

I think your exaggerating what a govt shutdown actually does. It's happened multiple times its not catastrophic by any means. Non essential federal employees are furloughed and then they go back to work and are given back pay as soon as the shutdown is over which is usually a couple weeks at most. There is a significant amount of govt spending that is unaffected by the shutdown, its not destroying anybody's life or wrecking the country.

Prestor Jon wrote:

It's a funding request. It's not actual legislation to get voted on. POTUS can't submit legislation. The budget request is just used to set the agenda and put a ballpark figure on the budget. Congress doesn't vote on the president's budget they vote on their own budget.

I'm aware, but you stated that the President doesn't have to submit a budget. This is patently false as he is legally obligated to do so and, as you just noted, this has a significant impact on the budget which Congress debates.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I tend to think that the people in Congress are primarily concerned with their own fiefdoms and pet programs more so than whether or no the president is going to cherry pick some budget items as an excuse to veto the budget. The majority of Congress is going to be focused on making sure the federal money flows into their respective states, districts, special interests etc.

Part of doing that is making sure the budget is acceptable to the President. After all, if he vetoes the thing the money doesn't flow...at least so long as it isn't mandatory spending.

Prestor Jon wrote:

It's not as if passing the budget has historically routinely resulted in a game of chicken over a govt shutdown. What gets through Congress is usually close enough to what the POTUS wants to get signed into law.

Well, yeah, the threat of a veto is usually enough to convince Congress to reconsider the content of a piece of legislation.

Well, they passed a spending bill, so it's a moot point anyway: no shutdown.

I look forward to seeing these arguments again in 60 days though!

Well... at least the House passed a dirty CR for two months... Senate and POTUS should be able to get cracking...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/30/house-passes-legislation-to-avoid-shutdown.html

EDIT: ninja'ed by ouze!

You must never hesitate.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.



Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.

My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.

Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.

You're damned fine at building straw men. I've never come close to stating the States ought to pick up responsibility for national defense, you see, it is one of the things the Constitution gives the feds responsibility for. The interstate system as an example? Seriously? Who does the work now? Hint: The states do. Yes, they receive federal funding, but the states let the contracts and so on. Hence when I drive from GA to NC through SC on I-95 the road is maintained differently along the trip.

I do like how you re-iterated my point in orange in an attempt to discredit my point.

Surprise:

 Ouze wrote:
You must never hesitate.

IS it wrong that "heard" that in Mr. Miyagi's voice?

Quite right, the world doesn't end during a government shutdown. But what it does do is make our government look pathetic, corrupt, and disunited. When was the last time Russia or China had a shutdown?

 whembly wrote:
IS it wrong that "heard" that in Mr. Miyagi's voice?

It is wrong, but only because you should be hearing it in Sean Connery's.




I would have been wrong too, until googling it. I could have sworn it was from Batman Begins.

Anyway, I'm gonna take that isidewith quiz again. I bet I get the green party again, even though I care nearly not at all about environmental issues.

Edit: got Bernie Sanders. Don't imagine I'm going to be voting for Bernie Sanders though.

Whens the last time almost any government has a shutdown like we do. Not anything to do with our money, but our inability to pass a budget.

I think that actually happens sort of regularly in some countries, doesn't it? Like, the government gets wiped out and re-formed? I'm pretty sure that happened in some first world country I can't remember right now, but fairly recently... right?

edit: isn't this relatively similar? Note I know very little about France's government so I could definitely be mistaken.

Heck, I remember the 90s when the Russians had tanks firing at the Kremlin...

Well, I just took the www.isidewith.com test again (I like to take it regularly to see how things change). First, I want to share with you the question I submitted at the end as a possible addition to the survey:
"Should all politicians be required to wear a "NASCAR" style sponsor suit, with patches and logos showing all the significant donors to that politicians campaign, with the size of the patch proportionate to the donation?"

Anyway, HRC and Bernie tied at the top (82% each), with Biden at 81%. Kind of surprised about Rand Paul with 71%, but maybe I shouldn't be? Jeb Bush came in next at 43%.
I think what can skew the results a bit is not just the answers, but the "how important is this to you" meter you can set for each question. That may be why I get different results some times.

 CptJake wrote:
Heck, I remember the 90s when the Russians had tanks firing at the Kremlin...

I don't. Although that's probably because I was 5 when the 90's ended.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, I just took the www.isidewith.com test again (I like to take it regularly to see how things change). First, I want to share with you the question I submitted at the end as a possible addition to the survey:
"Should all politicians be required to wear a "NASCAR" style sponsor suit, with patches and logos showing all the significant donors to that politicians campaign, with the size of the patch proportionate to the donation?"

Anyway, HRC and Bernie tied at the top (82% each), with Biden at 81%. Kind of surprised about Rand Paul with 71%, but maybe I shouldn't be? Jeb Bush came in next at 43%.
I think what can skew the results a bit is not just the answers, but the "how important is this to you" meter you can set for each question. That may be why I get different results some times.

I just took the isidewith quiz and it said Rand Paul and are in 91% agreement which is believable because I do vote Libertarian in most local elections. However it says I agree with Jeb Bush 83% which can't be right because there has to be more than an 8% difference between Rand and Jeb.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, I just took the www.isidewith.com test again (I like to take it regularly to see how things change). First, I want to share with you the question I submitted at the end as a possible addition to the survey:
"Should all politicians be required to wear a "NASCAR" style sponsor suit, with patches and logos showing all the significant donors to that politicians campaign, with the size of the patch proportionate to the donation?"

Anyway, HRC and Bernie tied at the top (82% each), with Biden at 81%. Kind of surprised about Rand Paul with 71%, but maybe I shouldn't be? Jeb Bush came in next at 43%.
I think what can skew the results a bit is not just the answers, but the "how important is this to you" meter you can set for each question. That may be why I get different results some times.

I just took the isidewith quiz and it said Rand Paul and are in 91% agreement which is believable because I do vote Libertarian in most local elections. However it says I agree with Jeb Bush 83% which can't be right because there has to be more than an 8% difference between Rand and Jeb.

Old boss? Meet the new boss...

Because the more things change... the more thing stays the same.

 CptJake wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.



Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.

My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.

Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.

You're damned fine at building straw men. I've never come close to stating the States ought to pick up responsibility for national defense, you see, it is one of the things the Constitution gives the feds responsibility for. The interstate system as an example? Seriously? Who does the work now? Hint: The states do. Yes, they receive federal funding, but the states let the contracts and so on. Hence when I drive from GA to NC through SC on I-95 the road is maintained differently along the trip.

I do like how you re-iterated my point in orange in an attempt to discredit my point.

No, I made the point in showing that govt. shutdowns are not in fact shut downs of anything whatsoever. You were making the point that they don't hurt. I agree, to an extent to the people who work in govt. and that we call them shutdowns. 1). They aren't actual shutdowns of much of anything because that would be political suicide. 2) it would be political suicide because the govt. does a hell of a lot more than you want to admit. Don't like the govt. and think it doesn't do much? Actually shut it down. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Good job of ignoring the whole point of the argument and looking at one detail. That's exactly what the public hates politicians for.

I'm pretty sure we are attempting to make the same point from separate sides of the issue at this point. Congrats. We agree.

 CptJake wrote:
Where did I say the power of the purse overrides a POTUS veto? What I (correctly said) is that POTUS doesn't get to dictate what is in the budget.

You’re complaining about the president’s use of veto. To complain about this, you’re talking about congress’s power of the purse. This argument requires an assumption that the president’s veto is, or should be, the weaker power than the power of the purse.

I’m just about used to people showing they don’t understand my argument, but when they fail to understand their own it is still just a little bit amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Look at the top 10...

Nay... look at numero uno.

And it would take an act of complete and total political lunacy to claim that the unions don’t have a very strong say in the actions and policies of the Democratic party.

And so hopefully from there you should realise how bad it is that any person or group willing to stump up a few million might have direct input in to actions and policies of political parties that are supposed to be swayed by the voting public alone.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Look at the top 10...

Nay... look at numero uno.

And it would take an act of complete and total political lunacy to claim that the unions don’t have a very strong say in the actions and policies of the Democratic party.

And so hopefully from there you should realise how bad it is that any person or group willing to stump up a few million might have direct input in to actions and policies of political parties that are supposed to be swayed by the voting public alone.

I'm just highlight how disproportionate, lately, folks decry the $$$ in politics.

Just look at all the anti-Koch arguments these last few years.

Even then... what's your solution?

Not even got the job jet and whoops... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/30/morning-plum-top-republican-suffers-accidental-outbreak-of-candor-about-hillary-benghazi-probes/

 CptJake wrote:
Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.

I really love how Americans will talk endlessly about checks and balances, until it comes to something done in a chamber of government over which they hold control right now. Then the idea that another chamber might block that motion is unthinkable.

I’m also looking forward to when Democrats hold the house, but not the senate or presidency, to see everyone swap sides on this procedural issue.